JAR IRI(H) privileges

[Phoinix]

I have a question regarding IRI(H). We are new to JAR, as we just adopted it, so this it the thing why I don't understand this the first time.

I have JAR FCL from 01.02.2007 (2010 edition).


JAR-FCL 2.330A states TRI(H) privileges: ... are to instruct licence holders for the issue, revalidation or renewal of a type rating, including where applicable, the extension of the IR(H) privileges, and as TRI(MPH) the instruction required for multi-crew co-operation as applicable...

and

JAR-FCL 2.340A IRI(H) privileges: The privileges of the holder of an IR*(H) rating are limited to instructing licence holders for the issue, revalidation and renewal of an IR(H).


* IRI(H) probably, IR is not logical??


Now, according to that, a TRI(H) on EC135 can with his IR(H) rating become an IRI(H) and train a candidate for IR(H)?

This is a bit unclear to me, as the requirement for IRI(H) is 500hrs IFR and with that far from "instant" TRI(H) + IR(H) = IRI(H) on type.



Any information clearing this out is well appreciated.

Jure

[rotarywise]

It is a misprint in JAR-FCL 2.340A and, as you suggest, it should read "The privileges of the holder of an IRI(H) rating are limited to instructing licence holders for the issue, revalidation and renewal of an IR(H)". There is no shortcut for a TRI(H) to become an IRI(H) just by holding an IR.

[Phoinix]

Thank you. But still, how to interpret "including where applicable, the extension of the IR(H) privileges" from 2.330A?


IR(H) privileges for a TRI are to extend TRI(H) into TR for IR holders, not issue of IR(H) rating, right?

[GKaplan]

IRI(H) trains a student for the issue, revalidation or renewal of the initial IR(H).
In real life an IRI(H) trains almost only for the issue of the IR.
Once a pilot has the rating, it's revalidated annually at the same time than the licence. (You just need to be TRE+IR to revalidate or renew an IR)


What "to extend the privileges of the IR(H)" means for a TRI(H) is that when training somebody (who holds an IR) on a new type you can also do instrument training (specific to the type).

Example: I'm a TRI on AS332 - I can do instrument training (within the type rating course) with a pilot who is qualified on AS365 and holds an IR. When said pilot passes the test with a TRE, he will be qualified on the AS332 and allowed to fly IFR on it (i.e his IR(H) will have been extended to the new type)

[Phoinix]

Thank you for explaining. This clears it all.:ok:

[Peter PanPan]

@Phoinix: interesting thread, actually it raised more questions on my side.

[LIST=1]
Does "extension of the IR(H) privileges" encompass extending from SE IR(H) to ME IR(H)? Someone on the forum recently suggested that an IRI(H) was needed for that when my understanding is that training with a TRI(H) holder of an ME IR(H) is sufficient in order to extend from SE to ME IR(H).

So to me what Phoinix concludes with "TRI(H) + IR(H) = IRI(H) on type" actually makes sense.

Now an easy question for y'all: does one need to be an FI(H) in order to become a TRI(H)? I looked up LASORS and the original JAR-FCL and couldn't find an answer to that, sure it's a pretty evident one though :)

Thanks:ok:

[212man]

does one need to be an FI(H) in order to become a TRI(H)?

No. Next question......:ok:

[Peter PanPan]

Thanks 212man, basically one just needs to meet the eligibility requirements for FI(H), meet the specific requirements for whether it's SP or MP in SE or ME helicopters and undertake a TRI(H) course at an approved FTO. But contrary to FI(H) courses there isn't any minimum flight time instruction specified (i.e 30 hours) right? How many hours are typically done on a TRI(H) course is my next question ;)

[212man]

I don't think there is a 'typical number of hours' - it will vary on the size of aircraft, whether it's an internally run course (for an operator's own pilots) and whether simulator and/or instrument rating privileges are to be added. at an educated guess, I'd say an off the shelf course for a light twin (e.g. AS355) would be about 5 hours and a full blown course with BHL or CHC for the S-92/EC225 more like 25+ hours in the simulator and 5-10 in the aircraft. Typically, an operator would be adding the TRE authority to the candidate too, for one of its own pilots, as training captains that can't examine aren't that useful in the rotary world (more common in FW.)

Prices at the top end will approach £80,000 for a heavy type course off the shelf to a third party, probably around 10% of that for a light twin.

[Peter PanPan]

Thank you for the info 212man. You see how confusing at first it can be though: you will find the information about TRI under the same section of Instructor Ratings, the TRI chapter specifically refers to the general Instructor chapter and it would seem logical that a Type Rating Instructor would have been trained as a formal Flight Instructor initially, wouldn't it?

[Ready2Fly]

I do not think so.

The main difference is that a TRI(H) deals with somebody who already has a license whereas a FI(H) has to take care of people who might just have started to learn.

Therefore a FI(H) is already TRI(H) on all SE/SP helicopters he is typerated on.

However, many (most) TRI's i know are also FI's.

P.S.: There are the same minimum hours for a TRI(H) as for FI(H) - JAR FCL 2.330E (a) (1)

[212man]

the TRI chapter specifically refers to the general Instructor chapter and it would seem logical that a Type Rating Instructor would have been trained as a formal Flight Instructor initially, wouldn't it?

Not really. I think the logic is that any form of flying training for the issue of a rating or licence is considered 'instruction,therefore anyone who conducts that training must be an 'instructor.' Because there are different categories of rating and licences there are, by default, different categories of instructor - some of whose privileges may overlap.

[rotarywise]

Both the TRI(H) and IRI(H) are stand-alone ratings and there is no requirement to have any previous instructional experience (that's what the core course is for). It is true that the privileges of an FI(H) include instruction for the issue of a type rating but this does not make an FI(H) a TRI(H) any more than adding the privilege to instruct for the IR(H) will make him an IRI(H). The three ratings are intended to be entirely separate.

The UK managed to confuse the issue by deciding not to extend the privileges of an FI(H) to multi-engine helicopters but instead to insist that they held a separate TRI(H) rating. What they failed to understand was that this then left them with nobody qualified to instruct on MEH for anything other than the type rating or instrument rating (e.g. night qualification, CPL, etc.).

There are advantages to being a TRI(H) rather than an FI(H), not least that there is no restricted period and a TRI(H) can act without supervision from the day he gets the rating.

[Jet Ranger]

@GKaplan
@212man

Please guys, if somebody of you can answer on my question;

Can TRI(H) on B212 (and TRE on B212...but he is not IRI-H), with ME/IR-H ... provide "transition IR-A to IR-H" training for CPL-H holder with current SE/IR-A; and off course, valid type rating on 212 ?

[Peter PanPan]

While I get the difference between ab-initio instruction conducted on a HU269 by a FI(H) for instance and type rating instruction on a S-76C+ by a TRI(H) obviously rated on the SK76, I am a little confused by the difference between a Single Pilot Single Engine TRI(H) conducting type rating training on a HU269 to CPL(H) holder and a FI(H) doing the exact same job. Guess it's what 212man referred as "overlapping privileges".

@rotarywise: "There are advantages to being a TRI(H) rather than an FI(H), not least that there is no restricted period and a TRI(H) can act without supervision from the day he gets the rating."
Thank you for your post, it shed a lot of light into this topic in my opinion. I would also add that a TRI(H) can conduct both type rating instruction and instrument instruction (And possibly MCC instruction provided he's qualified on a ME MP type), which a FI(H) cannot do, unless he holds a IR(H) and it's for the required instrument instruction for the CPL(H) correct?

@Jet Ranger: I know a TRI(H) can conduct instruction for the extension of SE IR(H) privileges into ME IR(H) but I would guess that you need to convert your SE IR(A) into an SE IR(H) first, only then you can extend it. And yes your B212 TRI/TRE could do the job. :ok:

[Jet Ranger]

@Peter

you mean, he could do only extension from SE/IR-H to ME/IR-H, bur not IR-A to IR-H ... I need IRI-H ?

[rotarywise]

Let's see if we can cover all of the options:

Initial IR(H) - instruction may be given by an FI(H) with IR(H) privileges i.a.w. JAR-FCL2.320C(e) or an IRI(H)

Revalidation/renewal of an IR(H) - refresher training may be given by an FI(H) with IR(H) privileges i.a.w. JAR-FCL2.320C(e) or an IRI(H)

Extension of IR(H) privileges from one ME SPH type to another - instruction may be given by a TRI(H) who holds a IR(H) on the relevant type. (Some authorities may also grant the privilege to an FI(H) with relevant experience)

Extension of IR(H) privileges from a SEH to a MEH - instruction may be given by an FI(H) with IR(H) privileges i.a.w. JAR-FCL2.320C(e) or an IRI(H) provided that either holds the relevant MEH type rating (Note - the FI(H) option does/did not apply in the UK because they screwed up the implementation of JAR-FCL2)

Extension of IR(H) privileges from a SPH to a MPH - instruction may be given by a TRI(H) qualified on the MPH type

Extension of IR(H) privileges from a MPH to a SPH - instruction may be given by an FI(H) with IR(H) privileges i.a.w. JAR-FCL2.320C(e) or an IRI(H) provided that either holds the relevant SPH type rating

MCC - practical instruction may be given only by an MCCI(H) or a TRI(MPH)

[Jet Ranger]

@rotarywise

What do you say about "transition" from IR(A) to IR(H)? Can do that FI(H) with IR(H)?

[Bravo73]

@Phoinix: interesting thread, actually it raised more questions on my side.

[LIST=1]
Does "extension of the IR(H) privileges" encompass extending from SE IR(H) to ME IR(H)? Someone on the forum recently suggested that an IRI(H) was needed for that when my understanding is that training with a TRI(H) holder of an ME IR(H) is sufficient in order to extend from SE to ME IR(H).

So to me what Phoinix concludes with "TRI(H) + IR(H) = IRI(H) on type" actually makes sense.

PPP,

I think that you might still be getting your wires crossed and, if it really concerns you, I think that you'd be best to get clarification on this matter from your aviation authority (is it the CAA?)

My understanding is that an IRI is still needed to convert an SE IR(H) to a ME IR(H). The way I see it is that a TRI can train you (or 'effect') a TR which is on your licence. However, bearing in mind that an IR is obviously a separate rating (although normally 'tied' to an aircraft type), an IRI is needed in order to train for it or 'effect' it, so to speak.

However, my disclaimer is that I am neither an IRI nor a TRI so please don't take my word as gospel. I can, if you want though, have a word with one of the TRIs when I back into work on Monday to see if their priviliges extend as far as converting a SE IR(H) to a ME IR(H).


Edited to add: Doh. I probably should have read rotarywise's post before I replied. :O He covers this issue here:




Extension of IR(H) privileges from a SEH to a MEH - instruction may be given by an FI(H) with IR(H) privileges i.a.w. JAR-FCL2.320C(e) or an IRI(H) provided that either holds the relevant MEH type rating (Note - the FI(H) option does/did not apply in the UK because they screwed up the implementation of JAR-FCL2)

[Peter PanPan]

@Bravo73

The fun side to these JARs is that there is always room for interpretation :)

My NAA is certainly a CAA but not the UK CAA at the moment and it seems like interpretations vary from one country to another.

You may notice that information about extension of IR SE to IR ME privileges will be found on the JAR-FCL2 Subpart F - Type Rating (Helicopters) JAR–FCL 2.240 Type ratings – Requirements
(See Appendices 1 to 3 to JAR–FCL 2.240)

(4) The holder of an IR(H) valid for a single-engine helicopter type wishing to extend the IR(H) to a multi-engine helicopter type shall satisfactorily complete a course comprising at least 5 hours dual instrument instruction time in that type.

Notice also that according to JAR–FCL 2.245 (4) The revalidation of an IR(H), if held should be combined with the type rating revalidation requirements in (1) above, in accordance with JAR-FCL 2.185.

Now based on JAR–FCL 2.360
Type rating instructor rating (helicopter) (TRI(H)) – Privileges:

the privileges of the holder of a TRI(H) rating are to instruct licence holders for the issue of a type rating, [and] the instruction required for multi-crew co- operation as applicable (see JAR–FCL 2.261(d), Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 2.261(d) and AMC FCL 2.261(d)).

Therefore according to JAR–FCL 2.250
Type rating, multi-pilot – Conditions (ii) for a type-rating including IR(H) privileges hold a CPL(H) and IR(H) or meet the requirements of JAR-FCL 2.285 and hold an IR(H).]

I cannot see why a TRI(H) providing instruction for a type rating that includes IR (H) privileges (For instance for an EC225) wouldn't be sufficient for the job. Why would an IRI(H) be needed for that? Am I getting my wires crossed?:ok:

[Peter PanPan]

Quite clearly the above suggests that ME IR (H) is type specific and therefore a TRI (H) instructing on ME Helicopter type may extend your SE IR to a ME IR.

@ Jet Ranger: you need to get your IR SE (A) converted to a IR SE (H)

Check out JAR–FCL 2.205 Flight instruction
(See Appendix 1 to JAR– FCL 2.205)
An applicant for an IR(H) shall have participated in a course of integrated flying training which includes training for the IR(H) (see JAR–FCL 2.165) or shall have completed an approved modular flying training course as set out in Appendix 1 to JAR–FCL 2.205. If the applicant is the holder of an IR(A) the total amount of flight instruction required by Appendix 1 to JAR–FCL 2.205 may be reduced to 10 hours.

Once you complete the conversion from A to H then do your 5 hours dual instruction with the TRI/TRE for the B212 in order to extend your SE IR (H) to ME IR (H). And last but not least, if no TRTO offers to conduct the latter or the UK CAA rejects it, I suggest you go check out other JARland members :ok:

[Jet Ranger]

@PeterPP

...thanks, I understand that:ok:

Hm...now, I only wonder may I go directly from SE IR(A) to ME IR(H)? Let´s say, for example, together with some ME-type rating...I think, it is OK but type rating must be with IRI(H)...somebody was talking here about that recently...

[Peter PanPan]

Jet Ranger, as I've said in my previous posts I don't think you can do that, you need to hold an IR (H) first. You may do a ME IR (H) from scratch and your CAA may grant you credits based on your SE IR (A) (i.e. the 10 hours referred on JAR-FCL 2.205) or which is what I suggested if you are trying to save some money: obtain an SE IR (H) to begin with and then since you are already VFR rated on the 212 extend that SE IR (H) to a ME IR (H) after 5 hours dual instruction with a the 212 TRI(H) as per JAR-FCL 2.240 (4).

[Jet Ranger]

IR(A)-IR(H) SE - IR(H) ME ... That step in the middle is not neccessary... Because if you are going to make transition training on ME heli, you are going directly to IR(H) ME.

...and, IR-H training on SE helicopters is not allowed in many countries accross the Europe anymore ...

Only my opinion ...:ok:



JR

[rotarywise]

The basic premise is as follows:

The extension if IR(H) privileges from one MEH type to another is a matter only of the transfer of existing instrument flying skills to the new type and, therefore, may be conducted by an appropriately qualified TRI. When extending privileges from SEH to MEH, however, new instrument flying skills are required and only a suitably qualified FI(H) or an IRI(H) may deliver the training.

The privileges of the IR(A) clearly cannot be extended to a helicopter type; a different rating is required. Consequently, it is necessary to complete an initial IR(H) course, although the flight training may be reduced to not less than 10 hours. The course may be completed on either a SEH or a MEH and the instruction must be given by either a suitably qualified FI(H) or an IRI(H).

[Peter PanPan]

@ Jet Ranger: Whatever dude... :ok: Perhaps you should take a second look on your facts, IR (H) training on single engines is still conducted in certain JAR countries and that step in the middle as you say is clearly necessary as we are talking about different category of aircraft.

@ rotarywise: I hear you but those "new instrument flying skills" are type specific except for the generic OEI instrument approaches conducted on any type rating that includes instrument privileges. Tracking VORs, conducting holds, flying arc DMEs are all the same as flying on a S-76, HU269 or even a C172. Using a Radalt in the context of an ARA for instance is a different topic but all the previous stuff is basic instrument flying, all you need to do is get familiar with a different instrument display. Let me ask you this: could you please quote JAR-FCL2 for "only a suitably qualified FI(H) or an IRI(H) may deliver the training"?

[Jet Ranger]

"suitably qualified FI (H)" ... Does that mean FI(H) with current IR-H rating? Which paragragraph of FCL 2 is talking about that?

[rotarywise]

PPP - The 'new' instrument flying skills are those not examined in the SE IR Skill Test (i.e. Engine failure after take-off and on/during approach). To extend the IR(H) for the first time to a multi-engine helicopter type it is necessary to complete at least 5 hours of instrument instruction and pass the IR Skill Test in a multi-engine helicopter (JAR-FCL 2.240(a)(4)). The 5 hours training is, therefore, training leading to an instrument rating the conduct of which is not included in the privileges of a TRI rating. Once a MEIR(H) is held, a TRI may extend the IR privileges to other ME types.

Jet Ranger - Suitably qualified FI(H) means an FI(H) who is qualified to instruct for the instrument rating on a multi-engine helicopter (JAR-FCL 2.320C(e) and (f)

[Peter PanPan]

@rotarywise: If you are quoting JAR-FCL 2.240(a)(4), I sincerely don't get how you extrapolate from "complete at least 5 hours of instrument instruction and pass the IR Skill Test in a multi-engine helicopter " to "The 5 hours training is, therefore, training leading to an instrument rating"

Those 5 hours of instrument instruction are not instruction towards an Initial IR(H) rating but instead instruction towards the extension of an already existing IR(H). I agree with you in the sense that a TRI(H) cannot instruct towards an initial IR and therefore a IRI(H) is needed in that case.

[Bravo73]

PPP,

Hmmm, you seem to be very resistant to accepting advice on this matter and seem to be choosing to interpret the JARs in the way that you see fit.

Have you actually tried emailing your NAA for clarification? That will surely clear up the matter, once and for all.

[Peter PanPan]

Bravo73,

While I always appreciate reading your insightful posts, I believe that on this topic it is really a matter of "interpreting the JARs in a way that one sees fit" as you stated earlier but clearly not the way both rotarywise and yourself interpret them on this occasion. We are all quoting the same reference but interestingly reading it differently, I sincerely do not see how one could claim that the 5 hours dual instrument instruction for the purpose of the extension of an existing SE IR(H) must be conducted by an IRI(H) and cannot be conducted by a TRI(H) who holds an ME IR(H).

Your point of view suggests that whenever companies such as CHC, Bristow, DanCopter, NHV, Bond... hire a pilot who holds a SE IR(H), say on a B206, and send him to, say a S-92 Type Rating course, the instrument portion of the course will have to be taught by an IRI(H) rated on the S-92 since a TRI(H) with Instrument privileges on the S-92 will not be qualified for the job. Does that make sense? :ugh:

Ultimately I don't really care about this since I am instrument rated, what bugs me is seeing fellows being misled when trying to navigate the JAR maze.

[rotarywise]

PPP - I would have thought that the fact that the 5 hours of instruction culminated in an Instrument Rating Skill Test was enough of a clue. There is nothing in JAR-FCL 2 that distinguishes between an 'initial' instrument rating and any other. However, ultimately it is not your opinion or mine that matters, but solely that of the licensing authority. In the case of the UK, at least, the opinion is that the course must be conducted by an IRI(H). In fact, the UK CAA recently refused to issue an S92 type rating to a candidate, who had completed the FSI type rating course, precisely on these grounds - prior to the course, he held a SEIR and although FSI had conducted the 5 hours extra training, it had been completed by a TRI and not an IRI.

[Jet Ranger]

Question?

Let´s say, if you are doing initial IR(H) training (or transition IR-A to IR-H), with IRI(H) from some JAR FTO(H) ... IFR training in VMC conditions ...

...I wonder, is it necessary that helicopter has IFR certification or some kind of CAA approval for that particular job, or it has to be only properly equiped ( B206 with HSI, DME etc..., or standard equiped 212 ... NAV1-HSI; NAV2-OBS ... with DME, GPS ... but without SAS and auto-pilot...). I think, it should be enough...for IFR training in VMC condition.

How it works?

[Peter PanPan]

@rotarywise:

Allow me to paraphrase you, I would have thought that The holder of an IR(H) valid for a single-engine helicopter type wishing to extend the IR(H) to a multi-engine helicopter type shall satisfactorily complete a course comprising at least 5 hours dual instrument instruction time in that type (JAR–FCL 2.240 (a) (4)) and the absence of "Instrument Rating Skill Test" on the original JAR-FCL was enough of clue for not considering this a prerogative of an IRI(H) job.

The UK CAA seems to have been the one introducing the idea of Skill Test following the 5 hours whereas the original texts, quite interestingly, refer to to IR(H) extension to ME on the Subpart F - Type Rating. Not on the Subpart E - Instrument Rating, isn't that interesting? Instrument instruction explicitly related to a type rating, therefore the job of a type rating instructor. That seems to be quite a clue in IMHO.

But you're right, ultimately what matters isn't our opinions here on this forum but what our issuing authorities decide based on those texts, with coming EASA the margin for interpretation will probably shrink substantially and these debates will probably be happening less and less:roll eyes: