Confusing world of advanced ratings :D

[italianjon]

Hey all,

I'm looking into the IR, and there are a few options around that seem good; but I am far from making a decision yet.

My primary goal is PPL/IR for SE. But I am getting caught in the trap of well if your sitting all those exams anyway, you only need a few more for ATPL theory... then you could bolt a CPL on there and maybe do some aerial work.

Then one of the potential schools I looked at offer ME/IR directly on a twin with G1000 avionics;and I am thinking ooo, ATPL theory, with ME/IR and a CPL... would be good.

But then considering what I would be doing, in the main (PPL/IR SEP) I was wondering how that would work.

Is an ME/IR valid on SEP. And also does the G1000 affect the legal position of flying a SEP under IFR with Steam Driven instruments?

[Ultranomad]

Yes, you are right, ATPL theory will cover both IR and CPL, and that's what most people do in this case.
IR/ME is considered a superset of IR/SE, so it's valid on SE aircraft as well, but if you want to maintain it, you will have to keep taking annual proficiency checks on ME aircraft (one check covers both MEP and IR/ME).
The G1000 thing is not really a rating but merely a differences training, so it doesn't even appear on your license.

[Pace]

Italian Jon

If your going to all the hassle of getting an IR I would go for the extra hassle and get the ME IR and the potential to go commercial.
You never know whats around the corner and in the future it maybe a case of "I wish I had???"

Pace

[italianjon]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I was trying to get my head around it. As far as I understand it tho if I get an ME/IR, and let it lapse, but keep it valid as an SE/IR, then all I would need to do to switch it back on is a LPC... is that right?

And also the G1000 stuff is just academic... other than obviously I would prefer to do some under the hood with a safety pilot on old style avionics stuff before I went in vane

[Ultranomad]

Italianjon, you can do it this way, or you may just get an IR/SE and upgrade it to ME later, should such a need arise - it's 6 hours twin time to get a MEP plus 5 hours to extend IR/SE to IR/ME.

[italianjon]

But can you upgrade if the theory has expired? or does the SE/IR hold that valid?

[mad_jock]

Holding sep or mep will keep it valid for 7 years after the rating expires.

But in the new easa world if you let the twin drop it quite quickly means you have to redo the rating.

[peterh337]

There is potentially a lot of complexity in these decisions, and that's before you allow for the possibility of an "easier" route emerging as as result of FCL-008 (the "CBM IR").

I have detailed notes here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/). They are quite long because I looked into a lot of options.

For example if you do the IR in the UK then the 7 exams are not a subset of the 14 "ATPL" exams. They are in some other JAA countries (where it might also be more than 7) but not here. So you need to decide firmly on the ATPL or CPL/IR option at the outset, otherwise you waste all of those 7 IR exams (well, except HP&L, IIRC).

then you could bolt a CPL on there and maybe do some aerial work.

No such luck... a CPL is practically worthless outside of the AOC environment. Without that, you can

- be a paid pilot for an aircraft owner
- ferry
- crop spray

and 1 or 2 other obscure things.

IMHO, the ATPL, or commercially usable CPL/IR, with everything else that implies (ME for starters, with its special and expensive revalidation requirements) is a lot of work to do just for the off chance.

[tmmorris]

Any new on the CBM IR? It's gone awfully quiet...

Tim

[bookworm]

Any new on the CBM IR? It's gone awfully quiet...

CRD imminent.

[peterh337]

People closer to it are making optimistic noises but anything could happen.

It is indeed a difficult time to judge whether to embark on an IR, and unsuprisingly very few people are doing it, and very few are doing the conversion.

I must have written this a hundred times but basically one must decide whether one wants the IR, and has the ability (money, time, suitable plane access, mission profile which almost certainly must include foreign flying) to use it in the long run.

If you need it, then go and get it, and get it now.

If you fall short on any of the foregoing factors, then don't do it.

I have come across a number of people who did it regardless (probably true for most of that Flyer IR group of a few years ago) and most of them don't appear to have done anything with it. I also know a number of people who are talking about doing it and have been doing so for years but none of them will be able to use it even if they do it one day, and IMHO would be better served by the IMCR.

[Mickey Kaye]

"CRD imminent"

How imminent is imminent?

[tmmorris]

For me, for the moment anyway, I think the IMCR will continue to be adequate. When I think about what I want that I can't do now, it really comes down to easier flight planning using airways, and it's a lot of money for that.

Tim

[peterh337]

The IR is about far more than easier planning via airways.

Flight planning is trivial today and has been trivial since flight planning software same out more than 10 years ago (not that planning a route on a map has ever been hard), and navigation has been trivial since GPS.

What an IR gives you is free access to all classes of airspace with no questions asked, an implied clearance for the entire flight (with various provisos if there are OCAS segments etc), the ability to climb (to get/stay above weather) without limit other than aircraft performance, and the ability to overtly fly instrument departures and instrument approaches outside the UK. Oh and I nearly forgot: you can fly in IMC, but one normally tries to avoid doing that :)

The trip writeups on my website show how you fly differently with an IR, in a light aircraft. If you compare say the 2004 Crete trip (VFR) with the 2010 Crete trip (IFR) you can see the difference.

The perverse thing is that if you fly in half decent weather, much of the need for an IR is driven by perverted ATC practices around Europe. If all ATC units operated airspace in accordance with ICAO (VFR OK in all but Class A) then one could fly VFR all over the place.....

My last trip is here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/samothraki/). It was nearly all VMC, but the bit in Italian airspace was (I think) in Class A so a VFR version would have been flown differently.

[piperarcher]

Is the CBM also known as the EIR (European Instrument Rating)?

I wondered if a PPL who had both grandfathered IMCr rights on an EASA licence + the EIR, then is there much difference to having a full IR in pratcial terms? e.g. the EIR allows access to all airspace in Europe but just in day, but doesnt allow takeoff and landing in poor conditions (because it doesnt allow instrument approaches), but the grandfathered rights of the old IMCr do, but dont allow access to all classes of airspace. So if you apply the privileges of both rating together , then it would seem in practical terms you almost have the privileges of a full IR?

I am sure it cant be that easy...:ugh:

PiperArcher

[italianjon]

Oh god! :D reading all this does indicate how in a mess Europe seems to be.

My reasons behind this thought track are I am a PPL+IMCr+Night, and when I was in Blighty perfection, this solution fitted my exact requirements. But my job is taking me around Europe at the moment and I am loving what I am doing at the moment, so not keen career-wise to return to the UK just yet.

What this means for me is that there are many days where I am able to fly (ability) but can't because the weather is below pure VFR minima. I wish the IMCr was valid Europe-wide.

This is the route of the thinking for obtaining IR, being the only way of flying IFR in mainland Europe.

Principally I want to achieve the PPL/IR as this would then allow me the same flying as I used to do in Blighty, and I am looking at any way of achieving this.

Another route I am considering is go to Canada and do a Transport Canada IR (No USA Visa hassle and it's ICAO), as the IMCr dual hours will count for the minimum requirements, so this will keep the costs down, and then convert when I get back. Having the IMCr and used it in vane I feel comfortable seeking reduced training times.

Although the more layers of the EASA onion I am peeling back, the more I am thinking F&*k it, find the next job in the US, because flying is easier!!! :E

[srayne]

Is the CBM also known as the EIR (European Instrument Rating)?

I wondered if a PPL who had both grandfathered IMCr rights on an EASA licence + the EIR, then is there much difference to having a full IR in pratcial terms? e.g. the EIR allows access to all airspace in Europe but just in day, but doesnt allow takeoff and landing in poor conditions (because it doesnt allow instrument approaches), but the grandfathered rights of the old IMCr do, but dont allow access to all classes of airspace. So if you apply the privileges of both rating together , then it would seem in practical terms you almost have the privileges of a full IR?

AFAIUI The EIR is a Europe-wide En-route IR but only allows VFR departures and arrivals. The IMC is a UK only rating and will become a restricted IR "IR(R)" on your EASA license and the restriction will be that it is used in the UK only. With EIR and IR(R) you will only be allowed IFR arrivals and departures in the UK but not in the rest of Europe.

[piperarcher]

AFAIUI The EIR is a Europe-wide En-route IR but only allows VFR departures and arrivals. The IMC is a UK only rating and will become a restricted IR "IR(R)" on your EASA license and the restriction will be that it is used in the UK only. With EIR and IR(R) you will only be allowed IFR arrivals and departures in the UK but not in the rest of Europe.

Thanks, I should have clarified my thinking by saying that I was thinking in the UK that it's not far from an full IR. Agree in Europe it's just enroute, but that will be fantastic. Though I have to admit I would have some misgivings about 15 hour IR(R) / EIR pilots being allowed in airways and in all classes of airspace. While it is extremely useful for a PPL, I wonder if it is safe. Personally if I was going to be in low level airways or mixing with airliners, then I'd prefer to have the extra training and skills you get from a full IR (though not with all the exams and unnecessary information that is in the current syllabus)

PiperArcher

[bookworm]

How imminent is imminent?

Dunno. I imagine days or weeks rather than months, but there can always be delays in such things.

I wondered if a PPL who had both grandfathered IMCr rights on an EASA licence + the EIR, then is there much difference to having a full IR in pratcial terms? e.g. the EIR allows access to all airspace in Europe but just in day, but doesnt allow takeoff and landing in poor conditions (because it doesnt allow instrument approaches), but the grandfathered rights of the old IMCr do, but dont allow access to all classes of airspace. So if you apply the privileges of both rating together , then it would seem in practical terms you almost have the privileges of a full IR?

Possibly, but it's pointless. If you have an IMC rating and have used it, you almost certainly have the instrument and instrument training hours for full-credit for the IR. Instead of spending 10 hours doing an EIR, spend it doing a (competence based modular) IR as proposed in the same FCL.008 NPA. Then you have an IR.

That presupposes that there's no shorter upgrade path from the IR(R) to an unrestricted IR. I don't think the CAA put one in the conversion report.

While it is extremely useful for a PPL, I wonder if it is safe. Personally if I was going to be in low level airways or mixing with airliners, then I'd prefer to have the extra training and skills you get from a full IR (though not with all the exams and unnecessary information that is in the current syllabus)

But this is the whole point of the EIR. In the EIR training, you learn the skills you need to "be in low level airways or mixing with airliners". The rest of the IR training that is not included in the EIR is about the skills for flying approaches in IMC. If you go to an ATO with an IMC rating already, you probably have the approach skills already (OK, you might need some practice...) and can concentrate on the enroute skills. But at the end of it, take the IR skill test and get an IR.

[piperarcher]

Thanks bookworm, very informative.

While I would genuinely quite like to read the current 7 books related to the full IR, I have other study commitments outside work, and wont have the time for another year. A CBM solution sounds more achieveable and more practical. Besides as people say, none of the current IR trainng really sets you up to plan a flight across Europe or something, and use alternative internet sources for planning. It seems a lot of the learning you do yourself, perhaps coupled with sources you can find on here. I would resent paying a FTO for 45 hours IR training, when perhaps based on my current skills, I could do it in 10 or 15 hours perhaps.

Well see...

[peterh337]

In reality

be in low level airways or mixing with airliners

is a non-event. It's the easiest kind of flying, and the nearest you will get to an airliner is this

http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/kithira/lszr-egka-2.jpg

(look for the dot near the middle).

The overcrowded airspace is just hype. ATC separate people widely in terminal areas, and Eurocontrol routings take you a long way away from those areas when enroute anyway, as e.g. here the routing around Paris which is absolutely forced on everybody below FL200

http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/samothraki/ldza-egka-route.jpg

[bookworm]

The overcrowded airspace is just hype. ATC separate people widely in terminal areas

You miss the point, or perhaps mis-assess the situation. Most of the time, in almost every aspect of flying, you can screw up, and nobody dies. That doesn't mean that the overall level of safety is sufficient if pilots do not have the level of competence they need to fly properly in the system. It's not hard to follow an instruction to fly a level and a heading, but you have to be able to do it accurately and robustly. You may not need to do that at FL70 on A34 in western France, but you better be able to when necessary in the London, Brussels and Frankfurt TMAs.

Besides as people say, none of the current IR trainng really sets you up to plan a flight across Europe or something, and use alternative internet sources for planning.

I would love to say that that will change instantly with the CBM IR. Unfortunately, I think it will take years for that to happen, but the CBM IR should at least remove a lot of the truly arcane stuff from the theoretical knowledge, as well as meaning that the flight training that you do is only what you need to get to the required standard.

[Ultranomad]

Judging by the radio traffic, even on a bright sunny weekend in continental Europe, fewer than 5% of those flying VFR are flying outside the immediate vicinity of their home base, and I suspect many of those who do are already more or less competent in flying with reference to instruments. I seriously doubt an accessible IR would change the situation a lot except providing these 5% with a lawful privilege to do what they have already been illegally doing from time to time.

[peterh337]

I seriously doubt an accessible IR would change the situation a lot except providing these 5% with a lawful privilege to do what they have already been illegally doing from time to time.I agree very much with that, and it ties in with what I said earlier i.e. don't start on the IR (any IR) unless on a very honest self-assessment you meet the requirements I listed.

The vast majority of pilots will therefore never get an IR, and if (as a silly example) an IR was handed out to everybody with an IMCR most would let it lapse when they reach the first revalidation (£150+aircraft).

In the USA the % is much higher but that's partly because flying has a much greater utility value out there, partly due to the 6/6 rolling currency concession, etc. GA in Europe never had much utility value (too few airports for a start) and is not getting any better due to effective exclusion of GA from many big airports.

So while everybody understands that there is only one "IR" for everybody and thus the skills test has to be the same for everybody, there are loads of factors which limit who does what in what kind of airspace. For example a flight from Brussels to Zurich would be quite busy (and I would not look forward to it if I had to hand-fly it in a PA28-161) in IMC but almost no GA IR holder will choose to do it, for a whole pile of reasons. Most IR holders use their IRs mostly for leisure and they fly to "nice places".

[bookworm]

Any new on the CBM IR? It's gone awfully quiet...

"CRD imminent"

How imminent is imminent?

Imminent is now :) CRD here (http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewcrdpdf/id_135).

[rats404]

991 pages! Bl00dy hell...