Why is the FAA IR Easier?

[AlexEvans]

Hi. I think I am correct in saying that people generally think that the FAA IR is easier than the JAA one. (If this is an over simplification or if it is blatantly wrong then please forgive me.)

If so though, my question is why? After all, American pilots fly in British airspace.....

Could anyone explain the likely difference in skill level between a newly qualified FAA and JAA IR holder please?

[FlyingForFun]

Two main reasons, I think.

First, the FAA IR is a rating which is designed for a PPL to add to his license. It is also a requirement for sitting in the right hand seat of a jet.... but in order to upgrade your FAA CPL to an ATP you need to do a skills test which, as I understand it, is of similar difficulty to our IR. On the other hand, JAR does not have an IR which is designed to be accessible to a PPL - the only instrument qualification (ignoring the IMC rating) is the IR, so may as well make it harder to start with, then the test for upgrading to an ATPL can be simpler.

Secondly, one of the most difficult parts of the IR is NDBs - tracking, flying approaches and flying holds. Understanding NDBs is pretty vital around our airspace, but even so the examiners seem to place a massive emphasis on them, far more than they warrant. Whereas in the US they barely know what an NDB is, let alone how to use one - it's so rare they are used in anger that the IR can concentrate on more practical things without having to worry about bashing your way around an NDB hold.

That's my understanding, but I have no first-hand experience of the FAA IR, so I may well be mistaken.

FFF
--------------

[RVR800]

FFF is about right - that is how I see it. Airline pilots let their light aircraft IR lapse when then get their multi crew one - its really just a hoop for them..

The NDBs in the states are all being phased out and GPS approaches being introduced - the syllabus is rather old fashioned in Europe it will change in time but only slowly. There are some plans to make the light aircraft IR 'more accessible' as the authorities were shocked to discover that only a handful do it in Europe and most of those are ATPL people. Many EU business men simply buy N class aircraft and bipass JAR in favour of FAR - they havent the time or money to waste on a rating that is seen as too time consuming and difficult for their needs.

In the EU the IR was used historically as a test of metal for frozen Airline Pilot candidates although it isnt required for the Multi Pilot Licence which takes you direct to the right hand seat of an airliner without the light aircraft IR being required at all so figure that out! :eek:

The other main problem is the SEVEN IR exams which are OTT and expire after 36 months
In the USA its a single onlne test done at a time of the candidates choosing

[IronWalt]

NDB approaches are easy. At least for me they were. :}

[OneIn60rule]

The only thing I was impressed with after starting the JAA IR in the UK (yes it's damned hard up here!) is the NDB approach using COMPASS as main instrument rather than heading indicator.

JAA IR is harder for 2-3 reasons. The airspace and the RT is FAR more standardized than in the USA. You are expected to get to within 5 degrees of your track when entering the hold inbound... if you botch it there's pretty much no chance of passing (you could partial it of course). The hold techniques are much more refined and precise. Until I got here I had never even heard of ADF DIP! T

he next matter is that you are ACTUALLY meant to fly a route with the examiner, that's where things tend to go REALLY wrong if everyone is having a bad day. Example: you filed a runway 05 1w departure from point X and instead of getting that departure you suddenly get a 05 1y departure. What do you do? REad the plate and hope it's LESS complicated than the 05 1w departure. Oh dear now your flight plan is nothing like you planned.... what to do? praying comes to mind but faking an illness is more likely to get you out of the thick of it.

I've done the FAA IR single engine and thought it was hard, coming to the UK I felt as if I knew ABSOLUTELY nothing about NDB holds.

In retrospect I believe you should NEVER get an FAA IR. Money is better spent on a UK IR.

If it sounds like I disrespect the FAA IR then I'm sorry. I'm just trying to make sure you don't repeat the same mistake I made.

[porridge]

FFF
You may not know it but your assessment on the FAA IR & the FAA ATP is just about spot on!
I've been there, done that, got the qualifications.

[Jimmy The Big Greek]

I did the FAA ATP. No enroute flying but we went on NDB holding/approach with partial panel,single engine and with manual gear extension on the approach.

[hazehoe]

FFF's explanation is the way i see it.
I did the FAA IR and ATP,the ATP ride needs to have a non precision approach in it, so we did a localizer approach!That should tell you enough.
When i converted back to the UK i had to start all over on my NDB work,Dip,30 Degree Gate's,extended procedure,coastel effect bla bla bla.
It took some hours in the FNPT and in the plane to get to exam "level".
Jimmy as a instructor i trained a lot of students for the FAA IR/ATP your exam is not very realistic but it makes a good bar story.
Yes,AlexEvans the FAA IR is a lot easier.

Cheers

[henriksch]

"Whereas in the US they barely know what an NDB is, let alone how to use one"

Dont know where this information is from, but on every single ME-IR I have heard about at our FAA school, NDB app have been a part of it. Mostly as partial panel though (No DG and AH).

NDB holds are done differently. Agreed....But using the gate dosent make it harder, just different.

On a JAA ME-IR you almost know your entire check ride before hand... ie you can look over your app, you plan and so on.... You dont do that on the FAA ride. You get your app 5 min before, and you better be quick and precise in setting it up.

I agree that the RT is more standard....good and bad... You need to learn it, but ATC will also give you more standardized answers.

As I see it... An ILS is an ILS. A NDB is a NDB and a VOR is a VOR.

Buy the way... What most people fail the FAA ME-IR on, is the partial panel NDB and Localizer back course single engine.

Just some thoughts.... Not saying that anyone is better, just different

[AFCAS TARGET]

I have also trained a few guys in the states for the IR and what FFF says is fairly true but does warrant some debate. I had examiners let students slide on some things because there over all performance was good and others that would fail you for any small error. As FFF states its more for a PPL add on, so people will go out and time build in the IFR system, mostly VMC and build up there skills. In Europe, (limited experience) most, (not all) people are looking at the IR as another hurdle to the RHS of an airliner. Probably not a lot of practical experience flying IFR in the first place. Sure your NDB hold might be spot on, but in the real world, exactly how many of those are you going to do. I've never had to do one in real life. Don't want to get into a pissing match over FAA vs. JAA because Europe and America have two very different views on flying and requirements. Have the FAA and JAA but now fly the line on my JAA ticket, (in the real world do I ever think about an NDB approach) not really. just my .02 cents.

[Jimmy The Big Greek]

hazehoe its not a bar story and try next time not to be so rude. At the time I was going for the ATPL checkride we had a fatal accident at the school and maybe they where extra rigid. The IR was piece of cake but the ATPL was very difficult and I almost failed.

[FlyingForFun]

Sure your NDB hold might be spot on, but in the real world, exactly how many of those are you going to do. I've never had to do one in real lifeDon't know about the US, but they're not particularly uncommon in the UK.

However, no one actually cares one bit whether the hold is accurate, so long as you stay at the correct level and in roughly the right bit of airspace. The only time anyone cares about the accuracy of a hold (to any degree, let alone to the degree that JAR IR examiners require) is on an IR test. In fact, at my home airfield, ATC can't even see you in the hold because there's too much radar clutter directly overhead the airfield.

FFF
-------------

[youngskywalker]

Bugger, i've just booked my flights to the states using American Airlines from Heathrow, if I knew that the guys at the sharp end of the 777 just have a ppl add on I wouldnt take the risk! Will they refund me? :eek:

[IronWalt]

Relax young skywalker,

ALL US pilots flying that kind of equipment are trained and tested repeatedly to ATP standards. No one gets out of a simulator or released to line flying without meeting ATP standards. Especially at American Airlines whom I know to have some of the most rigorous standards.

[youngskywalker]

dont worry I have plenty confidence in them, i'm just being sarcastic! Us Brits really do think we invented the wheel you know!

[20driver]

I think FFF has it correct and for that matter so does the FAA. (I find that hard to say)

The tough airwork is the CPL exam. Really very little precise airwork involved in the IR. It is also a lot more realistic in terms of what a pilot needs. The practical effect is it means a lot more GA pilots will get an IR rating which overall is good policy.

You can do your IR checkride in a plane without an ADF and good bye any NDB work. (Any savy student will get the ADF placarded or simply turn the power off and say it doesn't work). Another recent innovation is they can test you on using anything in your plane - including that new fangled GPS and require that you know how to use your autopilot. It is really hard to see the point in requiring NDB holds using a compass.

The European policy seems very counterproductive except for examiners who collect very hefty fees.

20driver

[Charlie Zulu]

I must be one of the unlucky few then...

Having been through the FAA IR training over in the United States, we had an NDB on field and at a few local airfields to us. Needless to say I had plenty of practice at Partial Panel NDB Holds and Partial Panel full procedural NDB approahces.

During my checkride, I had to demonstrate a full procedural NDB approach using the compass... oh the examiner "failed" the vacuum pump on me so had to do it without the gyro's. Grrrr.

The hold was full panel and based upon an intersection from two VOR's on the missed approach to the preceeding full panel ILS approach.

Yes I would agree what has been said above in regards to the FAA ATP demanding much higher standards than the FAA IR checkride.

[paco]

Don't forget that the philosphy is different as well - JAA expect you to know everything before you start, as there's no guarantee that you will get further training, whereas the FAA know that you will get it later and treat the IR as a licence to learn.

NDBs are certainly part of the game plan in Canada.

Phil

[20driver]

From a practical point of view if you have a GPS and better yet a moving map an NDB approach is no big deal. Did a one into Quebec a few weeks back. Really easy but not something I'd like to do with an ADF only.
20driver

[chipieflyer]

I'm not sure I would say the FAA IR is a lot easier than the JAA IR.

The 2-3 hour oral exam (I've heard of one that lasted 5 hours!) is enough to throw many people off before you even get into the aircraft!!!

[High Wing Drifter]

Sure your NDB hold might be spot on, but in the real world, exactly how many of those are you going to do. I've never had to do one in real life.
I believe that this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4744614.stm) incident was due to a botched NDB approach because the ILS at Birmingham was unservicable.

[unfazed]

I think that the JAR IR is "harder" to get but I do not think that that makes it any better than the FAA

FAA is easier to get in terms of examination requirements, costs etc

Once you get it it is also less costly to maintain and you are not tied in to paying an IR Examiner for their annual holidays.

[Permafrost_ATPL]

From what I remember (it's been a while), the design of most FAA NDB approaches also make them easier to fly than the UK ones (don't know about rest of Europe). Most of the time, you fly over the beacon, go outbound for 10 miles (plenty of time to get the track right), then do a procedure turn comprising of a 45 deg turn outbound and 180 back to intercept at 45 inbound. The final intercept is, IMHO, a lot easier than intercepting after a 180+ turn on a lot of UK NDB approaches. And because they don't involve a hold, you have less opportunities to screw up (NDB hold on a windy day on one engine, yuk...).

That said, there are some evil NDB approaches in the US too. Like Charlie Zulu, i remember one (at Tracy, California, across the bay from San Francisco) where the missed approach point for the hold is the intersection of two VORs. IR students in the area celebrated for weeks when the beacon became U/S. There are no other NDB approaches in the area!

P

[pilgrim flyer]

Did my FAA IR in the LA basin in 2000. Hardest thing I've ever done in an aeroplane including learning how to teach ADF tracking/NDB approaches and CPL test in 90F under JAA.

It's real world- you have to do a 300nm xc with 5 approaches IFR (did mine at night in Santa Anna induced wave rotor) and the SoCal RT is REALLY HECTIC (no 'Exam' callsigns and Gawd helpyer if you fluff and falter). Also the 3 hour oral is no picnic, managed to fail my 1st and not even get as far as the plane.

Yet to convert to JAA IR due to JAA CPL exams not being valid for an IR, so can't compare. Undoubtedly made me a far better pilot and more competent than I otherwise would be when teaching as an FI in the UK.

PF

[PPRuNe Towers]

The answer lies in comparing the practical test standards from the FAA versus the JAA accuracy requirements. Both can be found easily enough.

There are those of us who have been tested by a single examiner wearing both hats at once - an interesting experience.

Regards
Rob

[chrisbl]

When I did my FAA IR, I asked the examiner to examine me on the NDB as that was what was going to be the norm back here in the UK. Having explained the situation to him he was happy to go that way and I was happy to demonstrate competence with the NDB.

Approaches were VOR/DME, ILS, NDB and a localiser with partial panel which I made easier by getting "no giro" from ATC. Not what the examiner had in mind but solved the problem and he was pleased with that.

The most challenging part is the oral exam and whlist the written is relatively easy, the oral will test whether it was just repetatively going through the questions that got the eam pass or actually knowing the stuff. Doing the oral 6 months after the exam meant I could not ease off on the learning.

[plyen]

I have done both the JAR and the FAA IR, and I found the JAR IR a bit harder, mainly becuase it contains more elements. There is simply more attention to detail, more to know, more checks, calls, briefings and so on. As an example, in the US they don't use QNH/QFE, and flight levels are only used above 18k ft, so one less thing to think about.

On the other hand, when doing a JAR IR you'll know more about your flight before even taking off, such as where you will have your engine failure, the FAA test is not as structured, more surprises.

I flew plenty of NDB approaches in the US (partial panel and full panel) and did not find them much easer over there, so can't say that is much different.