IMC flight test

[iain32]

I am just about to finish my IMC training and I will be looking to sit my flight test.

My instructor for the IMC is also the examiner at the club.

Would I need to find another examiner for the test or can my current instructor conduct the assessment?

Thanks.

[Level Attitude]

Would I need to find another examiner for the test

Yes

Under EASA an Examiner is not allowed to have had any involvement in
a candidate's training for initial issue of a rating.

The IMC not being an EASA rating does not matter - especially as even
though you will apply using an IMC application form you will be issued
an EASA IR(R)

NB: Above assumes you hold an EASA Licence, or a Licence (eg JAA) that
will need to be converted to an EASA Licence.

[Whopity]

The IMC is a National Rating therefore it has nothing to do with EASA. If the CAA choose to put it on an EASA licence that is up to them, but it doesn't make it an EASA rating so the instructor can test you. It may not be advisable but it is not disallowed.

[Level Attitude]

The IMC is a National Rating therefore it has nothing to do with EASA

True

If the CAA choose to put it on an EASA licence that is up to them, but it doesn't make it an EASA rating

The CAA cannot choose to put an IMC rating on an EASA Licence - only
EASA Ratings can be contained on an EASA Licence - hence the IR(R).

It may not be advisable but it is not disallowed.

Yes it is.
When I find the refrence I will post it.
If I can't find it I will apologise.

[Whopity]

If the IR(R) is an EASA rating please give us a reference for it. It is put there by the CAA on the basis of a vague promise that may never be ratified by EASA after April 2014, so they have put it there! Perhaps one of the best things they have done in a while and lets hope it stays.

[Ex Oggie]

The instructor can test you for the IMC Rating, as Whopity stated, its a National Rating. It might not be the most sensible course of action as the application may get bounced by a jobsworth 'clerk' at the Belgrano. If you wanted it waterproof, you could put it on a National licence. Better still, remove any doubt and get another examiner, there are plenty around.

[Level Attitude]

If the IR(R) is an EASA rating please give us a reference for it

As requested:

CAP804 Section 5 Part E IMC Rating
[QUOTE]
An IMCR first obtained prior to 8th April 2014 can be added in the form of an
EASA Instrument Rating with restrictions (IR(R)) to a UK-issued Part-FCL licence
at any time in the future
[/QUOTE]

[Whopity]

But CAP 804 does not make it an EASA rating, only EASA can do that! Note it can only be added to a UK EASA licence, that says it all! Its a UK rating.

[BEagle]

The IR(R) has been accepted by EASA in accordance with the requirements of Article 4 of the Aircrew Regulation in respect of national licences/ratings and conversion reports associated therewith.

Another AOPA victory, Whopity might care to note. If I hadn't insisted on the CAA representative both accepting the provisions of this Article and working to secure continuance of the IMCR, the CAA would have wrung their hands together, rolled over in defeat and killed the IMCR when they adopted Part-FCL.

There are people in L&TS who are inadequately testiculated to face up to €urocracy - a fact that their superiors are beginning to realise!

The CAA needs a Churchill, not a Chamberlain when it comes to dealing with obstinate €urocrats!

[iain32]

Thank you all for your replies.

[Whopity]

Beagle, I think the sterling work you are doing will pay dividends in the end and it is fully appreciated however; having had my balls chewed for working on hearsay, albeit Belgrano hearsay I was told that unless it existed formally in writing it was just that, hearsay. As nobody has come up with a valid reference to the contrary, the IMC test a National rating as defined in the ANO Schedule 7 can be tested by the Examiner who taught it.

[ifitaintboeing]

The IMC is a national course and flight test, upon completion of which the IR (R) may then be issued using the Conversion agreement contained in CAP 804 Section 4 Part P.

Therefore it is not subject to the 'vested interest' clause in FCL.1005.

ifitaint...

[BEagle]

There is no restriction on conducting the IMC Rating / IR(R) flight test; as others have said, FCL.1005 does not apply.

If the UK is successful in its call for the re-introduction of JAR-FCL 1.175(b) as FCL.600(b), then some amendment to current practices will also be recommended. For example, 'advisory' minima should become obligatory - and testing in accordance with FCL.1005 will also be recommended. However, there will also be a need to define requirements for IR(R) instructors and examiners - AOPA has already suggested this to the CAA, but they weren't prepared to include it in their conversion report at this stage....in case EASA made them cry

[Whopity]

The biggest problem will be finding people to teach for it as we will also need an IRI(R) there being no suitably qualified IRIs in the pipeline.

[BEagle]

The biggest problem will be finding people to teach for it as we will also need an IRI(R) there being no suitably qualified IRIs in the pipeline.

Which is precisely the point I raised with the CAA over a year ago! Basically the same as today, turned into €urospeak. On 1 May, the CAA said they would 'look again' at the issue, but didn't. At the June AOPA IC meeting, following review by members of the committee, the proposals I'd drafted were endorsed and sent to the CAA in late June.

Again with no response.

On 1 Aug, I asked the CAA whether they'd had an opportunity to consider the paper. A week later, I was told:

Your Paper is entitled “Future IMC rating / Instrument rating (Restricted) Instructors and Examiners” and proposes requirements for the grant of new instructor and examiner qualifications to support new IR(R)/IMC ratings within the EASA system. In my view this is not a proposal that we can take forward at this time.

I then pointed out that, notwithstanding the eventual output from FCL.008, there would be an ongoing requirement for training and testing of existing IMCR / IR(R) holders - becoming more acute as more such instructors moved on with no-one to replace them.

I'm still waiting for a further response......

We go to the trouble of identifying a problem and proposing a solution, yet the CAA cannot be bothered to act upon it. Why do we bother?

[Whopity]

And when questioned on the matter the CEO states:

I recognise that there are areas for improvement in the way that the CM interacts with our customers and stakeholders, and we are currently working hard to modernise the way we manage and carry out our activities and the way we interact with the industry we regulate

In recognition of this, we are working with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), and other representatives of the GA sector, to identify areas that can be improved. Additionally, the CM is fully engaged with EASA with the objective of securing changes that should help to reduce the burden of the new regulations and ensure that they are proportionate to the safety risks.

Andrew Haines
CHIEF EXECUTIVE

No real evidence of para 1; most of the burden is CAA generated and has no correlation with any safety risk! So is he just misinformed or just telling porkies?

[wobblyprop]

The biggest problem will be finding people to teach for it as we will also need an IRI(R) there being no suitably qualified IRIs in the pipeline.

Are you saying that my FI/FE without "no applied instrument" bit won't be sufficient to teach IR(R)?

gobsmacked by the whole EASA debacle

[Level Attitude]

Reference(s) to no Training given prior to Examining for IMC test

1)
Standards Document 21v1 September 2012 Part 1.2

"Examiners are certified by the CAA to conduct Skill Tests...............
The privileges and requirements of Examiners are set out
in EASA Part-FCL Subpart K"

So CAA has stated that (all) Examiners are governed by EASA and nowhere
in above does it say the "privileges and requirements" do not apply
if testing for a National Rating.

2)
IN-2012/157 EXAMINER INVOLVEMENT IN PILOT TRAINING AND TESTING

The above explains the changes due to implementation of EASA, but it does
not say it only applies to Part-FCL testing.

Specifically:

2.3 "Initial Issue...............................An Exmainer shall not conduct a skill test......to
whom he has given instruction"

The above paragraph does not even refer to EASA / Part-FCL


2.4 "Part-FCL Subpart K, FCL.1005 is mandatory in the UK. The previous CAA policy
as detailed in NOTEXA1-H1/2009 is withdrawn"

Again, no caveats given for National Ratings and:

FCL.1005 Limitation of privileges in case of vested interests
Examiners shall not conduct:

(a) skill tests or assessments of competence of applicants for the issue of a licence, rating or certificate:

The Rules changed on 17 September 2012.

I have provided two references as to why I believe an Examiner may not
conduct an initial IMC test on a candidate to whom they have also given
instruction.

For those who believe otherwise, please provide a reference.
I do not think just saying "It is a National Rating, of course you can" is sufficient.


NB: Stnds Doc 21 and IN-2012/157 would not copy and paste, hence abbreviated
quoting.

[Ex Oggie]

Anything that refers to Part-FCL, you can put a line through.

IN-2012/157 highlights restrictions that Part-FCL imposes on examiners. EASA has nothing to do with the IMC Rating as you could still put it on a National licence and they would be none the wiser.

The reference to the (notoriously incorrect) Standards Documents again refers to Part-FCL, subpart K in this case. Same reasoning as above, it is irrelevant in the case of the IMC.

You arn't looking for where it says you can test students you have trained, but rather where it says you can't, and neither of the above do this. The instructor already signs off one approach during the course, and this, arguably, wouldn't be allowed to happen under Part-FCL regulations.

The rules changed on 17th Sept when JAA licences were deemed to be EASA licences. UK licences remained National licences, as did the ratings.

[Ex Oggie]

Are you saying that my FI/FE without "no applied instrument" bit won't be sufficient to teach IR(R)?

If you have the 'no applied I/F' on your instructor certificate, you can't teach for the IMC and IR, and never have been allowed to do so.

If your instructor certificate does not state any I/F restriction, then you can teach for the IMC and IR.