Question re Instrument Prof check Form 61-1512
Thread Starter
Question re Instrument Prof check Form 61-1512
The Instrument Proficiency Check - Aeroplanes Form 61-1512 date 09/2014 Flight Test Report has significant differences to the former Form 645 Instrument Rating Test form.
In the Form 645 there was (among other items to be tested) a requirement to conduct at least one instrument approach without flight director or autopilot. In other words manual raw data skill test.
The IPC Form 61-1512 Flight Test Report now has this item removed as a requirement. In other words there is no requirement anymore for an Examiner to assess manual raw data instrument approach flying skills. In view of numerous published research papers concerning degradation of manual flying skills caused by automation dependency, it is curious that CASA has seen fit to disregard the evidence and has chosen to dumb down the Part 61 IPC implying that full use of the automatic pilot and associated AFDS should be used throughout the IPC.
Does anyone know why the flight test requirement to conduct at least one manually flown instrument approach without the use of the flight director and automatic pilot was removed from the IPC? Experience has shown that many candidates whose recent flying career has been primarily on automatics often reveal quite significant difficulties keeping within published tolerances (and that is being kind) when faced with manual non-automatic features instrument flying. Sighs of relief from candidates are quite common when they are permitted to re-instate all the automatics for the rest of the test.
In the Form 645 there was (among other items to be tested) a requirement to conduct at least one instrument approach without flight director or autopilot. In other words manual raw data skill test.
The IPC Form 61-1512 Flight Test Report now has this item removed as a requirement. In other words there is no requirement anymore for an Examiner to assess manual raw data instrument approach flying skills. In view of numerous published research papers concerning degradation of manual flying skills caused by automation dependency, it is curious that CASA has seen fit to disregard the evidence and has chosen to dumb down the Part 61 IPC implying that full use of the automatic pilot and associated AFDS should be used throughout the IPC.
Does anyone know why the flight test requirement to conduct at least one manually flown instrument approach without the use of the flight director and automatic pilot was removed from the IPC? Experience has shown that many candidates whose recent flying career has been primarily on automatics often reveal quite significant difficulties keeping within published tolerances (and that is being kind) when faced with manual non-automatic features instrument flying. Sighs of relief from candidates are quite common when they are permitted to re-instate all the automatics for the rest of the test.
Last edited by Judd; 8th Nov 2014 at 11:43.
...because CASA is 10-15 years behind reality?
Let's face it, the last time their management worked in the industry was 15-20 years ago and automatics were new and wonderful
Let's face it, the last time their management worked in the industry was 15-20 years ago and automatics were new and wonderful
Yes, that omission seems to me to be a backward step, if true. I had a look through the Flight Examiner handbook and the appropriate sections of the Part 61 MOS and the only reference to the use of automation I can find is that it can be used unless otherwise directed by the examiner.
There was a discussion reasonably recently hereabouts on the need or otherwise to practice hand-flying in instrument training and checking, and I fall squarely on the side that it should be included, on the grounds that automation is great, but we need to guard against over-reliance and the inability to quickly take positive steps to fix a hazardous situation by hand if the equipment fails.
I wonder if it's covered somewhere else in the new regs? Part 61 was supposed to reduce the need to jump around between different publications to find out what was what, but maybe there's a sub-clause somewhere that says in black and white what the go is in this instance.
There was a discussion reasonably recently hereabouts on the need or otherwise to practice hand-flying in instrument training and checking, and I fall squarely on the side that it should be included, on the grounds that automation is great, but we need to guard against over-reliance and the inability to quickly take positive steps to fix a hazardous situation by hand if the equipment fails.
I wonder if it's covered somewhere else in the new regs? Part 61 was supposed to reduce the need to jump around between different publications to find out what was what, but maybe there's a sub-clause somewhere that says in black and white what the go is in this instance.
It creates a dilemma for examiners. Although they have every right to require demonstration of a raw data, non automated approach, there will be some candidates who will cry "foul" if they fail as a result. At least with the old form 645 the box had to be ticked for the examiner to issue a pass.
Of course most airlines can and will require some checking of basic skills on proficiency checks, but it does seem that this particular bar has been lowered by CASA.
All while raising the bar for trivia.
Of course most airlines can and will require some checking of basic skills on proficiency checks, but it does seem that this particular bar has been lowered by CASA.
All while raising the bar for trivia.
My understanding gleaned from a colleague who recently discussed the very subject with CASA FCL is that when designing the new Part 61 IPC Flight Test Report form, CASA merely combined the equivalent ICAO form with the FAA current document and came up with what we now have. Not very original thinking. A letter from one ATO has gone to CASA recommending the requirement for at least one instrument approach without flight director and autopilot, be retained from the old Form 645 Instrument rating test form.
