IMC for choppers coming at last
We've had this in Oz for about 15 years, the Private IFR Rating.
You get tested on the aspects you want to fly, the most basic is just enroute IFR with VFR at departure and arrival ends, and at the other end of the scale you can do everything that a CIR allows, except for a commercial operation.
I held one for many years, because of a couple of advantages - the machine I flew was the only one in country, and it was ridiculous trying to find a testing officer every year for the renewal - the PIFR lasts for 2 years.
The renewal was also categorised as a "Review", not a test, so if any sequence is not up to speed, it was repeated with instruction until satisfactory, rather than an instant fail and go home.
The PIFR copped flak because it wasn't recognised by ICAO, but now it just might be.
You get tested on the aspects you want to fly, the most basic is just enroute IFR with VFR at departure and arrival ends, and at the other end of the scale you can do everything that a CIR allows, except for a commercial operation.
I held one for many years, because of a couple of advantages - the machine I flew was the only one in country, and it was ridiculous trying to find a testing officer every year for the renewal - the PIFR lasts for 2 years.
The renewal was also categorised as a "Review", not a test, so if any sequence is not up to speed, it was repeated with instruction until satisfactory, rather than an instant fail and go home.
The PIFR copped flak because it wasn't recognised by ICAO, but now it just might be.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh My! The folks in Oz have been doing this horrid thing for almost two decades and there has not been mass mayhem and disaster as a result? However can that be I wonder?
Care to offer up an explanation for us TR?
Care to offer up an explanation for us TR?
BB
The PIFR has been available since 2000, and is explained in CAAP 5.13-1: Private IFR Rating.
It hasn't been taken up very much by the rotary fraternity, but is very popular amongst the starched wing mob. When I asked if my last CIR renewal could also be signed off as a PIFR I was firmly told that it would have to be a separate test: covering all that we would check on the CIR. The mind boggles
The PIFR has been available since 2000, and is explained in CAAP 5.13-1: Private IFR Rating.
It hasn't been taken up very much by the rotary fraternity, but is very popular amongst the starched wing mob. When I asked if my last CIR renewal could also be signed off as a PIFR I was firmly told that it would have to be a separate test: covering all that we would check on the CIR. The mind boggles
Tightgit
TR, only class A airspace, are there no professionals in class B, C, D etc?
I have always felt that the main reason that IIMC events tend to end really badly is because those pilots who get into those situations are so unused to actually being in IMC that they suffer all of the physiological problems we associate with IMC flight in a very short space of time. I think we all regard IF flying as a very perishable skill but I think that the experience of being in actual IMC is an even more perishable 'experience' (for want of a better word). Anything that enables a practising pilot whether professional or private, to not have to deal with the feeling of panic that must surely occur when they go inadvertent, can only be a good thing, surely?
It always occurred to me after I left my previous IFR role for the VFR role that I have had for the last 19 years, that when the cloud base is solid at 2 or 3 thousand feet, that would be a perfect opportunity to be able to experience actual conditions in a safe manner. I still feel that regular straight and level in IMC would do me far more good than an hour of climbing or descending turns 'under the hood'.
Finally, the idea that we shouldn't allow that sort of thing because pilots will always stretch the law is a similar line of thinking to the idea that WW1 pilots should not have been given parachutes because it might encourage them to bale out!
I appreciate that there ought to be a number of 'hurdles' before that could happen (training, aircraft fit, fuel planning, etc), but as a principle it ought to be encouraged.
I have always felt that the main reason that IIMC events tend to end really badly is because those pilots who get into those situations are so unused to actually being in IMC that they suffer all of the physiological problems we associate with IMC flight in a very short space of time. I think we all regard IF flying as a very perishable skill but I think that the experience of being in actual IMC is an even more perishable 'experience' (for want of a better word). Anything that enables a practising pilot whether professional or private, to not have to deal with the feeling of panic that must surely occur when they go inadvertent, can only be a good thing, surely?
It always occurred to me after I left my previous IFR role for the VFR role that I have had for the last 19 years, that when the cloud base is solid at 2 or 3 thousand feet, that would be a perfect opportunity to be able to experience actual conditions in a safe manner. I still feel that regular straight and level in IMC would do me far more good than an hour of climbing or descending turns 'under the hood'.
Finally, the idea that we shouldn't allow that sort of thing because pilots will always stretch the law is a similar line of thinking to the idea that WW1 pilots should not have been given parachutes because it might encourage them to bale out!
I appreciate that there ought to be a number of 'hurdles' before that could happen (training, aircraft fit, fuel planning, etc), but as a principle it ought to be encouraged.
As previously stated, the EIR appears to be for aeroplanes only. Converting an ICAO IR to a Part-FCL one has always been based on the recommendation of an ATO (but, in the UK - see CAP 804 Section 4 Part Q). No-one, for example, with few hours and an IR gained on a light single in benign conditions, is going to pass a Part-FCL ME IRT without considerable extra training. Whether you think it should be necessary or not, there can be little doubt that European (most states anyway) standards of instrument flying are among the highest in the world.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there can be little doubt that European (most states anyway) standards of instrument flying are among the highest in the world.
It is not the License/Rating that matters but the recency, currency, and proficiency that matters in the real World.
Jumping through a bunch of expensive hoops doesn't make one a capable instrument pilot six months later. Instrument flying skills are very perishable.
Planned Instrument flying is fairly safe, it is the IIMC events that kill folks even those with European Ratings.
...there can be little doubt that European (most states anyway) standards of instrument flying are among the highest in the world.
First thing I got when it came to converting my FAA to Euro was "Americans can't fly" and they showed me "their way".
Oh, dear!
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Under a grey cloud
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instrument procedures can be taught to a high standard in any country and any fw/rotary/sim/single/twin. The biggest difference comes when becoming proficient at IFR in the air. Actual IMC is entirely different to time on the hood/foggles, sim IFR time whilst helpful is absolutely no replacement for flight in IMC. You simply don't get the illusions to anywhere near the same degree, and can easily be lulled into a false sense of ability.
It matters little whether you are training in a single or twin for the IR so long as you are gaining experience flying IN IMC, and with the considerations of temperature/icing, turbulence, CB's, instrument errors (NDB's homing to nearest CB) etc... There are a few places that offer SE IR IN IMC, and the conversion to a ME IR is very easy. The only actual difference in the test is a single engine failed approach, and single engine go around. Thats all.
Back to the thread - it's good to see EASA being pragmatic and not just tightening everything up, but there is very limited application for an EIR in helicopters, in the UK anyway. How often are you going to be in conditions where you need to climb into cloud, and can guarantee that you'll find a safe cloud break without having to use an instrument let down (which you won't be allowed to do). And if you don't have to why would you want to (possibly without TCAS etc)? I don't accept the argument that it's safer than stooging low level because if the weather is bad enough to force you that low then it's almost certainly bad enough to prohibit your guarantee of breaking cloud at/above minimum enroute alt given the small ranges of most heli's. One exception - if you have a narrow ridge line to cross - but this will hardly keep you current and proficient. If you want to fly IFR do an IR and fly instrument procedures regularly, to my mind this is the only safe way ahead. The EIR is entirely different to the IMC rating, or IR(R) which does teach instrument approaches and absolutely makes it worthwhile. IFR enroute ONLY? No added safety in my opinion.
It matters little whether you are training in a single or twin for the IR so long as you are gaining experience flying IN IMC, and with the considerations of temperature/icing, turbulence, CB's, instrument errors (NDB's homing to nearest CB) etc... There are a few places that offer SE IR IN IMC, and the conversion to a ME IR is very easy. The only actual difference in the test is a single engine failed approach, and single engine go around. Thats all.
Back to the thread - it's good to see EASA being pragmatic and not just tightening everything up, but there is very limited application for an EIR in helicopters, in the UK anyway. How often are you going to be in conditions where you need to climb into cloud, and can guarantee that you'll find a safe cloud break without having to use an instrument let down (which you won't be allowed to do). And if you don't have to why would you want to (possibly without TCAS etc)? I don't accept the argument that it's safer than stooging low level because if the weather is bad enough to force you that low then it's almost certainly bad enough to prohibit your guarantee of breaking cloud at/above minimum enroute alt given the small ranges of most heli's. One exception - if you have a narrow ridge line to cross - but this will hardly keep you current and proficient. If you want to fly IFR do an IR and fly instrument procedures regularly, to my mind this is the only safe way ahead. The EIR is entirely different to the IMC rating, or IR(R) which does teach instrument approaches and absolutely makes it worthwhile. IFR enroute ONLY? No added safety in my opinion.
Tightgit
QTG, I can think of at least three recent accidents that leaves your assertion about instrument flying skills (in the UK anyway), open to question!
Whilst there is no immediate plan for either helicopter EIR or CB IR, part of the consultation process is/was to consider whether there was any merit in exploring the issue.
So (even though it will probably never happen for helicopters), I personally raise a glass to EASA for giving the whole thing positive consideration.
SARwannabee. Although in an ideal world everyone knocking around with an IR would be the gold standard, the IMC rating has served the private fixed wing community in the UK well for quite a few years. I can actually see the point in a 'professional version' of the IMC rating in my current role with the police. (Some bases are so far away from an airfield with an approach aid that pilots at those bases would be hard pressed to maintain the required number of approaches to keep a full IR current). However, I accept that such a thought is considered a bit heretical within our community.
Whilst there is no immediate plan for either helicopter EIR or CB IR, part of the consultation process is/was to consider whether there was any merit in exploring the issue.
So (even though it will probably never happen for helicopters), I personally raise a glass to EASA for giving the whole thing positive consideration.
SARwannabee. Although in an ideal world everyone knocking around with an IR would be the gold standard, the IMC rating has served the private fixed wing community in the UK well for quite a few years. I can actually see the point in a 'professional version' of the IMC rating in my current role with the police. (Some bases are so far away from an airfield with an approach aid that pilots at those bases would be hard pressed to maintain the required number of approaches to keep a full IR current). However, I accept that such a thought is considered a bit heretical within our community.
So... EIR is not all that practical for helicopters as far as transport from A to B goes, is it? After all, unlike FW, in a helicopter if it starts to close in you can much more easily stop, turn around or land just about anywhere if you need to and it is also safer and more practically to crawl along under it at 500' AGL if the conditions allow it?
But... it would allow for legally engaging in IMC flying for the purpose of up-skilling should one find oneself in IIMC?
But... it would allow for legally engaging in IMC flying for the purpose of up-skilling should one find oneself in IIMC?
Krypton:
So let me get this right - you are saying it would be good to use the qualification just incase one went IIMC?
So, one inadvertently enters cloud and then decides - hmmmm, I can practice flying in this now I'm here because I am legal? Fascinating....
Ohh I forgot the other dicotomy - When one has refreshed one's perishable skill to an appropriate level, does one then pop 'ou' of IIMC and continue with the trip or.......
Get to where one is going and then orbit until the rules change again allowing an EIR pilot to shoot an approach to recover?
So let me get this right - you are saying it would be good to use the qualification just incase one went IIMC?
So, one inadvertently enters cloud and then decides - hmmmm, I can practice flying in this now I'm here because I am legal? Fascinating....
Ohh I forgot the other dicotomy - When one has refreshed one's perishable skill to an appropriate level, does one then pop 'ou' of IIMC and continue with the trip or.......
Get to where one is going and then orbit until the rules change again allowing an EIR pilot to shoot an approach to recover?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Case Made?
In his own Mind perhaps but not in any other way.
I have to assume he only has the UK Rating and has no experience with other systems and has not flown with any Pilots other than his fellows.
His response is so typical of a few who attend here.
We have a saying over here in Bubba Land about such folk, "Teach a Brit to fly Today and Tomorrow he will tell You how to do it.".
In his own Mind perhaps but not in any other way.
I have to assume he only has the UK Rating and has no experience with other systems and has not flown with any Pilots other than his fellows.
His response is so typical of a few who attend here.
We have a saying over here in Bubba Land about such folk, "Teach a Brit to fly Today and Tomorrow he will tell You how to do it.".
I went quite some way along the IR route but stopped because I realised nobody was going to employ me to fly IR, that I would never afford to fly IR on my own account, and that I rarely wanted to go anywhere near anywhere with an instrument approach. However, I regret not one penny of the cost as the experience I believe made me a better and more cautious pilot.
I certainly don't think it would be any value in IIMC when my survival would like anyone else in an unstabilised ship be mere minutes. I do however worry about those who seem to believe extra training is bad.
EIR would be of value. I lose count of the number of times I have scurried across the channel when there has been good weather either side. The number of times when VFR on top would be far safer except for the lack of a hole big enough to get up there. And it is not that unusual to have low cloud over certain areas such as the Chilterns with VMC either side
Low cost autopilots are now a reality. The CAA objections whenever I have engaged them has been the risk of engine failure which doesn't meet the statistics. So if it is feasible and safe to allow some pilots to have additional training and additional equipment which could in some occasions extend their ability to fly safely, it is a rum do for us to argue over it
I certainly don't think it would be any value in IIMC when my survival would like anyone else in an unstabilised ship be mere minutes. I do however worry about those who seem to believe extra training is bad.
EIR would be of value. I lose count of the number of times I have scurried across the channel when there has been good weather either side. The number of times when VFR on top would be far safer except for the lack of a hole big enough to get up there. And it is not that unusual to have low cloud over certain areas such as the Chilterns with VMC either side
Low cost autopilots are now a reality. The CAA objections whenever I have engaged them has been the risk of engine failure which doesn't meet the statistics. So if it is feasible and safe to allow some pilots to have additional training and additional equipment which could in some occasions extend their ability to fly safely, it is a rum do for us to argue over it
Thread Starter
Homonculous . I totally agree with you . I also see exactly where TC is coming from as well . The problem is that one piece of clothing does not fit everyone ....you have to legislate to the lowest common denominator .
IF , and its a big IF , you could pick out the pilots who keep current and would be prepared to keep instrument flying current , possibly even have a 6 month quicky check ride ....then i think it would work fine . The moment some guy with 500 hrs and no idea uses his EIR to fly to a destination that is NOT forecast to be VFR , and then has to do a Radar let down etc etc it will all fall apart .
We all talk about how diffficult flying IMC in a non SAS machine is and how perishable the skill is .......well why not do something to make it a whole lot easier ??
When you see what model helicopters can do now with autopilot linked to satnav ( GPS ) ...ie get out of any attitude / weather and fly back to where they took off and land ..................it makes you wonder why we all fly with instrumentation that is out of the dark ages !!!! Why would that same technology not work on full size ....even if it just flew you back on a reciprocal heading and height ....?
I am hoping to do an experiment one day by getting a low hour ppl with NO instrument flying experience and put him into IMC and see how he flies using synthetic vision . If , and i suspect he will , he is able to fly a circuit just using that , and get out of unusual attitudes as well .....will that become an invaluable piece of equipment especially for vfr machines ??
Has anyone done this ?
IF , and its a big IF , you could pick out the pilots who keep current and would be prepared to keep instrument flying current , possibly even have a 6 month quicky check ride ....then i think it would work fine . The moment some guy with 500 hrs and no idea uses his EIR to fly to a destination that is NOT forecast to be VFR , and then has to do a Radar let down etc etc it will all fall apart .
We all talk about how diffficult flying IMC in a non SAS machine is and how perishable the skill is .......well why not do something to make it a whole lot easier ??
When you see what model helicopters can do now with autopilot linked to satnav ( GPS ) ...ie get out of any attitude / weather and fly back to where they took off and land ..................it makes you wonder why we all fly with instrumentation that is out of the dark ages !!!! Why would that same technology not work on full size ....even if it just flew you back on a reciprocal heading and height ....?
I am hoping to do an experiment one day by getting a low hour ppl with NO instrument flying experience and put him into IMC and see how he flies using synthetic vision . If , and i suspect he will , he is able to fly a circuit just using that , and get out of unusual attitudes as well .....will that become an invaluable piece of equipment especially for vfr machines ??
Has anyone done this ?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel,
Consider the USMC uses Kaman K-Max's to do underslung resupply flights in Afghanistan using pilotless aircraft. I am sure the cost of equipping the aircraft to carry out that tasking is substantial but as you point out, the technology to do it without Pilots exists so why should it not be feasible to do it with pilots monitoring the process.
I guess the big hurtle would be to find a way to keep the Pilot from interfering with the Auto Pilot system.
Consider the USMC uses Kaman K-Max's to do underslung resupply flights in Afghanistan using pilotless aircraft. I am sure the cost of equipping the aircraft to carry out that tasking is substantial but as you point out, the technology to do it without Pilots exists so why should it not be feasible to do it with pilots monitoring the process.
I guess the big hurtle would be to find a way to keep the Pilot from interfering with the Auto Pilot system.