IFR Renewal in Simulator or aircraft

[prodi9y]

Good day,

I have have emailed CASA a while back but have not received a reply from them so I am trying to see if anyone had gone down this track and what I might be required to do.

I am have a CASA CPL but the IR on it has lapsed for more than 2 years. As I am working overseas now as a flight crew, I am current on the 737/IFR. Hence, I did not see the need to renew the CASA IFR at that point in time. I hope my lack of foresight will not come back and bite me now.

If solely for the IFR renewal, will it be cheaper for me to do it in a sim or a multi piston twin?

[A37575]

If solely for the IFR renewal, will it be cheaper for me to do it in a sim or a multi piston twin?

Depends how good you are. Usually cheaper to do it in a light twin. That said if you haven't flown a light twin for a few years in Australia, you would be wise to get some dual practice IFR cross-country flights before attempting the test. Initial issue flight usually about 2.5 hours. Assume at least two practice cross-country flights of 2.5 hours each to get up to scratch then you are talking about roughly 8 hours of twin time plus test fees. Say around $5000 plus altogether.

Depending where you go for the 737 sim - Check Qantas and Ansett websites for info. You would need a minimum of two hours for the test if you are current on Australian procedures and air route flying Chances are if flying in Asia you will be not current at manual raw data flying that is required in the Australian CIR test. So you may be wise to have a couple of practice sessions in the 737 sim before committing yourself to 737 CIR. Say a total of five sim hours at total cost around $6500 if everything goes to plan.

Your call but unless you are totally confident of passing the Australian CIR standard in a 737 sim, it may be less cost to do it in a Duchess or Seminole somewhere. Especially if you have never previously done an Australian CIR in a 737 sim...

[prodi9y]

Hi A37575,

When you mention Raw Data meaning the approaches or A/T & A/P off flying?

[Wally Mk2]

I find this whole concept absurd!

Here's a guy flying a heavy metal plane in RPT Ops in IMC day in day out OS in most likely conditions we never see here in Lah Lah land (OZ) & is obviously current & hopefully proficient & yet to retain his Aussie IR he has to perhaps reval it via some now considered antiquated outdated old piston twin for raw flying abilities when he's probably never likely to need them again & even if he did he is still in the eyes of our ridiculous rules makers 'current' right up to the day b4 the rating expires having not been back in the machine from the day after his reval!Madness!

Just flaws me in this day & age but I guess we need stupidity in all levels of officialdom!


Wmk2

[josephfeatherweight]

Wally Mk2 - I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly.
Whilst we're somewhat on topic - maybe someone can help me with this:
I have a current MECIR with all the NAVAIDS except VOR.
Provided I am current in all approaches, what are the MINIMUM approaches I need to conduct during my renewal to satisfy a renewal? I can't decipher the CASA-speak and I'm hearing different things from different people (incl ATOs...)

[LeadSled]

Wally Mk 2,
You have missed the salient critical point, this is Australia, we know best.
What would the rest of the world know, particularly the USA.
Think parochial, think small, under no circumstance let common sense ( very uncommon in Australian aviation) intrude, and wear rose coloured glasses when you look at Australia's incident and accident record, and above all, bureaucracy rains (no, not a misspelling) supreme.

I can't decipher the CASA-speak and I'm hearing different things from different people (incl ATOs...)

Joseph,
You missed out FOIs, this is the difference between "The Rule of Law" and the "Rule by Law", where the latter means that the law is what some bureaucrat says it means, on any particular day, and you do not have the finances to challenge bureaucratic "rulings" via appeal systems that are heavily stacked against you.

Tootle pip!!

[Wally Mk2]

"Leady" I hear ya mate & i think if you read between the lines of my post am saying similar thing/s you are but perhaps not as obviously:-)

Of course Aussies know best, what would we know when it comes to aviation,?...bugger all actually or everything depending on what side of the law fence yr on !!! I mean after all we do have the best gateway airport to our country (couch cough cough) available to anyone whom wants to come here & improve our economy promoting the great down under, providing it's during almost business hrs!!

Still we all jump thru the hoops like well trained monkies!


Wmk2

[Joker89]

Joelighty
My understanding is if you do an ILS this counts for VOR and LOC. Therefore NDB, ILS (with DME) RNAV and your done.

My understanding and the rules are probably not aligned so best to check CAO

[Feather #3]

Further to Joker89, only one of those letdowns needs to be done in an aircraft; the rest in an approved simulator.

Note; this doesn't apply to an initial issue/invalid >24 months - all letdowns must be demonstrated [IIRC albeit only one in an aircraft, as above.]

G'day

[A37575]

When you mention Raw Data meaning the approaches or A/T & A/P off flying?

Correct. No A/T, no FD and no A/P. And usually in a crosswind

[pcx]

Joe.
What is complicating things for you is that you do not have VOR on your rating. I would be really interested as to how this came about.
Therefore, if you want VOR you will have to fly this approach in an aircraft as it will be considered an initial issue of the VOR.
Bear in mind that the renewal of the ILS also renews the VOR but this does not apply in your case as you do not have VOR to renew.
For the rest of the aids you will need to fly, in a simulator, a suitably approved synthetic flight trainer or an aircraft the NDB, ILS or maybe LLZ if your last flight test included the ILS and GNSS. DGA is perpetual once issued.
You must have either NDB or VOR then can add other aids as required.
So, NBD VOR (if you want it) ILS and GNSS I think.

[Tee Emm]

Here's a guy flying a heavy metal plane in RPT Ops in IMC day in day out

"Flying" heavy metal? You mean 99.9% "monitoring" the autopilot?

[Cravenmorehead]

Josephmfeatherweight. Unfortunately if you don't have an aid on your licence you have to demonstrate proficiency in the aircraft.
I had a similar dilemma with NDB. My rating expired outside the 12 months limit ie it was 18 months since my last renewal. So I Di a Navex to Mareeba from Cairns and did the VOR approach there then hooked around the arc and did the 15ILS into Cairns with failures and a holding pattern at Mareeba-you gotta do a holding pattern.
I did a DME Arrival in a simulator. This gave me ILS VOR DME and a current rating all up cost around$ 1000.00. Including an FOI A bloody good bloke sadly persecuted by CASA of late.
I did it in a Senecca 1 and had not flown one for 25 years- mostly I have been on jets and Turbo props- but I wanted my rating back. I played around on flight sim on bug smashers, downloaded a manual and sat in the aircraft and just familiarised myself with the critter.
Next renewal back 12 months later I asked if I could get the NDB onto the rating and the answer was only if I did it in the aircraft, a simulator was not good enough as it would have constituted a rating. So I would say the same would apply to you.
Getting only VOR or NDB, not both, raises the question as to whether you can do a DME arrival with tracking guidance on an aid you are not rated on hmmmmm..
Don't get me onto GNNS approaches and getting that onto your raing if you have been out of the Aussie system for awhile jeez. I agree with Wally and sled Australia is pretty inflexible- being nice.
Always craving

[josephfeatherweight]

Thanks to pcx and CMH - yeah, long story but don't have VOR... And yep, you answered my other outstanding question re getting VOR "added" - needs to be in an actual aircraft, not the overseas sim I'm using...
As I alluded to in a personal response, the situation is a bit funny.
I mean, if you can demonstrate a holding pattern, approach and MAPP on a dodgy, fixed card ADF and you've demonstrated an ILS approach, then surely that would cut the mustard for a VOR, which of course would be much easier? To my mind, the NDB is significantly more difficult, yet effectively the same style of approach and method of flying (if you're using an RMI, it's exactly the same...) But, I understand that would probably just add further confusion.

[VH-FTS]

I think a few of you are getting 'simulator' and 'synthetic trainer' mixed up.

[Cravenmorehead]

Yeah FTS you're right I did mine in a synthetic trainer. A fully fledge full motion Simulator allows you do all the rating of course, no need for an aircraft at all.
The original poster can't remember his name could talk to the good chaps at the Ansett sim and probably do it for a couple of grand.

You could do the Navex bit Brizzie to Coolangatta and back to Brizzie for the ILS, in whatever jet they have, 737, 146, A320 etc, probably even in the new King Air sim they have; worth a thought.
Craven

[pcx]

Care to expand on that FTS?
What I did not say was that the complete renewal could be carried out in a suitable flight simulator, provided a suitable ATO or CASA FOI could be found.
I guess I made an assumption that the renewal would be carried out here in Australia and the comment about ATO's suggested a renewal carried out in a GA setting rather than a CAR217 one.
Yes I know what assume means.

[LeadSled]

No A/T, no FD and no A/P. And usually in a crosswind

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.
Indeed, the last renewal I did that was all hand flown, with not A/T, F/D or autopilot was on a DC-3, which, of course, had none of the above, which rather dictated hand flying.

I think a few of you are getting 'simulator' and 'synthetic trainer' mixed up.

-FTS,
You mean like CASA FOIs get it mixed up.
Some of the CASA "approvals" for various "flight training devices" ( or as ICAO has called them all, for some time "Flight Simulator Training Devices -- Doc.9625, Issue 3 - AN938") are a dangerous disgrace. For example, "approving" a desk top device, where you are sitting on a couple of cheap plastic chairs not even fixed to the floor) to demonstrate asymmetric competence, including EFATO, on something like a Chieftain. The CASA paperwork refers to this toy as a "simulator".
There are "CASA approved" "simulators" around that are still "flying" on concessions against FSD-1. It seems that CAR 60 is a bit of a mystery to more than a few FOIs.
Tootle pip!!

[Old Akro]

I think if you ring around a bit you'll find an instructor that will accept that being current on a 737 and operating in an airline under its check & training regime is probably reasonable evidence that you know how to fly. A guy like that will take you up and fly the approaches and not worry at all that you try and flare the aircraft 50 ft too high.

This is primarily an exercise to satisfy CASA pedantry. This exercise is (or should be) a soda compared with your airline's check & training regime.

Frankly, the instructor costs, test costs, CASA fees, etc dwarf the cost difference between aircraft hire & simulator. I'd look for the right guy and use whatever suits him best.

[VH-FTS]

PCX, I don't know what you're banging on about, my comment wasn't aimed at you. Many pilots, including some on the previous page, seem to think the local aeroclub's synthetic trainer counts as a simulator.

Nevertheless, para 4.1 of CAO 40.2.1 says the renewal can be done in an approved flight simulator i.e. the type airlines use and Ansett in Melbourne has. I'm not sure if Ansett does training or IRRs for non-airline affiliated pilots anymore - I heard their approval to do so was pulled earlier in the year.