Tee Emm
20th Nov 2008, 12:27
Under the Australian CASA Regulations the flight test for issue or renewal of a Command Instrument Rating is broadly the same whether the aircraft is a Boeing 747 or a Beech Duchess.
Most general aviation ATO's conducting the CIR in the real aircraft (light twin such as a Seminole or Duchess) will require the whole test be hand flown except for a brief period of a few minutes to allow for change of approach charts. The CIR is therefore a test of pilot manipulative skills under IMC or simulated IMC. This will include engine failure management during instrument approaches.
In marked contrast the CIR for an airline pilot conducted in a full flight Boeing or Airbus simulator is conducted with full use of automatic pilot, FMC, automatic throttle systems, flight directors and a first officer who not only works just as hard at "monitoring" the captains monitoring of the automatics, but is entirely responsible for all radio calls. In addition it is permissable to use GPS coupling to conduct an NDB or VOR approach coupled to the automatics. In short, a "no-brainer" instrument rating test if pilots would be truthful about it. Even an engine failure after take off normally calls for engagement of the automatics as soon as practicable.
The flight test report form which lists the sequences required to renew or issue a Command Instrument Rating, has a note that states one instrument approach should be conducted without use of flight director. Terrifying stuff to some (jesting, of course...)
Traditionally, and this goes back many decades, the instrument rating test was a primarily a test of the pilot's instrument flying skills. At the outset, it was never envisaged the pilot would use an automatic pilot since obviously this did not test the pilots basic flying skills. One only has to watch the sometimes embarrassing gyrations of a pilot welded to use of automatics, having a go at hand flying raw data in a Boeing.
Rather than just have the one official form to cover a CIR regardless of aircraft type, is it not time to accept the inevitable and have two distinct classes of CIR. One that covers manipulative instrument flying skills for non-automation general aviation aircraft. The other tailored for the airline pilot where manipulative raw data skills are considered lower priority and less important than competency at full use of all automatics - and that includes the monitoring role by the PNF.
The fact is manufacturer's and airlines have long since mandated the prompt engagement of automatic systems after lift off - with disengagement to partial automatics in the last few hundred feet of final approach if visual. It becomes imperative that airline crews therefore are tested for competency in these areas. In other words a CIR (Automatic Flight). This would not be inter-changeable with the general aviation non-automatics command instrument rating.
Constructive comments invited
Most general aviation ATO's conducting the CIR in the real aircraft (light twin such as a Seminole or Duchess) will require the whole test be hand flown except for a brief period of a few minutes to allow for change of approach charts. The CIR is therefore a test of pilot manipulative skills under IMC or simulated IMC. This will include engine failure management during instrument approaches.
In marked contrast the CIR for an airline pilot conducted in a full flight Boeing or Airbus simulator is conducted with full use of automatic pilot, FMC, automatic throttle systems, flight directors and a first officer who not only works just as hard at "monitoring" the captains monitoring of the automatics, but is entirely responsible for all radio calls. In addition it is permissable to use GPS coupling to conduct an NDB or VOR approach coupled to the automatics. In short, a "no-brainer" instrument rating test if pilots would be truthful about it. Even an engine failure after take off normally calls for engagement of the automatics as soon as practicable.
The flight test report form which lists the sequences required to renew or issue a Command Instrument Rating, has a note that states one instrument approach should be conducted without use of flight director. Terrifying stuff to some (jesting, of course...)
Traditionally, and this goes back many decades, the instrument rating test was a primarily a test of the pilot's instrument flying skills. At the outset, it was never envisaged the pilot would use an automatic pilot since obviously this did not test the pilots basic flying skills. One only has to watch the sometimes embarrassing gyrations of a pilot welded to use of automatics, having a go at hand flying raw data in a Boeing.
Rather than just have the one official form to cover a CIR regardless of aircraft type, is it not time to accept the inevitable and have two distinct classes of CIR. One that covers manipulative instrument flying skills for non-automation general aviation aircraft. The other tailored for the airline pilot where manipulative raw data skills are considered lower priority and less important than competency at full use of all automatics - and that includes the monitoring role by the PNF.
The fact is manufacturer's and airlines have long since mandated the prompt engagement of automatic systems after lift off - with disengagement to partial automatics in the last few hundred feet of final approach if visual. It becomes imperative that airline crews therefore are tested for competency in these areas. In other words a CIR (Automatic Flight). This would not be inter-changeable with the general aviation non-automatics command instrument rating.
Constructive comments invited