Whats the difference in training between an IR instructor and a IMC instructor??

[machlimter99]

Whats the difference in the actual training to become a IR instructor (IRI)compared with an IMC instructor???

I realise that you need 800 IFR hours to become an IRI, whereas 10 hours of actual instruments counts if you want to teach for the IMC, but is that all?????

[TheOddOne]

Have a look at LASORS http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/LASORS.PDF


Now, I'm confused. LASORS says that it's 800 hours compliance with IFR, but several threads recently have quite rightly, in my view, pointed out that IFR has nothing whatever to do with whether or not the flight is conducted by sole reference to instruments but is merely adherence to remaining 1,000' above any obstruction within 5nm and complying with the quadrantal rule above 3,000'. LASORS does also say that flight on 1 hour by sole refence to instruments is worth 4 hours IFR! Why does merely flying well away from obstructions but otherwise navigating by looking out of the window qualify you in any way for teaching instrument flight?

Some wiser head able to enlighten us, please?

Cheers,
The Odd One.

[BEagle]

We've been round this rock before. An FI having the 'no applied instrument' restriction removed in order to teach for the IR needs (amongst other things) to have flown 200 hours flight time under IFR and to hold an IR him/herself. Since his/her IR requires 50 hours of IF and that can be counted x4 to equate to 'flight under IFR', 4 x 50 = 200, so hardly a problem.

An IRI is an entirely different qualification to a FI-with-applied-instrument-restriction-removed and is a standalone qualification requiring 800 hours of 'flight under IFR' (400 in aeroplanes) - and that could indeed be totally meaningless VFR navigation exercises.

Unfortunately, lazy FTOs tend to refer to these qualifications as though they're the same thing - 'IRI' being simpler to say! An IRI only teaches instrument flying for the IR(A) or IMC Rating; however, not being a FI, this presumably means that an IRI cannot give instruction to pilots who do not hold licences - e.g. pilots on an integrated CPL/IR course who do not hold PPLs. Incidentally, a ME IRI must also meet the qualifications for ME CRI.

[FlyingForFun]

Odd One,

The requirement for 800 hours of IFR time for an IRI, or 200 hours of IFR time to remove the No Applied Instrument restriction (see BEagle's post for the difference) is a JAR requirement, and is intended to refer to time on airways, navigating by following nav-aids with reference to airways charts.

The vast majority of the time spent on airways is not by sole reference to instruments, since you will generally try to get on top of any weather as quickly as possible. That is why time by sole reference to instruments is considered to be 4 times as valuable as flight under IFR.

The UK messes up this neat little idea by introducing the idea of following the rules of IFR flight when making what is basically a visual flight. So although, in the UK, it is entirely legal to fly around complying with the rules of IFR, but always clear of cloud, in sight of the surface, outside controlled airspace and navigating visually, I think it is clear that this is not the way the rule is intended to be interpreted, it's merely a UK anomoly. Personally, I only log time as IFR if I have actually planned a flight as an IFR flight, i.e. navigating by means of navaids (whether on airways or not), and I am prepared to enter IMC on the flight if I happen to encouter any weather.

FFF
------------

[machlimter99]

So can the IMC instructor with his no Applied Instrument restriction teach the IR in a single engine aircraft once he has enough IFR hours without anymore flight tests or training???

FFF, why should you log IFR if you are flying VOR to VOR??

[BEagle]

Only if he holds a single pilot IR(A) himself and does so at a FTO, not at a RF.

[Whopity]

No,

to instruct for an IR you must hold an IR and do so within an approved FTO (allready mentioned) where you must undergo staff training and testing, this could be conducted internally or the test may be conducted by a CAA Staff Examiner.

[FlyingForFun]

FFF, why should you log IFR if you are flying VOR to VOR??

That's not quite what I said. You should log IFR if you are undertaking an instrument flight. One aspect of an instrument flight is that you will navigate by instruments. There are other equally important aspects, for example would you be prepared to enter IMC?

If you carry out a flight in accordance with all of the rules of IFR, but you would not be prepared to enter IMC on that flight (maybe because your aircraft doesn't have the necessary instruments, or you are an instructor carrying out a visual lesson with a student, or you are not qualified to fly in IMC), then I think it is morally wrong and misleading to log the flight as IFR, even though you might technically be allowed to from a legal point of view.

If I still haven't quite made myself clear, let me give you a "for instance" of a night flight in the UK, outside controlled airspace. If I fly a C152 at night, I must carry out the flight under IFR. However, it is very rare that I would carry out a flight at night in IMC in a C152 - I would generally try to actively avoid entering IMC. I would also generally navigate visually, perhaps backing up my navigation with VORs or whatever navaids I had available to me.

My understanding of this flight is that I am legally entitled to log it as IFR. It could, therefore, legally count towards the minimum requirements for teaching for the IR. However, to do so, although legal, would be misleading - therefore I would not log this flight as IFR. That's just my own personal point of view.

Hope that clears up my viewpoint on the subject.

FFF
--------------

[Send Clowns]

I would disagree that there is any reason not to fly under IFR just because you are unwilling to enter IMC. There are parts of the UK where I would be reluctant to fly under IMC due to poor radar assistance, but flying under IFR can make life so much more straight-forward, while instilling discipline to the flying. In the case of night flying in the UK you must fly IFR OUTCAS, and might not be allowed to enter IMC intentionally. That suggests to me that willingness is not a prerequisite.

[FlyingForFun]

Send Clowns,

I agree 100% with your post, especially the bit about night flying. In fact, it's pretty much what I said in my last post.

But would you suggest that your IFR night flight, where you might not be allowed to enter IMC, should count towards the minimum requirements for teaching the IR? And would you record it as an IFR flight in your logbook for this (or any other) purpose?

FFF
---------------

[pilotbear]

I regularly fly a C182 on business trips, I always file IFR and fly airways whether the weather is good or bad. It is so easy to do. Constant Radar contact and enjoy being part of the IFR community.
Incidentally, when I fly the Hawker the whole flight could be in VMC yet it is still logged IFR. A bit odd really I suppose

[FormationFlyer]

Originally Posted by Send Clowns

In the case of night flying in the UK you must fly IFR OUTCAS, and might not be allowed to enter IMC intentionally. That suggests to me that willingness is not a prerequisite.

Not correct. At Night a pilot is to fly in ACCORDANCE with IFR - not COMPLIANCE with. That does not necessarily make it an IFR flight.

One thing to remember is that when under IFR this means that you would not refuse a clearance which would take you IMC, merely because it would take you IMC - it is expected that you, and your *aircraft* meet the minimum licensing requirements and equipment as specified in schedules 4 & 5 of the ANO. However these only apply to clearances and therefore CAS....