Wow,
Thanks for the link. Its appears to be the relevant document.
Complicated is an understatement.
After reading it carefully, it strikes as a symptom of what can only be called "resistance to change".
Its that "resistance" that negates the value that could otherwise be obtained from the fundamental principles of
what an IPC means in the FAA system which is very different to the CASA application and all their conditions.
CAS place so many conditions that make it practically impossible unless its a large aircraft for which a simulator does not exist in Australia.
It is a "make work" project, to write a goobly gook document that effectively prevents an entire IPC being conducted overseas.
The practical reality is, its easier, to use an approved FTD in Australia for most of the approaches and then go do a single 3D approach in an Aircraft followed by a circling approach. That flight apparently can be in a Cessna 150 while the twin is on the FTD.
That is very different from the FAA or Canadian.
FAA is an IPC that can be in an economical simulator typically a Redbird.
Canada is more similar to Australia in that it is an IFR Renewal, no such thing yet in Canada as an IPC.
There is a large difference in philosophy of what an IPC is.
The FAA adopt a "recurrent training" attitude, to spend the time reviewing, and practicing while the Australian attitude is more of an examination on the ground and in the air.
There are significant and obvious problems with the Australian approach.
First it corrupts the entire concept of what an IPC is and basically its the OLD system disguised with a new name without any change in philosophy.,
In the Australian system, you can not have flown for 30 years and not have to sit the Instrument Written exam.
Also, you could once every two years, do an IPC, pass the Oral, do an IPC largely in a FTD.
That neatly avoids currency requirements etc.
The FAA have evolved a system that works very well, and its a symptom of CASA to refuse to change with the times.
The FAA use a great system of ongoing training. You can spend hours going through the online training and it CAN cover a lot more than just an Oral portion of a Part 61 Oral that can be learned by rote.
The FAA system on an IPC, uses it to explore a pilot's weaknesses and apply what the instructor thinks the pilot needs.
The Australian system fails to give the testing person that flexibility while
I'd assume that many would in fact apply a pragmatic approach while complying with the letter of part 61.
What CASA fail to comprehend is that overseas experience is valuable experience and while you can do renewals in Australia year after year,
if you do an IPC or a renewal in another country, it is probably going to cover areas that are not covered in Aus.
Right now, my car is cold soaked at -24, and had to use a hair dryer to unfreeze the cover to the gas tank, after a warm front went by with freezing rain that turned it into an ice block.
A newbi Australian pilot would have a high risk of driving into a snowbank in the simulator parking lot.
Last edited by Ramjet555; 8th Jan 2015 at 17:09.