IR validity

[Billy the Kid]

Hello everyone,. .I have a UK CPL with a valid IR.This was done on the B737.. .I've tried searching the site but to no avail.

Does this still allow me to use the privaleges when flying light singles?. .I know it used to, but has the law changed, do I have any grandfather rights?. .I heard that a valid CPL gives you an automatic IMC rating.

[Matthewjharvey]

BTK

I believe you need a Single engine piston rating on your licence to fly light singles.

[distaff_beancounter]

BTK. .I understand that you will need a Single Engine Piston (SEP) class rating, which will probably just require you to pass an SEP proficiency test. In addition, your IR is probably only valid for a multi-crew aircraft, such as a B737. If you want to use it on a SEP, I believe that you will have to pass an IR test on either an SEP or MEP, single pilot aircraft. Under JAA, you can combine an MEP (or SEP) proficiency test & the IR test. This MEP IR would be valid for both MEP & SEP aircraft. If you do the IR on an SEP it is not valid on an MEP. . .What a sad life I have been living recently. Saturday mornings at the flying school waiting for the fog to clear, again, & actually reading JAA regulations! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[rolling circle]

There is no question - An instrument rating validated on a multi-pilot aeroplane is not valid on a single pilot aeroplane. It is valid only on the specific type on which the revalidation was conducted. Thus, an IR validated on a B737 is valid only on a B737

[Stan Evil]

RC is quite correct. Putting a bit more flesh on what he says:

A UK (but not a JAA) CPL gives you similar instrument privileges to holding an IMC rating but with no renewal/revalidation required. If you want to fly a single piston (SEP) or twin (MEP) then you must have a current SEP or MEP rating. SEP ratings are valid for 2 yrs, MEP for one. If your rating is out of date (by up to 5 yrs) then you need to take a Licensing Proficiency Check with a FE PPL or CRE. This is just a bash through the standard GH items.

[Gary Halliday]

I accept that these are the rules now - but can anybody substantiate the increase in flight safety gained by making professional pilots do I/Rs on MEPs/SEPs as well as their workaday aeroplanes?. I would have thought that if you fly in controlled airspace in all weathers you would be capable of working out what was practical and what wasn`t for a particular class of aircraft.

Before JAA you could fly for a living and keep your private privileges including I/R (and by inference night) valid by flying the appropriate group of aircraft once in thirteen months providing that that one flight included the handling of a simulated failure of a power unit. A twin revalidated single (+SLMG) privileges but not the other way round. - So a flight in a twin with an Efato + assymetric landing was enough to keep the whole thing legal. You kept on top of it by flying your 450-900 hrs (average jobs) a year and doing whatever checkouts you felt were prudent or demanded by someone hiring you an aircraft.

If we were crashing all over the place and generally being an embarassment before JAA it escaped my notice. The necessity for 2 or 3 instrument ratings, 90 day validities to land a pa-28 at night, leaving the circuit x times a month in a twin, etc, etc seems to me the most crass if not criminal upshot of JAR.

Edited for spelling. .GH

[ 23 February 2002: Message edited by: Gary Halliday ]</p>

[Zlin526]

Gary Halliday,

I can substantiate the fact by saying flying IFR in a single or Multi-engined light twin is 2000 times more difficult than sitting back in a 737 with a 1st officer next to you to do the RT, pushing buttons on the autopilot and drinking freshly made coffee by the CC.

Sorry, but hand flying an IFR approach, in a small twin, single pilot is bloody difficult and the powers that be need to know that you can cope, hence the requirement to fly the test on a similar aircraft type.

[Gary Halliday]

Zlin - You`re winding me up. While resisting the temptation to reach for the flamethrower - if it`s "2000 times more difficult" to fly an IFR approach in a light twin, than a 737 (you chose the type),in fact to the extent that it is "bloody difficult", it may say more about your perception of the two activities than substantiating the increase in public safety brought about by JAR.

You may have flown light twins, but if you found it bloody difficult (it`s not) you probably opted for a quieter life. If you found flying 737s to be less demanding (it`s not) may I humbly suggest that you`ve had superb and unstinting assistance from whoever was in the other seat, cloudless blue forever and a management culture so supportive and caring it would make the Samaritans look hardnosed.

The thread was about the I/R, which in my opinion is more about procedural/situational awareness than type/class specificity. That`s also how it was viewed pre JAR. The case for currency as opposed to IFR currency on light twins/singles is a little different.

Really you just saying that it should be does not qualify as evidence.

Is the world safer since JAR ?.

GH

[2Donkeys]

Whatever the words he chooses, I think Zlin has got it right. Leaving aside for a moment, the question of whether or not JAR is a good thing (most people know the answer to that), we have two real factors under debate. The single vs. multi crew aspect, and the piston-twin vs transport jet bit.

Even prior to JAR, the CAA would not allow a pilot that had obtained their IR in a multi-crew environment to fly single-pilot IFR in IMC. So, no change there. Clearly it is tougher to fly an approach to minima, single crew.

Now then, passenger jet, versus piston twin... Start thinking about factors like power-plant reliability, complexity of operation, behaviour in response to failure, performance available, instrumentation quality and reliability, autopilot capabilities... Well, I know what conclusions I draw

[Gary Halliday]

OK - honestly I don`t want to prolong this to get at anybody - but I have to respond.

It is all about JAR.

1 Yes prior to JAR the CAA would not allow Multi I/R only people to excercise single pilot I/R privileges, but there were very few of those - most people did their original I/R tests as single crew and hence were allowed to keep single pilot private qualifications even if their day jobs were multi crew.

2 "Clearly it is harder to fly an approach to minima single crew". Clearly that is bo*****s.. .The I/R renewal where ever and however it is done is not renewing a crew but a pilot. The brief is very very specfic - you are responsible for tuning aids - you are responsible for initiating comms with ATC. No prompting. You fly it. It`s your I/R. The one difference in a MEP renewal compared with a type specific renewal is the limited panel content. This came about because of a PT accident I believe. . .The number of crew is basically a reflection of the complexity of the aircraft. Light twins are simple. ( ok there must be exceptions ). The AIP sets out restrictions to minima for non public tranport single pilot ops and I haven`t got a problem there.

What is a problem is -

3 I fly in and out of the UK in atrocious wx at work then after a suitable period of recuperation I want to fly a twin (ok so I have an unhealthy interest in flying - but I`m not the only one). I can use my valid MEP rating and IMC rating to fly into a fair few airfields outside controlled airspace but close to extremely busy TMAs in equally atrocious weather down to minima which are quite close to cat 1, but I can`t file a plan airways to Jersey ?. Why do I have to do another ILS, another hold, another departure etc, etc to get another I/R?.

GH

[ 27 February 2002: Message edited by: Gary Halliday ]

[ 27 February 2002: Message edited by: Gary Halliday ]</p>

[2Donkeys]

[quote]Clearly that is bo*****s.<hr></blockquote>

Good to see that the art of rational argument is not entirely lost. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Suspect that your views probably put you in the minority Gary - but I don't suppose that worries you.

[Gary Halliday]

2Ds

Your CLEARLY is as rational as my bo*****s

-if you think about it.

You seem to have a good grasp of twin engine GA flying and all of the associated theory and legislation. I know your environment, think about it again if you ever see things from my world. That`s not to imply it`s any better or that you should.

And no it doesn`t worry me to be in a minority but I`d be interested to know where you got the census from.

GH

[CaptAirProx]

Gary Halliday, if flying a twin piston is so easy like falling off a log. Then why don't you do what I do, and once a year go and get your MEP(IR) renewed. With your experience I am sure you would pass first time and in minimal time too. You must know a friendly examiner around your neck of the woods. It cost me £300 last time. And do you know what, I nearly in the heat of the ILS took the wrong minima off the plate. Simply cos I had got so used to either watching the autopilot do the work or asking my colleague to find out the info whilst I was hand flying it. So I think this whole single pilot thing is VERY valid. Admitted, my instrument scan was there but my practical appreciation of the aircraft op took a few extra brain cells.

[Sleeve Wing]

GH.. .I have been following this thread with detached interest.. .. .I am now concerned because my feeling is that you are suffering from the usual misguided delusions that afflict some airline pilots; this concerns their attitude towards the capabilities of the minnows of our world.. .As CaptAirProx suggests,if you are as good as you say you are, prove it - take an MEP(IR).. .. .I would give you about 30 minutes into the detail before things start to go wrong - not with your obvious Airways /Approaches / Bad Wx. expertise but with the different operating characteristics / seat of pants / control disparities etc. required of a light aircraft. Response to turbulence / huge amounts of drift / lack of inertia all contribute to the dilemma.. .. .Just remember that the nonprofessional guys with IRs are very highly motivated and usually very competent. They are to be admired for their skill and their unrewarded professionalism, not disparaged for the easy(?) tiddlers that they fly.. .. .Believe me, I know what I'm talking about.. .Rgds,. . Sleeve. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[Gary Halliday]

Really Sleeve - you`re just trying to make an argument where there isn`t one. Please save your concern about my delusions. CaptAirProx too. It`s necessary to renew ratings but not to the extent of duplicating this stuff. . .. .I haven`t denigrated those who fly light twins or those who are not professionals. I haven`t said I`m so good I don`t need to prove anything. Re- read if you can be bothered. As you suggested I have renewed the rating periodically (two of the last four years) but I`m getting bored with shelling out the 300 quid or so just to do the same as I do at work, where crucially I never had to before. The statistics don`t warrant it. . .. .Sadly you would have been disappointed to watch my last performance with massive drift angles, light wing loadings, reading my own plates (don`t you tell your examiners the minima you`re going to use before you start ?) and all the other spurious differences you want to believe contribute to justifying this excercise in bureaucratic arse covering. - It was just an average normal pass. . .. .Sleeve I`ve got enough time in both regimes to "know what I`m talking about".. .. .GH

[Sleeve Wing]

Actually,GH, you're probably right.. .You would be better off in a light twin on your own ........... .. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="cool.gif" />. . . . <small>[ 07 March 2002, 21:33: Message edited by: Sleeve Wing ]</small>

[Gary Halliday]

I guess you`re having to pay for your own I/R and you`re too old to sit in the bigger stuff anymore.. .. .Ahhhh Bless. Have the last word be - my guest.

[CaptAirProx]

Gary, yes i do tell the examiner, that was part of my approach brief I gave him. However, as always in light aircraft the glideslope failed to operate. So had to revert to a LLZ/DME. Went to look down at the plate and tried using the circling minima. You see, ATC had basically farted me around on a non-standard procedure so I was feeling the workload come on. . .I get the impression you don't mind doing your OPC/LPC's at the companies expense, but as soon as you have to touch your pocket, all hell brakes loose. . .I totally disagree with you on principle. We all have to be assessed from time to time. My PPL examiner's rating is due for renewal shortly. Now if and when I ever get to the great heights of being a TRE with my company, I would still expect to renew my PPL examiner authority as a matter of course. Yes an examniners role does'nt change between aircraft, but the aircraft do and therefore the whole approach to the flight has to change. That is what the CAA are guarding against. I like you am a professional pilot, I therefore expect to pass the same renewal that jo-blogs has to do regardless of my background. It's called Standards. Again the role of the examiner.

[CaptAirProx]

Oh and another thought............. .. .These 'rules' are based on the law of averages. The average commercial pilot who perhaps has an average skill, who say has been flying a multi-crew aircraft for a while and has'nt seen a piston in ages. They blast off in a Chieftain full of 9 mates to the south of France. Make a complete pigs ear of it a kill the lot of them. . .Think yourself lucky you are clearly one of those guys that happens to above average. Therefore, I say again go a do the test like the rest of us and eat humble pie. That smacks of a far more professional pilot than what you have displayed here.. . . . <small>[ 08 March 2002, 12:14: Message edited by: CaptAirProx ]</small>

[Gary Halliday]

CaptAirProx you do want to wind yourself up don`t you.. .. .When, pray did this scenario of yours occur?.. .. ."Airline pilot kills 9 on day off jaunt" - sorry missed that one.. .. .GH. .. .Edited for punctuation. . . . <small>[ 08 March 2002, 12:48: Message edited by: Gary Halliday ]</small>

[CaptAirProx]

Oh dear, I agree with sleeve wing. Go flying single crew, pitty the F/o on your day job.

[alphaalpha]

I don't want to join in the argument going on here, but I have a couple of points to make:. .. .1. Isn't a key word here 'currency.' Would any professional pilot whose day job is flying jets multicrew, with a high level of automation really want to make a filthy weather approach down to minima in an single pilot, MEP light twin if he hadn't flown IFR in such an aircraft for 11.5 months? Especially if the day was complicated by a late change of STAR, change of runway, approach aid out etc. Airmanship comes into this equation and I would say (IMHO) the difference is so great that its a situation to avoid if at all possible.. .. .BTW, as an amateur pilot, I operate on the basis of one IFR approach per month as an absolute mimimum. But then I didn't find it straightforward converting from flying IFR in a C172 to IFR in an Arrow!!. .. .2. The mimima reflect the difficuties of single pilot IFR: ILS Cat 1 single pilot, vis/RVR 800m; ILS Cat 1 multi crew, vis/RVR 550m.. .. .Regards

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Gary, looks like you are wasting your time trying to point out a couple of simple facts. However I like you believe that any profficient and professional pilot will plan and think ahead of his / her aircraft .. always. and have the ability to judge when they are comfortable to fly any trip or aircraft. Paying large sums of money just to satisfy some bureaucrat that you are profficient is not neccessarily manditory for everyone.. .. .To suggest that to fly a light piston twin IFR or VFR is far more difficult than flying a 737 is stupid. Using that benchmark of thought then the light twin should be two crew and the 737 single crew.. .. .Check rides are part of professional flying and should be examined based on the need for same.. .. .All the check rides in the world will not change a moron, they obviously get jobs making new rules and reinventing the wheel for aviation in the CAA - FAA - T.C. JAA - JAR etc...and try and dumb the rest of aviation down to their level.. .. ..................... . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />