Kharon, the Poms (bless their officious hearts) required all Instrument Rating Examiners to attend a two week standardisation course at the CAA facility at Stansted. During the course all wannabe IREs had to learn that the test had to be conducted to a uniform standard. Tolerances were strict and until the candidate could fly them himself (in an old Dove when I did it, but later I think they went to simulators) he did not get to the stage where he was required to assess others. The interpretation of 'sustained' error involved a stop watch, from what I recall. Holding patterns had to be four minutes plus or minus 20 seconds, speed and altitude deviations could not exceed so many knots/feet for more than three seconds etc. Well do I remember first day of the flying, when I went outside five degrees on an NDB approach for more than the prescribed time. The test was terminated by the candidate IRE and I was informed that I could no longer exercise the privileges of my Instrument Rating. Talk about double jeopardy!
As for the current dilemma for those needing the ATPL test, again we could take a lesson from the Kiwis. While their Part 61 suggests that the flight should be completed in a complex aircraft or simulator of greater than 5700 kg, it does allow the Director latitude to approve other types. Hence, something reasonably complex such as a King Air C90 could be tricked up to do the job. And in NZ, is.
Of course giving the Director some discretion in these matters assumes that the right person sits in such high office. One who listens to his minions but has the intestinal fortitude to overrule them when they are being unduly obstructive.....or just plain bloody minded.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 17th Dec 2014 at 20:22.