IREX relevance
 

Ok, so I recently nailed the IREX after several years of flying on a Private Instrument rating.

I was gob smacked that RNAV approaches are 'not examinable', and that the emphasis is still very firmly on steam gauge panels - good old OZY doesn't even have an RMI, let alone an HSI. It doesn't have a TSO 145 or 146 GPS either.

Given that (i) NDBs are being actively phased out, (ii) so far as I can tell from what I hear in my headset, RNAVs get far more use than NBD or VOR let downs, and (iii) a suitably 145/146 TSO'd GPS is shortly to be a requirement for IFR flight in Australia, does anyone have any insight into what CASA's examination branch are planning to do to address this rather bizarre anachronism?

The IREX feels like it is at least two decades out of date.
:confused::confused:

As does the rest of the theory and practical aspects of Aviation training in Australia, particularly in GA. So much emphasis in the CPL syllabus on finding a random homestead in the middle of nowhere using DR but very little emphasis on managing the many sources of available information presented to a pilot in a typical modern GA aircraft.

I'm pretty sure the ATPL theory syllabus still uses the 767 and even the pre-historic 727 as the aircraft studied. Not very relevant as the number of 727s (and similar Jets) still flying commercially in Australia can be counted on one hand.

It seems pretty shabby if they haven't got RNAV type stuff in there. I would think a focus on this and the possible pitfalls (finger trouble, lack of familiarity with the type of equipment you're using, loss of situational awareness by blindly tracking to waypoints etc) would be highly relevant.

Still, not to be a dinosaur, but good orientation skills using a simple pointer type instrument, be it fixed card or RMI, will still continue to be necessary for some years until every aircraft has some kind of swept-up moving map display I suppose.

Don't know if it's still the case, but at one time you had to study pressurisation for a helicopter ATPL. Can anyone name a pressurised helicopter? Anyone?

Whilst I don't disagree with what you're saying, you could use any aircraft for ATPL flight planning and the concepts would pretty much be the same. So I don't see what benefit changing the type of aircraft would have, other than costing more money which CASA already swipes from us.

morno

I don't know where you did your IREX but suggest that your research and information given to you before choosing your school was misleading. The terms you are using are making me think that you didn't have very good instruction. I would have expected a newly minted IFR pilot who had just completed an IPC to be using terms like 3D and 2D and by the way an NDB approach is no longer required. You have every right to be very upset with your IPC provider especially if they don,t have an aircraft that is equipped to legally do GPS RNAV approach with a WAAS GPS.

Groggy

I thought we were talking the IREX theory?

Pretty much what grogmonster said...

Considering that 3 days ago the GPS equipage mandate became effective, thus enabling Airservices to rip out half their ground based navaids and mandating GPS as prime means navigation for all IFR aircraft......

I would suggest that 'good old OZY' does not meet the minimum requirements for IFR navigation anymore and probably can't be used IFR

...than add all the Part 61 changes for instrument rating....

I am pretty sure that to use an NDB you just have to demonstrate bearing needle tracking and it doesn't have to be an approach.

Someone is not giving you the correct information

Alpha

The IREX is the problem
 

The theory training isn't the issue here- it's what CASA examines in the IREX that is the issue, and this is what drives the theory providers. I have been flying RNAVS for a few years on a private IR...and of course one can and would add them to a full IR, but.... the IREX ignores them.

Knowing how to interpret simple fixed card ADFs, if you have one and if there is still a useful NDB near you, is obviously a good thing and I am not complaining about having had to revisit the issue, but RNAVs are ubiquitous and are (IMHO) much safer, yet they are not presently required knowledge for the IREX. This is what I find so puzzling- just wondered if anyone here knows what the examination branch has in mind, as this surely has to change - soon!

Safe flying!

Groggy and alpha,

You do realise the OP is talking about the CASA IREX exam, and not their IFR training? VH-OZY is the call sign of the fictional aircraft used by CASA in the exam - and as you pointed out, Alpha, it is no longer IFR capable!

Agree with you on that one, but if CASA are so hell bent on changing the foundations of aviation regulation they could at least make some attempt to keep the training syllabus in line with the changes.

Last time I checked there was not even a mention of ADSB in the current IREX syllabus which CASA deems to essential for 'safe' IFR flight in Australia.

...knows what the examination branch has in mind.....
 

Superannuation and Retirement.....

TSO129 is still ok, though I believe any new fits have to be TSO146.

And why not? I ask, they need to have something to focus on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are onto it, alphacentauri. VH-OZY is not up to snuff.

And mikewil, you are onto it too; in fact, the IREX does not presently examine anything to do with RNAV's, ADSB requirements, RNP.... It seems to be almost hopelessly out of date in this area.

It does, however, address the Part 61 reg's; at least with respect to the currency requirements for IFR flight and for various approaches (and while not specifically for RNAV's of course, the same rules apply as for VOR approaches).

I suppose it was too much to hope for that someone who might have the inside track at CASA would chime in on this.

:)