I’ve always thought its a load of rubbish and like most of EASA without evidence base.
We had a guy who first went solo in 1978. 25 years later he returned to finish off his PPL. The unrestricted instructor was able to send him of his “second solo” how this is different from sending someone of their first solo I have no idea.
As long as each leg counts as a “flight” (but not each circuit) having taught two students end-to-end gets the restriction removed.
Instructors who are “well placed” at their school (not subject to competition from eager, younger, more available, and higher qualified ones) can make reasonable money this way. I remember one guy from one of my schools who was sitting there on a chair telling me he has three solo students “up there” and getting paid his FI rate for each of them 
Obviously that needs various things to be in place, but ultimately one is limited by competition (i.e. politics) within the school.
Many instructors I knew took a year to get their restriction removed. But maybe half disappeared to the airlines before they got that far.
The unrestricted instructor was able to send him of his “second solo”ending someone of their first solo I have no idea.
I am struggling with the meaning there Could one really send someone off solo if the subject had not flown for 25 years?
Years back the school I worked at had a policy of the CFI being the only person who could send people solo. (He was salaried).
The rate for unrestricted instructors was 15 quid an hour. 10 quid for restricted.
They had FI with over a thousand hours still restricted.
I never liked the school owner because of this.
Well, @Bathman, a CFI-policy restricting FI beyond their licensed rights isn’t EASAs fault then, is it? At our ATO any unrestricted FI can sign off a first solo, as he is legally allowed to do so. (However, we mandate a crosscheck with an other FI prior first solo).
I think it is sensible for a new FI to have some supervised “on the job training”. And when your supervising FI is not neglecting his duties, you can learn a hole lot by discussing and planning the lessons with them.
Peter wrote:
I remember one guy from one of my schools who was sitting there on a chair telling me he has three solo students “up there” and getting paid his FI rate for each of them…
We had endless discussions about that many years back (that must have been the previous, now defunct, FTO). They wouldn’t pay us instructors for our student’s solo time because we were “not doing anything” during that time. But of course they charged the students the full hourly rate including the instructor. When some colleagues threatened the school that they would not sign off students for solo flights, the school owner threatened back that he could very well sign all those himself (as in Bathman’s post above). In the end, a compromise of some sort was found. I can’t remember the details as I have not been instructing at PPL level for over a decade and after the PPL, students don’t get sent solo with the exception of those five solo night landings (which, in many cases, are flown solo only on paper…).
Regarding those “25 solo signoffs” I got it wrong by implicating that they were “first solo” signoffs. But I did not have 25 generic solo signoffs when I got my full FI rating either, because under national regulations (this was in 1992, pre EASA and JAR) it was sufficient to train one student beginning to end under supervision.
I’ve always thought its a load of rubbish and like most of EASA without evidence base.
The reason a FI is “Restricted” is to allow them sufficient time to gain the experience necessary to judge when a student is ready to be sent solo, not a light decision.
I saw an example a few years ago where a rather talented FI presumed that his student was as capable as he was, and after refusing to fly a nav leg back to base in marginal weather his instructor turned up in another aircraft and said follow me home!. The student crashed not long after take off and lost his life as a result. The FI had progressed rapidly in terms of hours gained, but had not had more than one season’s flying experience, resulting in a gross misjudgement. If the student was not happy to fly how could he be expected to do it in formation, a skill neither he nor the instructor had ever been taught.
Tumbleweed wrote:
…and after refusing to fly a nav leg back to base in marginal weather his instructor turned up in another aircraft and said follow me home!.
I remember that accident report. This was a R22 helicopter if I remember correctly. And I agree that instructing for a number of hours under supervision is an essential part of gaining an FI qualification. Has nothing to do with EASA as it was implemented long before.
Peter wrote:
The unrestricted instructor was able to send him of his “second solo”ending someone of their first solo I have no idea.I am struggling with the meaning there Could one really send someone off solo if the subject had not flown for 25 years?
My typical poor English typed on my phone.
As you know a restricted instructor can’t send someone on their first solo. But in this case the students first solo was in 1978 but they never finished there license. In fact they had only logged one solo flight. 37 years later (just checked) the student decided to restart their flight training and after sufficient training (I can’t remember how many hours) a restricted instructor sent them solo. This is of course is perfectly legal and makes me question whats the point of have unrestricted instructors.
Tumbleweed wrote:The reason a FI is “Restricted” is to allow them sufficient time to gain the experience necessary to judge when a student is ready to be sent solo, not a light decision.
I agree in paper it sounds a good idea. However I’ve worked schools where the CFI would sit in on your briefings. The CFI would undertake progress checks. Equally I’ve worked at schools where the CFI would discuss the days flying while sat at home 20 miles away. I’ve also worked places where they didn’t even bother with that.
In all reality I think most schools are somewhere in between but I often wonder what use the CFI is when sat at 5000 feet, 50 miles away in a PA28.
Tumbleweed wrote:
I saw an example a few years ago where a rather talented FI
I’m not convinced that has much to do with instructor being restricted or not. That’s just gash operations. Which incidentally I have seen by an unrestricted instructor albeit in a fixed wing aircraft.
Does anybody know if there is any requirement for instructors under the FAA system to be restricted and supervised?
