En Route Instrument Rating

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Interested in comments from other instructors about this course.
I am yet to be convinced that anyone should be allowed to fly in IMC if they are not competant and current on instrument approaches.
Perhaps something similar to the UK IMC rating would be more appropriate?
_________________________
Charlie Fox

------------------

[CHICKENTRAINER]

I am not familiar with the UK IR you mentioned, I can only agree with your sentiments. One is either instrument rated or one isn't.

I have no doubt that if the enroute rating comes in, some one will come unstuck ... badly.

------------------
ChickenTrainer

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Chookie,
(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, it was 10 years ago I got this rating.)
The IMC rating allows you to fly IFR outside controlled airspace (class A?) and do instrument approaches, but with higher DH and MDH than someone with an IR. The trouble is as I recall that the only currency requirement is a renewal every 25 months, a bit of a worry...
It was a very handy rating to have when instructing in the UK climate, but essential that you knew your limitations.

[Hot Section]

I'm glad I'm not going to have to contend with teaching these enroute instrument ratings as its hard enough getting people who are keen enough to want the real thing (CIR), and I've just got a job which takes me out of instructing which I've enjoyed for the last 10 years.

At my last Grade 1 renewal with CASA, when I attended a workshop (required by CASA South Eastern Region)also in attendance was a CASA person from CB who was also renewing his rating. He was paramount in the introduction of this rating and a few other strange ideas, his way of thinging was that,

1/ The enroute rating would stop the VFR scud runner (and therefore associated accidents) because he/she could legally fly in the soup.

My thoughts (and questions)

1/ Its hard enough staying IF current when you're doing it all the time, how is the weekend warrior going to stay current - I don't think they will.

2/ Renewal by a EIR BFR (every 2 years), hardly enough, and who is going to police this, too easy to just do a VFR and then blast out IFR.

3/ Remain VFR untill above MSA/LSALT - good luk on a sh*tty day or at night.

4/ Not permitted to conduct Instrument Approaches - gee look how bad this wx is, I'll just try this approach it cant be that hard, but I wont use the radio, that way nobody will know what I'm doing.

Its difficult enough training an IFR canditate to use the radio and procedures correctly to maitain situational awareness and the like, yet we now try and do it at reduced time and money to acheive the same level of safety :-<

I think I've said enough.

And by the way, this CASA person also suggested we do away with flight tests as the candidates are under too much pressure and therefore cant perform properly :-O

[CHICKENTRAINER]

Why don't we just contract Kellogs to put a licence and CIR in every cereal pack. Problem solved! http://pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/wink.gif

------------------
ChickenTrainer

[Hugh Jarse]

I agree with Hot Section's comments.

All this is going to do is put the scuddies (usually rather inexperienced) up into busy en-route airspace and create more problems for themselves and other users.

I reckon this is a cop-out by CASA. IMHO they are just acknowledging what SOME pilots are now doing and are attempting to legitimise an activity that could be described as a gamble at best.

Past experience (mine) has shown that when flying the East coast, if the Wx is suss enroute, then it's usually the same at the destination. Notable exception is SOMETIMES crossing the Great Divide heading west. Even then you can get caught out!

CFI, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the rating you wrote about the old "Class 3" here in OZ? I remember NVFR was the "Class 4"

This proposed rating is like teaching someone all the flight sequences for a PPL, and then saying "We won't worry about learning how to land - there's a very good chance you'll never need to use it!"

I don't know what can be done about VFR pilots (I won't say PPL's) scud running and getting into strife. We train them in low-level nav (or used to - my grade 1 lapsed about 3 years ago, so I'm a little out of touch with the syllabus), perhaps more emphasis needs to be placed on that?

Maybe an element on low-vis operations could be included in the PPL syllabus.

You can change the rules all you like, but regardless of that, there will always be people prepared to take an extra risk. Don't 'legalise' it.



------------------
Dick Smith, before Smith dicks you!

[This message has been edited by Hugh Jarse (edited 13 February 1999).]

[redsnail]

Don't like it, don't like it at all. For all the reasons you all have put up. Currency, recency, checks.
How oten is the wx forecast exactly as stated? Maybe in the desert in the dry season, but during the wet season or any where on the East coast? Come on, they are asking for trouble!

------------------
reddo

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Huge, I dunno about the Class Three as I only came to Aus in 1993 and it was gone by then. I was referring to the UK IMC Rating but I believe they were very similar.

Agree with Redsnail, generally if its not VFR in the training area or around the navex routes, its pretty marginal if not IMC at Jandakot as well in the rainy months.

Better to teach the student to make the command decision not to go if there is a chance of not remaining VMC for the entire flight. Worst case...well precautionary landing and slow safe cruise at low level is still in our syllabus.

[Capt Claret]

I've lostcount of the number of times I've planned @ FL210 above the forecast tops, ended up @FL250 still in the soup and had to commence an un forecast instrument letdow at the other end.

An en-route instrument rating is a recipe for disaster. Not just for the pilot who pushes on or is suckered into a bad decision, but also for other airspace users.

If you've got an instrument rating, it needs to be the whole nine yards and tested at least every year.

------------------
bottums up

[Deputy]

Some years ago I heard about the proposed change to requirments and read through and replied to the NPRM covering it.

Some points of interest particularly in the rationale behind the changes were given:

1. It was to be used as a stepping stone from VFR to IFR.

and

2. That primarily it was envisaged that CPL candidates would be the ones to use it.

It was my concern that it would be the scud running type (who by nature bend the rules) who would be primarily attracted to this 'cheapie' CIR.

I have seen nothing to change my view so far.
If you want a CIR, you'll get it, and not go only half way with the enroute and then upgrade later. Also holders of this enroute rating were not going to be called on to demonstrate the flying skill required to exercise the privileges of the rating at any subsequent BFR or test!!!!
Makes you wonder a bit.

[Deputy]

While going for a little surf today, I found that the NPRM for the EIR is still seeking public opinion.
So for everyone with an opinion I suggest strongly replying to CASA's call for comment. It is interesting to see some of the justifications. I stand corrected on the fact that this 'rating' is designed for private ops and can be subject to checking during the BFR.
It is on CASA's homepage

go get it

[Deputy]

BTW, you have until the 28th of Feb to get your answers in

[Luftwaffle]

For comparison:

Canada has a VFR over-the-top rating that allows non-I/R pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground, at least 1000' vertically from cloud, with five miles visibility. If between cloud layers, the layers must be at least 5000' apart. Forecast weather at the destination must be free of obscuring phenomenon for an hour before and two to three hours (depending on the type of forecast) after ETA.

Personally I think going for the full-blown instrument rating is the way to go.

[GCA]

We are all forgetting the basics. The weather conditions in this country are not comparable with others mentioned in this discussion. Therefore to enable a pilot the privilige to legally fly in cloud he/she should have to contend with the full CIR.
In those parts of the country were VMC prevails use the current NVMC or Class 4.
In the east here where a forecast is nearly always incorrect it is only a recipe for disastor. Refer to latest APAS ref forecasts at YSCB.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Just bringinr this back up to the top.

------------------

[Roger Greendeck]

It is probably stating the obvious, but if you have the cloud above MEA+500' can't you fly VFR? If you are scud running then the WX wont be suitable under the new scheme. As stated above there is the exception, sometimes, when crossing the great divde going west but I don't think that is reason for a whole new class of IR.

In my experience on seveeral helos very short of navaids but IFR capable the worse the Wx the more likely we were to fly VFR as we could not meet the arrival approach requirments. I don't think this will be any different in a light aircraft, helo VMC notwithstanding.

The argument that you will stop people breaking the rules with this new IR smacks of situating the appreciation.

------------------
No matter how cynical I become, I find it is never enough.

[Flyspray]

Well said the lot of you.
Keep this on top until some sense is achieved.
Has anyone got the email of the Minister and Shadow Minister.Anderson/Curnow. The above should be posted to them.
Maybe they will ask a few sticky questions.

[Meeb]

Yes CFI, you are correct with your thought regarding the IMC rating. But also, an IMC holder is not permitted to conduct an intrument approach at an airfield which is notified as Schedule 8 of the ANO. This means that major airports like MAN, GLA etc are out for these PPL's. The IMC is popular in the UK due to the high cost of obtaining an IR, but now this rating is being replaced with the IWR (I think).

As regards Australia, the CIR is not that expensive to get due to the lower cost of training, and only one exam, so I agree totaly with the others and say forget it, encourge the CIR for PPL's.

[Roller Merlin]

This rating appears largely to be a "stepping stone" for budding pilots who are low on cash, and weekend flyers who can't justify the CIR cost and recency requirements. It gets them to where they want to go when the weather is a bit dodgy. So basically it is a response to amateur pilots demands for a $ saving rating.

But do these amateur pilots all have the background / training / exposure /skills / attitudes / knowledge of hazards.....etc to analyse all the weather/ icing / alternate /lighting / notam /fuel /charts/ planning...etc factors necessary to SAFELY utilise such a rating? Can they realisically and fully adhere to all limitations in a real world situation? What happens when they get into the gloop and cant get down at LSALT? 500ft above LSALT is a nonsense safety margin as all IFR pilots know, and Joe Lighty is going to develop a great sense of press-on-itis under such conditions. On the scale of "risk Versus advantages", how many incidents will this one be worth. "Have GPS+EIR: will travel".... makes me shudder.

Obviously I don't agree with it "as is".

[Slasher]

In theory the enroute stuff is fine. The snag is the fact theres no instrument letdown at the other end. This will very predictably lead to a few Maydays coming out of jockeys who got through the Kilmore Gap muck but unable to regain VMC. A decent prang in Pascoe Vale or Mentone by a panicky desperado will cause CASA to start wondering what went wrong with the Grand Plan. Ive yet to see any TAFOR 100% accurate. Only a fool believes in one.
As any IFR pilot knows, any monkey can fly through cloud straight and level. The real test is getting down through the gunk in one piece if the destination is gunked in, wether forecast gunky or not.
CASA and its equally silly predecessors do not read all the old crash comics like we do, so you cant expect them to think in terms of hindsight nor of the hard lessons learnt. As usual they have to learn the hard way.

[4dogs]

Folks,

Slasher's last comment apparently caused a few whinces in pain from a few CASA FOIs that I deal with in the course of my business. Seems that the EIR has about as much support within the FOI community as the Class 'G' Trial had - but they didn't get told to resign this time.

Seems there is a growing gulf between the path of CASA management and what is left of the FOIs. Best to reflect on which fox was put in charge of the hen house and how many little vixens remain in Canberra to carry on the good work. And I believe that there is no corporate courage to undo these "initiatives".

"Dicking" Smith may well prove to be an irrelevant response to his "What condom?"

------------------
Stay Alive,
[email protected]