PIFR - Good idea or not?

[windy1]

There are rumours that the Oz PIFR model could usefully be applied to Europe as Licences and Ratings across those countries are gradually standardised.

According to CASA stats, there were 19 passes for the PIFR Exam in 2005/6 compared to 1259 passes for the Private Pilot, which suggests the rating is unattractive.

Before Europe gets too enthusiastic to adopt it or something similar, any ideas why this might be?

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Probably because by the time you've trained for the mandatory enroute bit and then done a couple of the addon FPAs' such as SID/STAR/several Nav/several Approaches, it becomes cheaper and quicker to just do the whole CIR.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Because unless you do all the add-on bits, the PIFR is a "licence" to get yourself into strife.

While it is true that 90% of the time (particularly in NQ) flying on an IFR plan only involves a climbout to VFR on top on departure and a cloud break let-down at the destination, its the other 10% that requires an ability to handle the harder IFR stuff.

My ATO and I have an annual ritual. Every time I do an IR renewal I ask my favorite ATO to write me out a PIFR - and every time he ignores my request. In fact he refuses to have anything to do with the PIFR. Now that may be because of all the paperwork involved in writing out a PIFR with all the add-ons to the level of an IR, but I think its because he figures if you are going to fly IFR - you need to be competent in all of the procedures that make up a Command IR.

Dr :8

[RabidNuts]

I did my PIFR many moons ago as it was the only option within my financial limits. As I had no NVFR it was conducted at night to add a night FPA when the rating was issued. It was never used and with my limited hours at the time I am a little happy with that! I now have a MECIR plus alot more hours and find the the option of the PIFR valuable as it is less restrictive on currency and recency requirements for IF and approaches, I am probably opening a can of worms here but I am well aware of my own limitations and practise those approaches on a basis as required.

Dr - I just rang the CASA licensing centre and they added all the approaches and proceedures I obtained with my CIR to my PIFR el pronto!!

rN :E

[slice]

Bill Hamilton and another ex AOPA VP described them as the greatest thing since sliced bread when they were introduced but it does seem to have been a big fizzer.

[Schmacko]

There is a lot of dribble written about Piffer's from people who probably think there may be some status in one form of rating against the other sheeze !

I fly a number of different a/c up to very high powered singles and I reckon the PIFR is second only to an aerobatic rating for skills enhancement, that is if you are a xcountry flyer if you're a local patch flyer don't bother. But some guide lines for you
1. Do the rating at a school that does CIR and does not differentiate between the two
2. Do all the FPA's with RNAV being optional
3. Make sure you do night FPA makes it all worth while
4. Take it seriously and there will be no difference between the two
5. Get MS Simulator and practice approaches until you are sick of them
6. Keep current
7. Learn learn and keep learning if 10 000hr pilots can CFIT then 1000 hr pilots can do it just as easily

As I said it is second only to Aero's

[cficare]

When PIFR came in a few years ago, I had a current MECIR. I applied for a PIFR (cost $10) and have had it ever since (it is permanent).

[carbon]

(it is permanent)

Herein lies the potential problem..

[BEACH KING]

How many fatal accidents involving PIC with PIFR have there been since the introduction of the PIFR?

Been plenty VFR and MECIR in the same period

[Ascend Charlie]

I opted for the PIFR because the company (helicopter) chariot was the only one of its model in Australia, and there was a hell of a time trying to find an ATO or FOI who was able to renew the rating - unfortunately, the gent who issued the PIFR on this type managed to spear in 3 years later while flying a plank. Once he departed the scene, I had to import an ATO from Adelaide (type qualified but hadn't flown the model in 10 years) and another time from Melbourne (CASA FOI, barely endorsed on type, never flown the model).

Fortunately, the PIFR renewal/review is every 2 years, so the drama occurred at half the rate of a MECIR renewal.:ok:

[Paper Planes]

From a few people I have talked to in the industry the PIFR is marketed to pilots who have held full command instrument ratings for many years who want something permanant like cficare said. They generally know the procedures back to front from years of experience and can determine if their skills are up to scratch before flying the plane IFR. A novice IFR pilot is better off having all the regular checks which seems to be the reason flight schools prefer teaching the full command instrument rating.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"How many fatal accidents involving PIC with PIFR have there been since the introduction of the PIFR? Been plenty VFR and MECIR in the same period"

Beachy

Now an edumacated man like you'all should know that's not a valid question.

Maybe that's cause the 1 or 2 pilots in Oz who hold only PIFR's only fly a couple of hrs per year each in IMC versus the squillion hours a year flown by holders of MECIR's.

Dr :8

[bushy]

I knew business people who owned their own aircraft and flew regularly VFR although they could easily afford to get a rating. I kept telling a doctor that he should have a rating and he said "yes, but I can't spare the time." He sold his aircraft and stopped flying. He lived. The others died scudrunning. One was lucky and just got one hell of a fright.
Anything that will make it easier or less costly or time consuming to get a rating should be done. It appears the PIFR is a system that allows this to be done in smaller bits so it is easier. That is good. It will save lives. Flying schools and ATO's should promote it, as a first step.
Traditionally our class one instrument rating has been more of an eletist status symbol, and renewals have too often been used as an administrative tool. It is also extremely important that pilots have somewhere to renew their rating that is not their work place or CASA.
Renewals are often a problem just because of the logistsics. (unless you live on the coast)
Our system is too much about control, and not enough about safety.
And yes, I did have one for many years.

[Feather #3]

Hey, Bushy, I'm with you!!

G'day ;)

Oh, and, Yes, I do have one albeit on the back of my MECIR, but covers me for SP ops recency.

[PA39]

I agree 100% with FTDK's original post. The PIFR is a ticket to trouble.

[VH-XXX]

I've always flown Private IFR, so private in fact, that nobody knows about it... best part is that it requires no renewals, paperwork, expense or planning.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Some comments on other posts:

Paper Planes - I've heard Peter Gibson (CASA) say several times that the PIFR is actually aimed at PPLs with the intent of preventing accidental encounters with IMC (178 seconds to live...)

FTDK - I normally agree with your posts but have to take you to task. Beach is correct to say that there have been no PIFR related fatalities but for you to say it doesn't count because of the maths misses the point above - that they were in IMC and could otherwise quite possibly been scudrunning in marginal conditions. I'd also contend that you're vastly underestimating the number of both pilots and hours that fly on their PIFRs each year - last year I logged about 20 hours IMC and I know many others with the same rating who did similar. (Yes, still very small compared to the number flown under the MECIR but not insignificant).

My opinion of the PIFR (based on personal experience):

I did the initial issue and then added FPA's for NDB & VOR approaches. Initially, it was very much an enroute tool - got me into/out of Melbourne and as I felt more experienced (including exceeding the hour requirements for a MECIR issue) then the happier I felt as the 'margins' between VMC and the arrival TAF decreased. Only once have I actually had to make a full approach 'in anger' (TAF forecast SCT at 3000', it was OVC at 1400') but I (still) regularly cancel flights that involve conditions at/near the minima at the other end.

Both I and most PIFR pilots I know treat it as a MECIR in terms of recency - in fact in many ways, we regularly do a run with an instructor before setting of any trip when instrument approaches may be on the cards. The other point that I noticed as a difference between PIFR training and MECIR is the emphasis in the PIFR training that another, non-IMC plan is a key part of flight planning - for example a standard training exercise is to arrive over Bendigo, be told you're still in cloud despite being at route LSALT/MSA and being expected to turn to the north and use the new route LSALTs to get visual. Likewise, hit the coast and head away - you will get visual (assuming it's not very marginal - and then I wouldn't have been flying).

So to those who dismiss PIFR as a mickey mouse, dangerous rating, think about what it's designed to achieve and ultimately trust the airmanship of those who've felt the need to go and get one. PIFR pilots with 24 odd instrument hours who blast off for solid IMC down to the minima may very well exist but if that's their mentality then without the rating I contend they'd be prime candidates for accidental flight into IMC.

To anyone considering it - go for it - it's interesting, exciting, challenging and at the end of the training you'll know what/when/how you feel safe to operate in. Just don't expect that it's a license to fly anywhere anytime and that you've still got an awful lot still to learn.

UTR.

[SmokingHole]

It is a lack of recency and experience that will get you into trouble.

With a PIFR do you still require the 3hours IF in 90 days, NDB/VOR in last 90days etc etc to remain current?

If you've had previous experience in IMC, it really isn't that hard to fly 'the line' while remaining above LSALT. If you didn't have that sussed, it's unlikely the ATO would've signed you out in the first place. The 90 day requirements are the bare minimum but have personally proven adequate after a few months of nothing but blue skies.

Just don't expect that it's a license to fly anywhere anytime and that you've still got an awful lot still to learn

Well said UTR:ok:

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Smoking hole - no, there are no recency requirements for PIFR FPAs (i.e approach types) and this is the bug bear of most critics. But it simply follows the 'private ops' theory that the individual is responsible for their own (and their non-fare paying passengers).

You'll also note that many here use this 'feature' to regain currency for CIR operations.

UTR

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

I recently did my IR-C-ME (MECIR) renewal and asked the ATO to do a PIFR as well (seperate label). He wrote the same thing on it as on the CIR label i.e. VOR, ILS, NDB, LLZ, DGA.

Say I allow my CIR to expire by a month (13 months since issuance of PIFR) but that I've got my recent night experience, does this mean that I cannot use it to fly IFR at night? Can the ATO rectify this with the stroke of his pen by writing the word "night" on my label after he's sent it in to CASA?

Thanks in advance,

FRQ CB

[kalavo]

The Night authorisation on the PIFR only allows you to fly at night under the IFR, not the VFR. If you wish to fly at night under the VFR you either need an NVFR or a current CIR.

Your ATO would be able to add Night at the stroke of a pen, but would also need to update CASA.

An easier option and should still be free is to go to the local CASA office and get the FPAs you are entitled to, which if you have a CIR/ME should include...

Navigation using NDB
Night
STAR
Instrument departure (MEA)
Instrument departure (MEA) SID
IAL NDB
NDB holding
Visual circling
Instrument approach (MEA)
Navigation using VOR
IAL VOR
VOR holding
IAL ILS
IAL LLZ
DME or GPS Arrival

There is also the following if you have RNAV/GNSS
Navigation using GNSS
RNAV (GNSS)
GNSS holding

If you hold a NVFR with one aid endorsed, and hold a current CIR/ME you can have the single engine restriction removed and the aids you are qualified for on the CIR/ME that are available under the NVFR added, ie NDB, VOR, DME, GPSN.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

FRQ - yes. And there is no issue with the label already having gone to CASA I would have thought? Just get another label if you're worried.

UTR

[maverick22]

Unless flying circuits at night, I reckon it's much safer flying IFR at night. Didn't waste my time getting a NVFR rating, just went straight for the CIR/PIFR for that reason.

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

Thanks for the replies. I'm not interested in NVFR (I have one of those), I'm interested in the notion of NIFR but on my PIFR. I reckon that just before I get a reprint I'll head down to the local CASA orifice and get them to pen it in.

I don't plan on allowing my MECIR to expire but one never knows what may happen.

Happy PIFRing,

FRQ CB

[CitationJet]

I had a PIFR issued three years ago at the same time as my ME-CIR renewal. It has been useful on a couple of occassions when I have not been able to get the CIR renewed due to the non-availability of an ATO.

On one occassion I couldn't get an ATO for five weeks after the CIR had expired - PIFR allowed me to keep flying.

I don't know that actually training for a PIFR as distinct from a CIR achieves alot. It is probably smoother and cheaper to do an integrated CIR rather than doing the PIFR in steps.

As to the lack of renewals on the PIFR - the US seem to manage OK without a renewal. IR skills are presumably checked on a BFR. (I have never actually done one!)

In my view anything with encourages more pilots to take out instrument ratings is a good thing. I don't know that the PIFR has achieved that.

[rioncentu]

I don't think the PIFR is a bad idea. if you follow the suggestions in the relevant CAAP and remain current, it is fine.

Who is going to fly without feeling proficient anyway? You are only doing yourself a disservice. Probably the same type of folk would fly without a CIR renewal so what is the difference in being not-current.

I have a CPL but no aspirations or need to fly commercially. The PIFR suits me just fine. Yes with all the add-ons it did probably take me just as long as a CIR.

My school would not allow the issue of the en-route without some FPA's. Some do and no, that is a BAD idea.

Perhaps I am one of the 2 folk in the country that Forkie refer to, but I think not. There are a lot of closet PIFR folk out there !

[Joker 10]

A little dose of reality, before the PIFR was introduced the rate of private operated higher performance aircraft involved in winter CFIT accidents was high and climbing.

Happily post PIFR the incidence of CFIT has slowed dramatically.

The private Ops pilots that are being introduced to procedural flying and Instrument Skills is quite high amongst the Bonanza and C 210 group which is a very healthy state of affairs.

Currency properly maintained under PIFR makes it as safe as any General Aviation rating and considerably more useful than NVFR.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Gotta admit I was initially on the “nay” side, however there’s some pretty compelling arguments for the “ayes” here. The only problem I can see is with recency. Seems that it’s a bit easier to fudge recency for a PIFR pilot than for a pilot with a C-SE/ME IR. Could be wrong on that one though.
However given a healthy attitude toward instrument recency and the rules, I reckon PIFR has more benefits than not.
A few years ago I witnessed a Bonanza inbound to TW nearly spud in trying to descend through cloud. Seems the pilot couldn’t hack a simple IMC descent to LSALT (weather didn’t require an instrument approach) and actually got into an unusual attitude.:eek: Turns out the pilot had one of these PIFR thingies, but hadn’t thought too much about recency. I then discovered why Bonanzas are called “doctor coffins”!:hmm:

[Clearedtoreenter]

My ATO and I have an annual ritual. Every time I do an IR renewal I ask my favorite ATO to write me out a PIFR

Doc,

Why do you need to get the ATO to do that?I just took my CIR along to the CASA Office, with some money of course, filled in a form, and they sent me a new licence with the PIFR and all of the add-on bits added.

Windy,

Didn't the UK already have a PIFR in the shape of what they called the IMC Rating? - is a similar idea I think and about 20 years ahead of the PIFR. You wouldn't expect us to be leading the way here would you? Would be good to see a NPPL here for example... just imagine a proper pilots licence to fly proper Cessnas where the only medical requirement is a driver's licence!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Doc, Why do you need to get the ATO to do that?I just took my CIR along to the CASA Office, with some money of course, filled in a form, and they sent me a new licence with the PIFR and all of the add-on bits added.

Ha! I eventually relented, filled in the form, and paid the money to have the PIFR added to my licence, based on holding a current CIR.

PIFR held concurrently with a CIR, even a CIR that is overdue for renewal, is one thing. The problem I see for the PIFR only, is the long term lack of currency (ie real currency) and the level of checking that goes with renewal of a CIR.

PIFR = handy to have but easily abused - even when you kid yourself that it is OK cause you really are pretty current, and besides that you have been doing it for years anyway!

Dr :8

[ZappBrannigan]

Gday peoples, I understand this might be irrelevant legal nitpicking, but it may not be - I thought I'd raise the following point from left field:

CAO 40.2.1 section 11.1 states that "The holder of a command instrument rating shall not act as pilot in command of an aircraft on an I.F.R. flight unless the recent experience requirements of this subsection are satisfied" etc.

This reads pretty black and white. Interpreting it word for word, I read it as "if you hold a CIR, you can't fly IFR as PIC if you're out of currency, regardless of whether it's a PVT flight and you hold a PIFR rating". If this is the case, I imagine it's worded like that to stop the very thing being discussed here - i.e. a person with both CIR & PIFR ratings that hasn't flown IF/IFR in 11 months flying a couple of PIFR hours as PIC including a couple of approaches, then the very next day conducting an IFR CHTR operation as PIC.

If it's not the case - it should be re-worded "shall not exercise the privileges of a CIR..." etc. - which would still allow IFR flight under the privileges of a PIFR rating when out of CIR currency.

[kalavo]

Becareful, studying for ATPL Air Law will rot your brain. :)

The good thing about the Orders is they are not written by the lawyers, and hence not subject to the same irrelevant legal nitpicking as the regulations and act, it also makes them easier to understand, because they are written in english not legalese.

You comply with CAR 176 (1) "The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly under the IFR, unless he or she holds: (a) an instrument rating; or (b) a private IFR rating." At that point you stick up your hand and say "Mr Lawyer Sir I was flying under the IFR using my private IFR rating", Mr Lawyer then consults CAO 40.2.3.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with you getting current using your PIFR (or for that matter in VMC with a safety pilot, dual or ICUS) and then flying on a charter the next day - when you conduct the charter, if you have the approaches and IF time you're current.

However, the orders for the PIFR make specific reference to CAAP 5.13 in regards to recency experience. The CAAP while not legally binding (it's only advisory) is a good indication of what a lawyer would expect of a "reasonable person", ie if you're not following the CAAP, stuff up and you wouldn't have stuffed up if you followed the CAAP, you're going to get the spanish inquisition. (Same sort of situation if you run out of fuel, didn't have any reserves, but the CAAP suggests 45mins + 15%).

The requirement for instrument rating holders to have recent experience before acting as PIC under the IFR is well accepted. However, because of the vast differences in the levels of experience and the types of operation likely to be
undertaken by PIFR holders, the rating does not specify any particular recency requirements. The holder is solely responsible to ensure that he or she is fully competent to undertake any IFR flight.

Recent experience is essential to competency in IFR operations because the skills required quickly degrade if not practised regularly. The recent experience requirements of the command instrument rating (CAO 40.2.1 para 11) should be used as guidance as to what minimum recent experience is likely to be required. Pilots are free to make use of synthetic trainers, personal computer simulation programs and any other activity in which appropriate skills are practised and these can be valuable aids to maintaining skill levels. However there is no activity which can fully substitute for actual flight experience, except perhaps full flight simulators, but these are generally not available or suitable for single pilots of light aircraft.If you do not meet the requirements of CAO 40.2.1 para 11 and intend to make use of the PIFR, you should be able to fully justify your currency for the conditions forecast. If it's been 100 days since your last VOR (ie not current for a VOR under the CIRME, but only just), you did a few practice VORs on Flight Sim last night, you've shot a bunch of NDB's or DGA's recently, you're unlikely to have an issue justifying your case. If it's been 22 months since your last IFR flight, which happened to be your renewal, you haven't flown at all since, you haven't done anything to brush up, and you flew to an airport with weather forecast below the alternate minima and screwed the pooch, you're going to have a lot of fun justifying that a "reasonable person" would do the same, aren't you?

The PIFR gives you a bit of leeway compared to commercial operations. It is there because CASA recognise there are people out there who aren't professional pilots, who aren't able to maintain the same currency as charter/RPT pilots, but remember it's a rating to learn and allow you to fly legally and safely, not a rating to justify stupidity.

Be careful up there!

Kalavo


Gday peoples, I understand this might be irrelevant legal nitpicking, but it may not be - I thought I'd raise the following point from left field:

CAO 40.2.1 section 11.1 states that "The holder of a command instrument rating shall not act as pilot in command of an aircraft on an I.F.R. flight unless the recent experience requirements of this subsection are satisfied" etc.

This reads pretty black and white. Interpreting it word for word, I read it as "if you hold a CIR, you can't fly IFR as PIC if you're out of currency, regardless of whether it's a PVT flight and you hold a PIFR rating". If this is the case, I imagine it's worded like that to stop the very thing being discussed here - i.e. a person with both CIR & PIFR ratings that hasn't flown IF/IFR in 11 months flying a couple of PIFR hours as PIC including a couple of approaches, then the very next day conducting an IFR CHTR operation as PIC.

If it's not the case - it should be re-worded "shall not exercise the privileges of a CIR..." etc. - which would still allow IFR flight under the privileges of a PIFR rating when out of CIR currency.

[ZappBrannigan]

Kalavo, I have absolutely no problem with anything you just posted, it's all spot on, and I agree with your points about sensible application of 40.2.1 to the PIFR rating. But none of those references mention specific requirements when you hold a CIR and a PIFR rating.

I'm not arguing for a second that there's any legal requirement to comply with 40.2.1 p11 to exercise the privileges of a PIFR rating alone. The point of my post is, as it's worded in that section, there DOES seem to be a requirement to comply with that section under any circumstance (PIFR included) if you hold a Command Instrument Rating. It is very clearly worded - if you hold a CIR, you must comply with the 90-day currency to fly as PIC under the IFR. It isn't worded as "to exercise the privileges of a CIR, you must have the following recent experience" etc. - which would allow PIFR flight outside the recency requirements.

I agree with the ATPL Air Law bit - you start looking for the slightest loophole in everything. Maybe my brain is beginning to rot.

[Jamair]

When I had a bare CPL & NVFR I was doing a lot of private flying. I did a PIFR with the add-ons of NDB/VOR NPAs, SIDs, Night, holding & VCA. Being SE (did it in a PA28-140) and only on those aids, it was about a third the cost of a MECIR. Came in handy.

I did a combined ME and CIR later which - after a year or so of PIFR flying - was a piece of p!ss; the hardest thing was the IREX.

The PIFR has its uses and also its dangers - a bit like every other part of flying....so I say yes, it is worthwhile in certain applications.

[Joker 10]

The essential difference between the PIFR and a CIR is that the PIFR is for Private operations ONLY.

Fly any form of commercial ops and it must be a CIR.

Anyone with any sense uses the recency requirements for the CIR to maintain currency with a PIFR.

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

Zapp,

You're right and there are a few other funny ones like that strewn through the books. One could argue however that although a regulation (by way of an Order) was contravened a defence was/is created by some other sort of authorisation making the transgression moot. Even if it's not would any conviction be sought? Probably not. Could somebody who was injured by an accident caused by a "current" PIFR/uncurrent CIR holder file suit? I'd love to hear about that one.

It's trivia and entertaining to say the least. The next time I come across one of these funny ones you can be sure I'll be thinking of you... maybe I'll PM.

FRQ CB

[ZappBrannigan]

You're right and there are a few other funny ones like that strewn through the books. One could argue however that although a regulation (by way of an Order) was contravened a defence was/is created by some other sort of authorisation making the transgression moot. Even if it's not would any conviction be sought? Probably not. Could somebody who was injured by an accident caused by a "current" PIFR/uncurrent CIR holder file suit? I'd love to hear about that one.

It's trivia and entertaining to say the least. The next time I come across one of these funny ones you can be sure I'll be thinking of you... maybe I'll PM.Yep, pretty much my thoughts exactly CB.

The one I always think of, as I mentioned in another thread, is "if you hold a CPL but have never held a PPL, can you conduct a PVT category flight with a Class 2 medical certificate?" - as the regs say you must hold a Class 1 to exercise the privileges of a CPL, and if you've never held a PPL, then the conduct of a PVT flight can only be under the privileges of a CPL.

Both are cases of being potentially disadvantaged by being overqualified for the task. I won't lose too much sleep over it all though (especially as I'm not running out to get my licence stamped with PIFR any time soon).

[Lasiorhinus]

http://radhikageorge.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/can_of_worms.jpg


CAO 40.1.0, 10.3 The holder of a student pilot licence may log as time in command only that time during which he or she is the sole occupant of an aeroplane in flight.

CARs 5.72 and 5.73 both permit a student pilot to be pilot in command of a flight where they are not the sole occupant of the aircraft.

[Wally Mk2]

In answer to the original question....PIFR, Good idea or not? Absolutely a good idea. ANY training gained can only improve ones skills & therefore be a safer pilot.
BUT There's little point in doing such a rating if it's only to be used at odd times. That level of skill needs to be conducted fairly reg & anyone whom rarely uses it has no place in the sky in IMC.
The amount of poor R/T procedures & poor airman-ship I hear/see day in day out it's scary to think that day VFR pilots are struggling to be even basically capable of staying safe !
So yes do a PIFR and enjoy it's benefits on a reg basis only

Wmk:)