Instrument Rating Renewal issues
 

Does anyone know what the deal is with testing officers requirements and Instrument Rating Renewals? A friend of mine recently did a renewal and the testing officer made him do a SID (in the SIM) with 5 minutes prior notice to prepare.

I may have the same guy for my upcoming renewal. Now I'm not worried about doing a SID, I am just curious if it is written anywhere that a testing officer can do this sort of thing, or as a person paying for a service I can say 'no - if its not a requirement of this Test then I'm not doing it thank you very much'.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Is that something really worth worrying about? It's something you would be quite reasonably expected to do on an actual IR flight after all.....

Although it relates to the initial test, This document, published by the UK CAA may be of some guidance.

The "Departure" is a fundamental constituent of the test, so why you are surprised your friend was given a Standard Instrument Departure with 5 minutes preparation time, I am not sure?

In the real world, it is not at all unusual for a departure to be changed at the last minute, and that shouldn't present any particular problems for a reasonably competent pilot.

I am sure you can refuse to do the test for whatever reason you see fit, but it could get quite expensive. You are expected to demonstrate proficiency to a reasonable standard. It is unlikely that the examiner is going to venture too far from the script, and you shouldn't be presenting yourself unless your general ability and knowledge is sufficient to accomplish all of the requirements of the test, whatever aspects the examiner selects for that particular day.

I doubt that any document written by the UK CAA is likely to be relevant to the requirements in Australia.

"...as a person paying for this service I can say "no...""

And therein lies the problem. Your attitude should be along the same lines as that required for a driver's licence - ie it is a privilege (more than a right) for those competent enough to deliver the skill set. A common problem now is that ratings are given away by flying schools simply because Bloggs throws a bunch of money on the counter. Then, it is left up to industry to fix up the mess when these pilots go looking for the twin gig they seem to think they're ready for.

Short notice SID? Perfectly within the ATO's scope - this should not even elicit a whinge from a candidate, if they are up to spec.

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.

As part of my last renewal, flying out of a major city airport I was given a SID as part of my airways clearance. Was expecting it as that's just the way it's done there. That gave me about 5mins notice, not a big ask in my opinion.

Simple question, is it on the test form?

You can be tested on any aspect of the instrument rating. The required items are the *minimim* items to be tested, not necessarily the total.

To be realistic the I.R. test should normally be conducted over a short route of a minimum one hour's duration (who says? - I says). The common practice of launching to the nearest VOR or NDB, flying a quick and dirty hold and returning to airport of origin and getting it all done in 45 minutes to save money is bullsh!t. If the route chosen includes a SID or STAR or both, that only adds to realism and is a Good Thing. If it does not include radar vectors to the ILS, that is a Better Thing, because one day the candidate may have to self-position somewhere where there is no radar service.
But we do have a problem in Oz with some independent ATOs who appear to have gone their own way for too many years and developed pet hobby horses which they delight to climb on at every opportunity. In a way this is not surprising, because CASA offers little in the way of standardisation across its various field offices, or across the FOIs who issue and renew ATO privileges.
The way it was in the UK (maybe no more, I dunno) was that to become a IRE, one had to attend a course run by the CAA. This resulted in a high level of testing standardisation. Candidates had no excuse for not knowing what was required of them and in fact part of the pre-test briefing was agreement between the examiner and the candidate on such things as assumed icing conditions (every test!), required flight tolerances, use of auto-pilot etc.
Unlike a company-administered proficiency check (which is part of that company's particular 'train set') the I.R. is a portable qualification attached to your licence rather like your medical. It qualifies you to fly IFR in any aircraft type that you are entitled to fly. Therefore - within the constraints of variable routes - test parameters should be a constant. And questions should be limited to the practical. Stuff which can be looked up at leisure (such as the whole list of minimum instrumentation) is a bit OTT on a practical test. On another thread here I see that several devious I.R. questions have been posed. Some answers to which I have no idea, which would appear to pre-empt my failure should I come across an ATO with that particular repertoire.

Why should you not have to demonstrate a procedure which is part of IFR flying?

If you cannot demonstrate it, maybe you shouldn't hold an instrument rating.

In the company I work for, there are a few things that are tested that are not nessecarily part of the standard renewal. Why? Because they figure that if you can't do it, then perhaps you need some further training to ensure that when the **** hits the fan, you can!

Just stop your whinging and do it.

morno

Seems generous to me. Operationally it is not uncommon to get a SID with your airways clearance or even at the holding point with a change of clearance.

If you think you can't handle it, consider getting some more training.

Multiple unrelated failures are specifically verboten by the CASA Testing Officers Manual.

With respect to SIDs and STARs, you would have to demonstrate them in a Private IFR so surely you should accept it on a MECIR? :confused:

Not sure this is correct either. At the last (mandatory) ATO PDP I attended, 9 of the 12 were CASA personnel.

It's only a SID......most Aussie SIDS are very simple.( try Shanghai or Beijing )

Get over it..

Horatio, if ATO attendance to CASA briefings is mandatory, that is an encouraging step in the right direction, but it falls short of a standardised training program to gain the qualification in the first place.
I accept that there could be some 'grand fathering' for old crusties (like me; pick me, pick me....) but for my continued education, are industry ATOs tested to a common syllabus for their own flying and general knowledge skills, then tested routinely by an FOI observing them assessing a real candidate, or is it done only once in the ATO's career with a suitably-competent candidate acting as 'meat in the seat'?
At one stage it was mooted that all ATO renewals had to be done with a CASA FOI in attendance, if not actually conducting. Is this so, and how standardised are those FOIs in the way they administer the tests?

I've never flown a SID or STAR either on my initial ME-CIR or on any renewal I've done. If this ATO is throwing one in to 'trick you up' find another ATO. The last couple of renewals I've done have been with an ATO that not only tests you but treats the renewal as a continuing education.

There are some average ATO's out there. The one's that take pleasure in tripping you up are to be avoided if possible.

My god! How on earth is a SID or STAR on an initial or renewal of a Command Instrument Rating something that would be classified as cunning or something 'to trip you up'.

These procedures happen everyday in an IFR environment! Suck it up!:mad:

Thanks for the responses
 

Thanks everyone for your comments.

I probably should have thought about my initial posing of the question and how it could be misintepreted -as it seemingly was by some people.

Just to clarify - I have no probs doing any component of Instrument Flying or renewal and I'm most certainly not worried about being asked to do a SID, I was simply asking the question as to whether it was the testing officers discretion to throw anything at someone being tested on a renewal, or whether you could request the minimums that were the requirement of the test.

I now have my answer, thanks to those for the constructive advice.

Cheers

Bird-Dog.

But why do you only want to do the minimums?

That's why we have such crappy training these days, everyone only wants to do the minimum amount.

morno

Morno, regrettably everyone wants to do the minimum these days because of the almighty dollar. Individuals, of course, are often cash-strapped, so will go to the nearest friendly ATO who takes their money, gives them a few questions, leaps into the old banger twin and does a quick whip-around the local navaids. Possibly followed by some other approach in a pretend simulator - more properly termed a 'device'. Or maybe it is done the other way around with most of the approaches in the device and one in the twin. Either way, it is a token test at best.

Some AOC holders are no better. Recently I had contact with an operator with several King Airs in his fleet. Quite a substantial operation, one would think. At least his fancy web-site said that his was the best blah blah with professional, skilled pilots, blah blah catering specifically to the mining industry blah blah using the finest IFR fleet capable of flying in any weather blah blah. He needed a driver with a certain minimum experience level to fulfill a contract and - being located in a less than salubrious part of this brown land - obviously could not attract or hold on to the required talent. And the money on offer was hardly a king's ransom. But would he spring for an I.R. renewal?
Hell no - he used every excuse going to get me to do that and pay for it myself.
A shame he did not spend as much on training as he obviously did on advertising. Needless to say we never got past the phone convesation stage.

manymak,

My apologies if pointing out the deficiencies in CIR training has offended your sensibilities. If an ATO knows you haven't flown a procedure and throws one into the mix? He or she is a prick, how about a bit of education.............the school I instruct at goes beyond the syllabus, more to the point, would never throw into a test something that hasn't been taught. Doing so probably goes against any sort of educational curriculum.

Regards.