Instrument Training Confusion

[oldrotorhead]

Can any one out there who is really familiar with CAO 40.2.1 answer this curly one on behalf of a colleague of mine? Before you all fire back at us with what you think the CAO should say or what you think the training requirements should actually be, could you try and give us a response on what the order actually does say at the moment and what the legalities are...
The scenario is this:
The man has a current CIR on aeroplanes and meets all the requirements of CAO 40.2.1 paras 7 and 8.
(Please note the aeronautical experience requirements at 8.3 which use the terms [which are defined elsewhere] of ""instrument flight time" and "dual instrument flight instruction time". Note also that the requirements at subpara (b) of para 8 specify that 20 hours of the 40 hours of "instrument flight time" must be on the category of aircraft for which the rating is sought;
ie. aeroplane or helicopter)
Now lets go to para 10 and consider the same man who is now looking to get his CIR on a helicopter. (You can assume that the helicopter he proposes to acquire "instrument flight time" in is an IFR machine in which he is endorsed.)
According to para 10.4.3, to do the CIR test in the helicopter, he must meet the requirements of paras 7 and 8 of the order(which he does) and then 1 of the subparagraphs...let's look simply at (c) which fits him to a "T"!
Now that surely leads him right back to para 8, and specifically 8.3(b) again and the only thing he now needs is the 20 hours of "instrument flight time" in the helicopter.
Now, if he already has done the requirements of sub para (d) in respect of the "dual instrument flight instruction time" how can it be said that the 20 hours of "instrument flight time" in the category of aircraft, etc (helicopter in this case) is actually "flying training" and therefore has to be done at an instrument flying school, etc, etc?? Surely it is simply "aeronautical experience" just as for example, the 50 hours cross country requirement at sub para (a) is?[and the night requirements at sub para (e).]
Anyway, what is the opinion of the industry please? We believe the order is written how it is without ambiguity, to allow a person to do just exactly what this guy proposes...however, CASA now are saying different; "nah.....if you need the 20 hours "instrument flight time", it is "Training" and must be done at the flight school and not simply under the hood with an appropriate safety pilot........."
Well actually, quite a few CASA FOI are agreeing with the proposition I have just made, but the licencing gurus are taking the opposite view.
What say you all??

[John Eacott]

ORH,

Totally agree with your interpretation. Who are you dealing with in CASA with the "training" variation? It may be worth going further up the food chain, or getting HAA/AOPA to lobby on your behalf, since opinions can vary throughout the "national" organisation ;)

Then again, I still have a frozen SCPL(A) due to varying CASA interpretations, but I can't be bothered to squabble over trivialities these days :p

[Twist & Shout]

Perhaps a lot of the current “interpretations” have been stirred up by a recent “open letter to Chief Pilots meetings” by an ATO.

This letter was full of “feelings”, opinions, and justifications for helping IFR training divisions remain commercially viable. (The owner of just such an establishment was thanked for “standing in” for the ATO at the forum).

Some of the more perplexing claims include that the holding a FW CIR should not reduce RW training and that a fail in the test would require the applicant to undergo “20 odd hours of remedial training before a retest”! A tragic NVFR crash was somehow linked to a lack of IFR competencies. Making Instrument ratings less accessible/more expensive won’t reduce NVFR crashes, quite the opposite.

It also includes the amazing statement that “It is not a fair cop to land the ATO with assessing competency…..” What is the test for?

This letter appears quite inappropriate and calls into question this ATOs impartiality.

[helmet fire]

oldrotorhead,

methinks you have asked for two things:
give us a response on what the order actually does say
and
what is the opinion of the industry please?

The order reads as it reads, but the question what does it say, and this is where "opinion" and "interpretation" run rampant.

I think that it may allow your case in one interpretation, and not in another. A literal interpretation may well get legs, but a look at the intent may change that outcome. Why would it be the intent of CASA to allow helicopter CIR candidates to be awarded the CIR without ANY dual instrument instruction time in helicopters? I am not sure this is the intended outcome of the order, and that is probably what has snagged you. Or your colleague.

Now the personal opinion: I believe that it would be a disservice to your colleague to rate him without some helicopter instruction within his learning background. I think the intent was that at some point he gets some instructional exposure, but I agree that the order does not entirely close this loophole out. We move into what is "legal" Vs what is "best practice". And as always, best practice is in the eye of the beholder, with 10 different answers from 10 different pilots.

good luck with the wrangle.

Twist & Shout, you sound a bit disenchanted, and I have no knowledge of the letter, but from the information you have posted, I cannot see a line between the ATO's concerns and his "impartiallity" as you call it. What do you mean? Does the ATO run a school and is trying to drum up business?

I think the real question you are poking around is: does the rating prove a competency or does certify a training level AND a competency? Can you just competency test people, or should we expect some minimum training first. Could we do a CPL H on a guy who has only flown a non motion sim plus 5 hours in the aircraft? What if he passes it? Intresting sides to this discussion hey?

[oldrotorhead]

Thanks for the replies...I don't think we are any the wiser as to the original query. I do believe the key issue here is "competency" however and it was never suggested in the original thread that any body get a rating without meeting the required standards and competencies. The appendices to the CAO are quite specific in this regard and without ambiguity at all in my view, even if they are not written in the current "CBT speak" which is gradually finding its way into all our syllabii. Also, I agree with Twist and Shout.... What's unfair about expecting an ATO to assess competency?......Sheeet, what else is there for him to do!
Anyhow at the end of the day, all we are trying to say is that we shouldn't ever have to resort to hiring a bloody lawyer to get an opinion as to what an order or reg really means; nor should we be forced into "just doing it" to force the regulator to take some kind of enforcement action to to make a court make the decision; nor should we be subject to arbitrary varying decisions from different sections and offices of CASA about the same thing....
it was ever thus, I know. Sorry.......

[tripletach]

I was in this same situation some years ago. Had a fixed wing CIR and need a helicopter one. Providing you meet the instructional requirements of the CAO's and can pass the test,(are competent) the rest of the 20hrs on category can be aeronautical experience.

I actually had helicopter copilot IF time which I used towards my fixed wing IR initially. I got my fixed wing CIR with 22 hrs instrument on FW, 2.2 sim, and the rest of the 40 hrs made up of helicopter IF. Then later got my helicopter CIR using FW hours.

Hope this helps.