IMC rating in theUK?

[mm_flynn]

I would suggest that re-reading the thread (ignoring the sniping) gives some indication on how the IMCr is emotionally perceived (Frog's first post) and how after explaining to someone who actually wants to listen (with a surprising amount of patience and tolerance on Frog's part) they can see the merit at least to the extent of saying the syllabus is a pretty good basis for a more rational IR.

A couple of views I have formed from the debate
1 - It will be impossible to have an IR that does not have some minimum amount of training - every other rating has a minimum number. However, 15-20 hours minimum training for a PPL seeking to add instrument capability seems reasonable (they have no real chance of requiring less)

2 - A big part of the UK IR problem is that there are very few places to be taught and I suspect they have to pay big fees to the CAA. If the same organisations that can do PPL, night, IMCr, multi, etc. could do IR this would be a big step in accessibility and cost containment.

3 - The exam process (once every couple of months, at Gatwick, with mandatory classroom training) is a problem. Along with the size of the pile of information required to be stuffed into your head.

4 - The IMCr as it stands (note I have never done the course just got mine off my FAA/IR) don't cover the full scope of flying needed for international and TMA flying - so there probably would need to be a transition training module (but pretty limited in mandatory time as the bits that are missing are not rocket science)

5 - If there is going to be a modular approach we need some real clear thinking (that I have not yet seen articulated) on what specific privileges the IR module 1 holder (i.e. current UK IMCr type of rating).

A structure like
Module 1 -

Privileges - IMCr landing viz and the recommended minima being obligatory, no access to air carrier airports under IFR, limited to 5000 AGL.

Requirements - basically the IMCr syllabus, 15 hours minimum training, maybe an IFR MET, basic nav, IFR human factors, IFR airlaw knowledge requirement with an FAA style computerised test system (i.e. cheap, reliable and convenient)

The objective of this is to allow basic capabilities of a stepping stone for popping through a layer and hacking about low level (ie. like many people use the IMCr for)

Module 2 -

Privileges - non-commercial IFR, world wide, all airspace, all airports (i.e. and IR).

Requirements - Module 1 + 5 hours minimum adding in SIDS/STARS, more emergency procedures, filing and planning international and RNAV routes, a long distance airways flight, maybe an expanded IFR MET, IFR systems, expanded IFR airlaw knowledge requirement with an FAA style computerised test system (i.e. cheap, reliable and convenient)

The objective of this is to allow people who have achieved module 1 to easily move on to a full IR. Logically there would be an integrated version where you did it all at once as well.

This could give a basis to convince our European colleagues that the IMCr (IR module 1) is safe and a solid knowledge base, provide a grandfathering position (which some of us will not like because it is a step back from the IMCr, but a step forward in its international scope) and a sensible and cost effective migration to a full and appropriate IR.

[BEagle]

This is my proposal - it would require 20 hrs training plus the Skill Test:

EASA CLASS 2 INSTRUMENT RATING PROPOSAL

EASA Class 2 IR to enable pilots of light aeroplanes to cope safely with non-VMC weather in EU airspace without the requirement to hold a full IR.

Privileges:

1.0 To fly IMC/IFR in permitted EU airspace.

1.1 To navigate the aircraft by sole reference to instruments under circumstances which require mandatory compliance with defined routes.

1.2 To fly instrument approach procedures for which they have logbook endorsements to instrument approach minima +200ft for precision approach and +250ft for non-precision approach.

Specific Exclusions:

2.1 No multi-pilot Class 2 IR – multi-pilot ratings must include a full IR by default, as is current JAA practice.

2.2 No CAT II/IIIa/IIIb/IIIc approaches permitted.

Training:

3.1 At least 10 hours Basic Instrument Flight Module, common to the modular IR training.

3.2 At least 10 hours procedural instrument flight training, to consist of:

Module 1: 4 hours training in take-off, departure, en-route navigation and holding.

3.3 Any 2 of the following 4 modules (Modules 2-5):

Module 2: 3 hours training in precision approaches with pilot-interpreted guidance.

Module 3: 3 hours training in non-precision approaches with pilot-interpreted guidance in azimuth only.

Module 4: 3 hours training in precision or non-precision radar approaches, with guidance provided by an external controller.

Module 5: 3 hours training in approved RNAV/GNSS approaches.

3.4 All instrument approach flight training modules shall include:

3.4.1 Missed approach and go-around training.

3.4.2 Visual circuit flying under simulated conditions of low cloud and reduced visibility (600 ft cloudbase and 1800m horizontal in-flight visibility).

3.5 Additional training will be required if the test is to be undertaken in a multi-engine aircraft:

Module 6: 4 hours training in one-engine inoperative procedures relevant to all phases of flight (take-off, departure, en-route, approach and missed approach).

3.6 Training to be conducted:

3.6.1. By either:

3.6.1.1. A FI authorised under JAR-FCL or EASA-FCL whose privileges include instruction in applied instrument flying; or

3.6.1.2 An IRI authorised under JAR-FCL or EASA-FCL

3.6.2. At an RF or FTO

3.6.3 In suitably equipped aeroplanes or, as specified in para 3.7., an FNPT2 or FFS.

3.7. Of the required hours procedural instrument flight training, the following synthetic training may be conducted in FNPT 2 or FFS:

3.7.1. 2 of the 4 hours of Module 1; and

3.7.2. 2 of the 6 hours of Modules 2-5

Skill Test:

4.1 Skill Test shall be conducted by a FE or IRE authorised under JAR-FCL or EASA-FCL to include:

4.1.1. Full Panel Instrument Flying.

4.1.2. Limited (or Partial) Panel Instrument Flying.

4.1.3. Use of radio navigation aids for position fixing and en-route navigation.

4.1.4. Let down and approach procedures, to include one precision and one non-precision approach, of which at least one shall be pilot-interpreted and of which at least one shall be concluded by a missed approach and go-around.

4.1.5. Bad weather circuit.

4.1.6. Flight with asymmetric thrust (multi-engined aircraft only).


Language Proficiency:

5.1 Applicants for the EASA Class 2 IR shall hold at least ICAO Level 4 English Language proficiency.


UK IMCR holders would migrate to this scheme by passing the Skill Test and an oral examination at their next revalidation.

[Contacttower]

And how long should it be valid for BEagle?

[IO540]

mm_flynn

A couple of views I have formed from the debate 1 - It will be impossible to have an IR that does not have some minimum amount of training - every other rating has a minimum number.

Agreed - this is also politically unavoidable. I would pick the FAA's 15hrs - this is sure to get gold plated to 20-25hrs using the absolutely inevitable "European process" but that is still OK for an ab initio IR.

A big part of the UK IR problem is that there are very few places to be taught and I suspect they have to pay big fees to the CAA. If the same organisations that can do PPL, night, IMCr, multi, etc. could do IR this would be a big step in accessibility and cost containment.

This, and the other stuff you list, has been more eloquently described by others as "death by a thousand cuts". It's certainly true that historically the huge size of the JAA ground school has driven a lot of the usual private IR candidates (older pilots; usually in their 50s+) to the US route, and also things like the JAA audiogram, but it is probably the collective effect of these various smaller factors that has been the killer. Also, the latest indications are that by the time EASA gets stuck into FCL, say 2010, the private IR ground school will be much reduced.

Beagle

Your proposal is good IMHO but "1.0 To fly IMC/IFR in permitted EU airspace" is the gotcha whose detail will make the difference between the "Europeans" accepting it on one hand, and going totally berserk on the other. This bit needs to be worked out. I am doing a little airspace study. Never received your email BTW.

[BEagle]

Contacttower: 24 months - same as for SEP Class Rating so that both could be conveniently revalidated during the same LPC.

Revalidation by Test only.

IO540 - the problem is that different EU nations have different airspace regulations. What is lawful in one may not be so in another. I suspect some of the rules are left over from the Cold War - so that intercepting, identifying and reporting off-airways aircraft would less difficult, perhaps? So it'd have to be up to the individual authorities to decide in which airspace a Class 2 IR would be 'permitted'.

I don't know why you didn't receive my e-mails - they went to the addresses you gave me!

[englishal]

I think the IR should be split into a "private" IR and "commercial" IR....and my suggestion would be:

Private IR

Cannot be used for public transport operations but exemptions given for Airwork and Instructors.
Can be used in all airspace as per current IR

• 25 hours of IMC experience including a minimum of 10 hrs training with a Instructor
• A 200nm cross country route by air traffic control directed routings (i.e. airways)
• One exam paper covering MET, Navigation and Procedures
• A flight test with similar tolerances to the FAA IR

Commerical IR

Can be used for private, comemrical or Public Transport ops
Can be used in all airspace

• 45 hours IMC experience including a minimum of 15 hours with an Instructor
• A 200nm cross country route by air traffic control directed routings (i.e. airways)

• Two exam papers, one covering IFR procedures and Navigation and one covering Met for public transport operations
• A flight test with similar tolerances to the JAA IR

OR

• The holder already holds a Private IR
• 45 hours total instrument time including a minimum of 5 hours dual
• cross country not required
• One exam paper - Met for PT ops
• Flight test with similar tolerances to JAA IR

Also to add ME privileges to either:

• The initial test may be carried out in a ME aeroplane
• A further reduced test may be carried out in a ME aeroplane (shorter nav elements for example)
• A ME IR automatically confers SE privileges

24 month currency period as long as say a certain number of approaches are shot in the first 12 months, after which an IPC is required by an IRI (not: not examiner). If the certain number of approaches are not met, a revalidation test can be done with an examiner (every 12 months if wished).

[mm_flynn]

The reason my module 1 was fairly limited is that I perceive there are a large group of UK IMCr pilots who don't actually want or need a 'real' IR but would like something to make modest IMC legal and safe (situations where there is a thin layer at 1000-2500 and being on top would be a lot safer and easier than slogging underneath. I tried to spec the restrictions so that they would make reasonable sense in any of the European airspace systems (in that they are similar to the practical restrictions on the current IMCr). This group seems to have a view they want the basic limited IMCr and don't want to have to do anything else (or would not have been inspired to do even EnglishAl's private IR).

If this is a significant constituency, then it would be ideal that any future IR has a module which is similar to this and current IMCr holders can be grandfathered into. I struggle to believe we will get any traction in an IMCr converting to even a private IR (but that is just my view)

[homeguard]

IMC v IR

The IMCr has no need to be a 'poor mans' IR.

BEagle has outlined a very clear syllabus and standard for the EU IMCr. I see no need to water down an IR or treat the IMCr as a module. For those who can go back prior to 1999 (the onset of JAA) the UK credited 10 hours, for those who held a valid IMCr, towards the IR.

Again to qoute BEagle with regard to those wishing to hold an IMCr, they do so to satisfy their personal needs as far as it goes. They are able to do the course 7 days a week at their club at times that they can. Not easy to find an approved course operating ar weekends. They can also sit the exam and be tested at their club, allowing flexibility.

The IR requires many elements not required by a vast number of PPLs and this accounts for much of the additional hours within the IR syllabus and the testing content. The IMCr should/does satisfy civil concerns for the specific privileges it confers. The safety statistics over 35 years establishes that fact.

Whilst the particular EU bodies who are reticent to accept the IR need to be brought round by persuasive argument we must just the same hold a firm line and believe in what we have. Should those against an EU IMCr not be persuaded of the need, then they must understand that the UK will not just roll over. Persuasion must be the best way but you don't win a difficult argument going at it half-cock.

An increasing number of the Fleet Managers, Training Captains and flight crews within the UK are self improvers (the airlines train very few pilots nowadays). They likely held an IMCr in the past and understand it. Many will still instruct at club level and be very much up to speed on current club flying. Strong support from BALPA and the airline associations will help our cause a lot should they be so minded. The advanced skills and knowledge of IMCr PPLs is in their interest.

With regard to airspace. The UK has had a long tradition of preserving airspace for all. Generally the Controlled airspace in the UK must be fully justified. It would appear that within much of the EU controlled airspace is given willy nilly. Too often it is established for the odd commuter flight which maybe departs in the morning and returns late afternoon. The idea that an IMCr holder cannot use their privileges at an airport used by an airline, with respect, is daft. Where an airport is busy with heavies the landing fees and the availibilty of slots normally do the trick. The whole point of the IMCr is not only to make the pilot and their passengers safer but also all those around them, including airliners.

We are a country of 60 million with the most congested airspace in the world. Things work here with little or no objection to the IMCr, who then can have an excuse to resist the IMCr. The IMCr exists and the onus must be on those who oppose it to justify themselves. No one in a free world should be allowed to take something away without good evidential reasoning. I've yet to hear any opposition that is supported by fact.

EASA/EU, if all cannot be persuaded, should approve an IMCr but allow each state freedom to adopt it or not

[ThePirateKing]

BEagle,

Great idea.

Would you mind if I proposed one addition:

1.3 The above priviledges can be exercised by holders of an ICAO Class II medical

(It's the colour vision thing again, you see...)

TPK

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by homeguard

BEagle has outlined a very clear syllabus and standard for the EU IMCr. I see no need to water down an IR or treat the IMCr as a module. ... The IR requires many elements not required by a vast number of PPLs and this accounts for much of the additional hours within the IR syllabus and the testing content. The IMCr should/does satisfy civil concerns for the specific privileges it confers. The safety statistics over 35 years establishes that fact.

The syllabus is reasonable, it is the privliges and scope which need working on in a European context. The IR doesn't have that much more technical content than the IMCr and leaving aside the gold plating of the JAA IR, the knowledge and flying requirements of an IR seem reasonable for planning airways routed IFR - which is all that will ever be available in the rest of the world.

There is a fundamental problem that the IR is currently gold plated. A more appropriate IR is critical for a whole range or reasons. This is not the same as a watered down IR.

Originally Posted by homeguard

Whilst the particular EU bodies who are reticent to accept the IR need to be brought round by persuasive argument we must just the same hold a firm line and believe in what we have. Should those against an EU IMCr not be persuaded of the need, then they must understand that the UK will not just roll over. Persuasion must be the best way but you don't win a difficult argument going at it half-cock.

There are four strategies we can pursue

1. Fight to keep a separate IMCr just like it is today with no chance of extending it to Europe (i.e. a status quo opt out)
2. Try for a more sensible IR (which is unlikely to have lower requirements than the FAA IR)(but still pursuing the other strategies)
3. Try to morph the IMCr into something which could work in the rest of Europe
4. Create a two tier IR with a tier similar to the current IMCr and a sensible set of requirements for the full IR

Just rolling over and loosing the IMCr is, I agree, not an option which should be considered.

At the moment, I believe we need people pursuing all of these strategies, and developing proposals in each of these areas (my previous one was clearly targeted to the last option). However, option 1 probably needs to be maintained till the end to cover for failure of any of the other three.

Originally Posted by homeguard

With regard to airspace. The UK has had a long tradition of preserving airspace for all. Generally the Controlled airspace in the UK must be fully justified. It would appear that within much of the EU controlled airspace is given willy nilly. ... The idea that an IMCr holder cannot use their privileges at an airport used by an airline, with respect, is daft.

Only in remote areas of the world (other than the UK) is the concept of uncontrolled IFR flight allowed. Notwithstanding the fact that the big sky theory works, everywhere else in the world puts controlled airspace in that generally allows pretty free VFR access but requires clearance for IFR. Bizarrely, the UK sees fit to have uncontrolled IFR allowed to run through ILS's and operate 100 feet below the London TMA, but for virtually all commercial enroute bans VFR traffic from sharing the same airspace. Other than Italy, the UK seems to be the only EU country with this ultra protective view of the enroute airspace.

Until recently (I would guess the last decade) the IMCr was only allowed in some Class D airspace (which broadly would be described as not air carrier airports), for people using the IMCr for personal satisfaction and basic safety they probably aren't using these airports. For people who are, they are probably using the IMCr as a 'poor man's IR' and I believe sustaining this is only viable in my first strategy.

Originally Posted by homeguard

We are a country of 60 million with the most congested airspace in the world. Things work here with little or no objection to the IMCr, who then can have an excuse to resist the IMCr.

While 60 m population is true, most congested airspace in the world is not. The UK is just like many other countries, with some busy airports and a lot of empty space (particularly true below FL195).

Originally Posted by homeguard

EASA/EU, if all cannot be persuaded, should approve an IMCr but allow each state freedom to adopt it or not

I think the only way this is likely to happen is through some kind of UK opt out.

[homeguard]

Airspace

mm_flynn

The IMCr holder has always been able to use their privileges fully in all Class D airspace within the UK as they were in the previous Special Rules Airspace.

Surely you can't be argueing that airports such as; Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh, East Midlands, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Southampton, Leeds Bradford to name a few, are not air carrier airports! The london airports such as Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stanstead as a group are far too expensive and slots at a premium. For light aircraft there are alternatives in the region around London with instrument approaches available to the IMCr holder at an acceptable cost. There are many regional airports with precision approaches that do not have controlled airspace. Lydd, Manston, Southend, Blackpool, Cranfield, Cambridge, Coventry, Norwich, Doncaster, Humberside etc, etc. Most of these have regular heavy aircraft flying short and medium haul and RADAR is available with the exception of Cranfield. In my experience all these airports would be in controlled airspace elsewhere in Europe. Southend had, but lost its controlled airspace some years ago. The DAP will remove controlled airspace if not justified. All of these airports and others within and outside controlled airspace are used by IMCr holders exercising their privileges on a regular basis and they will be an important source of income for some.

Le Touquet, Deauville, Calais, Ostend, Renne, Le Man, Tours etc would not be able to retain controlled airspace subject to the UK rules.

[BEagle]

The IMCr holder has always been able to use their privileges fully in all Class D airspace within the UK as they were in the previous Special Rules Airspace.

Not so. I disticntly recall when there used to be a list in Pooley's of those Class D CTRs in which one was not permitted to use the UK IMCR in IMC. One such was Cardiff; one week a colleague went down and had to scrape around under the scud to get in; a week later he could have taken radar to ILS in IMC when the rules changed!

Did extending the IMCR to all Class D cause problems? No. An important point and one I made at the recent CAA/EASA Press Brief - the UK IMCR privileges have been developed since 1970-ish as experience has been gained. And of course, as air transport movements into regional airports has expanded hugely.

[mm_flynn]

Just to be clear, I am not saying there is any safety case re: air carrier airports (which I was thinking of as say 50000+ transport category movements), just that with the very strong resistance from our continental airline cousins, it is a possible way the 'permitted airspace' would be defined. With the demonstrated safety record of the IMCr operating into all Class Ds it is difficult to see any logic reason why it isn't permitted in Class A as well, but no one is arguing for that change.

Re homeguard on LFAT etc having controlled airspace - that's the way it works everywhere else in the world, IFR airports are in controlled airspace (but not operated like the UK's where Class D sometimes feels like Class B!). On the plus side, if the French followed UK rules then all of their airways would be Class A, they seem to have a much more relaxed view of their enroute airspace than the UK.

[homeguard]

What is good for the Goose..........

Well, perhaps what is being unearthed is that pilot qualifications are being influenced as much by restrictive practice as it is safety. But that of course is not without precedent within the UK. Class A airspace is a rare beast within the UK but is established where 'heavy' traffic is intense. Legislation is often designed with the circumstances of the time in mind.

Not that many years ago when much current legislation was conceived a VOR installed in a C172 was a point of interest. Anything more and private pilots would oogle through the window for hours on end. Many transport aircraft such as the F27 and others had nothing more than dual VOR, ADF, DME and manual trim. Climb rates on others were poor when loaded to max and not much better than many private GA types in that condition. The old RADAR needed a very high specialist skill with a high degree of interpolation by experienced controllers. I've spent hours, some twenty years ago, sat next to RADAR controllers trying to see pointed out aircraft amongst cloud returns and most of the time never did. Restrictive practices were to an extent understandable.

Nowadays it is unusual for modern Watchman RADAR, at least, not to be available at most airports with precision approaches. All public transport aircraft must be equiped with TACAS. Light aircraft are equiped to be an envy of many commercial operations and will usually have Mode C and increasingly Mode S as a minimum. Most light aircraft however complex they may appear are well within the requirements for single pilot operation.

We do have to understand the difficulties that exist for controllers with too great a variation in performance of aircraft. A Heavy will reduce speed to 200-250kts below 10,000ft which is still much greater than a great many light singles that will impress at 150kts full chat. I was held at the hold at Glasgow some time back for over 30 minutes. This was because of the elapsed time we required to T/O after a landing heavy. The following heavies to land didn't need the spacing and continued to land and others taxied past us to T/O putting our departure continously back. The Tower controller was 1st class and continued to apologise for the delay. He didn't need to apologise for we understood but its an indication of the difficulties in mixing aircraft of a different class in a busy environment.

Not that many airports are that busy of course and that is true throughout Europe also. Aircraft performance can be a major restrictor but when the IMCr is not.

[englishal]

Looking at it from a different persective....

How come the anks can feed in VFR Cessna 172's in LAX or JFK, how can 152's fly IFR in the airways above LAX (many do), how can 90 Kt warriors be allowed to fly IFR?

Easy because there really isn't a problem. We love to imagine a problem in Europe and look at "worst case", but in reality there isn't a problem....

....we just winge a lot I suppose...

[frog_ATC]

mm_flynn & BEagle (& other) made an interesting "first try" on what a private IR could be, thanks for the brainstorming.

One thing : I said the IMC syllabus is excellent, and I do confirm.
But a syllabus may be excellent, if it is not applied correctly, it is useless.

Those IMC rated pilots I flew with had a poor level, and I hardly believe they were trained in respect with the IMC syllabus.
Maybe I understand better now that I discovered that the IMC rating is valid for 25 months, that's a too long period.


What I would suggest in addition to mmflynn brainstorming :

- 24 or 25 months is a too long period for validity of an IR.
Even the FAA "6 calendar months" is short for someone who does not practice regularly. I would not feel comfortable in IFR if I flew only one approach per month...
I would suggest the same as the FAA rule, which means : you keep on flying legally as long as you have performed 6 approaches within the last 6 calendar months (let's forget about the holdings and tracking stuff, as approaches imply tracking and patterns).
If you did not performed that, check with instructor.
And why not a mandatory check every 24 months if you want.

- training implying 15 hours with certified IR instructor (no IMC instructor, this is a non-icao thing and will make it too complicated for a private IR if he wants to upgrade to the commercial IR, and use his previous private IR training for that). The remaining part of the training can be simulated IMC or ground trainer.

- 25 total is short I think. Flying IFR is not only flying an airplane in IMC.
Any child can become a great IMC pilot just by playing some hours on flight simulator, dealing with needles is not more complicated than a computer game and just requires to "play" often.
When the IMC stuff is learnt, flying IFR is more a matter of attitude and decision making.
Somebody said above in this thread that "adverse weather conditions" is the main factor for accidents. This is wrong, the main factor is human factor, and adverse weather condition is only a parameter which is linked to it.
I think that flight hours are also necessary to understand the environment, the ATC, the main concerns, the traffic, the weather from "inside", etc.
That's also a reason why this training should be at least partly in real IFR condition & environment (flight plan, congested airspace, etc) and not only simulated IMC in G airspace.



I feel tired now, because I understand that despite I spent hours writing long messages here (in a language that is not my native one), but some readers were so persuaded that I was somebody else that they did not even try to understand what I was writing.

My Priv/Pro comparison had only one goal : to explain that flying IR as a private on a GA airplane is not an easy thing, which means that those private IR have to be proud, and not ashamed when compared to commercial pilots.
But IO540 thought I was trying to explain that private pilots are stupid !!!

And my bad english was not the matter I think.
When you read someone with a false opinion of who this person is, you just do not read at all.

Happy landings.

Frog

[rustle]

Originally Posted by frog_ATC

...And my bad english was not the matter I think.
When you read someone with a false opinion of who this person is, you just do not read at all.

Frog

I think plenty of people have read what you had to say and made their own minds up about its validity.

Now it is time to move on from some of the "personalities" (!) on this BB and concentrate on the issue at hand, and both BEagle, mm_flynn and yourself have listed some quite interesting ideas in that regard.

[homeguard]

Human Factors

Well Frog, I do not think your a fraud or stupid. You put your arguments clearly and from an experienced footing albeit I don't agree with some of what you say.

There is a desease within much of aviation and amongst some instructors that the student is stupid. I have a friend who is a engineer specialising in concrete structures. I some times go to work with him. We have a deal. In the aeroplane he listens to me and does as I say. On construction sites I listen him and do as I'm told. Horses for courses. In the aeroplane he is not stupid for he is still the man he is. One should not confuse expertise with superioty of character.

Many of those who can afford to fly are already accomplished people in difficult and pressured jobs and they are quite capable of making serious decisions given the training but from a greater experience of the world than perhaps the instructor has in their gift. BEagle has already made the point that the IMCr allows people to train for their particular needs. They are clearly carrying out there responsibilties safely. The pilots needs are not always the same as those devised by an institution. Sadly in the UK and, I also suspect elsewhere in Europe, I don't witness much evidence to say decision making is any more of the IR course than it is for the IMCr. Too much of the IR is rehearsing pre-determined routes and other elements very likely to be undertaken for their test with its pre-determined format. The IR course is so often undertaken in much the way an actor rehearses for a performance. At the peak of training they must be at a high level of precision but it dosn't follow that this will be maintained.

I'm getting a lot of reports from airline recruiters that a large number of recruits are being chopped because their IR skills are so rusty. This has been happening for many years. A Captain friend recently told me of a 1st officer who lost it during an NDB approach. His excuse was that he has never been good at them. Presumbly he passed his IR from repitition of known procedures. I know of one airline so concerned that they now use a local IR school to vet applicants for currency/ability before they are interviewed. Give a dog a bad name ......... I don't think so. Please don't judge a few poor IMCr performances with the all.

With regard to examiners. You must understand that in the UK Examiners are now required to attend a course of training and pass an assessment in order to be appointed. Clearly from the statistics with regard to the IMCr they are carrying out their responsibilties effectively.

IR training is as likely to be undertaken in simulated conditions as the IMCr. Very few clubs will have an FNPT trainer therefore it will be normal to do all training in flight. Within the UK it will be very unique indeed not to encounter full IMC conditions for much of the training.

I would have no problem with an annual review of IMC skills although BEagle has suggested it should remain at 24/25 months as now and he gives his reasons.

The UK requires an Instructor to undertake a formal 30 hours approved course of training and pass an entry examination of knowledge or at the minimum have passed the CPL examinations. Should an instructor wish to teach applied IMC flight they must attend an addition course and again be tested. That adds up to a higher requirement than ICAO.

[frog_ATC]

Hello Homeguard

I do agree on most of your remarks, and confronting positions is interesting.

No, you are right, students are not stupid. And I would even say : qualified pilots are often more stupid than students :-)
Why ? Because gaining confidence and habits have bad "secondary effects" on you, on me, on everybody.

And I do agree with you, "decision making" should be more emphasized in the IR training as well. We slowly improve on that field, but there is still room for improvement.

I said I flew with some poor-skilled IMC rated pilots, but I'm sure they are some talented, do not worry.
And they are also some poor-skilled IR pilots, I flew with some of them, whatever FAA or JAA rated.

The quality of the training does not depend on the rule or on the syllabus, but mainly on the school and the serious of the student.
And once you're rated, it depends only on you.

Rules are a guideline, but the final result do not depend only on them.


Why applying flight hours minimum instead of just competency ?

Hard to say. Even in the US they have difficulty to make a decision on that. Right now you renew your IR just by flying a minimum number of approaches every 6 months + holdings + tracking/intercepting stuff, but they think about requesting also a minimum of flight hours maybe.

As I said, I do not make rules, I just apply them.

But if I had to make them, I would not be comfortable in that role, because it is really not an easy one.
No rule is perfect, that's the reason why they are modified, and improved, as time goes by, and they try to take into consideration all different human behaviors and all possibilities.

A rule is a kind of "compromise" between what is expected, experienced, known statistics, and a kind of "guess" about the future.

We recently had a student, CAA IR rated, for an FAA IR.
He flew the airplane pretty well, no problem with his IMC flying, he was very sharp.

But...

=> He came without clearing the customs, and without even knowing he needed to between UK and France.
=> His approach plates were completely outdated (year 2002) and he tried to convince me that those differences since then were "not really important".
=> He had no IR flight time endorsed in the logbook by any instructor (it is the second time we have that problem with a UK pilot... Why instructors do not endorse logbooks in UK? Is that normal on your side of the Channel ?)
=> His answers to basic oral preparation questions were false (about regulation, ATC, what would you do in case of radio failure, use of GPS in IFR, etc).


On the other hand, we teach a young UK girl for a multiengine IR.
She has just a PPL, not more, not even an IMC, but she is really sharp, she studies, she listens carefully, she understands everything, she makes good decisions, so she will be ready in a very short period of time.


Someone above proposed that approach minimums would be raised for private IR pilots (+200 on a precision, +250 on a non-precision, if I remember well).
I do not agree with that.

If your minima are raised, then you will probably more often go for a missed-approach, and performing several approaches is more dangerous than only one, because you get tired, nervous, etc.
Moreover, diverting is a really more hazardous thing than performing the approach to the legal minimums.

I know some pilots who self-raised their minimums when they feel they did not train enough recently, and of course I respect that decision they make.
But I think that should not be a legal thing, only a personal decision.

Over

Frog

[IO540]

=> He came without clearing the customs, and without even knowing he needed to between UK and France.

He has probably not been outside the UK very much. Or he saw wrong airport data - easy to do.

=> His approach plates were completely outdated (year 2002) and he tried to convince me that those differences since then were "not really important".

This highlights lack of IFR (airways) experience. Very few pilots who are not aircraft owners fly airways, due to the difficulty in renting a suitable aircraft. And if you don't fly airways often, it is hard to justify getting Jeppview; European coverage is about Euro 1500. OK, one can get free plates from Eurocontrol or Olivia but not many people like those because they use some strange notation and are hard to read if printed on A5.

Plus a lot of training is done with old approach plates, because the schools won't pay for current ones. Before I got electronic data, I used to give away my old approach plates to schools; they used them for training.

=> He had no IR flight time endorsed in the logbook by any instructor (it is the second time we have that problem with a UK pilot... Why instructors do not endorse logbooks in UK? Is that normal on your side of the Channel ?)

This is normal. Instructors rarely sign individual lessons. When I started on my FAA PPL/IR/CPL route I went back to the old instructors and got them to sign everything possible.

Someone above proposed that approach minimums would be raised for private IR pilots (+200 on a precision, +250 on a non-precision, if I remember well).
I do not agree with that.
If your minima are raised, then you will probably more often go for a missed-approach, and performing several approaches is more dangerous than only one, because you get tired, nervous, etc.
Moreover, diverting is a really more hazardous thing than performing the approach to the legal minimums.

I agree. One should always fly to published minima. It is the safest thing. Unless the approach has gone badly wrong...