JAA IR(A) Reqt's being reviewed for PPLs

[RVR800]

IR(A) Being Reviewed (updated)
http://www.iaopa-eur.org/wstore/con...?detail=1001705

JAA Reviews Instrument Rating Requirements

JAA is now setting up a working group to undertake a full review of the IR(A), with particular reference to the theoretical knowledge requirements and testing. JAA has recognised that the current requirements for the JAA Instrument Rating are "over the top", and in practice unobtainable for a private pilot.

IAOPA Europe recently pointed out to JAA that the current situation is highly undesirable, since virtually no Instrument Ratings are issued to holders of PPL licenses.

Clearly, this is not in the interest of safety. Accident statistics prove that a large majority of GA accidents in Europe are weather related, and therefore, it follows that a private pilot holding an instrument rating will always be a safer pilot.

On this background, IAOPA higly support the new initiative from JAA, and will be participating actively in the review of the current requirements

> well only 20 PPL/IRS issued in 2004 out of 60,000 pilots is a tad low.....

[BEagle]

Yes, this is true.

2 main strands:

1. Reduced theoretical knowledge requirements - it is intended that much will be transferred to the CPL(A)/ATPL(A) syllabus.

2. Flying may be undertaken in 2x10 hr modules before the course, followed by a 30 hr IR course.

Any reduction in requirements should be welcomed. However, this does not go far enough as it is still far more than ICAO actually calls for.

In my view, the UK should press for a 2 module approach - one of 15 hours and one of 35 hours. Credit for the 15 hours should be sought for UK IMC Rating holders; currently they will not receive any such credit and ALL 50 HOURS will have to be flown at a FTO, not at a RF.....

[RVR800]

Yes I'm amazed that they let these FAA chaps fly into heathrow everyday with mere ICAO qualifications under their wings....
:D

[Say again s l o w l y]

Hopefully this is a step in the right direction. How long is this liable to take?

[Keygrip]

Two copies here and one on Instructors/Examiners forum.

RVR, you know better than that. Which one would you like left open?

[Flyin'Dutch']

Not my thread but bit of a shame to just have it on here.

Would have thought that this issue is of interest to the GA community at large, not just instructors/examiners.

Could you consider reopening the one on the PF forum?

[rustle]

FD I agree that it could be re-opened in Private Flying, but do we need another thread in there with dribble like:
Yes I'm amazed that they let these FAA chaps fly into heathrow everyday with mere ICAO qualifications under their wings.... :rolleyes:

[RVR800]

Hi rustle - It was only meant to be a joke sorry you were upset...

[rustle]

Not upset at all.

I just find it "entertaining" that what could have been an interesting discussion about JAA reviews could, within 3 posts, have turned into another disinformation thread.

So many people whinge about the JAA/CAA IR requirements I thought this thread would have been quite interesting for a lot of people.

Clearly there isn't really a demand at all for a more accessible IR in Euroland ;)

[IO540]

Just popped in here because it looks like the thread will be deleted from the PF forum.

As someone who has gone down the FAA PPL/IR route, including the huge cost and hassle of putting the plane on N, let me say that the #1 problem with the JAA IR isn't the flying requirement. Those that are flying IFR privately, will be aircraft owners (or part owners) and of something pretty decent. To most of them, the cost of 50 hrs of flying isn't an issue. I know a fair few FAA PPL/IR holders that do 5x to 10x that every year, around Europe on business.

It is the ground school, the time it takes to do it, and the way it is designed for people with plenty of time, to be run through in a massive show-what-you-can-memorise swatting up exercise. Those who can afford to fly IFR are people with real work to do, and they can't find the 2 years (my estimate) it would take to do it.

A pretty comprehensive revamp of the ground school is therefore called for.

As for flying into Heathrow, what is the big deal? An RV ILS is the easiest thing possible. An IMCR holder, who flies IFR often and is convincingly quick on the radio, and has had a day's ground school on SIDs/STARs (which are themselves a very simple concept) could do that safely enough. Look at the number of fresh JAA IR holders who post questions all over the place asking how to do an airways flight. What exactly did they learn, in that massive swatting-up exercise? By all accounts from ATC staff I've spoken to, there are plenty of really ropey ATPs, from all over the world but particularly some 3rd world countries, flying into Heathrow daily. It's only if an engine is about to fall off does the CAA jump on them. So, no good saying ICAO requirements aren't good enough for Heathrow.

I wonder how close to the FAA ground school they are likely to get in this review?

However, looking at some of the planes that are N-reg for certification reasons, EASA needs to take FAA certification fully on board also.

[FlyingForFun]

Yes I'm amazed that they let these FAA chaps fly into heathrow everyday with mere ICAO qualifications under their wings....So, no good saying ICAO requirements aren't good enough for HeathrowForgive me if I'm wrong, but RVR is not saying that an ICAO IR is not good enough for Heathrow. Quite the contrary, in fact.

I think what he is suggesting is that people with FAA (and other ICAO) IRs fly into Heathrow every day quite safely, therefore it follows that any attempt from the CAA to make their IR more stringent than ICAO requires is unnecessary and over the top. The sarcasm in his post, however, appears to have been lost, despite his use of a smiley to emphasise the point.....

Anyway, in an attempt to turn this thread back into "an interesting discussion about JAA reviews", a couple of questions:

First of all, am I right in thinking the current proposals would still restrit IR training to FTOs, and not extend this privilege to RFs? If so, I wonder how many RFs would upgrade to FTOs? Would very many people train for IMC ratings any more? Would existing RFs suffer from loss of IMC training?

Also, how easy will it be to hire an aircraft which is equipped for airways flight? I would say that it is currently hard, but not impossible, to hire a light single-engined aircraft which is equipped for IMC flight outside controlled airspace. Do you think those schools/clubs who have IMC-equipped aircraft would invest in filters to upgrade their radios to be FM immune, thus allowing the new breed of pilots to hire an aircraft and go away somewhere for the day?

The initial announcement of a review seems, to me, to be extremely good news. I really hope that the review can produce something which enables private air travel to really take a step forward in Europe and the UK.

FFF
-----------------

[rustle]

FFF the disinformation I refer to is the implication that an FAA IR is the same level of qualification as an FAA ATP.

In JAA land an IR is an IR is an IR. One test and one criteria whether it is attached to a PPL, CPL or an ATPL.

In FAA land there is an ATP flight test (checkride) where the instrument standards are more exacting than the JAA IR standards.

This is not the same as the FAA IR attached to a PPL, where the standards are not as exacting as the JAA standards.

Introducing throw-away comments about Heathrow demonstrate a lack of understanding and undermine the usefulness of the thread, IMO.

[slim_slag]

rustle, BEagle hit the nail on the head when he said any new IR would still be far more than what ICAO requires. It is therefore a valid argument that if the CAA allows non UK ICAO pilots in its airspace, then it can have a 'plain' ICAO IR which allows UK pilots to fly in its airspace. JAA should simply photocopy the FARs and stick ANO on the top, and if an instructor can get a rating he should be able to instruct freelance . (We could have fun comparing FAA and JAA IR's but you would lose, perhaps elsewhere ;) )

[IO540]

FFF

I think you hit in on the head with availability of suitable aircraft. Come to think of it, the IMCR holder has the same problem: one needs FM Imm. for IFR in Class D too. Not a lot of people worry about this ;)

In fact there is a widespread general problem with availability of aircraft suitable for any IFR, never mind Class A. You more or less have to buy one.

So, IMV, the group of people that would do a Euro IR would not be a lot larger than the group that is/would do the FAA IR. It would be the same bunch of owners / part owners as are going N at present.

IF the certification issue was fully resolved (which basically means EASA accepting FAA certification without ANY Euro based certification firm skimming money off the process e.g. in issuing "Euro STCs") then the two should be comparable; in fact the Euro IR group might be bigger because of no need to put the plane on N which is itself a massive hassle.

However, the above is unlikely to happen. So, we will have

1) Anybody with an already-N plane will stay FAA

2) Anybody with a plane that HAS to be on N will go/stay FAA (e.g. SR22, various higher-up stuff)

3) Anybody who cannot pass the stupid JAA audiogram will go/stay FAA

If the Euro IR is in any way crippled in IFR privileges relative to ICAO privileges (e.g. the aborted and bizzare IAOPA proposal for a Euro IR limited to 10,000ft - how could any PILOT come up with that?) the uptake of the Euro IR will be minimal

Finally, I don't see the IMCR losing out to a new IR because for piston pilots the IMCR is good enough for the UK. An IR is 99% for European touring.

There is a lot to do to make this work. Not just cutting down the ground school.

[RVR800]

I think that FFF has it right - countries wanting to be part of the international civil aviation scene should have a common IR.

The IR was seen under JAA as a test of metal for the ATPL rather like (as rustle suggests) the ATP check ride is in the USA although for Airline Pilots there is now one IR specific to Airline pilots under JAR - that has an appropriate standard.
Its the "multi-crew" IR. Many JAA airline pilots let their single crew IR lapse since the multi-crew one was introduced.

The technology is another big challenge - in the USA NDBs are being withdrawn and GPS approaches are being introduced
The IR is currently out of date and needs changing to reflect the new technology - that change is happening abroad and will happen here soon. The regulators are having difficulty keeping up I reckon. Anything that involves instruments is bound to need updating with the new technologies more often as time progresses and the gap between GA and airlines is widening in the area of instruments. The cost of a simulators and technology is falling as well - trouble is the cost of operating an old GA twin is rising.......

Much of the discussions as to how this new IR will manifest itself will be about how to get from A to B without upsetting the applecart. Many people are involved in this. If it's done right it could be safer and there could be more pilots flying and the sector could expand in Europe. A vision of where they want to go has been set though and thats a big step in iteslf.

The unfortunate thing though, is that in Europe, particularly in those countries without the IMC rating, there is a such a low take up of the JAA-IR that it cannot be sustainable or safe to let that continue.

Another big thing coming in next year is the MPL which severs the link between some new airline pilots and the single crew IR training which for these MPL rookies will be done on on a simulator in a multi-crew glass cockpit environment.

Challenges ahead....

[RVR800]

Any idea as to timescales on this one?