Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Flying Instructors & Examiners
Reload this Page >

EASA PPL IR/ En-route IR

Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

EASA PPL IR/ En-route IR

Old 6th Jan 2014, 11:56
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Redhill
Posts: 147
EASA PPL IR/ En-route IR

Does anyone have an up-date on the above? Rumour has it that unless objections are raised, EASA is close to approving both PPL-IR and the En-route IR. It also begs the question who could instruct and examine these ratings and what would happen to the UK IRR(A).
pembroke is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 17:44
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,168
The rumours can be found here
the Agency proposes a competency-based instrument rating (CB IR) and an en route instrument rating (EIR) for private (PPL(A)) and commercial pilot (CPL(A)) licence holders.
To instruct for an IR one must either be a FI with Instrument instruction privilegres or an IRI, either to hold at least the rating for which instruction is to be given. Examining requires an IRE.
and what would happen to the UK IRR(A).
Why would anything happent to it? Its not an EASA rating. It has been extended for a further 5 years to 2019 and hopefully will continue beyond that.
Whopity is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 19:00
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: EDDM
Posts: 38
This was updated 28th October:

http://aopano.files.wordpress.com/20..._ir_v1-4-1.pdf

Big thanks to the people behind this for putting the information together, and also for their lobbying efforts.
citabria06g is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2014, 19:15
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 32
I should also add that an IRI must also hold a minimum of a CRI in the class of airplane they wish to teach in.

This is a change that has been agreed and is due to come into effect shortly.
S-Works is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2014, 10:33
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Redhill
Posts: 147
Tks for the above. Sticking strictly to EASA Part FCL, my licence privileges under FCL 905 includes para. (g),(g) (IR(R). I assume because my previous JAR FI rating lifted the instrument restriction, I maintain FI instrument privilege, even though I haven't qualified as in the para (g) 1,2.
And on the basis that instruction or examination can only take place if the same qualification is held (or higher), I can instruct/examine the PPL/IR or en-route IR when I gain these ratings, or of course resurrect my lapsed SEP/SP IR.
pembroke is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2014, 15:44
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,168
I can instruct/examine the PPL/IR or en-route IR when I gain these ratings
You cannot examine any rating unless you have the privileges in your Examiner Certificate. The FE(A) may cover you for the IMC and IR(R) but you will need to qualify as an IRE to do anything else.
Whopity is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2014, 15:49
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,340
Or CRE with IRR privileges
nick14 is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2014, 23:30
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 678
I can instruct/examine the PPL/IR or en-route IR when I gain these ratings
Obviously we have to wait for the actual legislation to confirm exactly
what is included. However I do not envisage EASA creating a new EIR
Instructor Privilege (certainly not in the short term)- rather they would
expect EIR instruction to be given by someone with the privilege to instruct
for the IR.

By PPL/IR I assume you mean the proposed Competency Based IR. Again,
to teach this, an Instructor would need the privilege to instruct for the IR.

As pembroke already has FI Privilege (g) then renewing their own IR would
allow them to instruct for these two ratings - remembering that some of the
training will need to be under an ATO approved for these courses.
Level Attitude is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 07:52
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,701
The Part-FCL requirements for an FI(A) to instruct for the IR are:

(1) at least 200 hours of flight time under IFR, of which up to 50 hours may be instrument ground time in an FFS, an FTD 2/3 or FNPT II;

(2) completed as a student pilot the IRI training course and has passed the skill test for the IRI certificate; and

(3) in addition:
(i) for multi-engine aeroplanes, met the requirements for the issue of a CRI certificate;
(ii) for multi-engine helicopters, met the requirements for the issue of a TRI certificate.
Conversion of a UK-issued Instructor Rating to a Part-FCL instructor certificate requires that the holder has the experience 'As required under Part-FCL for the relevant certificate'. As the UK used to have a 4:1 policy with respect to (1) above for instrument flight time rather than 'flight time under IFR', it cannot be certain that an FI(A) with less than 200 hrs flight time under IFR may instruct for the IR(A) - even if he/she previously did so..... Also, the 'removal of no applied instrument' course / check needs to be 'grandfathered' as being equivalent to (2).....

The whole area of instrument instructors and examiners is a known EASA problem which the CAA highlighted at least 2 years ago - as did I at the EASA FCL Partnership Group meeting in May 2011, recommending that EASA should adopt the proven UK 4:1 policy; a similar recommendation was raised at the EASA joint TAG/SSCC/FCL meeting in June 2013.

However, as yet nothing appears to have been done to address the problem satisfactorily though.

Last edited by BEagle; 8th Jan 2014 at 09:49.
BEagle is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 10:26
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 678
it cannot be certain that an FI(A) with less than 200 hrs flight time
under IFR may instruct for the IR(A)
If the privilege is listed on their EASA Licence (as Pembroke says his is), no
matter how it got there, then I would say it is certain that they can instruct
for the IR(A)
(providing they remain suitably qualified eg have a valid IR themselves)

If not, then the whole process of listing Privileges on a Licence becomes
totally meaningless.
Level Attitude is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2014, 15:21
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Redhill
Posts: 147
Tks. for all the replies, I guess it's "wait and see"
pembroke is offline  
Old 8th May 2014, 09:03
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: pub
Age: 37
Posts: 80
it's out!

Rejoice my fellow bimblers! The regulation was published as ED 245/2014, find and read it here for instance. It is in force and being transscribed into national legislative frameworks. Some of the main elements:

EIR is established: you need a PPL, 20 hours crosscountry PIC and a NQ if you intend to exercise your EIR at night. It comprises 80 hours of theory (not clear yet if it is all classroom or distance) with a 75 pc pass mark on the test, 15 hours of flight instruction and a skills test. It is valid for one year and can be revalidated by experience or by a PC. This is what applies to the SEP category, check for yourself for multiengine if you wish.

IR is replaced with IR(A) or IR(H) respectively. They are equivalent in privileges as far as I can see but the training routes are much simpified. IR(A) can be acquired through the modular IR(CB) route, which allows you a broad range of potential credit for earlier IFR experience. I interpret it so that IFR under EIR counts towards IR(A) and required 80 hours of theory can be credited in full. Conversion from a non-EASA IR is made much simpler as well.

UK gets to keep its IMCr.

Excellent news and a good piece of legislation coming from EASA as far as I am concerned. I welcome any corrections in case I read things wrong or left out something.
W.R.A.I.T.H is offline  
Old 8th May 2014, 20:24
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Home Counties
Age: 56
Posts: 105
I personally think everybody is getting far to excited about the CBM IR.

1. Nobody but nobody will be able to pass the very stringent UK IRT with the minimum hours and allowance for previous training due to all the NDB work, so nothing will really change apart from building experience outside an ATO with a freelance instructor.

2. Having spoken to my old ground school provider who is now one of the new e exams centres there's not much that's has come of out the theory content. Yes the mandatory hours have changed but still a lot of unnecessary content in there. And he feels not really that much different, as CAA have n't removed that much.

3. Don't know much about EIR so can't comment looks reasonable, and good for fair weather IFR pilots who like to travel high in good weather, but you can do that in some countries anyway VFR on the airways such as France.

My experience as an instructor and examiner and ATPL ground instructor and from having taught courses over a number of years nothing will really change, the test is no different and the IREs are not all of a sudden going to treat these tests like club tests it's just not going to happen I'm afraid, the test is still one large hurdle to get over.

As with all ratings its not the getting it thats the issue, its maintaining it, private IFR in UK is an expensive business, not many can participate, so we have about 20 PPL IRs a year will this change much it will be interesting to see the numbers in a year or two, one thing that crossed my mind is how are the CAA going to charge for the EIR test, cam't be the ridiculous fee they presently charge for the IRT can it ?

Last edited by Aware; 9th May 2014 at 08:38.
Aware is offline  
Old 9th May 2014, 11:03
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,168
as CAA have n't removed that much.
Surely its EASA not the CAA!
Whopity is offline  
Old 9th May 2014, 12:30
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Spain - EIR and CBIR

Not a big change?

I disagree - It will change a lot because people can do the test anywhere in EASA land - NOTE: the CAA are NOT the only game in town - Spain is a favourite of many who elect to do the IR anyway
RVR800 is offline  
Old 9th May 2014, 18:07
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Home Counties
Age: 56
Posts: 105
You have always been able to do the test in Spain, Greece, Poland or whereever carries EASA regs lots done over the past few years, CAA would happily put the IR on the JAR licence using UK exams so not a big change really to that facility, was a little bit more palatable in Spain little NDB work and test fee was 200 Euro, SE course was about 6K Euro, I think many do not understand whats been available over past few years, FIS in Jerez have been carrying out IR's for the Brits for several years.
Aware is offline  
Old 9th May 2014, 18:18
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Home Counties
Age: 56
Posts: 105
Surely its EASA not the CAA!

Correct, my bad grammar and bad English, should have said UK CAAs interpertation of the rules.

Still stand by my view, things won't change that much apart from being able to train outside ATO which will reduce cost, but to get somebody ready for the IRT using previous experience ie IMC 30 hrs I think this is right, so leaves 10 hours, no way unless very skilled. One of my students recently (I didnt train them went through well known IR course) took 3 times to get the test he was good and FI who taught IMCs, so I still believe people are being blinkered, maybe to get to the test a little easier, BUT THE STANDARD IS SAME AT THE TEST, a tough test in UK, Spain was not a walk in the park but was not like balancing a ball bearing on a dinner plate, as in the UK.
Aware is offline  
Old 9th May 2014, 20:26
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 944
FAA to EASA IR

Rang around to a few UK ATO and Training establishments about an initial flight test and oral as prescribed by EASA for conversion of an FAA IR to EASA. Some mentioned waiting for CAA to approve training manuals, why are they involved?
None of them offered any idea or enthusiasm for providing the service. Most required a probable ground school and some extra training in their aircraft, not the single turbo prop we normally fly.
Seems may not be as simple as EASA have prescribed in UK. Perhaps rest of Europe will come up with the goods before next April deadline.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 9th May 2014, 23:16
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,168
Some mentioned waiting for CAA to approve training manuals, why are they involved?
Because EASA require an ATO to have a Training Manual for all courses it offers. That applies in Spain as well as the UK.
Whopity is offline  
Old 9th May 2014, 23:46
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 678
Because EASA require an ATO to have a Training Manual for all courses it offers
But there is no Training Course required for someone who holds a non-EASA ICAO IR and the relevant experience. The Candidate can go straight to an Examiner and take the Skills Test (and oral TK Check).
As there is no 'Course' there is no need for a 'Course Approval'.

For safety reasons an ATO may want to check out a pilot before hiring an aircraft to them, but even that shouldn't be necessary as the Examiner (who, presumably, they would know) would be PIC.
Level Attitude is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.