Instrument Rating Application Form 645 -Questions

[Centaurus]

Under Section B; Experience Details (Initial Issue Only) there are three boxes of which two have asterisks. One box is labelled "NIGHT FLIGHT" the next is INSTRUMENT and another box PIC. Both the latter have asterisks.

Question: Does the box marked NIGHT FLIGHT mean total night flying experience? Or does it only refer to the two adjacent boxes? Does the asterisked box INSTRUMENT mean instrument time at night? What is the reason for both asterisks?

Next question: Item 55 of the Instrument Rating Test Report refers to "at least one approach without Flight Director/Autopilot"

Does this mean the instrument rating test may be conducted wholly on the autopilot except that one approach must be flown without autopilot. Or does it mean the whole test can be conducted using autopilot but one approach must be flown without a Flight Director although the autopilot can remain engaged?

Or does it mean that one approach must be flown with both the autopilot AND flight director switched off? Or does it mean either one of the autopilot or the flight director must be off for the chosen instrument approach.

For the purpose of Item 55, would a DME Arrival be considered an instrument approach?

Item 58. "Engine failure during/after take off (Aeroplanes). Does that mean an engine failure during take off below V1 and abort? Or does it mean engine failure on the runway at V1 and continue the take off?

Item 30 - Unusual attitude recovery -no primary attitude indicator. Where an aircraft has three attitude indicators - ie captain, copilot and standby ADI, does Item 30 mean that both captain and copilot ADI must be simulated inoperative and the unusual attitude recovery made solely on the standby ADI?

Or does it mean that the ADI of the pilot under test is made inoperative and he is permitted to hand over control to the copilot who will recover using his own ADI? This is what would normally happen in real flight because it would be unusual for the PF to revert to recovering from the unusual attitude using the standby ADI when a perfectly serviceable ADI is in front of the PNF who would be better placed to take control and recover on his own ADI.

[Ted D Bear]

Centaurus

Rather than looking at the CIR application and flight test forms, why not take a look at CAO 40.2.1 including, in particular, section 10 and Appendix I (which set out the requirements for the CIR flight test). I think you'll find it answers your questions about use of AP/FD and use of the second AI.

As to the spaces on the form about night hours - I think you can assume that they are directed to ensuring that the applicant meets the requirements in CAO 40.2.1 section 8.3(e).

And I think you should assume that you can't hand over to the PNF, because if the test is undertaken in an aircraft certified for single pilot operation CAO 40.2.1 section 10.8 makes it clear that the ATO (ie PNF) can't be counted as crew for the purpose of completing the flight. (This might be different if the test is to be conducted in an aircraft certified as multi-pilot - see section 10.9 - but most tests are done single-pilot, aren't they?)

Hope this helps :O

Ted

[The Green Goblin]

You need 5 hours night command.

If you over use the autopilot it will fail during the test. I suggest never using it and if you need to do some paperwork hand over to the instructor. They usually relish the chance to get their rusty hands on the stick to embarass themselves :p

You will never have a V1 cut in a piston twin. Expect an EFATO once you have passed over 500 feet and attained blue line airspeed. You will however be required to conduct an asymmetric missed approach.

Expect all your approaches to be hand flown with at least one asymmetric.

Do the MECIR syllabus. Once you have all the ticks in the boxes you will be put up for the test and should be competent to pass.

[AerocatS2A]

Heh. I suspect Centaurus already has an instrument rating and isn't asking these questions from the perspective of a new IFR pilot about to do his test in a Baron ;).

The way they're done in our company, at least one approach must be flown raw data, i.e., no autopilot and no flight director. The engine failure during take-off is done at or after V1 so that you continue the take-off, run the recalls, clean up the airframe, and normally come back for a single engine approach.

I don't know about the rest of your questions, best to look further into the rules and regs as suggested above.

[Centaurus]

I suspect Centaurus already has an instrument rating and isn't asking these questions from the perspective of a new IFR pilot about to do his test in a Baron .

True. Sorry - I was remiss in not explaining that my questions were designed to indicate the Instrument Rating Application Items were open to liberal interpretation and that depends if the test is on a light twin or a 747 - the same test form for all aeroplanes.

I found that even CASA FOI's had their personal interpretations. For example if the CIR test is conducted in an A320/ 767/737 simulator, most of the test is not only on autopilot but also using vertical and lateral navigation. Perfect holding patterns and instrument approaches result. The boxes are easily ticked. Does that prove the pilot must also by definition be a whip at hand flying? Of course not. This is why I asked an earlier question of the interpretation of unusual attitude recovery with the primary (ADI) failed. Or the interpretation of an approach without flight director/autopilot? Which of the two or does it mean both?

The Instrument Rating Application form has changed very little in 30 years (?) and probably aimed at single pilot IFR.

[Centaurus]

Rather than looking at the CIR application and flight test forms, why not take a look at CAO 40.2.1 including, in particular, section 10 and Appendix I (which set out the requirements for the CIR flight test). I think you'll find it answers your questions about use of AP/FD and use of the second AI.


You are quite right. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Cent.

[601]

I found that even CASA FOI's had their personal interpretations.

What's new about that