Instrument Ratings...
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Englishal
"Therefore there must be something fundamentally wrong with JAR, unless of course it is in the name of European protectionism."
Surely, objectively, JAR is politics or, if you like, European moral and intellectual superiority over the USA. There isn't any way to dress it up when the FAA standards work for most of the civilised world, and most of the uncivilised world too. If common sense only was used, every country would either adopt the FAA system (and pay the FAA some money for managing the paperwork), or they would write their own based on FAA with just the front cover changed.
Whopity
I don't think 40 v 50 hours is relevant to any private pilot. Almost nobody (piston engine context) would do the IR except for European IFR, and the cost difference doesn't even feature on the landscape of IFR flying costs (which usually start with owning a plane, or a part of one). The 90% killer is the ground school, and for others it is details like the bizzare JAA hearing test which disqualifies a lot of people who can hear normally socially and can hear perfectly with a headset (while, naturally, allowing deaf as post 25,000hr ATPs to keep their jobs). The FAA IR requires putting a plane on the N reg and this is a massive and expensive hassle even in the simplest cases, yet people still do it.
HWD
I imagine that the stats are skewed by the airline pilot students, shown at various stages of their training. A CPL without an IR is useless for airline employment purposes, and in the UK a private owner-pilot doesn't even get cheaper insurance with a CPL. I might do a CPL when I go to the States, if I have time spare after finishing the IR, but it will be only to fill in the time before the return flight. A CPL is of use to a company employed pilot, flying a G-reg, that's all.
"Therefore there must be something fundamentally wrong with JAR, unless of course it is in the name of European protectionism."
Surely, objectively, JAR is politics or, if you like, European moral and intellectual superiority over the USA. There isn't any way to dress it up when the FAA standards work for most of the civilised world, and most of the uncivilised world too. If common sense only was used, every country would either adopt the FAA system (and pay the FAA some money for managing the paperwork), or they would write their own based on FAA with just the front cover changed.
Whopity
I don't think 40 v 50 hours is relevant to any private pilot. Almost nobody (piston engine context) would do the IR except for European IFR, and the cost difference doesn't even feature on the landscape of IFR flying costs (which usually start with owning a plane, or a part of one). The 90% killer is the ground school, and for others it is details like the bizzare JAA hearing test which disqualifies a lot of people who can hear normally socially and can hear perfectly with a headset (while, naturally, allowing deaf as post 25,000hr ATPs to keep their jobs). The FAA IR requires putting a plane on the N reg and this is a massive and expensive hassle even in the simplest cases, yet people still do it.
HWD
I imagine that the stats are skewed by the airline pilot students, shown at various stages of their training. A CPL without an IR is useless for airline employment purposes, and in the UK a private owner-pilot doesn't even get cheaper insurance with a CPL. I might do a CPL when I go to the States, if I have time spare after finishing the IR, but it will be only to fill in the time before the return flight. A CPL is of use to a company employed pilot, flying a G-reg, that's all.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I am sure they are but if you have say 300 pilots in the airline pilot sausage machine, first doing a PPL, then a CPL, then an IR, then hour building for an ATPL, any snapshot of the scene will show a number of CPLs without an IR.
The CAA could present the data a lot better but presumably they choose not to. Any more data would, I bet, show the PPL training industry in a very poor light.
But I really know next to nothing about the airline pilot training process. I've always found it bizzare that so many of them hang around flying schools, doing PPL instruction for a £10/day retainer, just to get 1500 or whatever hours in their logbook, when those hours (in a C152 etc) cannot be remotely relevant to flying an airliner..... Someone explained the process to me the other day but it didn't really register.
The CAA could present the data a lot better but presumably they choose not to. Any more data would, I bet, show the PPL training industry in a very poor light.
But I really know next to nothing about the airline pilot training process. I've always found it bizzare that so many of them hang around flying schools, doing PPL instruction for a £10/day retainer, just to get 1500 or whatever hours in their logbook, when those hours (in a C152 etc) cannot be remotely relevant to flying an airliner..... Someone explained the process to me the other day but it didn't really register.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 1
From: England
IO540,
Looking at those CAA stats, in a year when 200 new aeroplane instructors appeared only 1 IRI appeared.(but 8 helicopter IRIs)
How many instructors are capable of teaching IMC?
Where are the stats for that?
Looking at those CAA stats, in a year when 200 new aeroplane instructors appeared only 1 IRI appeared.(but 8 helicopter IRIs)
How many instructors are capable of teaching IMC?
Where are the stats for that?
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Most of the instructors that teach the IMCR do not have, and have never had, a full IR.
It's a poor situation that perhaps ought to be improved, but then (IMV) an instructor who has an IR but never flies anywhere for real (which is also true for most of them, with or without an IR) isn't going to be of much benefit to the student, either, because this stuff is all about going places.
The demand for a JAA IR is close to zero now, so few instructors (outside the airline training business) have an incentive to get, and keep current, an IR.
Somebody will correct me on this I hope, but I think historically there were different routes to being able to teach the IMCR. Way back, a PPL could teach PPL (!!). Such a person could then get grandfathered into a BCPL, and a UK CPL got an honorary IMCR. I doubt the numbers on this exist - just like there won't be ready numbers on how many UK (CAA) PPL/IR holders got their IR via various of the now-closed routes. For example there used to be a "700hr experience" route which avoided some part of the ground school, I think, which I know nothing about.
It's a poor situation that perhaps ought to be improved, but then (IMV) an instructor who has an IR but never flies anywhere for real (which is also true for most of them, with or without an IR) isn't going to be of much benefit to the student, either, because this stuff is all about going places.
The demand for a JAA IR is close to zero now, so few instructors (outside the airline training business) have an incentive to get, and keep current, an IR.
Somebody will correct me on this I hope, but I think historically there were different routes to being able to teach the IMCR. Way back, a PPL could teach PPL (!!). Such a person could then get grandfathered into a BCPL, and a UK CPL got an honorary IMCR. I doubt the numbers on this exist - just like there won't be ready numbers on how many UK (CAA) PPL/IR holders got their IR via various of the now-closed routes. For example there used to be a "700hr experience" route which avoided some part of the ground school, I think, which I know nothing about.
