Instrument Rating to be simplified? [Archive]

SASless

12th Feb 2006, 13:55

there is talk of simplifying the Instrument Rating(H) here in the UK to make it more affordable for people?

Now sit back Alice....relax...think about that statement a few minutes. Has that ever happened in any way with the CAA, ever?

TheFlyingSquirrel

12th Feb 2006, 13:57

I hear the same - single engine piston IRs will be here soon. It's worth more money to the industry.

TFS

TheOddOne

12th Feb 2006, 14:59

FS,

Will my IMC rating give me a credit on this or is it a 'start from scratch' job?

Since we're into speculation territory, how about a 'Grandfather Rights' for the IMC?

Oh, I thought not, just asking...

Cheers,
TOO

TheFlyingSquirrel

12th Feb 2006, 15:42

well it is a rumour network, remember ? I have always considered the CAA's stand on IRs to be farcsical. Anyone who flys a helo without icing protection into cloud is a pratt. People keep getting into trouble in bad weather though and the CFIT is still as popular as ever. The fact that you can do most of your training in a FW and then convert it over to helo makes a mockery of the situation anyway. You're better with an IR than without it. I think sense is about to prevail.

TFS

SASless

12th Feb 2006, 16:03

What does engine power have to do with instrument flying techniques and procedures? Does the donkey know what kind of visibility is outside? It is the Jackass in the pilot's seat that has to consider that part of things.

A whole generation nay...at least two if not three generations of US Army pilots trained on Bell 47 helicopters rigged for instrument training. If one can do a 412 ATP ride in the Sim...why not the instrument rating as well?

We have got to get away from doing it the way Wellington did it folks!

Camp Freddie

12th Feb 2006, 16:04

hey mr flying squirrel

Anyone who flys a helo without icing protection into cloud is a pratt

doesnt that depend on the temperature mate ? you may need engine anti ice and snowmats down at +2c, and pitot heat at +4.5c and below as is required by our company.

but I disagree that I am a pratt if I go into cloud at warmer temperatures than these without anti icing subject to MEL restrictions etc etc.

regards

CF

TheFlyingSquirrel

12th Feb 2006, 16:09

I knew I was going to get pulled up on that - I was refering to the masses - Joe and Bill bloggs who don't fly for a living like you CF - These are the people who keep getting killed - A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but some is better than none. I am adamant - It's better to have an affordable full IR than it isn't. I have an IMC - now that's dangerous !

Helinut

12th Feb 2006, 18:10

It's not just the ratings held by a pilot that determine the outcome of IMC - the hele is important too. Put a N Sea pilot with '000 hrs in IMC in a R22 in real IMC and see how long he lasts (not the number of engines but the stability of the aircraft).

However, there is a difference between real IMC and training. There is lots of good value in training in simulated IMC in an unstabilised SE hele. It is amazing how short our memories are, but SE sim IMC training used to be a permitted part of the IR, prior to JAR FCL having its effect on the business.

The acceptance of JAR FCL for hele training by committees of bureaucrats that hardly included any hele pilots was a disaster, and we are still paying the price..........

mrwellington

12th Feb 2006, 18:39

We have got to get away from doing it the way Wellington did it folks!

What did I do wrong now ?

helicopter-redeye

12th Feb 2006, 18:56

So does that mean I should just sit back and wait longer before doing the IR? Looks like Helicopter-Redeye might get busy then!

Think of the potential for the FTOs. A single engined IR rating and a twin IR rating. Double de money.

After spending four hours today flying around in simulated instrument conditions all I can say is ".. my head hurts .." (picture of current eye situation coming up NOW) :sad: (focal length now 29")

fishboy

12th Feb 2006, 20:00

I have never been able to understand the CAA's requirement for two engines to get an instrument rating!
I'm not talking about flying actual IMC in a single, but what in the world is wrong with getting an instrument rating in a single engined helicopter?
Everyone knows that having an instrument rating is FAR better than not. Just because a person has the rating does not mean to say that he/she will fly IMC in an ill-equipped machine.
Surely it would make sense to allow someone to complete their instrument rating in a single. When it comes to flying actual IMC/IFR, they would be type-rated in an appropriate aircraft.
Instrument flying is all about the procedures; having an extra engine makes no difference at all to those procedures (for training).
Does one have to do a full instrument rating when they transition from an S61 to a Puma? NO! then why make someone do the whole rating in a particular class?
Maybe I am missing something.....????

Lightning_Boy

12th Feb 2006, 20:30

Nicely put fishboy :ok:

Camp Freddie

12th Feb 2006, 20:31

helinut,

Put a N Sea pilot with '000 hrs in IMC in a R22 in real IMC and see how long he lasts (not the number of engines but the stability of the aircraft).

as part of my instrument rating we did about 8 hours on a robbie and I found it easier to control than the squirrel on instruments probably because we were only doing 80 knots instead of 110 in the squirrel.
the squirrel was very difficult to control in pitch and would height bust in a second if you looked away. so I would not not neccesarily agree with your statement.

fishboy

I have never been able to understand the CAA's requirement for two engines to get an instrument rating!

well isnt this all to do with simulating some emergencies in your twin i.e. single engine approaches and go-arounds, cant really simulate that to well in a single except as a IMC auto.

regards

CF

Woolf

12th Feb 2006, 20:35

Whirlygig

12th Feb 2006, 20:39

But doesn't Bristows in Norwich have a JetRanger with grandfather rights which means you can do the helicopter IR in a single?

Cheers

Whirls

fishboy

12th Feb 2006, 20:40

helinut,

fishboy
well isnt this all to do with simulating some emergencies in your twin i.e. single engine approaches and go-arounds, cant really simulate that to well in a single except as a IMC auto.
regards
elpirata

That's exactly my point, single engine approaches and go arounds have absolutely nothing to do with istrument procedures; they are type rating procedures.
ILS, NDB, GPS, Vectors, VOR, approaches are the same thing choose how many engines you have available. Check out any of the approach plates anywhere in the world and nowhere will you find anything mentioned about different procedures during engine out operation. In fact you can do whatever you want in an emergency.

Camp Freddie

12th Feb 2006, 20:40

woolf,

well yes and no, that is only on 1 jetranger that has grandfather rights with bristow, but you still have to do IR test on type in the twin you intend to fly in.

regards

CF

Woolf

12th Feb 2006, 20:47

CF:

Not quite, your single-engine IR test will be done on the Jetranger.

Camp Freddie

12th Feb 2006, 20:50

woolf,

i didnt mean that, i meant you have to do IRT again on the twin you intend to fly (although thankfully not with the CAA again) as an IR is type specific.

i.e. as well as the IRT on the 206

regards

CF

fishboy

12th Feb 2006, 20:50

fishboy:
There is no CAA requirement for two engines at all. You can sign up for a course tomorrow (if you have the spare cash). Only catch is that once you have your single engine IR ticket you are not allowed to fly in IMC with a single engined helicopter in the UK.

Hmmm, so maybe I AM missing something. I apologise. Does that mean you can go get an instrument rating in a single Squirrel (Not IFR rated)? It would have all the capability to fly approaches and holds etc. but no autopilot and no backup systems. It would be totally VFR flying, whilst simulating IFR.

Camp Freddie

12th Feb 2006, 20:56

fishboy,

Does that mean you can go get an instrument rating in a single Squirrel (Not IFR rated)?
er no, only on that particular bristows jetranger, it is stabilised and can fly in real IMC, although not to the same limits as a twin, i.e higher decision height I think

regards

CF

Woolf

12th Feb 2006, 21:02

CF:

You are qute right, I was only talking about the (in the UK useless) single-engine IR.

Fishboy:

As CF has pointed out there is only one helicopter in the UK with this clearance. There are however a few other operators in Europe that offer similar single-engine IR packages. Unless you have money coming out of your ears there is not much point doing a single-engine IR unless you plan to upgrade it to a twin later.

fishboy

12th Feb 2006, 21:09

Thanks CF.
I thought that was the case. I'm curious as to WHY...

I originally did my Instrument rating in the USA, (on a schweizer 300).:O Everyone knows you are not going to fly IFR in a 300 but you can effectively simulate ALL of the requirements for an instrument rating in that type of aircraft. I can assure you, it is FAR more difficult to fly that kind of aircraft with no auto systems whatsoever, than a fully coupled Puma for example. I know there are more systems etc on the Puma or any of the other IFR capable machines, but again, that comes down to "type rating".
If you were ever to fly actual IFR, your employer would then be putting you through a type rating and NOT an instrument rating.

And I'm boring myself now so that's enough for me;)

Woolf

12th Feb 2006, 21:18

fishboy:

I can assure you, it is FAR more difficult to fly that kind of aircraft with no auto systems whatsoever, than a fully coupled Puma for example
I totally agree, flying an unstabelized aircarft in IMC is harder. However training in those aircraft is not done in IMC. Also in a Puma you will actually plan to fly IMC on a daily basis and not just use it as a get out clause.

Camp Freddie

12th Feb 2006, 21:20

fishboy,

If you were ever to fly actual IFR, your employer would then be putting you through a type rating and NOT an instrument rating.

well when I converted to the S76, the conversion course was scheduled for 12 or 13 hours total time, it most definitely was not just a VFR conversion, we spent more time on instruments, and at the end of it I did an LST + IR, as the IR is type specific.

i.e. you need to do IRT on every type you intend to fly IFR

regards

CF

fishboy

12th Feb 2006, 21:33

OK, last one.

I understand that flying a big twin, or whatever; you will be flying actual IMC on a regular basis, but an instrument rating shows that you have the required skills to fly on instruments. A type rating (along with an instrument rating) would show you have the required skills to fly on instruments, in that particular aircraft.

That is the case in the USA. Just because you have an instrument rating, does not mean to say you can fly ANY aircraft IFR, just that you can fly an appropriately equipped aircraft, that you are qualified to fly. If you are flying a VFR only aircraft, then, instrument rating or not, you WILL fly VFR.

That to me sounds like common sense, though I am fully aware that common sense does not go along with current CAA thinking.:{

Camp Freddie

12th Feb 2006, 21:42

fishboy,

lets say I got my IR in a Robbie (if that was possible here), and then I did a VFR conversion to lets say an EC135,

you sound like you are saying that you should be able to fly it IFR because you have demonstrated that you can fly a robbie IFR and that you can fly the EC135 VFR.

but that you think it is excessive to demonstrate that you can actually fly IFR in the EC135.

if that is what you are saying I would disagree.

regards

CF

fishboy

12th Feb 2006, 21:43

fishboy,
well when I converted to the S76, the conversion course was scheduled for 12 or 13 hours total time, it most definitely was not just a VFR conversion, we spent more time on instruments, and at the end of it I did an LST + IR, as the IR is type specific.
i.e. you need to do IRT on every type you intend to fly IFR
regards
CF

Yes I'm sure that you spent most of the time flying instruments, I would hope so too, considering that is what you will probably be doing with it. But I'm also sure you spent at least as much time learning the systems and emergency procedures for that aircraft. If not, I would be most concerned:eek:
All I'm saying is that you were not taught HOW to fly on instruments, I'm sure that it was a given that you could already do that. I would like to place a bet that anyone who has the required skills to fly IFR,(never having set foot in a twin) would be able to fly a twin under IFR, given the training in that particular aircraft.

fishboy

12th Feb 2006, 21:48

I totally agree that you should have to pass an Instrument test in any aircraft that you fly.
My only point is that the original training does not need to be accomplished in a twin, IFR rated aircraft. You can learn to fly on instruments in any aircraft.

Camp Freddie

12th Feb 2006, 21:51

fishboy,

My only point is that the original training does not need to be accomplished in a twin, IFR rated aircraft. You can learn to fly on instruments in any aircraft.

I would agree with that, but all those CAA instrument rating examiners dont like flying around in robbies :)

regards

CF

fishboy

12th Feb 2006, 21:55

AT LAST! I have found something that the CAA and I have in common:ok:

kwikenz

12th Feb 2006, 22:06

In Australia theres a bloke in Victoria that can train you in his FRASCA for 20 hours. A good portion of the remaining 20 hours could be done in an R22 or H300 with the flight test done in a genuine IFR Longranger. I think there is still a requiremnent to do the test under the IFR in an IFR machine.

Theres a 206 and a 206L in Australia that are genuine IFR machines. This effectively limits you single engine IFR command but opens up the first officer world... all one needs is a type rating to act as a FO on any machine!

Surely a similar system would be perfectly adequete for the European requirements and make the IFR route a bit more accessible... not to mention lifting the game of the industry. If the test or perhaps the last 5 hours had to be done in a genuine IFR machine... albeit single engine... at least that would solve exposure to 'real' IMC conditions.

Only trouble is the machinery. Off the top of my head there is the one machine in the UK, two in Australia as mentioned. Theres a private AS350 B3 in New Zealand... perhaps thats where it would need to start... convincing the authorities that there are a few new types that would be suitable as single engine IFR... A119 springs to mind.

mrwellington

12th Feb 2006, 22:13

Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 2.205 states as follows :
Page 72
The instrument flight instruction shall include at least 10 hours in an IFR-certificated helicopter.
Page 73
The instrument flight instruction shall include at least 10 hours in an IFR-certificated multi-engine helicopters .

GoodGrief

13th Feb 2006, 12:09

Don´t mix things up.
Appendix 1 to 2.205:
FLYING TRAINING
9 A SINGLE-engine IR(H) course shall...
The instrument flight instruction shall include at least 10 hours in an IFR-certificated helicopter.

10 A MULTI-engine IR(H) course shall... [ The instrument flight instruction shall include at least 10 hours in an IFR-certificated multi-engine
helicopters.]
Two different courses, depends on which one you take...