Why, oh why can't we have a realistic PPL/IR

[Fuji Abound]

I forget the exact details of the American system, but for the average private pilot it is realistic to undertake an IR. In consequence, a vast number do. Safety improves and GA benefits. Under JAR the old PPL/IR is all but gone, and yet wasnt JAR partly about the freedom of movement within member states. Why on earth should the private pilot be forced to undertake the full CPL exams., together with training that seems to require ever more time, with ever less recognition of other ratings (IMC) or experience (the old self improver route). I doubt it can be on the grounds of safety to commercial flights. After all the greatest risk must be whilst operating in the confines of a busy ATZ, which the IMC holder is perfectly entitled to do in UK airspace in IMC. I am not proposing for one moment that the training be inadequate, just available, requiring a realistic level of committment from the pilot along broadly similiar lines to that in the States. Why and earth do we all put up with it!!

[Julian]

Fuji,

I agree, hence why I am taking my readies to the US inOctober to take the FAA IR, when you get back you can tack an IMC onto your JAA licence as well by just paying the fee.

The FAA costs $3300 compared to £10000 for the JAR IR!!!

Flying over there is something that isnt out out everybodies reach, why pay £100/hr for a clapped out old bucket when for $90/Hr we had a spanky new Archer III?

Julian. :rolleyes:

[Dr Jekyll]

Perhaps we should just suggest to JAA the holders of an American I/R should be able to exercise the privileges in European aircraft providing it is a private (IE not for hire or reward) flight.

On second thoughts this is effectively happening anyway, as serious private pilots stampede to the N register.

[A and C]

Look when will you guys learn that you are not good enough pilots untill you have done the flight planing exam based on the VC10 cruse fuel flow its a must if you are to thinking of flying a light aircraft IFR.

[FrontWindowSeat]

I'm half way through an FAA IR and as far as I can tell, it's broadly similar to the instrument part of the JAA CPL/IR. Over this side of the pond, the IR, CPL & ME stages are typically taken seperately, and at much lower expense.

Also, if you are in the right part of the US, there are dozens of ILS approaches within a short distance and, importantly, with a wide range of airport elevations to allow practice approaches to minimums in actual weather.

By the way it's not all like Arizona - the region where I fly is significantly busier than the SE of England, and has similarly dodgy weather.

It's difficult not to reach the conclusion that the JAA system places hurdles to discourage pilot training, while the FAA takes a more practical approach to encourge flying safely.

[Keef]

Silly, isn't it! JAA has effectively eliminated the PPL/IR for "ordinary" human beings.

I've joined the rush, and am off to the USA to do an FAA IR. Having looked at the syllabus and requirements, I decided to try for an FAA CPL rather than PPL - if you can do the IR, you should be able to do the CPL.

Then re-register the trusty mount to the N-reg (as long as it's a US-origin aircraft cos the rest are a pain to get onto N) and away you go.

The purists (expecially those with CAA or JAA IRs) will tell us we're not as good as they are - probably right. But if the FAA thinks we're safe to fly IFR, I'll go along with their wisdom.

Keef ;)

[A and C]

I have done both the CAA and FAA IR and i think that the CAA/JAA are just trying to stop private flight in class A airspace.

The CAA/JAA exams are far to academic for practical use the fuel flight plan is the worst example of the academic black art that the european exams have become.

On the other hand the FAA ground exams seem a little to easy and i think that a little more depth on tech and met subjects would not go amiss.

As to the flying exam a well trained monkey could do the european exam with enough practice as the exact form of the test is known well in advance and as long as you have the money you can go over and over it untill it is auotmatic, yes you have to fly the aircraft very precicly but the amount of thinking you do is not very high because you know what is coming next in the program.

The FAA exam was very practical with much more investigation of how you managed the aircraft when the examiner changed the situation ,you have to think "on your feet" as you find your self diverting to a place you did not know existed untill two seconds ago to do a single engine NDB app to a circle to land. In all it was a very revealing test that would show far more about how you would fly in the future than the european flight test and the compleat absence of bul$h1t was a god send.

The whole FAA system works on the pracitcal application of flying skills and this is reflected in the CPL and Flight engineer exams the latter of which is the most extreme example of the diference in the exam systems.

The best advice i can give to you is to do the FAA IR and get your aircraft on the american register and stick two fingers up to the JAA.

[ 06 September 2001: Message edited by: A and C ]

[Jepp]

Keef,what are you saying man ! "purists will say the FAA IR isnt as good as a CAA/JAA one"
there probably right .
I say B*****KS ! to the purists, the FAA IR is issued to exactly the same standards required of the European one at a realistic price. I have always beleived in the term "you get what you pay for " but this just doesnt apply for the CAA/JAA IR, most definately not.
Just had to get that off my chest!

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Leaving aside the relative skill requirements... the reason for the expense and hassle of the JAA PPL/IR is that 'they' don't want you to have them.

Whereas the US enjoys a far less congested and crowded air traffic environment the Uk does not. If you are in an airway in your light aircraft with 6 on board you are taking up as much resource as the average airliner with 200 on board. In fact more due to your speed and lack of systems such as TCAS.

With the resource being finite and under such intense pressure the natural response of the regulator is to create barriers to entry.

Not fair but thats how I see it,

WWW

[A and C]

WWW how much time will your jet spend between 3000 ft and FL 130 ?,most of the light aviation will be it this airspace and not using the major airports.
You are correct that the JAA is doing its best to stop the PPL/IR but its just being obstructive and making rules that is what keeps the burocrats in work and fat index linked pensions.

[Noggin]

Interestingly, the JAA IR was modelled on the FAA IR. Many of the JARs so often criticised, are direct copies from FARs. There is of course no such thing as a PPL/IR, an IR is the same whatever licence you put it on.

The JAR requirements were produced by committees made up of pilots (mostly airline), not beaurocrats. As always, the output of a committe is a compromise made up from the most polarised views. Many European countries have little or no GA and consequently expect airline standards for any pilot flying IFR. The USA is at the opposie end of the spectrum. Setting aside the theoretical knowledge, why is it that holders of FAA IRs have to do so much additional flying to pass a UK IR Skill Test?
Surely they should be able to just turn up and pass the test! After all, they can fly a N Reg aircraft in the same airspace.

[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: Noggin ]

[Fuji Abound]

I thought I would try and see exactly the current state of affairs. It is this.

The last CAA CPL exams are indeed said to be in November, albeit their is now no one teaching the syllabus or able to provide any study material. Thereafter their are only two alternatives. One - follow the ATPL route, but the time, cost and more to the point extent seem totally unrealistic for the private pilot, OR take the new JAR CPL. Ah but, the syllabus for the new JAR CPL has not been agreed by the CAA, therefore no one is able to provide any study material AND it seems unlikely any one will, because the need is small and therefore it is not commercially viable to organise study material / courses. I gather a syllabus may have been agreed in France, so you could take the exams in French! In any event the JAR system will at the moment require the prospective PP to take the full CPL exams, even though he may have no commercial aspirations, whereas of course the CAA route exempted the PPL'er from the irrelvant exams.

In consequence, it seems to me JAR for the time being has effectivly closed the door on the PPL/IR. Seems to me that is unfair and some lobbying of the CAA is required. There again we could all roll over and accept it, but I am not sure that brings about the correct sort of change. I for one am going to write to the CAA and see where we go from there.

[rolling circle]

The JAA CPL syllabus has been agreed by the UK CAA and the associated examinations are available. However, no training providers are currently providing the course. There are two reasons for this - firstly, the only provider that holds an approval has ceased trading and, secondly, no other provider has sought approval.

The CAA can hardly force training providers to apply for approval for a course for which they see an inadequate market.

It is not necessary to take all of the CPL examinations to qualify for the IR, the 7 subjects required are listed in JAR-FCL 1.470(c). Individual member states are not at liberty to vary this requirement.

Were you to choose to take the theoretical knowledge examinations in another JAA member state (e.g. France) you would also have to take the flight test in that state. JAR-FCL does not allow training for a single licence or rating to be split between different states.

I'm not quite sure what lobbying the CAA is intended to achieve, they have put everything in place - it is the training industry that is dragging its heels.

[GulfStreamV]

London Guildhall University, as per their website has one "Under Development", may be worth a call...
http://www.lgu.ac.uk/ca/index.html

GV.

[Fuji Abound]

Rolling circle - you may be better informed that I, but I spoke to the CAA within the last couple of days and they confirmed the syllabus had not yet been approved by them, the London Guild came forward with the same story. I have written formally, so we will see what is said.

I have to also strongly disagree with the sentiment you express. I spoke to many training organisations and they put it simply - they are not intending to provide a course towards the JAR CPL/IR exams because they simply do not consider it commercially viable - OK that may change, let us hope so, but I personally doubt it.

So where does that leave us - well under the old national rules, even had a course not been provided, self study was quite possible, but under JAR I gather you MUST be enrolled on a course. In consequence, at the moment I suspect there is NO practical means of obtaining a PPL/IR short of taking the full ATPL exams. I am glad to be corrected, and have again written to the CAA to seek clarification.

I think it is very worrying, as this forum has indicated, that the vast majority of PPLers who wish to pursue an IR now follow the FAA route. What does this mean? 1. A loss of aircraft to the N register, and presumably a loss of income to our national authority in consequence. 2. A loss of income to our training schools. 3. A loss of income to our training colleges. What is gained? - well certainly no improvement in safety, because even if the FAA/IRer is of lesser standard (and I doubt it is of any consequence to the PPL'er) it matters not one iota because the same pilots will be flying in the same airspace on an N register. In pursuing my enquiries the CAA have been very helpful - BUT where ever the policy decisions are coming from, I go along with the other views expressed, in that there would seem no place for PPL/IRers within JAR. I for one think it is a disgrace.

.. .. .. and so why do I so strongly disagree - well because it is only too easy for our national authority to say, if indeed they do, that the mechanism is in place, it is hardly our fault if no one is prepared to implement it. If that is really so come clean - tell PPLs to opt out of JAR, follow the FAA route, put your aircraft on the N register, and whilst you are at it, don't buy a European aircraft because it will be more difficult to put on the N register.

Then again, just maybe it is easier to roll over an accept it - I think not, it IS worth lobbying!!

[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: Fuji Abound ]

[Noggin]

Rolling Circle is quite right, the syllabus was published in 1997, the exams are available.

As no training provider has submitted a compliant syllabus (amplified version with training notes) to the CAA then there is no approved training provider.

The JAA has generated a Catch 22 situation, the CAA is not a training provider and has little remit to change anything. Why not lobby the JAA and/or your MP, this is a political imposition.

The loss of money to training providers is obviously of no consequence, or they would offer courses. The FAA way is cheaper, many will follow that route, many in the CAA would agree with you.

[ 08 September 2001: Message edited by: Noggin ]

[rolling circle]

Fuji Abound - It does appear that I am better informed than you, doesn't it? The list of approved training organisations, published by the CAA and available on their website, shows that 4 Forces Aviation hold approval for the JAR-FCL 1 CPL Modular Theoretical Knowledge (A) course. This approval could hardly have been gained unless the syllabus had been approved. Hence my statement that "the only provider that holds an approval has ceased trading" was absolutely correct.

I don't quite understand your allusion to a strong disagreement. You said

"I spoke to many training organisations and they put it simply - they are not intending to provide a course towards the JAR CPL/IR exams because they simply do not consider it commercially viable"

and I said

"The CAA can hardly force training providers to apply for approval for a course for which they see an inadequate market".

Not much disagreement there, surely. If insuffient numbers of PPL holders wish to gain an IR, you can hardly blame the training providers for choosing not to invest in the development of a course.

Noggin - One training provider (4 Forces) has submitted a compliant syllabus and has received approval. Unfortunately, it has ceased trading. I agree, however, that it is not the CAA that is at fault, while by no means perfect, their hands are tied by their political masters who insist on ever closer ties to europe. If you think the JAA debacle is a disaster, just wait until you are conned into joining the EMU - you won't even be able to afford a FAA IR under the resulting exchange rate.

[ 08 September 2001: Message edited by: rolling circle ]

[Fuji Abound]

Noggin and Rolling Circle - thank you for your comments - you are clearly well informed. I accept your comments.

My own personal view is that there are many serious PPs who would like to undertake an IR, but consider the constraints I have highlighted unacceptable barriers. Some will clearly follow the FAA route, many will not bother.

Who would agree with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My impression is that the CAA are sympathetic - and I still feel it is a cause worth lobbying for.

[ 08 September 2001: Message edited by: Fuji Abound ]

[IFollowRoads]

FA

I agree with you - it is most frustrating to try and get an IR for a PPL. For myself, I am outside of the eyesight limits for a Class 1 medical, so there was/is absolutely no point in going for CPL/ATPL etc etc. All I wanted to be able to do was fly IFR outside of UK airspace, and be able to transit the great swathes of class A in the UK (one of my regular routes was BRI-EDI. The drop to 'below 2000' having climbed over Wales, and then to climb over the Pennines was a tad annoying to say the least. Also below 2000' in a single over the water is somewhere I dont want to be.

Fortunately, PPSC were soluble at the time, and having less than the 6-700 hours, needed the approved course. The content was pretty relevant (no, I didn't have to work out the fuel flow for a VC10), and have appreciated on more than one occasion what it gave me (blocked static: yes, I could have worked it out given time, but PUDSOD from the IR course had it worked out in seconds for me. Border crossing/FPL's diverting to an A/D not in the FPL - different country, non-Schengen. Can I do it? What when I land?) The course was 90% useful, an other 9% will be fine if/when I ever get to afford something that goes as high as FLmassive. Possibly 1% was dud, but then I've still got loads to learn, so quite probably it wil be useful. Ironically, one of the reasons I pressed ahead to get it done was the prospect of confusion post CAA IR exams being available - from what I see now I can feel smug, but it is useless to those who want to get to the same place...

Best hints I can offer would be to chase the contacts on the PPL/IR Organisation home page - Linda at PAT, Michael Dobson at the CAA, and see if they can offer you some hope - best of luck, and please post back if it is positive.

IFR ('cos it was more that the PPL)

[Bouncy Landing]

One slight problem - didn't 4Forces go into liquidation about 10 days ago?