difference in IR and IMC rating

[Send Clowns]

IO540

I'm afraid I have to call you on the FAA PPL exam/flight test, and comment on the IR (I never did the latter, so can go no further). I did the FAA PPL when I was 19 and did not have a huge amount to do to get a good pass in the exam, and I passed the flight test well despite not thinking I had flown to my own standards. I did the JAA PPL exams when I had a lot more experience (180 hours fixed-wing, 150 rotary+sim time), and brushed up to do it, and subsequently I have done a lot of classroom teaching for it. It was a lot harder than FAA, and correctly studied (i.e. not just using the confuser to direct the study) it contained everything covered by the FAA exam, including instrument navigation which makes up 20% of the Nav exam.

I have been a flight instructor, and any of my students would pass the FAA PPL flight test. They might be confused by the figure 8, but they'd do it to a high enough standard and that is a pointless exercise if ever I saw one!

On the IR, I have a friend who is an IRI here but also has an FAA ATP. He compares the overall FAA IR (which he had on a CPL before his ATP) with an IMC rating (which he has been teaching for years). I cannot say anything in detail about the exam as I have not taken or taught either. I agree you'd have to study because the law is different and I assume the exam has some extra content, but flying is basically the same anywhere otherwise!

I also agree that there should be a more accessible PPL IR here, perhaps based on a broadening of the IMC. However the airspace that most would then want to use that they can't with an IMC is getting crowded - it's where I do most of my flying.

Fuji

One of my plans when the company I taught groundschool for went bust was to ask teh CAA for sponsorship to do a PhD on JAA groundschool training. A study of that detail is required.

[DFC]

Fuji,

My position remains that the IMC absolute minima are mandatory. It is the use of lower minima that I was talking about.

People have here in this thred admitted to flying lower than 500ft because they are not visual at 500ft. That is called ducking under.

Ir minima are indeed based on procedure design and the obstacle environment etc. However, as many IMC holders use a minima of 600ft MDH and 1800m RVR on a large number of approaches using different approach aids, different approach lighting (if any) and vastly different obstacle and operating environments provided that the minima is not lower than the published. That is the point I was making.

To say I don't "like" the IMC Rating is rubbish. Why would I teach people to do things that I don't like. What I say is that it is in need of a drastic revamp.

To compare the FAA IR and the JAA IR one would need to hold both. That leaves you out on both counts.

-------
IO540, Fuji and Julian,

There is no point in talking about the ATPL exams when thinking of the IR. There is no link. There is no requirement to study at ATPL level. There are courses of ground training available from a reputable provider that is specific to the IR. Loot it up and ask them.

The topics examined are;

Air Law/ Operational Procedures (1 hour)
Aircraft General - Systems (15min), Instruments/electronics (1 hour)
Flight Planning and Monitoring (2 hours)
HPL (30 minutes)
Met (1 hour 30 minutes)
navigation - General (30 min), Radio Navigation (1 hour 30)
IFR communications (30 min)

7 areas in which one must demomnstrate knowledge in 8 hours 45 minutes. Compared to 14 Areas in over 20 hours for the ATPL.

Can anyone honestly say that pilots should not have to demonstrate the above knowledge before being given an IR? Don't the FAA cover the same topics?

The IR training system has not significantly changed in subject matter and level of training pre and post JAR-FCL. Yes the prices have gone up and that is a problem. However, I can not see how many people studied in their own time with not much study material available and put in the same amount of flying and had to undergo the same medical checks to obtain an IR 10 years ago but now there is a perceived problem. I think that it could be argued that with well structured and available ground training plus the use of FNPT2s, the training for the IR is actually easier than it was 10 or 20 years ago. So why are today's pilots finding it difficult?

------
IO540,

It is an ICAO requirement to meet Class 1 medical hearing requirements for the IR.

-----

Julian,

Please let us all know where it was you could get FAA IR training for under $50 per hour.

Regards,

DFC

[Julian]

DFC

The topics examined are;

Air Law/ Operational Procedures (1 hour)
Aircraft General - Systems (15min), Instruments/electronics (1 hour)
Flight Planning and Monitoring (2 hours)
HPL (30 minutes)
Met (1 hour 30 minutes)
navigation - General (30 min), Radio Navigation (1 hour 30)
IFR communications (30 min)

7 areas in which one must demomnstrate knowledge in 8 hours 45 minutes. Compared to 14 Areas in over 20 hours for the ATPL.

What complete tosh! You have quoted the time required to sit the exam - not the study time....completely irrelevant! Its like saying we could have cut out all that school work for years and just turned up for tha last day of exams.

There is no point in talking about the ATPL exams when thinking of the IR. There is no link.

At last it has finally dawned on you!!!!!!
Get rid of the ATPL exams with respect to the IR and replace it with a relevant course of study and exam.

Please let us all know where it was you could get FAA IR training for under $50 per hour.

Not sure where you get this from as 4k = $6400 (@1.6) and that equates to 125 hours instruction according to your rates of $50 (maybe you need it ). I paid $35/hr for the instructor and $90/hr for the aircraft in Long Beach CA and the guy is still there. He also has an agreement with a UK airfield so you can start your training here and then finish in US and undertake your flight test there if time is an issue with you and you cant do the whole course there.

Said guy is also a JAA Instructor and also has an agreement with another FTO in UK who will undertake the 15hr conversion for you to convert to the JAA IR on your return - assuming you have done those swathes of exams

[Fuji Abound]

"That is called ducking under."

No its called going on and on and on and .. .. .. repeating myself. I think we have got to grips that you have one view and those of us with our Kelloggs have a different view - best left at that.

"That leaves you out on both counts."

It leaves me out on every count, I don’t actually fly, just keep on dreaming and studying the books.

"What I say is that it is in need of a drastic revamp."

We do know. The trouble is you haven’t produced any evidence to support your argument, other than all these mythical IMCRs ducking under non existent minima, getting themselves lost and flying the wrong way around non existent SIDs.

Rustle

"Which bit am I correct about"

All of it.

On to serious business.

As 540, Julian and others have commented a very simple comparison of the FAA IR and JAA IR theory demonstrates, the JAA is far more difficult to pass. More difficult to pass does not mean more difficult to pass academically. I cannot imagine how anyone who had done either, let alone both, could possibly argue a contrary case. There is also a hint - if the electorate dont vote for you there could be a reason.

Why do almost no private pilots do the JAA IR now. Consider how many took and passed the exams last year!!! Frankly it is a disgrace.

There are far too many who go on supporting this ridiculous system (and would make the IMCR all but worthless as well) while GA is slowly dying on its feet.

Imagine some of the most changeable weather in the world and yet there are some who would delight in perpetuating a system that struggles to get a double figure number of private pilots instrument qualified!

Forgive me but those proponents cannot honestly examine their conscious and believe this is a sound system.

[DFC]

7 March;

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

Not this old chestnut again!
My examiner has asked the CAA whether the minima are advisory or mandatory - the answer was they advisory. We ignored the advisory limits at my last renewal, and I was very happy to do so.

Followed by today;

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

It leaves me out on every count, I don’t actually fly

I think that we can leave it there!

---------

Julian, I was intentionaly using the exam times which should have been obvious. The reason was that the exam time is a good indicator of the depth of questioning (or the number of multiple choice questions).

I say that the ATPL exams have nothing to do with the IR because that is currently the case. Look up who provides groundschool for the IR and ask them.

Your figures for the PPL/IR take-up in the system should include the full system. What are the European wide figures now compared to pre JAR-FCL?

One of the reasons for the poor take-up could be the bad press that people who never did the course put out and unfortunately people believe rumours.

Also, many of the figures quoted do not include air fares, accomodation, exams, paying for groundschool, etc etc which knock large chunks off your quoted figure. Add to that your other half and the kids complaining about you using the family's holiday for flight training. For many, it is actually easier and more cost effective to do the IR in Europe.........note that I said Europe.

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

Fuji

There are far too many who go on supporting this ridiculous system (and would make the IMCR all but worthless as well) while GA is slowly dying on its feet.

Very well put, but this is what we have - aviation is run for the most part by old farts who believe that making things HARD separates men from the sheep and that's how it should be. Not just the UK; in some ways the CAA could be classed as "progressive" but when you have a German on some committee, reading rule 3345 out of his little book of life's rules...

DFC

The exam times are irrelevant. The FAA IR is a broad subject, takes a good number of months of study but is a 2hr (or so) paper. The FAA CPL is 3hrs. None of these relate to how much one needs to know. Even the single FAA PPL exam (2hrs, IIRC) requires wider knowledge (of stuff related to flying) than the 7 or so (IIRC) CAA PPL exams. And not many people doing the stuff in the USA "pay for ground school" because you don't do that; you normally get the exams out of the way before going out there.

[Julian]

I was intentionaly using the exam times which should have been obvious.

Yes it was and as I said it a completely pointless comparison, exam times tell you nothing about subject matter or the fact that for the ATPL you are required to undertake an approved course of study (750 hrs rings a bell but I stand to be corrected on that).


I say that the ATPL exams have nothing to do with the IR because that is currently the case.

We agree on this point - hence my point (which now feels like banging my head against a wall) - why make someone take a load of exams that are nothing to do with the rating he is studying for?


One of the reasons for the poor take-up could be the bad press that people who never did the course put out and unfortunately people believe rumours.

Dont buy this one. Its just not accessible to get an IR easily unless you have lots of time and money in the UK.

The cost of training for the IR in the UK is astronomical, as we have already said the course itself is roughly £12000. The higher up the ladder you go the more you pay. For the SAME instructor that you had for you PPL at £25/hr is not £50/hr - in the US its the same no matter what rating you take. I always paid $35/hr. EFT quote £350/hr in a BE-76 for IR training, same at school I use would be $160 + $35 = $195 or roughly £120, 2-3 hours flying and you have paid for your tickets over!


Your figures for the PPL/IR take-up in the system should include the full system. What are the European wide figures now compared to pre JAR-FCL?

I never quoted any figures for PPL/IR take up.


it is actually easier and more cost effective to do the IR in Europe.........note that I said Europe.

Here you are talking about the JAA IR, still at Aerofan in Spain you will looking at 10k +3k exams so we are back up around the 13k mark.

It may be easier when wife/kids cant be talked into a holiday in the USA whilst you go flying but surely if you do outside the UK then you will have the same problem - i.e. talking them into a holiday in, say, Spain whilst you go flying....

[IO540]

I wasn't flying back then but I gather that the PPL/IR takeup was greater say 10-20 years ago, due to other routes available around the ground school.

I vaguely recall (perhaps somebody can fill in details) that if you had 700hrs total time you could skip the ground school and just turn up for the exams.

If you look at any group of non-FAA PPL/IR pilots today, you find that nearly all of them did their IR many years ago.

DFC - can you supply a reference for the Class 1 audiogram (with the current JAA limits tested at four frequencies, in each ear separately) being ICAO for all IR?

Somehow I doubt it, because the CAA is already known for having recently allowed an IR to be awarded to somebody who failed the initial but passed the renewal limits - this is exactly their 2005 proposal as it happens - provided he did the whole IR first and passed it. A rather onerous way to do it I think, especially as you do the exams and the flying and they could have refused........

The comment about somebody having done both doesn't really apply because nobody will do both in full unless they are a masochist. You always do a conversion. The JAA to FAA one is easy - the FAA doesn't have the protectionist issues to worry about. The FAA to JAA is a lot harder but you still skip most of the flight training requirement.

[DFC]

IO540,

The reference is Annex 1. My version is at amendment 166.

"2.6.1.5 Medical fitness
2.6.1.5.1 Applicants who hold a private pilot licence shall
have established their hearing acuity on the basis of compliance
with the hearing requirements for the issue of a Class 1
Medical Assessment."

The CAA may have found a way round the rules by doing come clever timings with the issue of the rating or they may have restricted the pilot to G reg aircraft (see the latest GASIL).

----------

Julian,

Repeat after me. "I do not do any ATPL exams to get a JAA IR"..........and again.

The IR exams are actually set at CPL level. That is why you need to say again "I do not do any ATPL exams to get a JAA IR"

Yes on the good old days there was no requirement to do any study at all, instructors were certified by GAPAN and the CAA had high failure rates in their exams. Then there was a requirement for a signature before you could sit the exams and guess what? some organisations insisted that you had to do their course before they would sign the chit.

You do not say that any of the topics covered by the IR exams are not relevant to the IR holder do you? If so can you please explain.

-------

To get back to the IMCR, does anyone else wish to add their comments about the minima I proposed (pro or con)?

Regards,

DFC

[Dimensional]

[Julian]

DFC

Repeat after me. "I do not do any ATPL exams to get a JAA IR"..........and again.

The IR exams are actually set at CPL level. That is why you need to say again "I do not do any ATPL exams to get a JAA IR"

The 7 theoretical exams you are undertaking are ....guess what.....from the ATPL course!!! So you are doing ATPL exams!!!


Then there was a requirement for a signature before you could sit the exams and guess what? some organisations insisted that you had to do their course before they would sign the chit.


The FAA require a logbook endorsement as well before you are allowed to undertake the IR oral/checkflight from your instructor so nothing new there.

Dont think you have made a convincing argument at all why or the need for 7 exams for one IR rating.

[DFC]

Originally Posted by Julian

DFC
[I] Dont think you have made a convincing argument at all why or the need for 7 exams for one IR rating.

Which of the exams are not relevant to the IR pilot?

--------
Dimensional,

Inspired post.........great contribution to the debate. Don't like the debate, don't click on the topic!

Regards,

DFC

[Julian]

There will section on each which are relevant but as we keep going over also a lot of superfluous bumpf.

If the FAA can produce perfectly adequate IR pilots with a single exam you explain to me why we need 7 ????

As has been stated before you cant justify it or the cost!

P.S. I now taking you are actually admitting they are the ATPL subjects after denying it for several posts?

[IO540]

Dimensional



However, if you deleted all posts on subjects which have been done to death before, most posts on pprune and most posts on flyer.co.uk and most posts on every other pilot forum would be deleted.

Same if one deleted all posts containing zero information. On some forums there would be positively nothing left at all. At least here, people occassionally come up with useful stuff.

[JonWhitehouse]

Hey,
Apologies if any of this has been said before, but just to clarify.
On a PPL, you can get the JAA IR or CPL or both, by passing the 14 exam papers, in no more than 6 sittings. i.e. in some sittings you will take more than 1 exam.
Once these are complete,and you have at least 150 hrs total time, you can start training for your chosen license/licenses.
If you want an airline job, your will need both CPL and IR (otherwise known as a frozen ATPL until 1500 hours total time acheived)
If you want to fly for cash in any other function-instuctor, crop spraying, reconnaissance etc, you can just get the CPL and save yourself £13,000 or so.
It is even possible to get an IR on a PPL! but it is expensive, and carries no possibility of payment.
Again, apologies if this was said before, it applies only to the JAA system. reference Oxford Air Training www.oxfordaviation.net or any other training provider for any other information.

regards

Jon

[Sans Anoraque]

Anyone else noticed that Pilotho hasn't made a post since he started this thread.

I wonder if he's given up and gone home?

[Dimensional]

True, but at this stage people are just restating their facts. I don't think anyone is going to agree on this until the CAA produce a definitive answer.

TBH we could pontificate until the cows come home drawing up new rules for this sort of thing, but it isn't likely to be enacted any time soon...

At least I got you both to agree on something!

--D (current IMCR stude, and loving it...)

[High Wing Drifter]

Hi Guys,

Response from the CAA is that the IMCR limits are advisory as said before so new news I'm afraid. The test is conducted to those limits. My training is consistent with the CAA's advice. The training may include a descent down to system minimums if the instructor has the required privileges. If you choose to ignore the CAA's advice and you have a problem the word of caution from the CAA as your actions could be construed as reckless and as such can be used against you. The CAA's view, reasonably strongly put, is that it is simply best practice and common sense these advisory limits are adhered to. There was no mention of experience in the equation, but I guess a recklessness charge would have to be based on currency, experience and by how much below the advisory minima you elect to descend.

The CAA were uncomfortable with me simply pasting the email as a response as they don't wish to get involved in anonymous debates on the internet so I have paraphrased. But rest assured as someone who thought otherwise I was wrong, I have been corrected to my satisfaction.

Cheers!

[IO540]

If you choose to ignore the CAA's advice and you have a problem the word of caution from the CAA as your actions could be construed as reckless and as such can be used against you

That appears obvious, but I wonder if there is any case law in this area.

In particular, it would be interesting to know how much weight an opinion from the CAA would carry because they are the CAA. I say this because a lot of what they write is dross; for example much of their advice on GPS in Safety Sense leaflet #25 is nonsense, was written by some map&compass amateur, and would never stand up in the face of expert evidence.

There are numerous "factions" within the CAA; some sensible, some very traditional and anti anything modern. It would be interesting to see if any of this has come out in case law. The FAA has a far bigger case law selection to fall back on.

The CAA must be well cheesed off with Pprune and all the other pilot forums on which they so deliberately choose to not officially participate. But they must be reading them all.

[Fuji Abound]

HWD

I am so glad someone else bothered to write AND set out the CAAs interpretation.

I hope we can now all agree the IMCR minima are advisory. Only fly to IR minima if you are current - whether you have an IR or IMCR - no surprises there!

Thanks for such a gracious post as well, refreshing to see.





"To get back to the IMCR, does anyone else wish to add their comments about the minima I proposed (pro or con)?"

I think the evidence (which I have derieved from an analytical analysis of the subsequent posts) suggests

NO

What we dont know is whether:

1. no one can be bothered to comment,

or

2. the proposals arent worth comment.


Answers on a Kelloggs pack.