IFR Renewal in Simulator or aircraft

[Kharon]

LS # 20 –"As a matter of interest, do you have a reference that says that if you are doing the IR test, (either initial and/or renewal) you can't use the above."

Leady – I think A37575 was alluding to raw data in a 'proper sim' (no AT/AP + crosswind) but the jolly old AP can be used during a CIR test.

CAO 40.2.1. Appendix 1 – paragraph 2 (c).
"An autopilot or a coupled approach may be used in the demonstration of proficiency in instrument approach procedures. However, the applicant shall also be required to demonstrate proficiency in instrument approach procedures without the use of the flight director and without the autopilot engaged in aircraft where this is permitted."

Kiddies, remember, if you intend to use the GA type AP, always test it before flight (or else). Probably a good thing to use the AP during cruise, or when setting up and briefing for the 'next' approach sequence; it's part of the 'safety system'; so why not use it. Mind you if using the AP during a 'test' sequence approach rather than flying it seems like taking the Mickey a bit, think on - lots of GA 'victims' seem not to be able to manage a coupled approach using some older GA autopilot types; it's always "interesting" to watch -(probably 'cos the bloody things don't work proper). Would your AP mysteriously fail at some stage during the test gambit? - Nothing wrong with a bit of pressure, now is there??.....

[LeadSled]

----- seem to think the local aeroclub's synthetic trainer counts as a simulator.

-FTS,
As do some FOIs, given what they approve in the name of "simulation".

Hence my previous post, about the "approval" of a desktop piece of junk to "demonstrate" Chieftain asymmetric performance, and pilot competence in such critical sequences.

It is beyond all reason that such nonsense should count in such sequences --- but it was all directed to be done by CASA FOI (s) with a device typical of what a 10 yer old has at home.

As I said previously, FOIs seem to be unaware of CAR 60, and, it seems to me that, in a practical sense you can categorize many present CASA approved "FTD/FS as;

(1) Should never have been approved for anything, or;
(2) Should no longer be approved, but still is, or;
(3) Has been approved in a category well above where it should have been,(in my opinion the various
Redbird" devices fall in to this category, an FAA AATD being classified here, in some cases, as a "simulator")
(4) And then there are the kosher systems that I have seen that seem to be not favored by CASA,
(5) And, finally, the kosher Level Ds --- that are properly maintained, so the fidelity meets the CAR 60 standards.

Not all CASA approved Level D's meet the above, from my experience.

A question that must be asked, how much longer is it going to be before CASA picks up the new ICAO standards (details in a previous post) the "project" started about 5 years ago. What's the delay, all you need to do is a quick rewrite of CAR 60 to just refer to the ICAO standards as "the standards" for FSTDs.

The new ICAO classifications (as a result of an international collaboration managed by RAeS --- so that should take care of the "anti-US at any cost" brigade) is far more sensible and simple than FSD-1/FSD-2/CAR 60 ---- maybe that's the problem, it is all too simple, sane, sensible and very workable for CASA to be interested.

Tootle pip!!

[Dick Smith]

Can someone confirm that in the USA a renewal would not be required under these circumstances. Just recency requirements.

The FAA does not require an I F R renewal each 12 months and their recency requiements are also less onerous .

[A37575]

a35757,
As a matter of interest, do you have a reference that says that if you are doing the IR test, (either initial and/or renewal) you can't use the above.
I ask, because I have done more than a few IF rating renewals over the years, right back to initial issue of what we now call a MECIR, and used all of the above

It is up to the FOI or Delegate how he wishes to conduct the CIR. The Delegate represents CASA. The testing officer needs to ensure that to be issued with a CIR, the applicant must demonstrate a competent performance in operating the aircraft under the IFR. A competent performance is one in which the pilot is in control of the aircraft and the successful outcome of the task is never in doubt.

Most general aviation ATO's conducting a single pilot CIR in a light single or twin, require the test be hand flown apart from brief periods where the candidate is changing charts or in short periods of level flight where an autopilot may be engaged.

On the other hand in appropriate airline simulators, the vast majority of a CIR is flown using full automatic features with a minimum of one approach without the autopilot and flight director. However, once again the decision to conduct the test using hand flown raw data is up to the judgement of the Examiner, ATO, FOI or delegate.

One of the assessments required and published in the CASA Approved Testing Officer Manual is: "Smoothness - the applicant must demonstrate smoothness in all flying sequences" Note the accent on all .

It becomes difficult to judge overall smoothness as a specific skill when most of the test is done on automation.

Demonstration of hand flying skills in the flight simulator and without resorting to aids such as the flight director and autothrottle for example, need to be within published instrument rating tolerances. That is why ATO's and delegates are in their right to require this to be demonstrated.

Loss of control in IMC is now recognized as the major cause of hull losses.
This suggests that basic instrument flying competency was lacking. if pilots are to learn from the mistakes of others, it was seem prudent for examiners to address this fact by checking the competency of pilots at basic instrument flying skills. Skill at watching the automatic pilot is a separate subject...

[LeadSled]

A37575,
Very interesting reply ---- no wonder Australian aviation is in so much trouble. You are obviously FOI material, if not one already.

Oh!, and by the way, as a former airline check pilot/CASA delegate/CP/CFI, I do have some understanding of these matters.

I strongly dispute the assertion that it is up to the ATO/FOI to demand that all sequences have be flown, at the whim/direction/demand of the testing officer, particularly on a B737, which was the subject of the original post. It is certainly not what the relevant CAO says, when the principle of aspices juris non sunt jura is applied, as it should be, to the interpretation of the CAO.

I am fascinated there is now, apparently, what sounds like a separate assessment and, presumably competency, for :

Skill at watching the automatic pilot is a separate subject...

Perhaps I should seek your views on when an pilot can log IF time ?? The ICAO/rest of the world criteria and pilot qualifications for logging AICUS.

Loss of control in IMC is now recognized as the major cause of hull losses.

Getting a bit carried away, aren't you. Certainly, there have been several recent major hull losses due to loss of control, much publicized, but THE major cause, I think ( I know) not.

I could comment further on some of your assertions, but I don't think I will bother, and I imagine it would be lost on you, anyway.

In reply to Dick, correct for many pilots, they are subject to a flight review every two years, which will include some IF, but any pilot working for a Part 121/125/135 (referring to fixed wing) will do a minimum of one annual check, similar to a base check here.

Tootle pip!!

[Mach E Avelli]

Dick, Leadie is spot on. Assuming that you already have a US instrument rating attached to any of PPL , CPL or ATP and the operation is private-only, all you need is a current FAA medical and either a BFR that includes the necessary I.F. OR recency in I.F. as per the FARs, plus a BFR within the last two years. No requirement to do a formal instrument rating renewal annually - in fact I don't think such a beast exists.