JAA IR Working Group Update

[S-Works]

An update.....
We held the last meeting of the IR working Group this weekend and are preparing the report for submission to PLD. I have plagiarized some words from one of my working group colleagues as an excellent summary of events.

I will publish a copy of the report as soon as it is ready for submission.
To summarise for those who haven't read the thread and background:
Coming out of the GA Strategic Review earlier this year, the CAA set up a Working Group with Industry to review the requirements for the PPL/IR in order to make them more proportionate and accessible.
The meeting yesterday was the final one, to agree the final recommendations.

I think the "Industry" team found it a positive process. The recommendations represent an agreed CAA and Industry viewpoint. There are plenty of items I'd personally add to a "wish list", but the outcome is a good balance between "the politically possible/acceptable" and the orginal views we started with.

The most significant recommendations are
A. Redesigning the PPL IR Theory syllabus so that it excludes material relevant to CPL, ATPL privileges and Type Rated aircraft and focuses only on knowledge relevant to IFR privileges
B. Removing the mandatory classroom attendance for the theory course
C. Making the exams available "on-demand" at 3rd party testing centres
D. Making the flight training more "competency-based" rather than requiring 50hrs for all candidates. Pure competency based training would not have any minimum training hrs. The recommendation is a hybrid, with 25hrs minimum consisting of the 10 hr Basic IF module already in place and a further 15hr Applied IF module. This is a major step forward from the current 50hrs. IMC holders may be able to get credit towards the 10hr Basic module

The main subject we have not made progress on is relaxing the requirement for all training to be at JAA Approved FTOs. This principle is deeply embedded in EASA and JAA thinking and it was considered futile at this point to try and push it forward.

The next steps are that a formal report will be finished and submitted to the Head of PLD ( the Personnel Licensing Dept of the CAA). A significant number of the recommendations should be within the discretion of the CAA, the remainder will be submitted as the UK position to EASA and EU-FCL.

I would be cautiously optimistic that something may happen in the next 6 months to implement some of these recommendaitons, but the outlook will not be clear until the CAA's PLD have reviewed the recommendations and decided how to act.

[Fuji Abound]

Bose

Well done - that seems a sensible compromise between ideal and possible, I would agree.

Lets hope your optomism is well founded.

[Hampshire Hog]

As someone part way through the IMC rating, I'll be watching this closely. Good work by the looks of it!

HH

[172driver]

BOSE-X well done indeed ! :ok:

PS: is there anything in the recommendations about training credits for other ICAO (read: FAA) IR holders ?

[Fuji Abound]

PS: is there anything in the recommendations about training credits for other ICAO (read: FAA) IR holders ?

I think you will find if you read the original thread that and IMCRs are subjects best avoided :).

[Knight Paladin]

bose - Thanks from yet another person for your efforts on resolving this issue. Does your last paragraph mean that you hope your recomendations will have been implemented within 6 months and a new style PPL/IR will be available?

[S-Works]

To our surprise there were quite a number of our recommendations that could be implemented directly by the CAA and more that had to have EASA approval. Once the head of PLD has responded we will have a better idea on what will be implemented and the time-scales for this. My hope is within the 6 months. As a working group we have tried to take an even and pragmatic look at what can be achieved and tried to steer clear of the contentious areas that would just bog us down. The CAA representatives on the group have provided fantastic input with a clear desire to see the changes made so this process has been truly collaborative.

There is actually recommendations around the FAA and IMCR ratings that were developed during the process. At the moment there is a split on whether they should be included or not. I am for them being included. So stand by for an answer on them!

[172driver]

There is actually recommendations around the FAA and IMCR ratings that were developed during the process. At the moment there is a split on whether they should be included or not. I am for them being included. So stand by for an answer on them!

:ok::ok::ok:

[IO540]

This is all good news, whenever it happens. Well done for pushing this along, bose-x.

[BackPacker]

Well done. For once, I can't wait for EASA to take over from JAA, assuming that all these recommendations have been implemented before then!

[michaelthewannabe]

Thank you, bose-x. Thoroughly good work - makes an IR an attractive prospect.

[Sir George Cayley]

Blimey!

With the introduction of GPS NPAs, the scaling down of Modes S implementation and the retreat to prepared positions on ELTs etc there is a strong possibility of us us actually liking the Campaign ...

A more accessible IR together with EASA relaxations could see the owning of an N reg a/c begin to loose its appeal.

Now where's that number for Brian Johnson on Fraggles Rock?


Sir George Cayley

[Slopey]

All good news and many thanks to those involved (from someone would will do the IMCR in the next couple of years, but could now feasibly do the IR :) )

Quick question, if you hold this new PPL/IR is there an upgrade path to a CPL\IR - I ask as I'd get the IR on my PPL but would intend to do the CPL later on and possibly go commercial.

Presumably the new IR for PPLs would'nt be acceptable at CPL\ATPL levels and would require a "full" IR?

[syf277]

Yes very well done Bose X.

[seneca34]

Well done Bose X. Take a pat on the back from another very pleased PPL.

[Tim Dawson]

Slopey, my understanding is that this is the same IR that you'd do with a CPL/ATPL. There won't be separate IRs.

I do stand to be corrected, though.

[IO540]

The reason for the JAA IR having most of the ATPL ground school and a few jet type ratings :) wrapped up in it is that this is what 99% of students are working towards: an ATPL and jet TRs.

So if you do any kind of future "chopped down" PPL/IR and then want to do a JAA CPL/IR or ATPL you will have to sit the additional material somehow.

The alternative is the FAA system where the IR is just an IR, the ATPL is just one 2" thick book (versus about 2 feet paper thickness under JAA) and the jet aircraft specific stuff is put where it belongs: in the type specific type ratings. But this is not likely to ever come about in Europe, with its absolutely anally retentive attitude to "safety", sorting "men from sheep" as early as possible, etc etc.

[BEagle]

IO540, yes indeed. The 'IR' was once described to me by a CAA IRE as the 'last chance filter to make sure the wrong people didn't get into the airlines'.

Transferring all the non-IR specific knowledge to either the CPL or the relevant TRTO course makes a lot of sense.

But we didn't have to know how many stewardesses are needed in a 747, how to spot illegal lights on moored airships, or the dimensions of the red stripes on the streamers flown beneath tethered kites.....

The IR should be what it used to be in the RAF. A test of the practical and theoretical knowledge requirements appropriate to operating your aircraft in IMC. It varied from type to type, so in the Vulcan we did 45 deg AoB steep turns at FL410 and M0.84, in the Phantom we did 60 deg AoB steep turns at FL300 and M1.2, in the Buccaneer-configured Hunter we did toss bombing profiles at 450 KIAS and 110 deg AoB as part of the profile - and in the Bulldog we did a limited panel no-compass no-gyro SRA approach on the turn and slip after the full panel ILS.

The FAA IR seems far more appropriate for the requirements of operating light aeroplanes in IMC and under IFR than the gold plated JAR-FCL IR.

[S-Works]

Oh for gods sake IO get off the FAA Pedastal for a moment please!!

There is only one IR just as there is with the FAA system. But what we are doing is taking out the theory requirements that are nothing to do with "the safe flight in IMC under IFR" and moving those requirements into the CPL/ATPL exams.

So those who do an IR now and then move onto a CPL or an ATPL do the theory required for those levels. There will be nothing more to do on the IR front. The IR is the IR and thats it. It is not going to be chopped down, it is just going to have relevant theory, easier to access and be less demanding from a time perspective for the PPL. The practical training will still be to exactly the same standard with the same test but more modular or ideally competancy based.

[IO540]

Oh for gods sake IO get off the FAA Pedastal for a moment please!!

There is only one IR just as there is with the FAA system. But what we are doing is taking out the theory requirements that are nothing to do with "the safe flight in IMC under IFR" and moving those requirements into the CPL/ATPL exams.

So those who do an IR now and then move onto a CPL or an ATPL do the theory required for those levels. There will be nothing more to do on the IR front. The IR is the IR and thats it. It is not going to be chopped down, it is just going to have relevant theory, easier to access and be less demanding from a time perspective for the PPL. The practical training will still be to exactly the same standard with the same test but more modular or ideally competancy based.

What did I say to the contrary, bose-x?

[Slopey]

So those who do an IR now and then move onto a CPL or an ATPL do the theory required for those levels. There will be nothing more to do on the IR front. The IR is the IR and thats it.
That's excellent news for anyone wanting to get the IR while a PPL and move up later :) Many thanks for all your efforts Bose-x, and those of eveyone involved :)

(edited to be more widespread on the thanks front ;) )

[S-Works]

It's not just my efforts, I have just become a mouthpiece for a vey bunch of dedicated people from AOPA, PPLIR and the CAA.

Every member of the working group has been very commited to this process, this includes the CAA representatives who contrary to opinion are very dedicated to the GA cause and were very active and supportive to the aims.

I genuinly believe that YOU as the GA flyer have been represented by people who understand the isses both on a needs of the GA flyer and the issues around regulatory change.

AS I have said before, we can't move mountains, we have to chip away gently and I believe we have a chipped away a good chunk!

[Fuji Abound]

Bose well done again but I have to take one issue

Every member of the working group has been very commited to this process, this includes the CAA representatives who contrary to opinion are very dedicated to the GA cause and were very active and supportive to the aims.

Now whilst I know some very good people within the CAA who I have found very helpful there is a contradiction that is inexcusable:

1. The lack of a PPL/IR has been a thorn for a very very long time, in fact since shortly after I started flying when it was relatively easy (and that was along time ago). For wahtever reason the CAA has chosen to do nothing about it until now,

2. The mode S issue is a complete mess with an apparent lack of understanding of the issues on the part of the CAA (and I dont claim they are wrong in what they have sought to achieve, but they have made a complete hash with the way they have gone about it),

3. The recent farce over liferaft, EPIRBS etc - they should have seen that coming.

They may well be GA friendly, but (and I am trying to be kind) thay also seem to be an organisation in which the right hand is struggling to talk to the left :)

[S-Works]

That may be so but lets not tar everyone with the same brush. The working group representatives have shown great commitment to this process and I think it is unfair for you to vent your frustrations with the CAA as a whole on them when you have had no involvement in the direct dealings with them.

[Fuji Abound]

True, and I accept your words of caution.

For the sake of clarity, I was only referring to the CAAs involvement with the issue, not others.

Moreover, I am the very first to welcome change.

Equally, if you are the regulatory body you (and I am not referring to the individuals) must accept responsibility for the sad state of affairs that has arisen in Europe with regards the private IR that has resulted in the proliferation of N regs - please call me a cynic, but I have to wonder how much that has driven this change in policy.

All that said - a cheer to a brighter future from me!

[Sir George Cayley]

Is not one of the problems with the modern CAA that it is split up not joined up?

The Mode S issue came via DAP. The JAA/IR group comes under PLD and the GPS NPA under ATSD.

Apart from the fact that DAP are not even in the same building, it seems that issues of today have to cross the traditional boundaries of an organisation which is slow to change.

And from what I've heard so slimmed down individuals have excessive leverage within their spheres of influence with no checks or balances.

Add to the fact that you'll be hard pressed to find many practising GA pilots in the class of a/c about which we chatter within the CAA and it's actually a miracle that BX and co have dragged them this far.

We haven't even mentioned the Light A/c study group that our old (emphasis on old) friend G-KEST gave up his valuable time for recently.
So, a new initiative. CAA Lite for GA:D:D:ok:

All in favour say Affirm

Sir George Cayley

[LF32]

This is my first post but i have been following this thread with great attention.

I would like to know if this new JAA-IR is going to be implemented in all JAA land or just in the UK. I ask this because i am not an UK citizen, but I live in JAA land

My question has to do with the fact that I only see mentions to the CAA (UK).

[S-Works]

The last meeting of the WG happended as planned in May and we have been working on the final content of the report for the last 10 days. This is now complete and will be submitted to the Head of PLD today as planned.

Once it has been submitted I will make a copy available here for review.

[FullyFlapped]

Nice one, Bose-X, thanks for keeping us informed.

Any idea how long before you get any feedback ?

FF :ok:

[S-Works]

We have put recomendations for response from the head of PLD within a 2 month time frame from today. Looking at the commitment from the CAA team so far I think we may see a response sooner rather than later.

[Three Yellows]

We have put recomendations for response from the head of PLD within a 2 month time frame from today. Looking at the commitment from the CAA team so far I think we may see a response sooner rather than later.


Bose-X, what is the latest news on this please?

Thanks

3Y

[stickandrudderman]

I'm thinking of doing an IR, but have put it on hold until we know what's happening. Any info would be much appreciated.

[Fuji Abound]

We have put recomendations for response from the head of PLD within a 2 month time frame from today.

.. .. .. and their response was,

I would be cautiously optimistic that something may happen in the next 6 months to implement some of these recommendaitons

.. .. .. because whilst you did say cautiously optomistic they only have another couple of months to actually get something implemented

[IO540]

Come on chaps. This has to go before JAA for approval, and then EASA will be having a go at something else anyway.

Looking at the latest info on how far the committee got with the UK CAA, there is a small reduction in the theory content but few significant concessions elsewhere, and as I say this is before the JAA committees (which all around Europe are loaded with elitist ex military and ex flag carrier airline types) have a go at it.

In the time people on here have been waiting for a result, they could have done any likely difference between the existing JAA PPL/IR and any resulting PPL/IR.

The practicalities of EASA FCL takeover (and its limited staffing and general reluctance to tackle hot potatoes) will mean - or so the existing national CAAs very much hope - that any pre-existing JAA regs are adopted whole. This has to be "the big hope" in all this, otherwise nobody would be working on a new IR just a year before EASA's FCL takeover. But this is living on borrowed time because EASA has clearly stated they want to chuck out most of the JAA nonsense which is for the most part way OTT for private GA flight.

I reckon that in 5 years' time we will be looking at a very different picture, but if I wanted to do an IR now for privileges in a G-reg I would just get on with it. For sure, whatever flying you do now (and flying is the expensive bit) will be allowed towards any new rating even if one arrived before you finish.

And if you really need (for financial reasons) the proposed concession of allowing your past IMC Rating training time towards the IR, you won't be able to do much IFR flying anyway afterwards.

[Three Yellows]

IO540,

Sadly I agree with your view of this subject. I personally don't think that even at UK level, the CAA can move that quickly, however that isn't what Bose-X has been telling us on here. Are you on the Working Group too?

I look forward to hearing from Bose-X as I'm pretty sure that he originally claimed that this would be pushed through before EASA took over, avoiding the pan-european discussions. However unlikely that may seem.

I think that there are many people like me, not needing ATPLs, with serious IFR aeroplanes who just want to go places, but don't have the TIME to learn how many stewardesses I'd need on a 747.

Bose-X any news gratefully received.

[S-Works]

Things are still moving along on the IR front. We received the response document from the head of PLD as agreed very rapidly. I will seek agreement to post an overview of his comments. The recommendations have been forwarded to the EASA Licencing working group and are being consulted on at the moment.

I am waiting to see the final cut of the theory element but I do know that significant chunks have been removed. For the record though, there is an awful lot of hearsay on conjecture on the content of the theory. Mostly propogated by those with IR's who want the rest of the world to think they are so cool for doing someting so hard..... :p In fact the IR exams are actually pretty easy and if you put some effort in you can get through them very quickly.

The modular approach to the IR, i.e 10 hrs followed by the balance has been agreed and is in force.

Whilst IO540 is not on the working group and is great at speculation I do agree that the next 5 years are going to see some very interesting changes in European Aviation.

We have other things that we are reviewing at the moment and I will post on them in due course.

The future is quite bright............

[Three Yellows]

Bose,

Thanks for that update.

The modular approach to the IR, i.e 10 hrs followed by the balance has been agreed and is in force


Are you saying that I could NOW go and do 10 hours IR training without the exams?

The future is quite bright............

... I have no doubt, I just hope it comes soon enough!

[S-Works]

Are you saying that I could NOW go and do 10 hours IR training without the exams?

As I understand it yes, and get a completion statement for the basic instrument flight module.

[Julian]

Well done Bose, about time the IR access was given to all and it wasnt seen as an expensive nice-to-have but a reasonable priced nessecity for anyone who flies on regular basis.

I look forward to a favourable outcome.

J.