In JARland we expect our 200 hr C152 and 50 hr SIM pilots to be capable of commanding a 747 as captain under instrument conditions? That is nuts, which is where the FAA 1500 hr ATP minimum and test (and as was the Norwegian system and I believe the UK system too in the old days) makes complete sense. Why not revert the EASA ATP back to that and get rid of this "frozen" ATPL nonsense.
I think (with respect) you've misunderstood the differences between the two. The JAA IR
is not the JAA world's equivalent of the FAA ATP checkride. The equivalent is the Type Rating in a Multipilot Aircraft (MPA TR) you need to get, after an MCC, in order to qualify for a JAA ATPL. It's pretty similar to the FAA system, where every Type Rating is done to ATP standards, but under the JAA there is no ATP checkride you can do in a light piston aircraft, but you can do your final ATP checkride (the MPA TR) before you qualify for the hours.
Our 200hrs C152 man has to pass a type rating on a 747 (amongst other things) before he can command one! The private and commercial routes diverge after the JAA IR, not before it.
This way we wouldn't have to have a gold plated JAA IR as the only option.
As tempting as it is to assume the JAA IR is the "ATPL gatekeeper" it simply isn't. The ATPL writtens, the 1500hrs and 500 multicrew and the MPA TR are the 'gatekeepers'.
Incidentally is it gold plated or not or just anal? On his test / 170A my mate had to "dead reckon" his way to ORTAC on some departure from Gurnsey despite having a fully functional G430 in the aeroplane. That is just plain stupid.
Neither. The "dead reckon" to ORTAC is just being practical if RNAV is not used. It's quicker than intercepting the radial from the GUR. The fact RNAV isn't used is more down to the schools than the CAA; many do not teach the use of GPS because it would add more workload to the course. The use of GPS and Autopilot are already perfectly acceptable in the JAA IR; it's just that single needle tracking of radio aids and hand flying also have to be demonstrated. So schools focus on the parts likely to catch students out, not the relatively easy parts.
My understanding is that from Jan 2010, there will be a change in policy from the CAA IR Examiners, to permit GPS approaches as the NPA on the IR and to reduce the single needle enroute and approach work. I saw a letter in an FTO and don't remember the details.
There is very little difference in content between the JAA and FAA IRs. There's a lot of difference in training processes and structure.
I calculated yesterday that for me to convert to the IR it would cost me £1000 for the ground school, and then abut £500 for the exams, plus the examiners fee of £700 - and that is before one bit of flying. Unless this changes then an IR will be no more accessible than it is now.
I doubt if anything is going to get materially more accessible than the already pretty reasonable FAA to JAA IR conversion. You don't need a formal course of ground training, you just sit the written exams for the costs you describe. Then its 10 Sim Hrs and 5 Aircraft hrs (or all in your own aircraft if you prefer) plus the exmaniner fee. What really hikes the cost is the 50hr initial course for people who don't have an ICAO IR; the relatively small number of FTOs around can also be very inconvenient.
Under EASA, the RF vs FTO distinction will disappear - they all become ATOs. The written exams will probably get cheaper and dragged into the late 20th century in terms of computer testing at independent test centres. All IREs, rather than just CAA ones, will be able to conduct initial IRs.
I still think the EIR is a sensible step forward, but ONLY if it includes a precision approach capability.
The problem is that you see it as an "EIR with precision approaches" and EASA will see it as an "IR without non-precision approaches" and conclude that course needs to be pretty much like the current IR with a few bits trimmed. They are not going to say "good lord, without NPAs we can make it a totally different training model". And if you are going to do all the exams and training and take the test, why not include the one NPA flown on the test and get a full IR?