Instrument flying after PPL [Archive]

Odai

13th Nov 2012, 17:28

Hello,

I'm reaching the end of my PPL course, and have so far been considering taking it further to a commercial level.

I'm trying to come up with a way to get to the fATPL that best fits in with my life at the moment and minimises interruptions/discontinuity etc that might harm my chances of commercial/airline employment.

One method I've come up with is to go for the IMC rating (now IR(R)?) soon after I finish my PPL. This way, I can make myself a safer pilot right after my PPL, and keep myself flying in the poor visibility we often get here. I could then do my night rating right after that in addition to hour building. It would also mean I can have all the prerequisites for commercial training done for when I'm ready to commit to completing that as quickly as possible.

However, the issue with this is it would only be optimal if the instrument training time (I think 15 hours?) would be taken into account for when I come to do the real IR.

As I understand it, the basic requirement is 55 hours specifically instrument flying (so I'm guessing it's many more hours actual total flying), and that this decreases to 45 hours if you do your CPL first (because the CPL includes 10 hours instrument flying). From what I understand this is also the case when the CPL/IR training is reversed - so a 25 hour CPL becomes 15 hours if you do the 55 hour IR first. Does this all apply to the IMC rating too? Will the 15 hours be deducted from the CPL/IR requirements? All my training would be in the UK.

If this is not the case, then another option is to go for the full IR right after my PPL. But this is not ideal as it would mean I am committed to the commercial training and therefore need to complete the ATPL exams and finish the remaining commercial training as quickly as possible to reduce gaps.

There is also the complexity of single vs multi engine IRs. If I were to do the IR on an SEP, how could I upgrade the IR to be valid for ME flights if were to get an MEP class rating in the future?

Would greatly appreciate any feedback you may have!

Thanks

Odai.

A and C

13th Nov 2012, 17:59

Without wishing to sound like a broken record basic flying skills are the key to instrument flying and I have always recomended that PPL holders do about 25 hours of visual navigation before starting the IMC course, the trick is to be very happy with the workload of VFR flight before adding another dimension.

The IMC rating should not be underestimated as you are being asked to fly to IR limits in terms of handeling the aircraft with only 15 hours instruction.

The IMC was one of the two hardest things I have done in aviation, after the IMC the IR was just practice ( the other hard thing was the A320 ground engineers course , that was a mind blower !)

Don't let me put you off doing the IMC but don't start before you are relaxed with the workload of VFR X-C flight.

bookworm

13th Nov 2012, 18:50

The rules are, if you'll pardon the pun, up in the air at the moment. EASA is proposing (http://easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/crd/2012/CRD%202011-16.pdf) a new way of getting the IR which:

* cuts out about 50% of the theoretical knowledge
* reduces the instrument hours requirement to 40 (the ICAO standard)
* gives credit for previous instrument flying (with limits/restrictions -- read the proposal carefully)

There is no guarantee that this proposal will become law, but it's worth taking into account in your plans.

The credit arrangement makes the IMC rating potentially more valuable to the future commercial pilot than under the existing JAR-FCL1/Part-FCL scheme, for which there is no credit. So don't forget to send in a reaction supporting the proposal.

There is also the complexity of single vs multi engine IRs. If I were to do the IR on an SEP, how could I upgrade the IR to be valid for ME flights if were to get an MEP class rating in the future?

That's easier. 5 hours instrument flying on the MEP and a skills test.

terryp

13th Nov 2012, 18:57

I completely agree with A and C, definitely plan on building on your qualifications through IMC and night but don't follow straight on from PPL.

Flying IMC takes a lot more focus and precision than VFR and the cockpit workload is far greater. You will benefit from building experience and confidence with VFR cross countries and land aways.

Good luck!

RTN11

13th Nov 2012, 19:43

There is also the complexity of single vs multi engine IRs. If I were to do the IR on an SEP, how could I upgrade the IR to be valid for ME flights if were to get an MEP class rating in the future?
That's easier. 5 hours instrument flying on the MEP and a skills test.

However, since most of a full IR - in the order of 30 hours - is in a simulator, whether SEP or MEP, the difference in price becomes much smaller, since the sim costs about as much as an SEP, and the price difference between a complex SEP and an MEP is only around £150 per hour.

Odai

13th Nov 2012, 21:30

Thanks a lot for all the advice guys.

So as I understand it, the IMC, at this point in time, will not reduce the requirements of the CPL/IR?

If the EASA proposal, which looks promising, does not fall through, will that mean an IMC rating I do now (before EASA are clear on what exactly will happen) count towards a CPL/IR done after the changes are implemented? I apologise, I'm guessing their intentions with regards to this are in the document somewhere, I just haven't had a chance to read it all yet.

A and C/terryp, I did think I might be rushing it a little to dive straight into it after my PPL and your comments seem to affirm this. Although it seems I don't have a choice anyway, I read the IMC rating section in CAP 804 since last posting and it seems there is a requirement of about 10 hours PIC post-PPL before applying for the rating. So I'll probably get that in along with the need XC time before starting the IMC training.

tmmorris

14th Nov 2012, 07:30

bookworm,

I did take a look at the latest CBM IR proposal from your link but lost the will to live when it said it was 991 pages long...

Are you able to summarise the extent to which

IMCR training
IFR flying since gaining the IMCR
IMCR renewal flights with an examiner
sim flying (including for the IMCR)

is planned to be counted towards the 40 hours for the IR? And is the requirement to attend a course of study for the TK removed allowing self-study?

If so, the IR would be looking within reach at last!

Tim

Piltdown Man

14th Nov 2012, 07:52

Flying IMC takes a lot more focus and precision than VFR and the cockpit workload is far greater.

Unless of course you fly airways, when it's the easiest flying there is.

PM

bookworm

14th Nov 2012, 08:18

Under the FCL.008 proposals...

For the purpose of initial issue of a CBM IR, you need 40 hours of instrument instruction time, but you may substitute:

*instrument flight instruction time provided by an IRI(A) or an FI(A) holding the privilege to provide training for the IR (no more than 30 hours); or

* prior experience of instrument flight time as PIC on aeroplanes, under a rating providing the privileges to fly under IFR and in IMC (no more than 15 hours)

and you must always do at least 10 hours at an ATO specifically for the CBM IR.

The prior experience of instrument flight time as PIC can be under:
* a sub-ICAO national rating like the IMC rating
* an instrument rating on a national licence, which, for whatever reason, you cannot more easily convert to an EASA IR
* an instrument rating on an ICAO licence, which, for whatever reason, you cannot more easily convert to an EASA IR

So:

IMCR training
up to 30 hours if conducted by an IRI(A) or an FI(A) holding the privilege to provide training for the IR

IFR flying since gaining the IMCR
instrument time, not IFR time as the proposal currently stands

IMCR renewal flights with an examiner
if it's P1/S, I guess so

sim flying (including for the IMCR)
Up to 20 hours on a course at an ATO for the CBM IR, but not for the IMCR.

And is the requirement to attend a course of study for the TK removed allowing self-study?

"An approved IR(A) competency-based modular course shall comprise at least 80 hours of
theoretical knowledge instruction. The theoretical knowledge course may contain
computer-based training and e-learning elements. A minimum amount of classroom
teaching as required by ORA.ATO.305 has to be provided. "

which means 10% or 8 hours in a classroom.

Level Attitude

14th Nov 2012, 23:15

pudoc

14th Nov 2012, 23:48

The IMC rating (the new IR(R) might be different to this) is not made to keep you flying in poor vis. It's purpose is to get you out of the **** incase you find yourself in it. I personally would just do the IR course.

As might have been mentioned (I didn't read all the other posts), you CPL must be issued to do the shorter 45hr IR. Can take a while to get that issued, 30-40 working days!

It's generally suggested you do CPL before IR, although you can do it how you wish. The reason it's done like this is that the PPL is a relaxed course in comparison, the IR requires extreme discipline in your flying. Depending on how good you are, you might find flying in a PPL environment straight into a very strict IR environment very challenging or maybe you'll cope just fine. The CPL is normally the in the middle of PPL and IR hence the order CPL > IR.

But I know plenty of people to do the IR first without issues.

Odai

15th Nov 2012, 14:17

Original post says he is aiming, eventually, for a "fATPL"

The proposed CBM-IR will only be able to be attached to a PPL or a CPL.

So a "CPL+MEP+ME-CBM-IR+MCC" would not equal a "fATPL" as it wouldn't
matter how hot it got it could never be un-frozen.

If an ATPL is the eventual aim the full IR course would need to be completed.

I'm sure some credit would be due for previous IF/IFR experience, especially
if gained during an approved course - but the CBM-IR is not yet an approved
course so what could be counted is yet to be decided.

I was actually just about to post regarding this. :p

So the CBM-IR is not an option for me, but that isn't a big issue. The main issue is whether I could benefit from a reduced duration CPL/IR course by doing the IMC rating here in the UK.

If EASA were to allow this, would it be the case that doing the 15 hour IMC would allow me to do the 15 hour CPL (no IMC flying) and the shorter 45 hour IR?

fwjc

21st Nov 2012, 17:33

Not sure why I'm posting this, given your track record for listening to advice, but I'm a nice person and don't want to see people wasting their time, and other people's time.

Odai
1) Do you know for sure that you can get a Class 1 medical? Do you have one? There's no point going all out spending the huge amount of pain and money to get all these tickets if you can't get a Class 1. It's advice I would give, and have given, to newbies wanting to do the whole commercial thing. In most cases, it removed barriers. In one case it stopped someone spending silly money on ATPL Theory, which he put towards more fun flying instead.

2) If you do a CPL, there is a mandatory 10 hours IF as part of the course. This is only reduced if you already have a full IR. The IMC doesn't count. However, these hours can count as part of the 15 hours required for an IMC. So for an extra 5 hours, you could get an IMC on top of your CPL. Now I did it old school, under JAA. I don't know for sure that this option still stands. But it's worth looking into.

However don't even consider 2) until you have your answers to 1).

Odai

25th Nov 2012, 04:24

I found this great presentation on the proposals that explains everything effectively:

PPL/IR Europe - EASA Accessible CBM IR and EIR (May 2012) (http://www.pplir.org/getting-the-rating/628-easa-accessible-cbm-ir-and-eir)

So far I understand that:

- The new CBM-IR will not be something I could use in place of the full IR for the purposes of gaining an fATPL/ATPL

- The IMC rating does not currently count towards the CPL or the full IR, nor will it do so even if the new EASA proposals are implemented

- The training and TK requirements of the full IR will be completely unchanged if the proposals are implemented

- The UK IMC rating will count towards a CBM-IR, but not towards the EIR, so if I did the UK IMC rating and wanted to fly the airways in europe as a PPL I would either have to do the CBM-IR or start all over again and do the 15 hour EIR

- The hours from a CMB-IR will not count towards a full EASA IR if I decide to switch from private flying to commercial flying

Does that all sound correct?

Thanks

Odai.

bookworm

25th Nov 2012, 08:12

No. I have no idea how you inferred that from the material you linked to.

The CBM-IR is a "full IR". It's simply a different route to getting there. Read the proposals in EASA's CRD.

fwjc

25th Nov 2012, 09:46

Odai

Why don't you just go straight for the IR? It sounds like you are really trying hard to over-complicate things.

With your stated flying budget of ~£700 per month (6hours at £90ph + £150), you clearly have plenty of available funds, so fiddling about trying to do bits of qualifications here and there seems a bit wasteful.

Odai

25th Nov 2012, 17:46

Thanks for your responses.

No. I have no idea how you inferred that from the material you linked to.

Which conclusions specifically were wrong and which were correct?

The CBM-IR is a "full IR". It's simply a different route to getting there. Read the proposals in EASA's CRD.

If what you get in the end is the same, with the same flight test, why then is it not possible to attach to a full ATPL (referring to Level Attitude's post), or even have it credited to the typical IR (I'm assuming that conclusion is correct)?

Why don't you just go straight for the IR? It sounds like you are really trying hard to over-complicate things.

At this stage I do not want to commit myself to trying to make it to airline flying, but would like to keep my options open.

The additional expense of the IR makes it unfeasible and excessive unless I am certain that's the direction I want to take.

However, at the same time, I want to be instrument rated in some way as soon as possible after getting my PPL and the necessary experience.

The ideal way to satisfy both of these would be to jump right into the IMC as soon as I've acrued the necessary experience prerequisites, and then when/if I have the time/funds to fly internationally train for the CBM-IR. Ideally, the experience from the CBM-IR would then count towards the IR if I made the descision to try and work for the airlines.

From what I can tell so far that will not be the case and so I'd either have to make the decision to rule out airline flying now or go for the full IR.

Incidentally, why is it the case that JAA/EASA IRs require 55 hours training while, as far as I can tell, IRs in all other ICAO states only require 40 hours?

bookworm

25th Nov 2012, 18:40

OK, specifically

- The new CBM-IR will not be something I could use in place of the full IR for the purposes of gaining an fATPL/ATPL

The CBM IR will be equivalent to any other IR for the purpose of a modular ATPL course.

- The IMC rating does not currently count towards the CPL or the full IR, nor will it do so even if the new EASA proposals are implemented

The CBM IR is a "full IR". It is a method of attaining that IR, not a rating in itself.

- The training and TK requirements of the full IR will be completely unchanged if the proposals are implemented

The CBM IR is a "full IR". The existing route to the IR may still exist alongside it.

- The UK IMC rating will count towards a CBM-IR, but not towards the EIR, so if I did the UK IMC rating and wanted to fly the airways in europe as a PPL I would either have to do the CBM-IR or start all over again and do the 15 hour EIR

You can get 5 hours credit for previous instrument flying towards the EIR. I wouldn't bother. Upgrade to the full IR. Both require a minimum 10 hours in an ATO.

- The hours from a CBM-IR will not count towards a full EASA IR if I decide to switch from private flying to commercial flying

The CBM IR is a "full IR". It is not restricted to private flying.

If what you get in the end is the same, with the same flight test, why then is it not possible to attach to a full ATPL (referring to Level Attitude's post), or even have it credited to the typical IR (I'm assuming that conclusion is correct)?

Because LevelAttitude's assertion that "the proposed CBM-IR will only be able to be attached to a PPL or a CPL" is incorrect. Read the CRD.

peterh337

25th Nov 2012, 19:37

As bookworm says, the CBM IR is a full IR, just like the current JAA/EASA one (55hrs for ME).

What is perhaps less obvious is that this makes the CBM IR (which is not yet law) politically vulnerable, because currently an FTO bills every punter, no matter how competent, for 55hrs minimum, and most of them then take another k or two off him for the "170A flight test" which they decide whether he passed it, according to some undocumented criteria.

With the CBM IR, a totally ab initio punter, with zilch instrument experience, will probably still take 50-odd hours to reach the test standard. But many won't, because

- they are good
- they have done tons of FSX time, in a directed manner
- they have had informal instrument training
- they have had instrument training but not with the assigned IR-capable FTO
- they have had the IMC Rating and been flying on that

Currently, none of the above is admissible at all towards the JAA IR. The only thing which you get any credit for is another ICAO IR e.g. the FAA one, as described here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/index.html). And extremely few ATP punters will be entering the pipeline with an FAA IR, which is mostly used by private aircraft owners.

So the FTOs are going to be making less money.

So, while I obviously hope for the best, it would be unwise to count your chickens just yet.

Level Attitude

25th Nov 2012, 22:39

Because LevelAttitude's assertion that "the proposed CBM-IR will only be able to be attached to a PPL or a CPL" is incorrect. Read the CRD.

COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT (CRD)
TO NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT (NPA) 201116
18. Appendix 6 A.2 — IR(A) Competency-based modular flying training course
Prerequisites
Several comments requested that the competency-based route should also be available for a CPL holder. This was already proposed in the NPA and the Agency confirms the
rating will be kept for both PPL and CPL.

The above seems pretty definitive.
However, having thought about it following bookworm's post, the above only assumes CBM-IR Theorectical Knowledge, whereas, of course, someone who wants an fATPL
will have taken the ATPL TK exams which trump the IR ones.

So, as long as this course is just a means to acheiving a rating called "IR(A)" and not some new-fangled rating called "CBM-IR(A)", then I'm happy to admit I made a mistake
and apologise for any confusion caused.

Odai

26th Nov 2012, 00:51

Many thanks again for all the helpful advice guys, much appreciated.

In this case, I think the best option then would be to go for the IMC rating as soon as I acrue the hours etc after my PPL, and then hopefully work towards the CBM IR when that option becomes available.

So, if I've understood correctly, I would only technically need an additional 25 hours of training to gain an IR (with the CBM method) if I gain my IMC first? I appreciate it would probably take more hours to actually get to test standard.

Just a few questions:

- Why is it the EASA IR is so bloated compared to other ICAO IRs? I'm assuming there are, for example, perfectly safe American pilots with 40 hour IRs on their ATPLs flying American registered heavy jets in and out of EU airports. So why has it taken this long for the authorities to allow Europeans to do the same?

- Is there any benefit to taking the traditional route other than it being easier/more likely to be at test standard within the stated hours?

- If I do the 14 ATPL exams, I have 3 years after passing the last one to gain my CPL/IR. Would the CBM-IR suffice in this case to keep all the exams valid?

I appreciate there are answers in the document you linked Bookworm, I just haven't had time to read the whole pdf yet.

Thanks again for your time.

Odai.

bookworm

26th Nov 2012, 07:59

So, if I've understood correctly, I would only technically need an additional 25 hours of training to gain an IR (with the CBM method) if I gain my IMC first? I appreciate it would probably take more hours to actually get to test standard.

If you go out and use your IMC rating, then the combination of instrument instruction and PiC instrument time could reduce the requirement to the 10 hours in an ATO.

- Why is it the EASA IR is so bloated compared to other ICAO IRs? I'm assuming there are, for example, perfectly safe American pilots with 40 hour IRs on their ATPLs flying American registered heavy jets in and out of EU airports. So why has it taken this long for the authorities to allow Europeans to do the same?

No good reason, hence the need for change!

- Is there any benefit to taking the traditional route other than it being easier/more likely to be at test standard within the stated hours?

Well if you're going to do the ATPL TK anyway, the reduced TK wouldn't matter. I think if you read the small print, the A.1 route may have slightly more flexible simulator allowances, but I'm not sure. If you're starting from scratch (i.e. no IMCr or previous instrument training since PPL) there wouldn't be not much difference.

- If I do the 14 ATPL exams, I have 3 years after passing the last one to gain my CPL/IR. Would the CBM-IR suffice in this case to keep all the exams valid?

Yes, it would be an IR. My understanding of FCL.025 is that you need to get the IR, via either route, within 3 years, and then the ATPL within 7 years of that.

Just bear in mind that CRD 2011-16 is not yet law.

Odai

26th Nov 2012, 17:34

Awesome, thanks again man!

Fingers crossed the proposals make it through. :p

Level Attitude

3rd Dec 2012, 21:58

So, if I've understood correctly, I would only technically need an additional 25 hours of training to gain an IR (with the CBM method) if I gain my IMC first? I appreciate it would probably take more hours to actually get to test standard.

Not quite - You had it correct in your first Post (my bold)
the basic requirement is 55 hours specifically instrument flying (so I'm guessing it's many more hours actual total flying),

IMC Course is min 15 hours training, of which a minimum of 10 hours must be "flight by sole reference to instruments" (which is another way of saying "instrument flight time").

I reckon most students who complete IMC in near minimum hours training would have about 10-11 hours Instrument Time during course, plus whatever they needed for Test.

Any adverts for, say, "55 Hour IR(A) Course" would, in my opinion, be misleading as course length is not specified - only that 55 Hours Instrument Flight must be completed - and Taxiing, Take Off and Landing are not done on instruments.