SECIR to MECIR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SECIR to MECIR
Just got a question regarding upgrading my current SECIR to a MECIR. I am endorsed on the ILS, VOR, RNAV, DGA and am wondering when I upgrade to a MECIR will I be required to do all the approaches again in flight. I am getting conflicting information from different people regarding this issue. Some are saying that the upgrade to a MECIR will be considered an initial issue others think it would just be considered a renewal. Also had a look through the CAO and can't find anything specific
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RWY 18 - if your SECIR is still current, to upgrade, all you have to do is one approach in the air on a twin on one of those navaids, and the rest carry across automatically. Job done, you then have a MECIR.
Last edited by inxs; 15th Jan 2013 at 23:45.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must also demonstrate competency in the engine failure requirements as stipulated on the Flight Test Report Form (CASA Form # 645). i.e. engine failure during approach, engine out overshoot and EFATO.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will also have to demonstrate asymmetric circling - probably after the approach where you get the engine failure.
In fact, i would be interested to hear how your ATO conducts the test, perhaps you could post afterwards?
The problem (same for renewals) is that the ATOM now says you have to fly the circling approach to a landing, which makes it hard to do the asymmetric missed approach and the engine failure during approach and circling on the same single approach.
I used to let the guy get to a stabilised final on an asymmetric circling approach and then simulate re-entry into cloud at that point but now we have to land. Some ATOs will allow the candidate to take-off after the asymmetric circling, give them the EFTAO and then simulate re-entry into cloud and do the asymmetric missed approach from there. Some ATOs will require two approaches in flight to satisfy the engine failure requirements.
Some ATOs don't bother about doing all three engine failure procedures - which is an unintended consequence of CASA requiring a landing from circling. The reason (i think) for requiring a landing is to prevent 'overlaid' approaches being conducted at navaids not associated with an aerodrome.
In fact, i would be interested to hear how your ATO conducts the test, perhaps you could post afterwards?
The problem (same for renewals) is that the ATOM now says you have to fly the circling approach to a landing, which makes it hard to do the asymmetric missed approach and the engine failure during approach and circling on the same single approach.
I used to let the guy get to a stabilised final on an asymmetric circling approach and then simulate re-entry into cloud at that point but now we have to land. Some ATOs will allow the candidate to take-off after the asymmetric circling, give them the EFTAO and then simulate re-entry into cloud and do the asymmetric missed approach from there. Some ATOs will require two approaches in flight to satisfy the engine failure requirements.
Some ATOs don't bother about doing all three engine failure procedures - which is an unintended consequence of CASA requiring a landing from circling. The reason (i think) for requiring a landing is to prevent 'overlaid' approaches being conducted at navaids not associated with an aerodrome.
Hot tip for the day. When the engine fails turning inbound, centre the skidball to identify.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lexair - thats what I was alluding too without going into all the fine detail. My point being one navaid demonstrated in a twin (assy demonstrated naturally), but it seems going by other posts here, some ATOs go really over the top.
Last edited by inxs; 16th Jan 2013 at 11:45.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite attempts at standardisation by making all ATOs do regular PDP sessions, there remains considerable difference of opinion on the conduct of flight tests.
In my view, an upgrade from SECIR to MECIR should concentrate on the significant differences between single and multi aspects as pertinent to the conduct of flight under the IFR. e.g. emergency ops such as single engine handling.
If the SECIR is still current at the time of test for the MECIR, competency in most aspects of IFR flight may be presumed (that is presumed not assumed as an assumption is not based on evidence). Accordingly, it is not necessary to repeat all aspects of the initial issue of a Command Instrument Rating. This is notwithstanding CASA's view that an upgrade to MECIR is an initial issue.
However, when an upgrade from SECIR to MECIR is completed the MECIR will only be valid until the expiry date of the current SECIR unless all aspects (as applicable to endorsements currently held) required by Form 645 are demonstrated in flight (or in an approved simulator or synthetic trainer if permitted by the CAO).
With regard to an earlier comment about the circling approach requirement here is the relevant extract from the ATOM:
There is no requirment either in Form 645 or the ATOM to conduct the circling approach for MECIR on one engine or with a simulated engine out . Individual CAR 217 orgs may require this but it is not a requirement for the issue or renewal on a non CAR 217 rating test.
PM me if you have any specific issues.
In my view, an upgrade from SECIR to MECIR should concentrate on the significant differences between single and multi aspects as pertinent to the conduct of flight under the IFR. e.g. emergency ops such as single engine handling.
If the SECIR is still current at the time of test for the MECIR, competency in most aspects of IFR flight may be presumed (that is presumed not assumed as an assumption is not based on evidence). Accordingly, it is not necessary to repeat all aspects of the initial issue of a Command Instrument Rating. This is notwithstanding CASA's view that an upgrade to MECIR is an initial issue.
However, when an upgrade from SECIR to MECIR is completed the MECIR will only be valid until the expiry date of the current SECIR unless all aspects (as applicable to endorsements currently held) required by Form 645 are demonstrated in flight (or in an approved simulator or synthetic trainer if permitted by the CAO).
With regard to an earlier comment about the circling approach requirement here is the relevant extract from the ATOM:
"The circling approach must be demonstrated as the continuation of the aerodrome instrument approach from the specified circling minima. The instrument approach and circling manoeuvres must be flown onto the aerodrome specified on the instrument approach plate.
The circling approach must not be flown as a standalone low level circuit.
The circling approach cannot be demonstrated in a synthetic trainer unless the synthetic trainer
is specifically approved for visual operations"The circling approach cannot be demonstrated in a synthetic trainer unless the synthetic trainer
There is no requirment either in Form 645 or the ATOM to conduct the circling approach for MECIR on one engine or with a simulated engine out . Individual CAR 217 orgs may require this but it is not a requirement for the issue or renewal on a non CAR 217 rating test.
PM me if you have any specific issues.
Last edited by LexAir; 16th Jan 2013 at 22:04.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no requirment either in Form 645 or the ATOM to conduct the circling approach for MECIR on one engine or with a simulated engine out .
CAO 40.2.1 Appendix 1 paragraph 2.2(a) clearly states the circling approach is to be demonstrated asymmetric. Form 645 requires the ATO to certify the test was conducted in accordance with the order.
Only a complete idiot would upgrade a SECIR without seeing asymmetric circling.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where you talked about the MECIR only being valid until the end of the validity period for the SECIR, could I complete only the necessary approaches in flight demonstrating all engine out requirements then complete the rest of the approach renewals in a certified synthetic trainer?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the previous comment about there being a CAO mandated requirement to demonstrate an engine out circling approach, here is what the current version of CAO 40.2.1 Appendix I states, inter alia:
f) Circling Approach. The applicant shall demonstrate proficiency in conducting a circling approach. Should an operator’s policy be that circling approaches will not be conducted in a particular aeroplane type, then this requirement to demonstrate a circling approach for the issue or renewal of an instrument rating while flying that particular aeroplane type can be deleted. However, should an instrument rating holder wish to exercise the privileges of an instrument rating on an aeroplane in which circling approaches can be flown, the holder must demonstrate proficiency in conducting a circling approach in an aeroplane, or in a synthetic flight trainer approved for the purpose.
And furthermore:
2.2 Asymmetric flight and flight with reduced thrust:
(a) Requirements. An applicant for an instrument rating with multi‑engine privileges shall demonstrate proficiency on multi-engine aircraft, not being center-line thrust aeroplanes, in the procedures of paragraphs 2.2 (b) to 2.2 (f) inclusive, as applicable. Correct handling of ancillary controls and adherence to the limitations as applicable is a requirement for satisfactory performance of these manoeuvres.
(b) Co-pilot instrument rating. The requirement to demonstrate proficiency in asymmetric flight (aeroplanes) or reduced power performance (multi‑engine helicopters) for the co-pilot instrument rating shall be limited to be performed in the cruise.
(c) Take-off. For multi-engine aeroplanes, the applicant shall attain optimum aeroplane performance following failure of an engine. The speed at which that failure may be simulated shall be as follows:
(i) Aeroplanes for which the take-off performance is predicated on the establishment of a V1. Failure of the engine shall be simulated at a speed greater than V1.
(ii) Aeroplanes other than those described in subparagraph (i). Failure of the engine shall be simulated at a speed greater than either the 1 engine inoperative best rate of climb speed or the take-off safety speed plus 10 knots, whichever is the higher.
(d) Reduced power performance (multi-engine helicopters). The applicant shall demonstrate proficiency in executing all manoeuvres within the specified limitations of the helicopter at a given weight and with 1 engine disengaged.
(e) Engine out performance or emergency descent (helicopters). The applicant shall demonstrate proficiency in entering autorotation solely by reference to instruments after engine failure (single engine helicopters) or after initiating an emergency descent (multi-engine helicopters). Recovery from this manoeuvre shall be made visually.
(f) Missed Approach. Failure of an engine is to be simulated prior to or during an instrument approach, and an asymmetric missed approach shall be carried out from an appropriate altitude either in accordance with the published missed approach procedure or as otherwise directed.
There is no mention of a requirement to demonstrate flying a circling approach with an engine being simulated inoperative.
f) Circling Approach. The applicant shall demonstrate proficiency in conducting a circling approach. Should an operator’s policy be that circling approaches will not be conducted in a particular aeroplane type, then this requirement to demonstrate a circling approach for the issue or renewal of an instrument rating while flying that particular aeroplane type can be deleted. However, should an instrument rating holder wish to exercise the privileges of an instrument rating on an aeroplane in which circling approaches can be flown, the holder must demonstrate proficiency in conducting a circling approach in an aeroplane, or in a synthetic flight trainer approved for the purpose.
And furthermore:
2.2 Asymmetric flight and flight with reduced thrust:
(a) Requirements. An applicant for an instrument rating with multi‑engine privileges shall demonstrate proficiency on multi-engine aircraft, not being center-line thrust aeroplanes, in the procedures of paragraphs 2.2 (b) to 2.2 (f) inclusive, as applicable. Correct handling of ancillary controls and adherence to the limitations as applicable is a requirement for satisfactory performance of these manoeuvres.
(b) Co-pilot instrument rating. The requirement to demonstrate proficiency in asymmetric flight (aeroplanes) or reduced power performance (multi‑engine helicopters) for the co-pilot instrument rating shall be limited to be performed in the cruise.
(c) Take-off. For multi-engine aeroplanes, the applicant shall attain optimum aeroplane performance following failure of an engine. The speed at which that failure may be simulated shall be as follows:
(i) Aeroplanes for which the take-off performance is predicated on the establishment of a V1. Failure of the engine shall be simulated at a speed greater than V1.
(ii) Aeroplanes other than those described in subparagraph (i). Failure of the engine shall be simulated at a speed greater than either the 1 engine inoperative best rate of climb speed or the take-off safety speed plus 10 knots, whichever is the higher.
(d) Reduced power performance (multi-engine helicopters). The applicant shall demonstrate proficiency in executing all manoeuvres within the specified limitations of the helicopter at a given weight and with 1 engine disengaged.
(e) Engine out performance or emergency descent (helicopters). The applicant shall demonstrate proficiency in entering autorotation solely by reference to instruments after engine failure (single engine helicopters) or after initiating an emergency descent (multi-engine helicopters). Recovery from this manoeuvre shall be made visually.
(f) Missed Approach. Failure of an engine is to be simulated prior to or during an instrument approach, and an asymmetric missed approach shall be carried out from an appropriate altitude either in accordance with the published missed approach procedure or as otherwise directed.
There is no mention of a requirement to demonstrate flying a circling approach with an engine being simulated inoperative.
Last edited by LexAir; 21st Jan 2013 at 21:45.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RWY18. The answer to your question is yes. If you do the asymmetrics in flight and a circling approach in flight and at least one in flight approach you may renew the remaining nav aids in an approved synthetic trainer. If you do all that your rating can be renewed for a further 12 months from the end of the month in which you completed all requirements for the issue of the MECIR.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: the land of Oz
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used to be a very straight forward process, just testing the candidate for the ME sequences required, and could easily be done during a renewal.
Has recently been changed however & now requires an initial issue test for the ME "grade" of rating.
Sorry Lexair, my interpretation is the upgrade must be as per an initial issue and all approaches done in the air apart from DGA.
Cheers
Has recently been changed however & now requires an initial issue test for the ME "grade" of rating.
Sorry Lexair, my interpretation is the upgrade must be as per an initial issue and all approaches done in the air apart from DGA.
Cheers
Last edited by TwoHundred; 22nd Jan 2013 at 08:58.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TwoHundred. Yes it is all confusing.
Here is the germane section of the CAO 40.2.1:
6.6
An endorsement entered in a person’s log book for a navigation aid or procedure:
(a) has no time limit; and
(b) may be used with any grade of instrument rating held by the person; and
(c) may only be used subject to compliance with the relevant recent experience, and proficiency testing, requirements mentioned in subsection 11.
Therefore, once the applicant has satisfied the minimum requirements for the initial issue of a MECIR (theory, asymmetrics, circling approach etc and at least one of NDB or VOR in flight), those existing nav aid endorsements previously obtained in the single engine aircraft may continue to be used whilst flying a multi engine aircraft.
Here is the germane section of the CAO 40.2.1:
6.6
An endorsement entered in a person’s log book for a navigation aid or procedure:
(a) has no time limit; and
(b) may be used with any grade of instrument rating held by the person; and
(c) may only be used subject to compliance with the relevant recent experience, and proficiency testing, requirements mentioned in subsection 11.
Therefore, once the applicant has satisfied the minimum requirements for the initial issue of a MECIR (theory, asymmetrics, circling approach etc and at least one of NDB or VOR in flight), those existing nav aid endorsements previously obtained in the single engine aircraft may continue to be used whilst flying a multi engine aircraft.
Last edited by LexAir; 23rd Jan 2013 at 20:54.
