Originally Posted by
Fl1ingfrog
The reason for EASA increasing the minimum hours of the respected world wide ICAO 40 hour IR course is beyond me. ICAO also allow credit from previous instrument training. The UK used to credit 10 hours of the IMC rating toward the 40. I understand that the FAA are even more generous.
I went IMCR --> FAA IR --> EASA IR; FAA basically were happy to count all my prior instruction and instrument flying towards the minimum, and only required that I pass the (extremely strenuous) checkride. EASA, actually, were also happy with my total IFR hours and that I held a current ICAO IR, so was able to simply present for a Skill Test (which I did, with a carefully structured 4˝hrs sim time and 7˝hrs training time shortly before until I and an instructor were both happy I was ready for it).
M'self, I'd abolish all minimum hours for every licence tomorrow, and load everything onto the skills tests. FAA is closer to that than EASA / CAA, but equally the USA now mandates 1500hrs to get an airline job.
People with a lot of hours are entitled to feel proud of that, especially if we flew them with an attitude of learning. But we're all of us only as good as our last flight, and only as provably good as our last skill test or checkride. And since that is the case, the requirement for minimum hours for almost any test just seems totally absurd to me. A sign-off as ready for test / minimum course content covered, and a test pass, should be everything.
(This goes both ways, minimum hours requirements leave some people believing that they are entitled to complete in those hours. Well, maybe some people will, many won't - and this does raise false expectations.)
G