The great IR debate

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

Why have the CAA opted for the expensive IR route?
£25k for a Squirrel IR or a little less for a useless 206 rating?
Why have they made it so cost inhibitive to obtain a rating which could save lives?
The amount of bad weather heli accidents which occour could have been avoided if the pilots had proper IR training. The FAA allows it in suitably equiped SE pistons thus making it affordable to most pilots. Plank pilots are allowed to obtain the curiosity killed the cat IMC rating, which may do more harm than good. I have always found hood flying easier in a heli than a fixed wing.
Who are they protecting? The pilot flow and the training industry?
It seems to me as life is cheap at the CAA. Apart from auto flight systems, icing, built up areas etc, what are the true reasons for not allowing the cheaper option? It's better to have an IR than not to have it?

[helicopter-redeye]

cost inhibitive to obtain a rating which could save lives Not certain about that. Just because you have an IR does not make you 'current' and thus able to hand fly rotary in IMC.

On the wider and possibly intended subject of training for an IR in SE/ Piston then this would make a lot of sense and the JAA are probably being inflexible on this point.

I have heard a rumour of a Robinson development with a twin diesel in the back to give two engine capability for IR training, which would change the game in JAA-land for IR training for the ATPL(H).

The amount of bad weather heli accidents which occour could have been avoided if the pilots had proper IR training Hmmm

[Camp Freddie]

As i understand it the plank boys cant get an IMC rating with a JAR licence, only with a CAA licence and only for use in the UK, so that will die a slow death.

regards

CF

[Helibelly]

I was asked to cost out a JAA IFR course for a friend who felt it would help them get a job. 50 odd hours in a twin squirrel comes out at silly money, it was cheaper for them to get a PPL (A) then do their IR then convert it to rotory!!

[helicopter-redeye]

??? Why do you need to do the training in a twin? Why not just the type conv and test (plus some extra fam. training) ???

I thought the IR(H) was about £19K but 50+hrs would be nearer £30+

:confused: :{ :hmm: :uhoh: :\

[Hedski]

50 hrs: 20 in R22
20 in FNPT2
10 in whatever multi you want

Mine was completed as JAA IR within 21k +VAT including test etc.
Cheaper than any advertised, passed first go too!:D

Dig around and you'll do well. IR training on piston single is unrealistic, even FAA IR holders I know of agree. And FAA to JAA conversion usually costs more than I paid. Ask any North Sea operator about converting FAA IR to JAA and see what answer you get........... I speak from experience on this one!

The future in bright, the future is IR!:ok:

[paco]

I don't see why doing it in a single pistom is unrealistic - instruments is instruments, regardless of the platform, although there is a difference between heli and FW. I can also see the difference between doing it in a squirrel or a 206, but two engines has nothing to do with it! Looks like a classic case of FW people making the rules.

Phil

[[email protected]]

Is the R22 cleared in the RFM for instrument flight (ie in actual conditions) and does it have any form of icing clearance? If not then that is probably a good reason for not being able to train on it for an IR (simulating actual with a hood is not enough - you need to experience real IMC)

[Heli-Ice]

I'm with Paco on this.

IMO it doesn't matter what kind of thingy you fly during IR training, if its a box a plane or a rotary. You train the IR procedures first of all.

It makes no sense that the only way to get a rotary IR in most of the JAA countries is to get a twin IR. I can get an IR and well I have one on my PPL(A) SEP but cannot on a rotary. Why, I can't understand because there are a few single engine helicopters out there IFR certified. I know that it is possible according to the big book of JARs to do it the SE way but there are only a few JAA flight training organizations providing that kind of training.

I believe that those operators that operate multi-engine helicopters in IMC would appreciate their entry pilots to have at least gained and renewed their IR a few times, even on a single-engine, before throwing them into i.e. Super Puma IR training and all that comes with that.

The reaons people are trying to bring out here are about being able to get yourself an IR without having to worry about losing an arm and a leg for it. Get it on a single-engine first and if you don't get a job flying IFR in a twin then you should at least be able to renew your IR on a single and keep yourself current in the aircraft because that is what we need. Oh yeah, safety, thats also a part of this. It has been analysed that a contributing factor in many helicopter accidents are related to poor or no IR training amongst the pilots involved.

I think Paco is right, to many FW people making the rules.

Maybe I'm just plane stu... but this is my opinion.

Heli-Ice

[Helinut]

For once, I don't think it is fair to blame FW people or the JAA for the situation in the UK:

- You can get a SE FW IR, so if the normal "ull across" to heles applied we would have SE IR(H) in the UK. It cannot be used for PT, but that is another story.

- The JAA do not prohibit the use of SE for IR(H) trg. It is the combination of the JAA rules and the pre-existing CAA RW requirements that do it for us.

[Heli-Ice]

Yes, it is not fair to blame the FW lot, but it was so very convenient at the time. :D

- The JAA do not prohibit the use of SE for IR(H) trg.

So true.

But of course the relevant training helicopter has to be certified for flight in IMC, IFR certified. That means some type of turbine helicopter=expensive stuff. It makes no sense to me that it costs more to get an IR(H) than it is to get the CPL(H) the JAA way.

That is what the heli training market is confronted with, expensive aircraft for basic IR training resulting in fewer pilots going IR.

I think that the CAA will have no problem with building a regulatory frame around IR heli training in single-engine piston helicopters not certified for flight in IMC, at least they have come up with all kind of good reg's for us and I have a strong belief in them. This is how it was done just a few years ago and I can't see why it can't be done anymore?

Heli-Ice

[Droopystop]

I don't think there is any harm in doing some of the flying in a light piston. Just to get the hang of holds and the procedures. However you should be able to do basic instrument flying before you start the IR. You must be able to fly straight and level and execute coordinated turns without having to work too hard. After all the instrument rating is more about aircraft management rather than handling. I agree that at some point in the course you should be exposed to hard IMC and that means Bristow's 206 or a small twin. Being a graduate of the Bristow's school I am biased towards doing the single IR and then doing a multi upgrade once the twin type rating has been done. I believe this used to be reflected by the IR pass rate, although that was some time ago.

However I think the major point is the availability of a Stab system. I believe a SAS would make the IR so much easier than in a floppy stick machine and is more important than the one engine or two issue.

[Genghis the Engineer]

As i understand it the plank boys cant get an IMC rating with a JAR licence, only with a CAA licence and only for use in the UK, so that will die a slow death.
You can add it onto a JAR licence, but it only permits IMC flight in UK airspace, and then only for private flying, not commercial. Basically it's a cheap get out of gaol card for PPLs who can't afford £20k for an IR, but need to cope with the realities of British weather (the IMC course typically costs about £1.5-2k).

However, it does modify the pilot's IFR minima, so it will allow a pilot to legally fly VFR in much poorer visibility than without, even outside UK airspace. That however is unlikely to apply to you rotary chappies anyhow.

G

[Simon853]

I'm planning to do the FAA IR(H) on top of my JAA CPL(H) (including FAA CPL(H) at HAI.) I know it's not worth anything over here in the UK, but the way I see it, I'll be safer, and it may put me up the ladder a step if I want to apply for a North Sea job that would involve them having to assess whether I'm worth sponsoring to do the JAA IR, i.e. potentially lower training risk.

Si

[paco]

Well, I did my Canadian IR on a 206, non-IMC with an examiner who didn't let me get away with anything and as far as I am concerned it's just as valid an IR as anything else on the market.

Phil

[Lightning_Boy]

Hedski, why would you say its more expensive to convert an FAA IR to a JAA IR, than taking the JAA IR from fresh? Why is taking your IR in a single piston unrealistic? Surely the clouds are still the same and the approaches havent changed??

[IHL]

Interesting thread.
In Canada there is only 1 helicopter IR.
One can do it all in a Robbie or Bell 206, there is no twin requirement. The only twin IFR requirement is for the issuance of an ATP-H.

Most people over here do about 20 hours IPT, 20 hours in a Cessna 172 type aeroplane
And do another 5 hours in a Bell 206 and then to an IFR ride.

The Bell 206 is not approved for IFR in Canada because most of them are not equipped with SAS. Therefore if you can demonstrate that you can fly IFR in an aircraft that doesn’t meet the stability requirements then in theory flying a real IFR helicopter shouldn’t be a problem.

In reality the initial IR is just to get the job, anywhere you got to fly IFR for real will require a PPC on a Twin and a PPC is an IFR ride; plus you will be spending quite a bit of time as an FO.

I don’t understand the pre-occupation in Europe with the twin IFR helicopter rating. It must be a throw back to fixed wing where an engine failure while intercepting the LOC can be a handful with the asymmetric thrust, and feathering the {wrong} prop to deal with. That same scenario in a Twin helicopter is no big panic.

When I did IR training(for type rating) I preferred a candidate with an IR on an aeroplane twin than a candidate with an IR helicopter done on a Bell 206. The reason, simply; they were better and it made my job easier.

If I was running the helicopter world it wouldn’t matter what you did your IR on whether it be a single aeroplane or twin helicopter, the PPC is still the catch all for standards.

[Hedski]

What piston single will come down the ILS at 100kts?
What piston single can fly IMC in training legally?
What piston single has SAS or an autopilot so you can manage taking down the weather etc.
What single will let you practise an IMC engine failure on the go-around and on finals during either an NDB approach or an ILS approach?
For flying a twin, which is what you need for real world IR then these things must be practised in training, it becomes a handful very quickly up there.
I know of one person who did FAA IR and FAA IRI (CFII) and still decided to do the entire JAA course as he needed to. Also another who had been using his FAA IR on twin but required significantly more than anticipated to pass JAA test. When it comes to something as dangerous as IMC IR those looking to make it as easy and cheap as possible should stop and think. I did my research beforehand too: Bristow North Sea said they would not employ me with FAA IR and try to convert it as the last time they tried their students had to do the full SE IR course at Norwich to make the grade. CHC had to convert some FAA IR's recently and ended up letting some people go as they couldn't manage to make it either, so no go there. Finally Bond just said "we will not give you a job if you have an FAA IR" and also said they would not attempt to convert it. So regardless of opinions if you want a job like that, a great IR breeding ground as you could still kill yourself if you blast off onshore straight away, then do as they ask.
Having done the full JAA course I would reccomend it, its tough for a reason. IMHO :}

[flyer43]

Hedski has encapsulated it all VERY well !!

[Hedski]

Beware that I'm not attempting to preach as a master of the guild of IR but I did pass recently and received a job offer within 9 days!
Now, wheres my banana? :p

[blithe]

Sigh...FAA bashing again...

I agree with Lightning_Boy. There's a lot of unfair dispersions cast on the FAA IR (and the FAA licences), if you go to a decent school in the USA the IR will be bloody hard.

You don't "convert" an FAA IR to a JAA one. Having an FAA IR cuts the minimum training hours down to 20 (I think, please correct me if I am wrong). That's all.

Having an FAA IR will no doubt make the JAA IR easier and probably slightly cheaper.

Of course you are not going to get a North Sea job with just an FAA IR. The North Sea is in Europe. The employers have the luxury of asking for what qualifications/hours they want from people, as there are tons of people who want to fly the rigs, but only about 10 jobs per year. If more people paid for their S-61 type rating, then the employers would also ask for that too.

I have spoken to people who have done both FAA IR and the JAA IR, they all say that the flying/procedures is pretty much the same, except in the JAR IR you have to learn how to fly a turbine with a stabilisation/autopilot system.

[Rotorbee]

Yes ... sigh
It is not possible to compare the to worlds just based on the requirements of the training. In the FAA world, you will NOT get a job on an IR-ship with 200 hours. No way, because almost all IR helos will fly for a 135 operation and there are a lot of requirements in that part of the FAR's. For example, you need 500 h minimum. And there is the FOM and so on.
The JAA world still fails to show that they have a signifficant lower accident rate in IFR operations. Some contries don't even have statistics anymore - but still accidents. I wonder why.

The FAA has a rulemaking philosophy that is different from the european one. And without knowing that, you can not compare the two. "On the job training" is more important in the FAA world. First you learn the basics and then you go out in the field and learn. Every examiner I had always told me after passing the test that now I can begin to learn.
Leave the FAA alone, they are way more friendly and helpfull than anybody in europe I met and I think they do a lot better job then any rulemaking body over here.

[Hedski]

Blithe, I don't usually quote myself but:

I know of one person who did FAA IR and FAA IRI (CFII) and still decided to do the entire JAA course as he needed to. Also another who had been using his FAA IR on twin but required significantly more than anticipated to pass JAA test.

Having an FAA IR cuts the minimum training to 15 hours, some of which must be in twin so wheres this wonderful saving? My first 40 hours were done for less than the cost of going to US for 4 weeks and getting an FAA IR. I completed my total course for STG 21.5k +VAT including all test fees. FAA IR and the multi part would have cost more, and thats if I managed to get to the JAA standard in the minimum, which recently several excellent piots with a lot more experience have failed to do as mentioned above! Everyone assumes that having another IR will automatically bring your training required to the min, rarely the case.

Why do the FAA allow you to learn in machines that don't have SAS/Autopilot? If you are going to fly IR then you must be trained in such abilities.

And I agree totally with R'bee, passing the IR is a licence to learn, not go off on your own straight away in an onshore twin. People have died that way. This was the first thing said to me by my examiner after being told I passed. Not sure where these JAA IR accidents are though? Not heard of many recently.

All IMHO.


:8 :8 :8

[Lightning_Boy]

What piston single will come down the ILS at 100kts?
What piston single can fly IMC in training legally?
What piston single has SAS or an autopilot so you can manage taking down the weather etc.
What single will let you practise an IMC engine failure on the go-around and on finals during either an NDB approach or an ILS approach?

I still can't see what difference it makes?

Why do you need to fly the ILS at 100kts?
Why do you need to be in IMC to train? Whats wrong with the hood and the blackouts?
Why worry about having a SAS when your only training, use the instructor/examiner as autopilot.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I still cant see how using a twin IFR ship can change procedures or weather etc?

I'm rated as FAA IR, still had to do all the ILS, VOR, NDB, GPS approaches, holding intercepting and tracking etc.

Check-ride consisted of examiner pulling AI, HSI, GPS, DME all in one go, telling me (aswell as carrying out the usual manouvers) I had to hold due to airport problems, cleared me for FULL ILS approach (including a procedure turn) using only HSI needle, whiskey compass and marker beacons, then telling me we had lost radio communication.

After all is said and done, if (when I sat the check-ride) I had done this in a twin IR ship as apposed to a H269, would that have made me a better IFR pilot?? I'm not talking about experience, I mean pound for pound, fresh IR pilots???

Would the fact that (if) I had a twin rating, but still chose to do the IR in a H269 due to the fact I was paying for it myself make a difference?

At the end of the day, I still cannot see any real difference it makes!

Nothing further your honour.

LB

[Stuart Hughes]

HEDSKI

Could you enlighten everyone as to where you did your IR training? :ok:

[Rotorbee]

If you want to fly IFR for a living, take a plank.
Real helicopter pilots fly longline or in the bush where no ATC exists. :E

[Droopystop]

RB,


Real helicopter pilots fly longline or in the bush where no ATC exists.

Or SAR down to 40' IFR. But then again you would need an IR for that.

[Hedski]

That'd be Cabair then, combined with A109 for the multi. Ever so smooth!! :cool:

[Stuart Hughes]

Thanks HEDSKI, at least one satisfied customer who also worked hard to achieve his goal. Good luck with the project you are involved with.

Cabair 11

[Rotorbee]

Or SAR down to 40' IFR. But then again you would need an IR for that.
Just to get there, but the autopilot could do that, too. But winching people up and down a ship in heavy sea requires VFR flying skills. Except if you have autohover.
But to set a 300 feet tower on a 8000 feet mountain, IFR skills do not help you a lot.

[paco]

I beg to differ slightly - IFR skills give you the ability to assimilate a lot of information in a short time, very useful when towing the EM bird at exactly 100 feet over ground!

Phil

[norunway]

Would you possibly be able to give details about where you trained for your jaa ir.I have priced with several companies and all are in the region of 35k.Any help much appreciated!:ok:

[flyer43]

Lightning_Boy

I still can't see what difference it makes?

Why do you need to fly the ILS at 100kts?
Why do you need to be in IMC to train? Whats wrong with the hood and the blackouts?
Why worry about having a SAS when your only training, use the instructor/examiner as autopilot.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I still cant see how using a twin IFR ship can change procedures or weather etc?

You really are missing something, in fact rather a lot. There is a whole world of difference between paddling around with a training hood on in a single engine without stab kit and flying in real IFR in controlled airspace in a twin when one donk stops during the hold and you are still expected to maintain the flight within the required parameters while dealing with it. If you are flying an instrument approach into a real airport, they are not going to be too impressed if you want to fly the whole thing at 60kts cos that is all you are used to!! They've got big plankwing jobs to handle at the same time, all of them wasting fuel and patience in differing amounts while you bumble along...... And as for using the instructor/examiner as the autopilot???
Get real!!

[Lightning_Boy]

OK flyer43,

Before you start telling me about real flying and what its really like to be in the soup as apposed to flying under the hood, I think YOUR missing the point I am trying to make!!

My arguement is, if a pilot is flying a "real helicopter" for a living and has done so for many years, then decided he wanted to take his Instrument rating to further his career and make himself a safer pilot, but....has to pay for the rating himself....does it make him less of a pilot than YOU because he did his check-ride in a piston helicopter to save himself money???? This guy may have done his check-ride years ago and have since flown 1000's of hours in IMC since, but alas he did do his training in a piston with no SAS.

I am not taking about experience of flying IMC, (two newbies holding a fresh IR are as inexperienced as each other regardless of what they fly) I am talking about the JAA rules and regs as apposed to the FAA. All procedures and test requirements are the same with the exception of the type of aircraft you can sit it in.

So before we start getting into a "who's got the biggest dick contest", you obviously think I'm thicker than a canteen mug for not understanding why you are a better pilot for taking your IR check-ride in a twin rather than a piston..Please educate me and tell me (only for the puposes of training) why it is more beneficial to pay four times the amount to do it your way.

As an after thought, would you agree there would be more instrument rated pilots in the UK if it could be done at a price most people could afford, instead of keeping IR safety out of the price range of most helicopter pilots?

LB

[s76_man]

I agree, for a newly qualified IR pilot, it makes no difference if you did the training in an piston single or a twin turbine. The procedures and knowledge are exactly the same.

It's just a case of the JAA being a rip-off, as usual.

[IHL]

Reality Check Guys/Gals.

Nobody is going to get a job as a Captain in an IFR helicopter operation upon completion of an IR, no matter where its done.

To become an IFR captain takes experience ; experience gained under the supervision of an experienced IFR captain.

Whether a candidate does his initial IR in a piston, turbine , or twin is irrelevant, the candidate will still have to get a PPC on Type.

This whole thing of engine failures in a twin helicopter is over-rated when airspeed is > than VTOSS. There is no assymetric thrust to deal with as in a plank, all you have to do is: maintain control, power within limits, run the memory items and call for the check list.

An engine failure on an ILS does not even require a change in collective setting. The old mantra applies: aviate , navigate communicate.

[GLSNightPilot]

If you can fly without any SAS or other augmentation, then you can fly with one. An engine failure in a twin is an annoyance, no more than that. My original IR was in a TH13, and then some years in a UH1, neither of which had any augmentation at all, and it's certainly not impossible to fly either in IMC. I now fly an S76, and it's a piece of cake in comparison. When the check pilot pulls an engine, all I do is check the torque to make sure it's below OEI (and it always is), beep up the Nr, and call for the checklist. It makes no real difference where the engine fails, it's the same drill. If it fails on the ILS, as IHL said, it's really a non-event, you just have to call for the checklist somewhere along the line. An engine failue in IMC in a single is a little more challenging. I've been given engine failures under the hood in singles, and that requires some airmanship to get all the needles where they need to be.

You can argue the superiority of training in twins all you like, but I'll never believe it.

[flyer43]

Lightning_boy

Calm down, you missed my real point, as have a number of other learned gentlemen. I'm not saying that I'm a better pilot, IF or otherwise, than you or anybody else for that matter. OK, so maybe I did blow up the bit about handling an engine failure for real etc,but I was just trying to put across the point that unless you have sufficient experience, and that includes appropriate training, in handling twins you shouldn't be flying real IFR in any case. The bit about airspeed still applies though!:hmm:
Training on any type of flying machine is very valuable, but you need to have relevant training and experience before you are let loose.

IHL has got it in perspective To become an IFR captain takes experience ; experience gained under the supervision of an experienced IFR captain. Whether a candidate does his initial IR in a piston, turbine , or twin is irrelevant, the candidate will still have to get a PPC on Type.


Getting your rating on type will be the expensive bit of course......

[Aser]

Paying for an IR in a twin it's stupid.
It makes no sense.
But, here comes the JAA guys...

Flyer43 I'm sure you get the point with GLSNightPilot , IHL comments.

I'm a new guy with an IR in a 206.
Recently I've done my 412 check ride , and yes, a single engine failure on the ILS it's a piece of cake, the real important it's fly the basics (in case you don't use the autopilot)
You are not going to be hired as PIC in a ir-twin just because you have done an ir course in a twin, it's just crazy.

We all just need training by the companies to handle a twin, then a job as SPIC to gain the experience :ok:

[flyer43]

OK, let's try looking at things from a different perspective - that of the operator.
We all agree that getting a full IR costs a whole lot of cash. Some of us can also agree that instrument training of any sort should be given credit. But there is no escaping the requirement to have sufficient training and experience on a twin before you can eventually move up the exhalted ranks.
An operator taking on a newbie with an IR gained on a single, be it piston or turbine, has to commit a large amount of its own cash into training the pilot to the relevant level, including paying for the rating etc. What promise has the operator got that said newbie will thank them by taking his newly gained rating and chasing after a job with the operator he really wanted to work for?
Some operators have "cadetship" schemes in place whereby they take a no time, or low fixed-wing time pilot and pay for him/her to go through training at a preferred school. There is normally a tough selection process with a high attrition rate, the succesful pilots invariably having to sign a penalty clause which ties them to the company for a number of years. Early departure requires a pro-rata payback of all training costs.
When these pilots complete the initial CPL(H), the operator already knows the standards applied during training. Conversion onto a multi-engine type usually takes place at the operators own TRTO school. More time and/or money gets added to the penalty clause.......

Maybe you should try selling yourself to an operator with the proviso that you will pay back training costs in kind. Too many guys are out there looking for a quick and cheap way to feather their nests before moving on. Give the employer something to put their faith in and maybe things might change.........or maybe they wont. But it might be worth a try!

[Aser]

An operator taking on a newbie with an IR gained on a single, be it piston or turbine, has to commit a large amount of its own cash into training the pilot to the relevant level, including paying for the rating etc. What promise has the operator got that said newbie will thank them by taking his newly gained rating and chasing after a job with the operator he really wanted to work for?
Oh my god! Are you saying that it's too risky for the operator or what?
They have the money not me! What are you suggesting? that we must pay whatever kind of type rating to get a job?
You can't be serius about that...
It's their problem not mine.If they want a pilot pay for it and take care of him or whatever clause to not lose him.
But.. wait a minute , it's the JAA setting the new training standards (ir in twins) or the operators...???
The only thing I know for sure it's that I'm not going to pay a f***** euro/dollar more than I paid for my cpl/ir(on single)
Hey, maybe I'm the luckiest guy in the world but I have a fresh bell 412 type rating right after the school and waiting to start as copilot in a few weeks.
I dont' mind if I have to sign a clause about time in the company or pay back.
IT'S THE ONLY WAY => you pay your intial training and they pay for the type rating and training

I hope not to be the only new guy thinking this way... :yuk:

Best regards.
Aser

[flyer43]

Although I sympathise, and mostly agree with your sentiments, the scene has been set by some of your predecesors who were looking to hitch a "free" jump up the ladder.
Operators do indeed have the money available, or at least some of them! But they don't want to hand it out unless they are sure of what they are handing it out for, or, more to the point, who they are handing it out to.

[212man]

I think you'll find that the JARs don't require you to train on a twin. It's the national regulations about flying IFR that cause the problem.