Instrument Instructor - qualifications

[photofly]

Unlike in the US which has a CFII qualification with flight test - in Canada you can instruct for an Instrument Rating with a CPL and 500 hours PIC.

Should there be other minimum requirements?

[praveen4143]

10 multi time on type of multi-engine aircraft if it is going to be a group 1 IFR...
Refer CAR 425.21 Subsection 9 - http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#425_21

(9) A person who conducts flight training toward the issuance of an instrument rating shall be the holder of a Commercial Pilot Licence or an Airline Transport Pilot Licence, have an instrument rating and:
(amended 2006/12/14; previous version)

(a) have a flight instructor rating; or
(amended 2006/12/14; previous version)

(b) have experience of not less than 500 hours pilot-in-command flight time, of which:
(amended 2006/12/14; previous version)

(i) not less than 100 hours shall be on the applicable aircraft group, and
(amended 1998/03/23; previous version)

(ii) in the case of Group I aircraft, not less than 10 hours shall be on the type of multi-engine aeroplane used for the training.
(amended 1998/03/23; previous version)

[photofly]

Right.

But do you think that's sufficient? Or should there be other requirements also?

[Cat Driver]

9 ( A ) is the problem.

[angry inch]

Yes, they should have experience flying in IMC conditions so they're not shitting their pants along with the student while bumping around in the clouds.... Like my first IFR instructor was

[Alberta_x51]

It's rather interesting in that Canada has no real qualification for teaching IFR and, leaves it up to the industry
which in Canada does a reasonable job of it absent some exceptions.

The Canadian approach may seem inadequate to those coming from other countries but its simple, easy to understand
and does not create a pile of costs.

That US CFI-II is relatively easy to obtain but, it costs a few hours of training to get ready for
about $300 for the ride and at least you have to demonstrate that you can teach IFR.

The Australian requirements are Instrument training approval test on the ground and in flight on
instrument teaching ability IF you don't have a Class One Instructor Rating.
Their bureaucracy is unbelievable compared to Canada.

Their regs are written in their own language that no one including test officers understands
(try "underpinning knowledge" copied from the UK)

and their escalating controls, expenses, taxes, fees, licences etc, are constantly escalating and
being "recovered" from a shrinking industry who must pay for an ever expanding bureaucratic nightmare.


Aus has the META "multi-Engine Training Approval which in Aus, is a big deal all day test
that will run you around $600 just or the examiner and double what ever you pay for a twin in Canada.

Now watch Canada copy the US requirements which might not be such a bad idea as at least it will
standardize things across Canada and the USA.

[praveen4143]

9 ( A ) is the problem.

If you mean for those that don't have them then you've got the 500 PIC alternative..

If you mean that there are instructors who are brand new shiny CPL holders and teaching IFR then I'll keep my mouth shut

[Rookie50]

Yes, they should have experience flying in IMC conditions so they're not shitting their pants along with the student while bumping around in the clouds.... Like my first IFR instructor was

+1

[glorifieddriver]

It was a real concern for me when I started shopping around for a place that I would chose for my IFR training. Yes there are many holes in Canadian aviation system, it's not perfect, but it's also not mandatory you go to one place for your training. You are going to spend 10k plus on a rating, do the right research. Meet your potential instructors, ask about their experience level. I ended up getting block time in a seneca and getting a freelance instructor with a few thousand hours in 705 environment. Best decision ever. If you are lazy enough or not educated to research this, well perhaps you have no reason to complain about an instructor who is that green. There are a lot of guides online on how to select a school or instructor, for some reason I have never seen anyone actually print out the checklists and head out to potential schools, fill it out, compare and make an educated decision.

GD

[Cat Driver]

Lets look at this again:

9 ( A ) is the problem.

The training industry can legally give you an instructor who has just completed his/her training and can teach you something they have never actually experienced, specifically, flown in IMC.

Obviously flying is not all that difficult when it can be taught by someone with no actual experience in the subject being taught.

[digits_]

Lets look at this again:

9 ( A ) is the problem.

The training industry can legally give you an instructor who has just completed his/her training and can teach you something they have never actually experienced, specifically, flown in IMC.

Obviously flying is not all that difficult when it can be taught by someone with no actual experience in the subject being taught.

So ? Legally you can get a tailwheel checkout from someone who has never flown one before as well. The fact that it is allowed, does not mean that you *have* to do it.

Aviation: where people complain about all the rules in place, yet want even more.

[Cat Driver]

So you guys are fine with a system where the public can go to a government licensed school and be taught by an instructor who has no experience in the subject he/she is about to teach someone else?

Aviation: where people complain about all the rules in place, yet want even more.

How about rules that are common sense, such a licensed instructor should have experience in the subject outside of having just finished the course and never worked in the industry.

You don't need more rules you just need rules that are put in place by someone with an IQ above 70.

I'm no longer in the industry so it does not directly affect me.

[iflyforpie]

The best ones are the instructors who a building multi-PIC when instructing IFR students on a twin.. because they don't have enough hours to instruct for multi-engine ratings.


Its not about more rules, more government.... its about better rules, and better government. I'm sure I would have a lot of fun if given a free-hand to make up useful rules to displace useless ones..

[Rookie50]

Lets look at this again:

9 ( A ) is the problem.

The training industry can legally give you an instructor who has just completed his/her training and can teach you something they have never actually experienced, specifically, flown in IMC.

Obviously flying is not all that difficult when it can be taught by someone with no actual experience in the subject being taught.

So ? Legally you can get a tailwheel checkout from someone who has never flown one before as well. The fact that it is allowed, does not mean that you *have* to do it.

Aviation: where people complain about all the rules in place, yet want even more.

Digits, it's totally different than tail wheel. If you get lousy instruction there, and become a lousy stick, maybe if you screw up you loop or trash an airplane. Franky, if you screw up on on a low IFR approach, you die. I've done a few of them even at my low time, family in the plane, and you can bet it's game time. Better have ducks in a row.

This is something the day after you get the rating, you can shoot an approach legally in a clapped out basic equipped 172, possibly at night, to a low ceiling circling approach, wind rain, the whole nine yards.

I don't necessarily support taking that right away, but then the training should be equal to the privilege offered. I had excellent training and guidance. I'm not sure everyone does.

[Cat Driver]

The best ones are the instructors who a building multi-PIC when instructing IFR students on a twin.. because they don't have enough hours to instruct for multi-engine ratings.

Ahhh yes,

The multi engine rating,

How many hours it take these days to get the rating?

I bet it is at least twice what it took fifty years ago which was five hours plus the ride with the check pilot.

[mike123]

For a person who just needs to obtain the rating and then get hired as an FO and actually learn instrument flying from an experience captain, an instructor who can get him pass the flight test is sufficient. Not ideal, but this is how the industry works anyway.

For a person who once the rating is obtained would actually fly in IMC with his family in the back, the training should be provided by an experienced instructor.

So, let the customer decide what kind of instructor would suit their needs.

[Cat Driver]

So, let the customer decide what kind of instructor would suit their needs.

So TC has set up a catch 22 situation wherein if a customer does not research who is giving them instruction they can get an instrument rating that does not prepare them to safely fly in IMC when they pass the test?

Their training has to be completed flying as a FO?

Then why don't they go back to the old system of the Class 2 IFR rating to get started as a FO and then the Class 1 IFR rating for pilots in command?

And might as well go back to the Senior Commercial Pilot License to be a FO and then a ATPL for pilots in command.

[mike123]

So, let the customer decide what kind of instructor would suit their needs.

Then why don't they go back to the old system of the Class 2 IFR rating to get started as a FO and then the Class 1 IFR rating for pilots in command?

If it was up to me, that would have been that case.

[Cat Driver]

I wonder why they got rid of the Senior Commercial and the Class 2 IFR.....

...maybe it was to logical?

[iSight]

I'm almost 100% sure that none of elementary or high school (and probably not even my university) instructors had any real world experience. So screwy...

[iSight]

Senior commercial and class 2 IFR sound great. Is there a way to still ensure quality instruction is past on from the mentor to the mentored? A check (God, I could use a couple extra cheques) or a balance perhaps? I can still remember the day my lefty hastily told me he was "lighting up all the anti ice" on the old king-of-the-air while we cruising at 210 in -40 when we hit a skiff of transparent cloud on an otherwise VMC kinda day. He must've learned that from someone. Perhaps I should do it cause he did it?

[Big Pistons Forever]

I wonder why they got rid of the Senior Commercial and the Class 2 IFR.....

...maybe it was to logical?

Because it was not a ICAO compliant license. In particular the FAA objected to the fact that Canadian pilots could fly IFR in US airspace with what they considered a "lesser" license. I think a graduated IFR rating is a great idea but it doesn't matter what I think, the bottom line is the rest of the world did not like it so TC was forced to change the rules

[5x5]

I still don't get the gist of this whole discussion. All flight instruction that is provided toward a basic licence or rating, IFR included, is intended to teach the basics. It's structured to provide a predetermined level of skill. It is not intended to turn out highly experienced pilots.

For the sake of discussion let's say the initial Instrument rating takes 20 hours in a Sim and 20 hours in a twin. How much more proficient is the graduate going to be with, say, 2 hours of IMC? How much more proficient would they be with a 2,000 hour IFR instructor?

Think about it, it's only 20 total hours in the aircraft. There would have to be something magical for a significant difference to be evident no matter what you change. It is likely there would be some improvement, but it would be marginal. And I would suggest no more measurable than the difference that already exists between instructors merely based on their personalities.

Relate the discussion to a similar one regarding float flying. The basic rating is 7 hours. There are companies that offer 50 hour courses - 7 times the amount of training. But most of the discussions I've seen related to that topic pretty much say the 50 hour course isn't worth it. Yet folks here say that for IFR, the required amount of training can be dramatically bettered simply by doing a bit of IMC or having a more experienced instructor.

As I said at the start, I just don't get it.

[Cat Driver]

Relate the discussion to a similar one regarding float flying. The basic rating is 7 hours. There are companies that offer 50 hour courses - 7 times the amount of training. But most of the discussions I've seen related to that topic pretty much say the 50 hour course isn't worth it.

Once again that depends on who is teaching the course and how the course is set up and followed.

A fifty hour course given by a high time float plane pilot that has worked in the industry for decades is well worth taking....




....especially if the student of said course is verified as competent by the teacher.


By the way fifty hours is not necessarily needed if the student is capable.

In fact I know of such a course and the teacher is top notch and I personally will attest to that.

[awitzke]

The best ones are the instructors who a building multi-PIC when instructing IFR students on a twin.. because they don't have enough hours to instruct for multi-engine ratings.

Ahhh yes,

The multi engine rating,

How many hours it take these days to get the rating?

I bet it is at least twice what it took fifty years ago which was five hours plus the ride with the check pilot.

I completed it in just under 6. As do most others.