JAA IR Working Group Update
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAA IR Working Group Update
An update.....
We held the last meeting of the IR working Group this weekend and are preparing the report for submission to PLD. I have plagiarized some words from one of my working group colleagues as an excellent summary of events.
I will publish a copy of the report as soon as it is ready for submission.
To summarise for those who haven't read the thread and background:
Coming out of the GA Strategic Review earlier this year, the CAA set up a Working Group with Industry to review the requirements for the PPL/IR in order to make them more proportionate and accessible.
The meeting yesterday was the final one, to agree the final recommendations.
I think the "Industry" team found it a positive process. The recommendations represent an agreed CAA and Industry viewpoint. There are plenty of items I'd personally add to a "wish list", but the outcome is a good balance between "the politically possible/acceptable" and the orginal views we started with.
The most significant recommendations are
A. Redesigning the PPL IR Theory syllabus so that it excludes material relevant to CPL, ATPL privileges and Type Rated aircraft and focuses only on knowledge relevant to IFR privileges
B. Removing the mandatory classroom attendance for the theory course
C. Making the exams available "on-demand" at 3rd party testing centres
D. Making the flight training more "competency-based" rather than requiring 50hrs for all candidates. Pure competency based training would not have any minimum training hrs. The recommendation is a hybrid, with 25hrs minimum consisting of the 10 hr Basic IF module already in place and a further 15hr Applied IF module. This is a major step forward from the current 50hrs. IMC holders may be able to get credit towards the 10hr Basic module
The main subject we have not made progress on is relaxing the requirement for all training to be at JAA Approved FTOs. This principle is deeply embedded in EASA and JAA thinking and it was considered futile at this point to try and push it forward.
The next steps are that a formal report will be finished and submitted to the Head of PLD ( the Personnel Licensing Dept of the CAA). A significant number of the recommendations should be within the discretion of the CAA, the remainder will be submitted as the UK position to EASA and EU-FCL.
I would be cautiously optimistic that something may happen in the next 6 months to implement some of these recommendaitons, but the outlook will not be clear until the CAA's PLD have reviewed the recommendations and decided how to act.
We held the last meeting of the IR working Group this weekend and are preparing the report for submission to PLD. I have plagiarized some words from one of my working group colleagues as an excellent summary of events.
I will publish a copy of the report as soon as it is ready for submission.
To summarise for those who haven't read the thread and background:
Coming out of the GA Strategic Review earlier this year, the CAA set up a Working Group with Industry to review the requirements for the PPL/IR in order to make them more proportionate and accessible.
The meeting yesterday was the final one, to agree the final recommendations.
I think the "Industry" team found it a positive process. The recommendations represent an agreed CAA and Industry viewpoint. There are plenty of items I'd personally add to a "wish list", but the outcome is a good balance between "the politically possible/acceptable" and the orginal views we started with.
The most significant recommendations are
A. Redesigning the PPL IR Theory syllabus so that it excludes material relevant to CPL, ATPL privileges and Type Rated aircraft and focuses only on knowledge relevant to IFR privileges
B. Removing the mandatory classroom attendance for the theory course
C. Making the exams available "on-demand" at 3rd party testing centres
D. Making the flight training more "competency-based" rather than requiring 50hrs for all candidates. Pure competency based training would not have any minimum training hrs. The recommendation is a hybrid, with 25hrs minimum consisting of the 10 hr Basic IF module already in place and a further 15hr Applied IF module. This is a major step forward from the current 50hrs. IMC holders may be able to get credit towards the 10hr Basic module
The main subject we have not made progress on is relaxing the requirement for all training to be at JAA Approved FTOs. This principle is deeply embedded in EASA and JAA thinking and it was considered futile at this point to try and push it forward.
The next steps are that a formal report will be finished and submitted to the Head of PLD ( the Personnel Licensing Dept of the CAA). A significant number of the recommendations should be within the discretion of the CAA, the remainder will be submitted as the UK position to EASA and EU-FCL.
I would be cautiously optimistic that something may happen in the next 6 months to implement some of these recommendaitons, but the outlook will not be clear until the CAA's PLD have reviewed the recommendations and decided how to act.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS: is there anything in the recommendations about training credits for other ICAO (read: FAA) IR holders ?
.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose - Thanks from yet another person for your efforts on resolving this issue. Does your last paragraph mean that you hope your recomendations will have been implemented within 6 months and a new style PPL/IR will be available?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To our surprise there were quite a number of our recommendations that could be implemented directly by the CAA and more that had to have EASA approval. Once the head of PLD has responded we will have a better idea on what will be implemented and the time-scales for this. My hope is within the 6 months. As a working group we have tried to take an even and pragmatic look at what can be achieved and tried to steer clear of the contentious areas that would just bog us down. The CAA representatives on the group have provided fantastic input with a clear desire to see the changes made so this process has been truly collaborative.
There is actually recommendations around the FAA and IMCR ratings that were developed during the process. At the moment there is a split on whether they should be included or not. I am for them being included. So stand by for an answer on them!
There is actually recommendations around the FAA and IMCR ratings that were developed during the process. At the moment there is a split on whether they should be included or not. I am for them being included. So stand by for an answer on them!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is actually recommendations around the FAA and IMCR ratings that were developed during the process. At the moment there is a split on whether they should be included or not. I am for them being included. So stand by for an answer on them!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Blimey!
With the introduction of GPS NPAs, the scaling down of Modes S implementation and the retreat to prepared positions on ELTs etc there is a strong possibility of us us actually liking the Campaign ...
A more accessible IR together with EASA relaxations could see the owning of an N reg a/c begin to loose its appeal.
Now where's that number for Brian Johnson on Fraggles Rock?
Sir George Cayley
With the introduction of GPS NPAs, the scaling down of Modes S implementation and the retreat to prepared positions on ELTs etc there is a strong possibility of us us actually liking the Campaign ...
A more accessible IR together with EASA relaxations could see the owning of an N reg a/c begin to loose its appeal.
Now where's that number for Brian Johnson on Fraggles Rock?
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Aberdeen, UK
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All good news and many thanks to those involved (from someone would will do the IMCR in the next couple of years, but could now feasibly do the IR )
Quick question, if you hold this new PPL/IR is there an upgrade path to a CPL\IR - I ask as I'd get the IR on my PPL but would intend to do the CPL later on and possibly go commercial.
Presumably the new IR for PPLs would'nt be acceptable at CPL\ATPL levels and would require a "full" IR?
)Quick question, if you hold this new PPL/IR is there an upgrade path to a CPL\IR - I ask as I'd get the IR on my PPL but would intend to do the CPL later on and possibly go commercial.
Presumably the new IR for PPLs would'nt be acceptable at CPL\ATPL levels and would require a "full" IR?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason for the JAA IR having most of the ATPL ground school and a few jet type ratings wrapped up in it is that this is what 99% of students are working towards: an ATPL and jet TRs.
So if you do any kind of future "chopped down" PPL/IR and then want to do a JAA CPL/IR or ATPL you will have to sit the additional material somehow.
The alternative is the FAA system where the IR is just an IR, the ATPL is just one 2" thick book (versus about 2 feet paper thickness under JAA) and the jet aircraft specific stuff is put where it belongs: in the type specific type ratings. But this is not likely to ever come about in Europe, with its absolutely anally retentive attitude to "safety", sorting "men from sheep" as early as possible, etc etc.
wrapped up in it is that this is what 99% of students are working towards: an ATPL and jet TRs.So if you do any kind of future "chopped down" PPL/IR and then want to do a JAA CPL/IR or ATPL you will have to sit the additional material somehow.
The alternative is the FAA system where the IR is just an IR, the ATPL is just one 2" thick book (versus about 2 feet paper thickness under JAA) and the jet aircraft specific stuff is put where it belongs: in the type specific type ratings. But this is not likely to ever come about in Europe, with its absolutely anally retentive attitude to "safety", sorting "men from sheep" as early as possible, etc etc.
IO540, yes indeed. The 'IR' was once described to me by a CAA IRE as the 'last chance filter to make sure the wrong people didn't get into the airlines'.
Transferring all the non-IR specific knowledge to either the CPL or the relevant TRTO course makes a lot of sense.
But we didn't have to know how many stewardesses are needed in a 747, how to spot illegal lights on moored airships, or the dimensions of the red stripes on the streamers flown beneath tethered kites.....
The IR should be what it used to be in the RAF. A test of the practical and theoretical knowledge requirements appropriate to operating your aircraft in IMC. It varied from type to type, so in the Vulcan we did 45 deg AoB steep turns at FL410 and M0.84, in the Phantom we did 60 deg AoB steep turns at FL300 and M1.2, in the Buccaneer-configured Hunter we did toss bombing profiles at 450 KIAS and 110 deg AoB as part of the profile - and in the Bulldog we did a limited panel no-compass no-gyro SRA approach on the turn and slip after the full panel ILS.
The FAA IR seems far more appropriate for the requirements of operating light aeroplanes in IMC and under IFR than the gold plated JAR-FCL IR.
Transferring all the non-IR specific knowledge to either the CPL or the relevant TRTO course makes a lot of sense.
But we didn't have to know how many stewardesses are needed in a 747, how to spot illegal lights on moored airships, or the dimensions of the red stripes on the streamers flown beneath tethered kites.....
The IR should be what it used to be in the RAF. A test of the practical and theoretical knowledge requirements appropriate to operating your aircraft in IMC. It varied from type to type, so in the Vulcan we did 45 deg AoB steep turns at FL410 and M0.84, in the Phantom we did 60 deg AoB steep turns at FL300 and M1.2, in the Buccaneer-configured Hunter we did toss bombing profiles at 450 KIAS and 110 deg AoB as part of the profile - and in the Bulldog we did a limited panel no-compass no-gyro SRA approach on the turn and slip after the full panel ILS.
The FAA IR seems far more appropriate for the requirements of operating light aeroplanes in IMC and under IFR than the gold plated JAR-FCL IR.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh for gods sake IO get off the FAA Pedastal for a moment please!!
There is only one IR just as there is with the FAA system. But what we are doing is taking out the theory requirements that are nothing to do with "the safe flight in IMC under IFR" and moving those requirements into the CPL/ATPL exams.
So those who do an IR now and then move onto a CPL or an ATPL do the theory required for those levels. There will be nothing more to do on the IR front. The IR is the IR and thats it. It is not going to be chopped down, it is just going to have relevant theory, easier to access and be less demanding from a time perspective for the PPL. The practical training will still be to exactly the same standard with the same test but more modular or ideally competancy based.
There is only one IR just as there is with the FAA system. But what we are doing is taking out the theory requirements that are nothing to do with "the safe flight in IMC under IFR" and moving those requirements into the CPL/ATPL exams.
So those who do an IR now and then move onto a CPL or an ATPL do the theory required for those levels. There will be nothing more to do on the IR front. The IR is the IR and thats it. It is not going to be chopped down, it is just going to have relevant theory, easier to access and be less demanding from a time perspective for the PPL. The practical training will still be to exactly the same standard with the same test but more modular or ideally competancy based.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh for gods sake IO get off the FAA Pedastal for a moment please!!
There is only one IR just as there is with the FAA system. But what we are doing is taking out the theory requirements that are nothing to do with "the safe flight in IMC under IFR" and moving those requirements into the CPL/ATPL exams.
So those who do an IR now and then move onto a CPL or an ATPL do the theory required for those levels. There will be nothing more to do on the IR front. The IR is the IR and thats it. It is not going to be chopped down, it is just going to have relevant theory, easier to access and be less demanding from a time perspective for the PPL. The practical training will still be to exactly the same standard with the same test but more modular or ideally competancy based.
What did I say to the contrary, bose-x?
There is only one IR just as there is with the FAA system. But what we are doing is taking out the theory requirements that are nothing to do with "the safe flight in IMC under IFR" and moving those requirements into the CPL/ATPL exams.
So those who do an IR now and then move onto a CPL or an ATPL do the theory required for those levels. There will be nothing more to do on the IR front. The IR is the IR and thats it. It is not going to be chopped down, it is just going to have relevant theory, easier to access and be less demanding from a time perspective for the PPL. The practical training will still be to exactly the same standard with the same test but more modular or ideally competancy based.
What did I say to the contrary, bose-x?