PDA

View Full Version : What about a modular IR?


Genghis the Engineer
30th Nov 2009, 16:31
Here's a thought:

Let's propose splitting the IR up into segments. I'll suggest four segments:


(1) Ability to fly in IMC (required by all instrument pilots, say 5 hrs training beyond PPL/CPL)
(2) Basic ability to fly instrument approaches (say 10 hrs training + exam)
(3) Ability to fly airways en-route (say, another 10 hrs training + further exam)
(4) Advanced instrument flying and approaches (perhaps a further 15 hrs training, including multi + either further exam or holding ATPL passes?)

Then we need some names for these. Let's assume that (1) carries no privileges on it's own, but needs to be added onto something else. But then we could go for:

(1) + (2), we could call that the "IMC rating"

(1) + (3), we could call that the "en-route instrument rating"

(1)+(2)+(3) would give a PPL most of the privileges that they're likely to ever want. We could call that something like "PPL/IR"

(1)+(2)+(3)+(4), we could call that the "instrument rating" and require it for all air transport pilots, or anybody wanting to fly category approaches.

Presumably this could be proposed at an EASA level, adopted across Europe for flight in Europe, but only the full IR declared to ICAO and acceptable for commercial air transport.

And let's say we could have a currency check every, oooh, 24 months, regardless of the combination of modules, but with each module assessed separately within the same flight check?

Could this work, and stop everybody getting upset about the current (or proposed) state of affairs concerning instrument flying in Europe?

G

julian_storey
30th Nov 2009, 16:55
Much, much too sensible ;)

bookworm
30th Nov 2009, 18:56
I do like the idea of a modular IR. I have two issues:

1) Given that FCL.008 appears to be set to propose an ICAO-standard IR with 25 hours of training (ICAO minimum is 10), why do you want to make it difficult for PPLs by adding a further 15 hours of training to get an IR and making the (1)+(2)+(3) version sub-ICAO?

2) Since any IFR flight in an airspace system other than the UK's is likely to require flight on airways, isn't (1)+(2) as much use as a chocolate teapot -- oh sorry, I think that simile might be taken. ;) For a properly pan-European rating, wouldn't you do (1)+(3) first, since that's the easy bit, and get them a bit of experience in weather and the ATC system while they learn to fly approaches for another few hours?

IO540
30th Nov 2009, 19:13
The concept of a modular IR was considered some time ago.

It is an excellent way to approach things (based on the Australian IR) and at the same time would provide a stage into which UK IMCR holders could be grandfathered.

For some reason the idea didn't go anywhere, but I have no idea why.

Genghis the Engineer
30th Nov 2009, 19:38
Hi Bookworm'

Good comments but I think fairly easy to address.

For the first; I'd always argue that test standards are far more important than hours anyhow. So, let's change the hours to 5 / 5 / 5 / 10.

For the second, surely the benefit of such a system is that a pilot can choose for themselves from (1)+(2), (1)+(3) or (1)+(2)+(3) without anybody else dictating what they should want.

G

bookworm
30th Nov 2009, 20:12
For the first; I'd always argue that test standards are far more important than hours anyhow.

Ah, "competence-based". You're sounding more like FCL.008 every line. :)

So, let's change the hours to 5 / 5 / 5 / 10.

It still doesn't answer the question of why you need part (4). Shouldn't that be part of the ATPL?

For the second, surely the benefit of such a system is that a pilot can choose for themselves from (1)+(2), (1)+(3) or (1)+(2)+(3) without anybody else dictating what they should want.

I think (1)+(3) might be workable, provided the privileges were never exercised outside the UK, but the ability to fly "in the system" offers a huge benefit at little cost in training. The best kept secret in UK IFR appears to be that flying in controlled airspace is much easier (and therefore safer) than messing around outside it. But, perhaps understandably, only those with IRs appear to appreciate the difference.

Genghis the Engineer
30th Nov 2009, 20:27
At the moment the theory part of the IR is in the ATPL but it can also be studied separately. The flight test is separate from the CPL test but you need to have passed both to get the ATPL. That seems to me something that could safely be left alone.

G

IO540
30th Nov 2009, 20:36
The best kept secret in UK IFR appears to be that flying in controlled airspace is much easier (and therefore safer) than messing around outside it.

That, surely, is due to being able to fly higher than 2400 ft :) One can then get above the clouds, etc.

It is little to do with being in a "controlled" environment.

Whopity
30th Nov 2009, 21:33
And whats wrong with the way I did my IR; you do enough training to pass the test. Then you could call it something like Competencey based training.

Didn't we throw that out of the window when JAR-FCL came in? The 40 hour approved course became 55 hours and guess what, less people passed first time? Reduce it to 25 hours and the pass rate should go up - less time to get bored!

sternone
1st Dec 2009, 05:04
Modular ? How about just studying for the FAA-IR test, train with a good instructor and become a proficiant IMC pilot ?

What's wrong with that ?

Genghis the Engineer
1st Dec 2009, 06:46
Modular ? How about just studying for the FAA-IR test, train with a good instructor and become a proficiant IMC pilot ?

What's wrong with that ?

Err, that most of us (a) fly European registered aeroplanes, and (b) try to pay for stuff as we go along rather than run into debt with big single outgoings, not to mention (c) don't need a full IR.

G

1800ed
1st Dec 2009, 08:25
I like the sound of this idea. Why can't EASA come up with anything as sensible :mad:

Utfart
1st Dec 2009, 11:19
why not make #1 part of the PPL syllabus? Then there's no need to separate #2 and #3, just call it an IR. I think #4 is actually included in #2/#3 anyway. What's more complex than joining and flyng an instrument aproach? I have no interest in ME flight, or having an ATPL. Just leave that to the guys who are building careers.

fholbert
1st Dec 2009, 11:46
What if you're doing a #1 and you need to do a #2 and can't?

sternone
1st Dec 2009, 21:17
If you own a plane and use it for private use there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't transfer it to N-registration.

dublinpilot
1st Dec 2009, 21:39
Sounds like a good idea to me.

I can choose the privileges that I want. I train for them, and if I can prove to an examiner in a test that I can meet the standard, then I get to exercise those privileges.

What I don't have to do, is train for additional privileges that I don't need, or at least can defer training for them, until I want them.

Sounds just about perfect. :ok:

sternone
1st Dec 2009, 23:03
You guys are nuts.

Even getting the IR ticket means nothing. It's the work you do afterwards to get the experience to fly in real IMC.

Pace
1st Dec 2009, 23:33
Even getting the IR ticket means nothing. It's the work you do afterwards to get the experience to fly in real IMC.

Sternone

Totally agree with you :hmm: I have not been involved in this thread but will add this to your comments!

Any licence whether its a basic PPL or an IMCR or an IR or even a type rating is a licence to start to learn.

The experience you gain afterwards is what makes you a competant pilot.
But you have to start somewhere and that somewhere is to have a certain training standard and to be able to meet those standards in your flying.

What is required to meet that basic standard is the question? Take an FAA IR and a European IR. One is much harder to achieve and takes far longer in ground studies.

You would think the European IR would produce much better and safer IR pilots than the FAA variety yet statistically this is NOT the case.

That beggars the question is one "overkill" ? as any training is expensive not only financially but in time it is quite in order to question whether the rating can be done to produce the same standard pilot at a lower cost and quicker speed.

Pace

sternone
2nd Dec 2009, 05:23
Again like I said, as a private plane owner flying for yourself you have no reason not to put your plane on N-registration so you can get the FAA-IR. Problem solved.

But a Modular IR ? Completely insane, apparently these guys have no clue what it is to fly in the system, single pilot and under heavy IMC. You have to be current and that means full commitment from your side, there's no modular partial way possible. Period.

Pace
2nd Dec 2009, 07:58
Sternone

Modular to me would not involve flying standards but more to exams tailored to PPLs and Lower non RVSM airspace.

The IR flight test is the determining factor as to whether you can handle all the aspects of IR flight while flying to the required tolerances. Whether you could do more training away from approved IR training schools and have the option to fly a pre test test which signs you off as competant to fly a full IR test is another option?

EASA would never accept an FAA style IR but I am sure they could look at relaxing the route to getting a PPL IR without dropping standards or encrouching on their commercial licences. Calling it modular might give them a way out in creating something acceptable.

I agree with you that you cannot have a half trained pilot flying to lessor tolerances in the airways but what I do question is whether a fully trained pilot flying to the same tolerances cannot be achieved with less cost and in less time. That is what they should examine. The answer BTW is YES!

Pace

IO540
2nd Dec 2009, 08:06
This is what I wrote in the other thread...

The real argument is whether the [training] requirements of the IR can be set much lower than they are.

There is no doubt they can be...

Unfortunately that line is a total loser for private IFR because any competency differentiation between the 'professional IR' and a 'private IR' would most likely lead to a ban on private IFR in a lot of places. The greatest weapon private IFR has against the gold plating elitists is "we passed the same IR checkride as the ATPL flying your 737".

Never forget that much of Europe has virtually zero GA (not counting people with lawn mowers strapped to their back, and the microlight scene) and its regulators couldn't care less for GA. They are, almost to a man, ex military (remember that most of the world is run by military dictators, actually or de facto), or ex ATC and these are highly elitist and rule-based professions.

Yet we want to be able to fly there, and overfly it.

So the only options for making the IR more accessible (like the FAA one is in the USA) are

- reduce the theory content (this is reportedly happening in the EASA IR)

- reduce the minimum dual training time i.e. go for demonstrated competence; ICAO is a friend here with its 10hrs min requirement (this is also reportedly happening in the EASA IR)

- take the IR flight training out of the professional school arena which is currently mandatory (I am not sure any progress has been made on this, due to FTO industry protectionism)

- take the IR theory training out of the professional school arena which is currently mandatory-attendance (this I believe will be in the EASA IR i.e. self study permitted)

- take out the Class 1 audiogram and go for Demonstrated Ability which is what you get anyway on all medicals after the Initial one :ugh: (this is not going to happen because medical departments in the CAAs rule more or less absolutely)

Give it a few years and then see.

In the meantime, get the FAA PPL/IR, buy an N-reg plane and enjoy at least a number of years of freedom http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif That's what I have been doing, along with a few thousand European pilots.

I don't know the politics of why the originally proposed modular IR did not come to being (in a proposal form, at least) but I suspect it was due to the desire to avoid introducing any lower-standard-checkride IR, for the reasons given above (GA exclusion from airspace) which I have heard from a number of the "committee players".

But then I fail to see where the EIR comes in, because it has a lower standard (no approaches) yet gives access to the same airspace.

The key to understanding this is to understand the specific committee politics... and I have no idea how this panned out. I dont have any inside track.

sternone
2nd Dec 2009, 11:06
Pace: Agreed, but no modular permissions !!!! You are either a competent complete current IR pilot or not.

cessnapete
2nd Dec 2009, 15:56
Totally agree. In my opnion the UK IMCR should only be for getting yourself to safety in an inadvertant IMC event. It should not be a way to plan IMC/IFR flight in any airspace. Ideal qalification for future upgrade to IR and a life saver.

The only route to IFR in controlled airspace for the PPL holder should be a 'new' IR with a much reduced technical content to the written exams. Self study allowed and not tied in to an FTO. (European type FAA IR?) A modular approach with reduced flight experience would be unsafe.

I come from an airline background, and find my present single crew IFR flying, much more demanding especially in actual IMC.(Could be my age though!) Although much safer and easier than grubbing around at low level trying to avoid the ground and controlled airspace etc.

I believe the UK proposed EIR is a nonsense and unworkable in the real world of weather forecasting and ATC

tmmorris
2nd Dec 2009, 19:04
Totally agree. In my opnion the UK IMCR should only be for getting yourself to safety in an inadvertant IMC event. It should not be a way to plan IMC/IFR flight in any airspace. Ideal qalification for future upgrade to IR and a life saver.

I'm not sure what your opinion has got to do with it... the ANO begs to differ. But anyway you can't upgrade an IMCR to an IR because the hours aren't credited at the moment. All you can do is start again.

I come from an airline background, and find my present single crew IFR flying, much more demanding especially in actual IMC.(Could be my age though!)

It's not your age; I'm 38 and have two airline pilot friends of 31 and 28. They fly with me and agree that single-pilot, single-engine IFR, OCAS, is a LOT harder than anything they do.

Tim