Instrument Rating Renewal issues
Jack, hence the need for those that regulate this pathetic industry of ours, and the industry itself, to get its sh!t in a pile and standardise the training preceding the I.R. TEST (for that is what it is - a test) and the test itself.
In the airline scene where their pilots are all known to the organisation and all are subject to at least two proficiency checks and a line check each year, I firmly endorse the big 'T' for Training and little 'c' for checking. But the I.R. is like your medical - you pass or fail according to your fitness. At least that's how it should be, even in the airlines.
But what often happens is something like this: Because standard simulator sessions run for two hours, the I.R. is rolled in to a sim detail in parts; in this situation the examiner needs to make it absolutely clear which part is training and which part is the actual test, but some do not do this. When this is not done, pilots often get the idea that it is all training, with the necessary boxes ticked as various approaches are flown to tolerances after practice as necessary. So the guy/gal does a wobbly ILS, then a good one, then another wobbly one. The examiner ticks the box because at some stage of the two hours one good one was demonstrated.
The candidate should not present himself/herself unless reasonably confident of being able to demonstrate the required standard, without immediately preceding practice. As for a candidate crying 'foul' because an ATO asks for something that the candidate has not trained for - how would the ATO necessarily know unless he had also supervised the training of that candidate? In GA this often won't be the case.
In the airline scene where their pilots are all known to the organisation and all are subject to at least two proficiency checks and a line check each year, I firmly endorse the big 'T' for Training and little 'c' for checking. But the I.R. is like your medical - you pass or fail according to your fitness. At least that's how it should be, even in the airlines.
But what often happens is something like this: Because standard simulator sessions run for two hours, the I.R. is rolled in to a sim detail in parts; in this situation the examiner needs to make it absolutely clear which part is training and which part is the actual test, but some do not do this. When this is not done, pilots often get the idea that it is all training, with the necessary boxes ticked as various approaches are flown to tolerances after practice as necessary. So the guy/gal does a wobbly ILS, then a good one, then another wobbly one. The examiner ticks the box because at some stage of the two hours one good one was demonstrated.
The candidate should not present himself/herself unless reasonably confident of being able to demonstrate the required standard, without immediately preceding practice. As for a candidate crying 'foul' because an ATO asks for something that the candidate has not trained for - how would the ATO necessarily know unless he had also supervised the training of that candidate? In GA this often won't be the case.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 20th May 2013 at 23:08.
My main issue is when the ATO throws in multiple unrelated failures and system faults at unlikely times - although skill building, this concept hardly validates training in a logical sense.
"A prescribed ATO or a prescribed person must not introduce simultaneous multiple unrelated simulated emergency or abnormal situations in the flight".
AND - "after a simulated failure, the prescribed ATO or prescribed person must ensure the aircraft is configured back to a normal operating mode before another simulated failure may be introduced, except where the simulated failures are linked)e.g. electrical failure leading to a flapless approach and landing).
AND "A prescribed ATO or a prescribed persons must not trip circuit breakers as a means of introducing systems/component failure unless this is specifically permitted in the aircraft flight manual"
I would hazard a guess and state it is highly probable that the vast majority of "prescribed persons - check captains - simulator instructors - would have at some time in their career, blatantly disregarded the directives above.
Last edited by Centaurus; 20th May 2013 at 11:33.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, username, you're an instructor and have never taken an aircraft off before? And you were tested on take offs and you'd never done one before? Or have we crossed wires here?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My main issue is when the ATO throws in multiple unrelated failures and system faults at unlikely times - although skill building, this concept hardly validates training in a logical sense.
We three sat in this gloomy room in the Gatwick area where the menacing sight of the horror box with 737 stencilled on its side was waiting like a huge white-tailed spider on long hydraulic legs. The pleasantries over, my trainee testing officer read from his prepared script which was:
Captain T.Emm. YOU WILL FAIL this test if you exceed the following tolerances for the ILS approach. Furthermore YOU WILL FAIL this test if you exceed the following tolerances for an NDB approach (reads a long list of tolerances exceedance figures for ILS and NDB.
And YOU WILL FAIL this test if you exceed the following tolerances for steep turns. And so the list of YOU WILL FAIL this test went on and bloody on until I was ready to slit my wrists or walk out of the room into the unemployment queue. Meanwhile the Grey Eminence (actually quite a nice bloke when you got to know him) sat impassively with arms folded listening to the trainee checker going through his official CAA spiel.
Sufficient to say I was lucky and managed to stay within tolerances in the simulator and walked out with the coveted Brit instrument rating (aeroplane). Give me an Aussie testing officer everytime and I feel sorry for those unfortunates that undergo the Gestapo treatment handed out by some Asian testing officers north of Australia.
Better the Devil you know rather than the Devil you don't know, comes to mind
The only flight test I ever failed in my long career was the initial Pommy I.R. way back in 1973.
I had been flogging around the Pacific Islands in aircraft that only had two ADFs. Having done literally hundreds of NDB approaches, but with no experience of the VOR or ILS, when I got to Blighty and had to pay lots of pounds sterling to hire a Twin Comanche, I told the school that all I wanted to do was practice VOR and ILS work - I was already the World's Greatest NDB Approach Man.
Come the big test day and the CAA Examiner rocks up in his black uniform with gold braid running half way up both sleeves. Complete with regulatory handlebar moustache he was a formidable figure. I got the failure warning spiel that Tee Emm has succinctly described.
We get in the Tin Bomb and off we go, with me checking for ice every five minutes as prescribed (even though it was clear weather) and I nail the VOR, holding pattern and ILS. But back on the ground his first words are: " I regret to inform you that you have failed because your NDB tracking was 7 degrees off for 20 seconds on the inbound leg and you are only permitted five degrees for 15 seconds" (or some-such). Never mind it was a pathetic low-powered NDB and the Tin Bomb's equipment was hardly state-of-the art, I just had to suck it up. Because the rules had been laid down and I had accepted them.
Now whether there was some collusion between the school and the CAA man to bring this Wild Colonial Boy into line, I dunno, but it was a good lesson in humility for me. Don't present yourself for a test until you are ready and when you do, accept the rules.
I had been flogging around the Pacific Islands in aircraft that only had two ADFs. Having done literally hundreds of NDB approaches, but with no experience of the VOR or ILS, when I got to Blighty and had to pay lots of pounds sterling to hire a Twin Comanche, I told the school that all I wanted to do was practice VOR and ILS work - I was already the World's Greatest NDB Approach Man.
Come the big test day and the CAA Examiner rocks up in his black uniform with gold braid running half way up both sleeves. Complete with regulatory handlebar moustache he was a formidable figure. I got the failure warning spiel that Tee Emm has succinctly described.
We get in the Tin Bomb and off we go, with me checking for ice every five minutes as prescribed (even though it was clear weather) and I nail the VOR, holding pattern and ILS. But back on the ground his first words are: " I regret to inform you that you have failed because your NDB tracking was 7 degrees off for 20 seconds on the inbound leg and you are only permitted five degrees for 15 seconds" (or some-such). Never mind it was a pathetic low-powered NDB and the Tin Bomb's equipment was hardly state-of-the art, I just had to suck it up. Because the rules had been laid down and I had accepted them.
Now whether there was some collusion between the school and the CAA man to bring this Wild Colonial Boy into line, I dunno, but it was a good lesson in humility for me. Don't present yourself for a test until you are ready and when you do, accept the rules.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TinselTown
Age: 45
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might just resurrect this thread with a question for everyone - seeing as it was originally about instrument rating renewals.
I have a PIFR(SE) which is not current, however I have done a MECIR renewal in the last 12 months but due to it being summer have not logged sufficient instrument time for the MECIR to be current.
Firstly, given PIFR has a 24 month validity, is it renewed by passing the MECIR test or renewal?
Can I go for a private blat about the skies to get MECIR current again? Could I do this in a twin or a single?
PS I am not asking because I know the answers. Genuinely don't know, especially the interaction of PIFR(SE) and MECIR. The rules don't say that for a MECIR to be current the instrument flying must be done in a multi engine, only the renewal. Am I right?
I have a PIFR(SE) which is not current, however I have done a MECIR renewal in the last 12 months but due to it being summer have not logged sufficient instrument time for the MECIR to be current.
Firstly, given PIFR has a 24 month validity, is it renewed by passing the MECIR test or renewal?
Can I go for a private blat about the skies to get MECIR current again? Could I do this in a twin or a single?
PS I am not asking because I know the answers. Genuinely don't know, especially the interaction of PIFR(SE) and MECIR. The rules don't say that for a MECIR to be current the instrument flying must be done in a multi engine, only the renewal. Am I right?
My reading of the regulations is that instrument time can be logged in any IFR-equipped aircraft OR an approved simulator. Also passing an I.R. test within the last 90 days negates the remainder of the minimum recency requirements.
In the situation you describe where you appear to be outside 90 days your safest option would be to either get current in an approved simulator, or carry a current and appropriately-rated IFR pilot as a safety pilot while you log the necessary time. Just leaping alone into the ether and going IMC/PIFR after a long lay-off would be a baaad idea.
I don't think it has to be a twin, but stand being corrected by those more up with the whole single-engine and PIFR scene.
In the situation you describe where you appear to be outside 90 days your safest option would be to either get current in an approved simulator, or carry a current and appropriately-rated IFR pilot as a safety pilot while you log the necessary time. Just leaping alone into the ether and going IMC/PIFR after a long lay-off would be a baaad idea.
I don't think it has to be a twin, but stand being corrected by those more up with the whole single-engine and PIFR scene.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 20th May 2013 at 23:59.
get current in an approved simulator,
Semantics I know but something that always trips me up!
Semantics indeed. Hands up all the dullfcks who did not get my drift.
I think it is time for me to cease contributing to these forums. Too many anal retentives.
I think it is time for me to cease contributing to these forums. Too many anal retentives.
I have a PIFR(SE) which is not current, however I have done a MECIR renewal in the last 12 months but due to it being summer have not logged sufficient instrument time for the MECIR to be current.
Single pilot, multi engine IFR is statistically one of the most dangerous things you can do. You've got to think about a safety / currency strategy that is somewhere between the legal requirement and common airline practice
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TinselTown
Age: 45
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry I wasn't about to jump in a plane and blast off into some tough IMC after not flying in IMC for a while. However flying under the IFR in VMC (privately) I wouldn't consider dangerous but a great way to stay current with the aircraft, procedures, etc. No replacement for recurrent training of course but wouldn't be a bad thing per se. Just wondering if it was legal.
Lumps in your first post you asked "can I go for a private blat......?" A dangerous word when asking questions is that little 'can'. If the examiner says to me: You are on ILS approach and the reported weather indicates Cat 1 minima. At the outer marker you notice that the glideslope has failed. Can you continue?"
To which I answer, "Yes I can". For indeed, given my experience, recency, ability and other tools in the cockpit, I am capable of getting the aeroplane to DH, albeit at some increased risk. Given a dire emergency (like running out of fuel or on fire) I may even choose that course of action and it is unlikely that I would crash simply because I have broken the law.
But if the examiner had phrased the question with "What should you do?" he would have got an entirely different answer.
I don't know your experience or ability level so can't answer the 'can I?" question for you. You probably could fly under the IFR in VMC and do no lasting damage to the airframe or yourself, but I fail to see how this would get your I.F. recency back.
In your later post you do ask if it is legal to file and operate IFR when presumably you are out of all necessary recency in both I.F. and use of approach aids. I think that by now you have the answer to your question.
To which I answer, "Yes I can". For indeed, given my experience, recency, ability and other tools in the cockpit, I am capable of getting the aeroplane to DH, albeit at some increased risk. Given a dire emergency (like running out of fuel or on fire) I may even choose that course of action and it is unlikely that I would crash simply because I have broken the law.
But if the examiner had phrased the question with "What should you do?" he would have got an entirely different answer.
I don't know your experience or ability level so can't answer the 'can I?" question for you. You probably could fly under the IFR in VMC and do no lasting damage to the airframe or yourself, but I fail to see how this would get your I.F. recency back.
In your later post you do ask if it is legal to file and operate IFR when presumably you are out of all necessary recency in both I.F. and use of approach aids. I think that by now you have the answer to your question.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 22nd May 2013 at 02:58.
Why thank you kind sir - flattery will get you nowhere but I can pass on my bank account details and take tips...
On the subject of tips , true story at the risk of thread drift. I was a young DC-3 Captain with a Pommy airline. One stormy day we had the misfortune to blow an engine, so shut it down and duly turned back to base which was the nearest suitable anyway.
After landing there was a round of applause from the relieved pax. Release of nervous tension and I don't blame them - in a beat-up old DC-3 of all things on a crap day like that with a 28 year old at the helm, had it been me down the back I would have been wetting myself with TWO engines running, let alone one!
Anyway jokingly I said something to the effect of "don't clap, pass the hat around" which was overheard at the front of the pax cabin. Next thing someone's hat was full of pound notes and passed to the Hostie. A BIG night out was had that night....
On the subject of tips , true story at the risk of thread drift. I was a young DC-3 Captain with a Pommy airline. One stormy day we had the misfortune to blow an engine, so shut it down and duly turned back to base which was the nearest suitable anyway.
After landing there was a round of applause from the relieved pax. Release of nervous tension and I don't blame them - in a beat-up old DC-3 of all things on a crap day like that with a 28 year old at the helm, had it been me down the back I would have been wetting myself with TWO engines running, let alone one!
Anyway jokingly I said something to the effect of "don't clap, pass the hat around" which was overheard at the front of the pax cabin. Next thing someone's hat was full of pound notes and passed to the Hostie. A BIG night out was had that night....
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TinselTown
Age: 45
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it likely this would turn into what one ought to do - and I can't disagree with the good airmanship responses posted subsequently. I think my second question sounded alarm bells and was poorly phrased.
Maybe the question should have been phrased: does an MECIR renewal also renew the PIFR(SE)? That's it, just what the rules say is what I was having difficulty finding.
What you do with your legally valid ratings is another (but not far removed) subject.
Maybe the question should have been phrased: does an MECIR renewal also renew the PIFR(SE)? That's it, just what the rules say is what I was having difficulty finding.
What you do with your legally valid ratings is another (but not far removed) subject.