Instrument Rating Renewal issues

[Bird-dog]

Does anyone know what the deal is with testing officers requirements and Instrument Rating Renewals? A friend of mine recently did a renewal and the testing officer made him do a SID (in the SIM) with 5 minutes prior notice to prepare.

I may have the same guy for my upcoming renewal. Now I'm not worried about doing a SID, I am just curious if it is written anywhere that a testing officer can do this sort of thing, or as a person paying for a service I can say 'no - if its not a requirement of this Test then I'm not doing it thank you very much'.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[hobbit1983]

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Is that something really worth worrying about? It's something you would be quite reasonably expected to do on an actual IR flight after all.....

[Bealzebub]

Although it relates to the initial test, This document, (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_lts_Standards%20Doc%201_v7%20V14Sept2012.pdf) published by the UK CAA may be of some guidance.

The "Departure" is a fundamental constituent of the test, so why you are surprised your friend was given a Standard Instrument Departure with 5 minutes preparation time, I am not sure?

In the real world, it is not at all unusual for a departure to be changed at the last minute, and that shouldn't present any particular problems for a reasonably competent pilot.

I am sure you can refuse to do the test for whatever reason you see fit, but it could get quite expensive. You are expected to demonstrate proficiency to a reasonable standard. It is unlikely that the examiner is going to venture too far from the script, and you shouldn't be presenting yourself unless your general ability and knowledge is sufficient to accomplish all of the requirements of the test, whatever aspects the examiner selects for that particular day.

[BillieBob]

I doubt that any document written by the UK CAA is likely to be relevant to the requirements in Australia.

[Flying Bear]

"...as a person paying for this service I can say "no...""

And therein lies the problem. Your attitude should be along the same lines as that required for a driver's licence - ie it is a privilege (more than a right) for those competent enough to deliver the skill set. A common problem now is that ratings are given away by flying schools simply because Bloggs throws a bunch of money on the counter. Then, it is left up to industry to fix up the mess when these pilots go looking for the twin gig they seem to think they're ready for.

Short notice SID? Perfectly within the ATO's scope - this should not even elicit a whinge from a candidate, if they are up to spec.

My main issue is when the ATO throws in multiple unrelated failures and system faults at unlikely times - although skill building, this concept hardly validates training in a logical sense.

[SpyderPig]

As part of my last renewal, flying out of a major city airport I was given a SID as part of my airways clearance. Was expecting it as that's just the way it's done there. That gave me about 5mins notice, not a big ask in my opinion.

[Howard Hughes]

Simple question, is it on the test form?

[Tinstaafl]

You can be tested on any aspect of the instrument rating. The required items are the *minimim* items to be tested, not necessarily the total.

[Mach E Avelli]

To be realistic the I.R. test should normally be conducted over a short route of a minimum one hour's duration (who says? - I says). The common practice of launching to the nearest VOR or NDB, flying a quick and dirty hold and returning to airport of origin and getting it all done in 45 minutes to save money is bullsh!t. If the route chosen includes a SID or STAR or both, that only adds to realism and is a Good Thing. If it does not include radar vectors to the ILS, that is a Better Thing, because one day the candidate may have to self-position somewhere where there is no radar service.
But we do have a problem in Oz with some independent ATOs who appear to have gone their own way for too many years and developed pet hobby horses which they delight to climb on at every opportunity. In a way this is not surprising, because CASA offers little in the way of standardisation across its various field offices, or across the FOIs who issue and renew ATO privileges.
The way it was in the UK (maybe no more, I dunno) was that to become a IRE, one had to attend a course run by the CAA. This resulted in a high level of testing standardisation. Candidates had no excuse for not knowing what was required of them and in fact part of the pre-test briefing was agreement between the examiner and the candidate on such things as assumed icing conditions (every test!), required flight tolerances, use of auto-pilot etc.
Unlike a company-administered proficiency check (which is part of that company's particular 'train set') the I.R. is a portable qualification attached to your licence rather like your medical. It qualifies you to fly IFR in any aircraft type that you are entitled to fly. Therefore - within the constraints of variable routes - test parameters should be a constant. And questions should be limited to the practical. Stuff which can be looked up at leisure (such as the whole list of minimum instrumentation) is a bit OTT on a practical test. On another thread here I see that several devious I.R. questions have been posed. Some answers to which I have no idea, which would appear to pre-empt my failure should I come across an ATO with that particular repertoire.

[morno]

Why should you not have to demonstrate a procedure which is part of IFR flying?

If you cannot demonstrate it, maybe you shouldn't hold an instrument rating.

In the company I work for, there are a few things that are tested that are not nessecarily part of the standard renewal. Why? Because they figure that if you can't do it, then perhaps you need some further training to ensure that when the **** hits the fan, you can!

Just stop your whinging and do it.

morno

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

the testing officer made him do a SID (in the SIM) with 5 minutes prior notice to prepare

Seems generous to me. Operationally it is not uncommon to get a SID with your airways clearance or even at the holding point with a change of clearance.

If you think you can't handle it, consider getting some more training.

[Horatio Leafblower]

My main issue is when the ATO throws in multiple unrelated failures and system faults at unlikely times

Multiple unrelated failures are specifically verboten by the CASA Testing Officers Manual.

With respect to SIDs and STARs, you would have to demonstrate them in a Private IFR so surely you should accept it on a MECIR? :confused:

CASA offers little in the way of standardisation across its various field offices, or across the FOIs who issue and renew ATO privileges.

Not sure this is correct either. At the last (mandatory) ATO PDP I attended, 9 of the 12 were CASA personnel.

[nitpicker330]

It's only a SID......most Aussie SIDS are very simple.( try Shanghai or Beijing )

Get over it..

[Mach E Avelli]

Horatio, if ATO attendance to CASA briefings is mandatory, that is an encouraging step in the right direction, but it falls short of a standardised training program to gain the qualification in the first place.
I accept that there could be some 'grand fathering' for old crusties (like me; pick me, pick me....) but for my continued education, are industry ATOs tested to a common syllabus for their own flying and general knowledge skills, then tested routinely by an FOI observing them assessing a real candidate, or is it done only once in the ATO's career with a suitably-competent candidate acting as 'meat in the seat'?
At one stage it was mooted that all ATO renewals had to be done with a CASA FOI in attendance, if not actually conducting. Is this so, and how standardised are those FOIs in the way they administer the tests?

[Jack Ranga]

I've never flown a SID or STAR either on my initial ME-CIR or on any renewal I've done. If this ATO is throwing one in to 'trick you up' find another ATO. The last couple of renewals I've done have been with an ATO that not only tests you but treats the renewal as a continuing education.

There are some average ATO's out there. The one's that take pleasure in tripping you up are to be avoided if possible.

[manymak]

My god! How on earth is a SID or STAR on an initial or renewal of a Command Instrument Rating something that would be classified as cunning or something 'to trip you up'.

These procedures happen everyday in an IFR environment! Suck it up!:mad:

[Bird-dog]

Thanks everyone for your comments.

I probably should have thought about my initial posing of the question and how it could be misintepreted -as it seemingly was by some people.

Just to clarify - I have no probs doing any component of Instrument Flying or renewal and I'm most certainly not worried about being asked to do a SID, I was simply asking the question as to whether it was the testing officers discretion to throw anything at someone being tested on a renewal, or whether you could request the minimums that were the requirement of the test.

I now have my answer, thanks to those for the constructive advice.

Cheers

Bird-Dog.

[morno]

But why do you only want to do the minimums?

That's why we have such crappy training these days, everyone only wants to do the minimum amount.

morno

[Mach E Avelli]

Morno, regrettably everyone wants to do the minimum these days because of the almighty dollar. Individuals, of course, are often cash-strapped, so will go to the nearest friendly ATO who takes their money, gives them a few questions, leaps into the old banger twin and does a quick whip-around the local navaids. Possibly followed by some other approach in a pretend simulator - more properly termed a 'device'. Or maybe it is done the other way around with most of the approaches in the device and one in the twin. Either way, it is a token test at best.

Some AOC holders are no better. Recently I had contact with an operator with several King Airs in his fleet. Quite a substantial operation, one would think. At least his fancy web-site said that his was the best blah blah with professional, skilled pilots, blah blah catering specifically to the mining industry blah blah using the finest IFR fleet capable of flying in any weather blah blah. He needed a driver with a certain minimum experience level to fulfill a contract and - being located in a less than salubrious part of this brown land - obviously could not attract or hold on to the required talent. And the money on offer was hardly a king's ransom. But would he spring for an I.R. renewal?
Hell no - he used every excuse going to get me to do that and pay for it myself.
A shame he did not spend as much on training as he obviously did on advertising. Needless to say we never got past the phone convesation stage.

[Jack Ranga]

manymak,

My apologies if pointing out the deficiencies in CIR training has offended your sensibilities. If an ATO knows you haven't flown a procedure and throws one into the mix? He or she is a prick, how about a bit of education.............the school I instruct at goes beyond the syllabus, more to the point, would never throw into a test something that hasn't been taught. Doing so probably goes against any sort of educational curriculum.

Regards.

[Mach E Avelli]

Jack, hence the need for those that regulate this pathetic industry of ours, and the industry itself, to get its sh!t in a pile and standardise the training preceding the I.R. TEST (for that is what it is - a test) and the test itself.
In the airline scene where their pilots are all known to the organisation and all are subject to at least two proficiency checks and a line check each year, I firmly endorse the big 'T' for Training and little 'c' for checking. But the I.R. is like your medical - you pass or fail according to your fitness. At least that's how it should be, even in the airlines.

But what often happens is something like this: Because standard simulator sessions run for two hours, the I.R. is rolled in to a sim detail in parts; in this situation the examiner needs to make it absolutely clear which part is training and which part is the actual test, but some do not do this. When this is not done, pilots often get the idea that it is all training, with the necessary boxes ticked as various approaches are flown to tolerances after practice as necessary. So the guy/gal does a wobbly ILS, then a good one, then another wobbly one. The examiner ticks the box because at some stage of the two hours one good one was demonstrated.

The candidate should not present himself/herself unless reasonably confident of being able to demonstrate the required standard, without immediately preceding practice. As for a candidate crying 'foul' because an ATO asks for something that the candidate has not trained for - how would the ATO necessarily know unless he had also supervised the training of that candidate? In GA this often won't be the case.

[Jack Ranga]

Fair enough mate, just putting it out there ;)

I'm not saying I'm right, just throwing an opinion out there.

Your comments on it being a pathetic industry are spot on :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

So you'd never taken an aircraft off before? How'd it go?

[Centaurus]

My main issue is when the ATO throws in multiple unrelated failures and system faults at unlikely times - although skill building, this concept hardly validates training in a logical sense.

My spies in the airlines say this happens more often than not in simulator sessions. Very much up to the simulator instructor/checkie etc. This despite the official advice contained in the CASA Approved Testing Officer Manual which states quite clearly:

"A prescribed ATO or a prescribed person must not introduce simultaneous multiple unrelated simulated emergency or abnormal situations in the flight".

AND - "after a simulated failure, the prescribed ATO or prescribed person must ensure the aircraft is configured back to a normal operating mode before another simulated failure may be introduced, except where the simulated failures are linked)e.g. electrical failure leading to a flapless approach and landing).

AND "A prescribed ATO or a prescribed persons must not trip circuit breakers as a means of introducing systems/component failure unless this is specifically permitted in the aircraft flight manual"

I would hazard a guess and state it is highly probable that the vast majority of "prescribed persons - check captains - simulator instructors - would have at some time in their career, blatantly disregarded the directives above.:ooh:

[Jack Ranga]

So, username, you're an instructor and have never taken an aircraft off before? And you were tested on take offs and you'd never done one before? Or have we crossed wires here?

[Tee Emm]

My main issue is when the ATO throws in multiple unrelated failures and system faults at unlikely times - although skill building, this concept hardly validates training in a logical sense.

I remember my initial instrument rating test for issue of a British ATPL in England which was in a 737. The check pilot was himself being observed by the head honcho of the UK CAA so that he could be approved to conduct instrument ratings in future.

We three sat in this gloomy room in the Gatwick area where the menacing sight of the horror box with 737 stencilled on its side was waiting like a huge white-tailed spider on long hydraulic legs. The pleasantries over, my trainee testing officer read from his prepared script which was:

Captain T.Emm. YOU WILL FAIL this test if you exceed the following tolerances for the ILS approach. Furthermore YOU WILL FAIL this test if you exceed the following tolerances for an NDB approach (reads a long list of tolerances exceedance figures for ILS and NDB.

And YOU WILL FAIL this test if you exceed the following tolerances for steep turns. And so the list of YOU WILL FAIL this test went on and bloody on until I was ready to slit my wrists or walk out of the room into the unemployment queue. Meanwhile the Grey Eminence (actually quite a nice bloke when you got to know him) sat impassively with arms folded listening to the trainee checker going through his official CAA spiel.

Sufficient to say I was lucky and managed to stay within tolerances in the simulator and walked out with the coveted Brit instrument rating (aeroplane). Give me an Aussie testing officer everytime and I feel sorry for those unfortunates that undergo the Gestapo treatment handed out by some Asian testing officers north of Australia.

Better the Devil you know rather than the Devil you don't know, comes to mind:ok:

[Jack Ranga]

No sh!t........?

[Mach E Avelli]

The only flight test I ever failed in my long career was the initial Pommy I.R. way back in 1973.
I had been flogging around the Pacific Islands in aircraft that only had two ADFs. Having done literally hundreds of NDB approaches, but with no experience of the VOR or ILS, when I got to Blighty and had to pay lots of pounds sterling to hire a Twin Comanche, I told the school that all I wanted to do was practice VOR and ILS work - I was already the World's Greatest NDB Approach Man.
Come the big test day and the CAA Examiner rocks up in his black uniform with gold braid running half way up both sleeves. Complete with regulatory handlebar moustache he was a formidable figure. I got the failure warning spiel that Tee Emm has succinctly described.
We get in the Tin Bomb and off we go, with me checking for ice every five minutes as prescribed (even though it was clear weather) and I nail the VOR, holding pattern and ILS. But back on the ground his first words are: " I regret to inform you that you have failed because your NDB tracking was 7 degrees off for 20 seconds on the inbound leg and you are only permitted five degrees for 15 seconds" (or some-such). Never mind it was a pathetic low-powered NDB and the Tin Bomb's equipment was hardly state-of-the art, I just had to suck it up. Because the rules had been laid down and I had accepted them.
Now whether there was some collusion between the school and the CAA man to bring this Wild Colonial Boy into line, I dunno, but it was a good lesson in humility for me. Don't present yourself for a test until you are ready and when you do, accept the rules.

[Lumps]

Might just resurrect this thread with a question for everyone - seeing as it was originally about instrument rating renewals.

I have a PIFR(SE) which is not current, however I have done a MECIR renewal in the last 12 months but due to it being summer have not logged sufficient instrument time for the MECIR to be current.

Firstly, given PIFR has a 24 month validity, is it renewed by passing the MECIR test or renewal?

Can I go for a private blat about the skies to get MECIR current again? Could I do this in a twin or a single?

PS I am not asking because I know the answers. Genuinely don't know, especially the interaction of PIFR(SE) and MECIR. The rules don't say that for a MECIR to be current the instrument flying must be done in a multi engine, only the renewal. Am I right?

[Mach E Avelli]

My reading of the regulations is that instrument time can be logged in any IFR-equipped aircraft OR an approved simulator. Also passing an I.R. test within the last 90 days negates the remainder of the minimum recency requirements.
In the situation you describe where you appear to be outside 90 days your safest option would be to either get current in an approved simulator, or carry a current and appropriately-rated IFR pilot as a safety pilot while you log the necessary time. Just leaping alone into the ether and going IMC/PIFR after a long lay-off would be a baaad idea.
I don't think it has to be a twin, but stand being corrected by those more up with the whole single-engine and PIFR scene.

[mcgrath50]

get current in an approved simulator,

That would be approved synthetic trainer rather than simulator (according to the regs) wouldn't it?

Semantics I know but something that always trips me up!

[Mach E Avelli]

Semantics indeed. Hands up all the dullfcks who did not get my drift.

I think it is time for me to cease contributing to these forums. Too many anal retentives.

[Old Akro]

I have a PIFR(SE) which is not current, however I have done a MECIR renewal in the last 12 months but due to it being summer have not logged sufficient instrument time for the MECIR to be current.


The regs are the last thing I'd be thinking about. Instead I'd be considering what I thought was safe, which doesn't sound like this. You should find a friendly local simulator and try and get on it once a month. And don't be lazy. Do the full checklist deal and practice some emergencies. Beyond legalities, you might also consider a second pilot for your first IFR flight.

Single pilot, multi engine IFR is statistically one of the most dangerous things you can do. You've got to think about a safety / currency strategy that is somewhere between the legal requirement and common airline practice

[Lumps]

Don't worry I wasn't about to jump in a plane and blast off into some tough IMC after not flying in IMC for a while. However flying under the IFR in VMC (privately) I wouldn't consider dangerous but a great way to stay current with the aircraft, procedures, etc. No replacement for recurrent training of course but wouldn't be a bad thing per se. Just wondering if it was legal.

[mcgrath50]

Hey Mach, sorry if I came across as being anal retentive, I was genuinely clarifying my knowledge there! Keep contributing for my benefit at least :ok:

[triathlon]

Yeh. Give it to em Mach.

[Mach E Avelli]

Lumps in your first post you asked "can I go for a private blat......?" A dangerous word when asking questions is that little 'can'. If the examiner says to me: You are on ILS approach and the reported weather indicates Cat 1 minima. At the outer marker you notice that the glideslope has failed. Can you continue?"
To which I answer, "Yes I can". For indeed, given my experience, recency, ability and other tools in the cockpit, I am capable of getting the aeroplane to DH, albeit at some increased risk. Given a dire emergency (like running out of fuel or on fire) I may even choose that course of action and it is unlikely that I would crash simply because I have broken the law.

But if the examiner had phrased the question with "What should you do?" he would have got an entirely different answer.

I don't know your experience or ability level so can't answer the 'can I?" question for you. You probably could fly under the IFR in VMC and do no lasting damage to the airframe or yourself, but I fail to see how this would get your I.F. recency back.

In your later post you do ask if it is legal to file and operate IFR when presumably you are out of all necessary recency in both I.F. and use of approach aids. I think that by now you have the answer to your question.

[triathlon]

Love ya posts Mach. Blunt and to the point

[Mach E Avelli]

Why thank you kind sir - flattery will get you nowhere but I can pass on my bank account details and take tips...

On the subject of tips , true story at the risk of thread drift. I was a young DC-3 Captain with a Pommy airline. One stormy day we had the misfortune to blow an engine, so shut it down and duly turned back to base which was the nearest suitable anyway.

After landing there was a round of applause from the relieved pax. Release of nervous tension and I don't blame them - in a beat-up old DC-3 of all things on a crap day like that with a 28 year old at the helm, had it been me down the back I would have been wetting myself with TWO engines running, let alone one!

Anyway jokingly I said something to the effect of "don't clap, pass the hat around" which was overheard at the front of the pax cabin. Next thing someone's hat was full of pound notes and passed to the Hostie. A BIG night out was had that night....

[Lumps]

I thought it likely this would turn into what one ought to do - and I can't disagree with the good airmanship responses posted subsequently. I think my second question sounded alarm bells and was poorly phrased.

Maybe the question should have been phrased: does an MECIR renewal also renew the PIFR(SE)? That's it, just what the rules say is what I was having difficulty finding.

What you do with your legally valid ratings is another (but not far removed) subject.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

CAO 40.2.3
6.2 The holder of a grade of the PIFR rating must not fly an aircraft under the I.F.R. unless:
(a) within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight, the holder has completed:
(i) a flight test under subsection 7, or a flight review under subsection 8, relevant to the grade; or
(ii) a flight test for the issue or renewal of a command grade of the instrument rating; and
(b) the holder has sufficient recent experience to undertake the flight safely.
Note: Guidance on recent experience is contained in CAAP 5.13-1 “Private IFR rating”.

And a flight review as per CAR 5.81 or 5.108 being;
(5) A pilot who, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight, has: (a) passed a flight test conducted for the purpose of: (i) the issue of an aeroplane pilot licence; or (ii) the issue, or renewal, of an aeroplane pilot rating; or (b) satisfactorily completed an aeroplane proficiency check; or (c) satisfactorily completed aeroplane conversion training given by the holder of a grade of flight instructor (aeroplane) rating that authorises him or her to conduct aeroplane flight reviews; is taken to have satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review.

Then yes, the CIR renewal would satisfy the PIFR requirement. The ME component of a PIFR is just another FPA. To put it in perspective, all you need to do to upgrade a CIR(SE) to (ME) is fly one approach (take your pick) as ME with the ATO, same as PIFR.

SE is the same procedure, just without the engine failures.:ok:

Ps. Or you could just read CAO 40.2.3 Para 6.2 (ii) as qouted.:cool:

[Tee Emm]

You should find a friendly local simulator and try and get on it once a month

Wish I could find a woman like that.:ok:

[Jack Ranga]

Mate, they're everywhere :ok: cost about the same as an hour in the sim :D

[Clearedtoreenter]

Maybe the question should have been phrased: does an MECIR renewal also renew the PIFR(SE)? That's it, just what the rules say is what I was having difficulty finding.

I requested the ATO to do that at a CIR renewal. He duly signed off the PIFR in the AFR section of my log book but I rather got the feeling he did not like doing it. I think he was a bit disdainful of the PIFR generally. I don't think you have to ever 'renew' the PIFR. It's just an AFR with a qualified person and so your ATO can sign that off when you renew the CIR, if they so choose.

[bentleg]

I don't think you have to ever 'renew' the PIFR. It's just an AFR with a qualified person

Yes it is an AFR, however it must cover the PIFR skills.

At last review I was required to do two AFR's, one for VFR and another for PIFR, including my FPA's.

[Shagpile]

Is it every year or 2 years?

[Tee Emm]

Mate, they're everywhere http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif cost about the same as an hour in the sim :D Does that include unusual attitudes?:E