CAA anounce New IR Course

[Whopity]

Normally new courses are announced to Industry by AIC however LASORS 2010, a mere guidance document, contains details of an entirely new IR Course that has not been notified officially anywhere else!
Approved Modular Flying Training Course
The IR(A) modular flying training course consists of two
modules, which may be taken separately or combined.
The two modules of approved training are:

(a) Basic Instrument Flight Module (BIFM) comprising
10 hours of instrument time under instruction, of
which up to 5 hours can be instrument ground time
in a BITD, FNPT I or II, or a flight simulator. Upon
satisfactorily completing the BIFM as a separate
course the applicant is issued with a BIFM course
completion certificate.

(b) Procedural Instrument Flight Module (PIFM)
comprising the remainder of the training syllabus for
the IR(A), i.e. 40 hours single-engine or 45 hours
multi-engine instrument time under instruction, and
the theoretical knowledge course for the IR (A).


Where are the approval requirements for this course? What qualifications do instructors need? Why has the CAA failed to notify Industry of this new course?
An applicant for the PIFM who does not hold a CPL
(A) must be the holder of a BIFM course completion
certificate. This 10 hours clearly equates to the 10 hours of IF in the CPL Course, an ICAO requirement. It also forms a mandatory requirement for the FI Course, so why is there no credit for PPL FIs, who will have completed this training long before a BIFM completion certificate had been dreamt up, and who are qualified to teach it.

[BillieBob]

The amended IR course arrangements were introduced in Amendment 7 to JAR-FCL 1. ISTR that it was mentioned at a CAA seminar in 2007 but was not particularly well received by the assembled company. It would appear that, after its previous bungled attempts to implement Amendments 6 and 7 properly, the Authority has now decided to implement them by stealth (and are also bungling that).

[Whopity]

There is further bungling in H6.2 FI(A) (Sea) In LASORS 2008 this section made perfect sense, yet in the 2010 version it has been amended for no good reason and is now is a shambles. It has totally removed the requirement for any training at all, whilst adding an irrelevant CRI experience requirement to an FI rating!

[XXPLOD]

I have just been examing Lasors 2010. I note the following (in Section D) regarding the modular CPL course.

An applicant holding a Course Completion Certificate for
the Basic Instrument Flight module, as set out in Appendix
1 to JAR FCL 1.205, may be credited up to 10 hours
towards the required instrument instruction time in the
modular course.

So it seems if you get the BIFM, you need only do the 15 hours for the CPL.

[Whopity]

Correct, this is the 10 hours of basic IF that is integral in the CPL course which pre 1999 was also credited for holding an IMC rating. It is also the basis of the En Route IR proposed by EASA.

The course must be longer than 10 hours as TAININGCOM 2/2010 notified an increase in the length of all IR courses as " time taxiing cannot be counted towards any IR training time". They have not lengthened the 25 hour CPL course so nobody is going to want to do a separate IR course that's longer than 10 hours and only be credited with 10 hours towards the CPL training.

JAR-FCL1 allowed a 5 hour credit towards the IR however LASORS has now aligned with AL7 which allows a 10 hour credit for the CPL. This is now a better deal than taking 10 hours + taxi time from the IR and having it credited as 10 hours towards the CPL!

[XXPLOD]

What I'm not clear on is are there any differences in the syllabus of the BIFM and the IMC and are there any differences in the privileges afforded? If not, then surely this is the death knell of the IMC rating as who would do it in preference to the BIFM?

[Whopity]

Big differences, there are no instrument approaches in the BIFM. The IMC is dead as of 8 April 2012 in any case unless you already have one. EASA have said that they will grant grandfather rights to existing holders. The BIFM will supposedly grant the holder the privileges of the En-route IR with no privilege to fly an instrument approach. All about as much use as a concrete parachute.

[BEagle]

The IMC is dead as of 8 April 2012 in any case unless you already have one.

Not necessarily so. The NPA for FCL.008 has now been delayed until 2011Q2, there will then be consultation before the Opinion is formulated.

What is now needed is an additional module (AM) which will mean that BIFM+AM=IR(Restricted), where the restrictions equate to those currently applicable to IMCR privileges.

The IMCR fight is far from over!

[Whopity]

Baegle, I am pleased to hear that, but what a performance to retain something with such positive safety benefits. It appears that "Safety" is no longer part of the regulatory equation because most of the participating bureaucrats don't understand WHY!

[UAV689]

Hi, I notice it says in module 2 it says 40 hrs single engine or 45 me.

For the love of god please tell me I don't now need to fork out for 45 hrs me time!!!

[BillieBob]

The ME IR course comprises 55 hours of which up to 40 hours may be instrument ground time in a FNPTII and at least 15 hours must be in a multi-engine aeroplane.

Take away 10 hours for the BIFM and you are left with 45 hours, of which at least 15 must be in a ME aeroplane. The remaining 30 hours may therefore be completed in a FNPTII or, with the agreement of the Authority, 20 hours in a FNPTII and 10 hours in a FNPTI.

The big difference now is that the whole of the PIFM for a MEIR must be conducted in a ME aeroplane or FNPT ("45 hours multi-engine instrument time under instruction"). Does this mean that all the FTOs that currently provide less than 45 hours ME training will have to change their syllabus? Did the CAA even consider this implication? Is there anyone left at the Belgrano who knows the first thing about the flight training industry?

[UAV689]

Billiebob that is what concerns me, the paragraph about 45 hr me training scares me. Is it about to become a hell of a lot more expensive? Please god not, I don't think I can cope working 7 days a week anymore saving for this wretched dream!

[IO540]

I think Beagle is on the right track. This is a move to continue the IMCR - as well as maybe facilitate other stuff.

[Whopity]

With this BIFM does it now mean that for an IR you now therefore get 10 hours off for having a CPL ?That is what is proposed in Part -FCL. CAA Licensing Policy put this into LASORS 2010 and clearly didn't discuss it with anyone with any relevant knowledge, as their own inspectors didn't even know about it until they read it in LASORS. The tail is wagging the dog!

[jez d]

Whopity is correct. From what I gather, this was a slip of the pen.

As to being a move to save the IMCr, it has some ramifications, but given the individual who writes the IMCr section of Lasors wasn't aware of the BIFM's separation from the CPL and IR syllabi until it had been published, the effect was unintentional.

The current best guess is that the CAA will allow the BIFM to count towards the hours requirement for an IMCr, but not the other way round, given the IMCr is not a JAR rating. Additionally, the BIFM affords no flying privileges to the holder, merely a piece of paper that can grant a 10 hour reduction on the IR (or the IMCr). It does have similarities to EASA's proposed En Route Instrument Rating however.

[BillieBob]

Before reading too much into the CAA's implementation of the BIFR and any relationship to the IMCr or En-route IR, it is worth remembering that it was introduced in NPA-FCL-32, which was published on 1 Feb 2006. The FCL.001 group did not even start drafting Part-FCL until July 2006.

[BEagle]

Additionally, the BIFM affords no flying privileges to the holder, merely a piece of paper that can grant a 10 hour reduction on the IR (or the IMCr). It does have similarities to EASA's proposed En Route Instrument Rating however.

It does not bear any similarities towards that worthless piece of crap proposed as the so-called 'EIR'.

[Whopity]

Could this be another piece of useless junk placed in LASORS by people who have no idea what they are doing. That in itself is quite excusable but why is nobody checking this rubbish before it is allowed to be published? Slippery pens abound!

[nezzer]

Hi all does anyone know where people stand if they already have a CPL ?

I have A CPL & IMC and looking at doing the IR in the next few weeks would I be able to get any further reduction in hours from the 50hr IR I will be doing .

[BillieBob]

would I be able to get any further reduction in hours from the 50hr IR I will be doing .No. There is no reduction under the new rules, it's just that the existing course is split into two modules that can be done at different times. If you could find an FTO that was running the new course (which you can't), you would still have to do both modules.

FTOs cannot just decide to adopt the new course, they would have to amend their documentation and seek approval from the CAA which, these days, will take at least 3-4 months. I doubt that there will be much interest in any case (for the MEIR at least) as the requirement for the PIFM to be conducted entirely on a ME aeroplane or FNPT would put an FTO at a commercial disadvantage compared with those that currently do most of the course on a SE aeroplane/FNPT.

[Whopity]

LASORS 2010 states:Holders of a CPL(A) or ATPL(A) issued in
accordance with ICAO are eligible for a 10 hour
reduction in training in accordance with Appendix 1
to JAR-FCL 1.205. The same credit can be applied
to applicants who have completed a JAR CPL(A)
modular course of training and passed the CPL(A)
skill test (and have met all requirements for CPL(A)
licence issue prior to commencement of the IR(A)
modular course), but have yet to apply for licence
issue provided that the JAR CPL(A) modular course
and IR(A) modular course are conducted totally
separately from each other, and that there is no
training overlap between the two courses.However; in accordance with Trainingcom 2/2010 the flight time for the IR is increased by 20% as they no longer accept chox times. I wonder if they accept time using the autopilot as its not being flown manually by sole reference to instruments?

[Mickey Kaye]

And why on earth did the CAA unilaterally adopt this stance within europe?

How are UK IR training schools able to compete with our southern European cousins where there is less delays due weather, no VAT on training, nigh on guaranteed IR pass with the examiner doing the radio for you (So I have heard) and now in the UK we can't log chocks to chocks.

Its a wonder there is any IR training left at all.

[Whopity]

The CAA have written a letter to EASA seeking a definition of Instrument time; its only been in ICAO Annex 1 for the last 60 years!

[BillieBob]

LASORS 2010 states:.....That is a provision of Amendment 7 and, in any sane world, applies only if the course is approved in accordance with that amendment, or are we now implementing JAR-FCL sentence by sentence? Who are these idiots????

From what I can gather, the clown who set the 'instrument time' hare running was not the same clown who decided to introduce random bits of Amendment 7 into LASORS.

[EGMC]

So is it possible to do the following?:
BIFM with a provider who has had their new syllabus approved.
Then do a ME CPL anywhere you like with those 10 BIFM hours taken off to shorten the CPL course, and then finally complete the remaining IR module, the PIFM?

LASORS 2010 E1.1 b describes the PIFM bit as:
...comprising the remainder of the training syllabus for
the IR(A), i.e. 40 hours single-engine or 45 hours
multi-engine instrument time under instruction...

But this doesn't mean you need to do 45 hours of ME IR time does it?
I would have thought an SEP IR with an ME add on [ie 5 hours, 3 of which sim] would give you the same result.

From my research, two schools are already offering the new Basic/Procedural way of doing it, co-incidentally they are two which have traditionally proposed lots more engine time than the minimums. I haven't managed to get hold of anybody in charge yet so I don't know if it is as flexible as I hope it is.

For many people there will be some benefit to this extremely modular route but it's a bit iffy when its so new that people are supposed to be in-the-know havn't been informed about it properly yet.

What document should I be looking out for with further official updates?
an ammendment to JAR-FCL 1, a TRAININGCOM, or an EASA document?

[BillieBob]

Completion of the BIFM gives no credit towards the modular CPL(A) course.

Both Amendment 7 to JAR-FCL 1 and Part-FCL state quite clearly that all of the PIFM for a MEIR must be completed in a ME aeroplane or FNPT ("multi-engine time under instruction")

Any changes to the CAA's implementation of JAR-FCL should be announced by AIC but they don't seem to believe in 'official' notification any more. Part-FCL is still due to come into force on 8 April 2012, although training providers will have until 8 April 2014 to become fully compliant. Mind you, given that EASA have now decided to abandon Parts -OR and -AR and to include their provisions in Part-FCL, it will be interesting to see whether they can get the final document out in time. for the 2012 deadline.