JAR IR in the US?

[IO540]

In the case of the holder of an IR issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 (e.g. an FAA IR), JAR-FCL 1.016(a) states that he "shall meet all the requirements of JAR–FCL, except that the requirements of course duration, number of lessons and specific training hours may be reduced." i.e approved training is still required but the duration may be reduced.

Do you have a reference for how much it may be reduced? There I suspect is your answer.

Why do some people have such mental blocks on the concept of demonstrated competence? You passed the checkride!!

Why fly extra hours? Even if you do fly the extra hours, if you have reached checkride competence early, any honest instructor will try to not waste your time and money and maybe will do some other useful stuff which is not required for the IR checkride but which might come in useful.

Anyway, unless you work for the CAA (do you, BB?) who cares once you have the IR? A few months later, the new IR holder is only as good as his last flight. A few years later, all of the original flight training has gone right out of the window.

The theory exams go out of the window within a few months at most.

[englishal]

Why do some people have such mental blocks on the concept of demonstrated competence? You passed the checkride!!

That is the thing about JAR ! They don't seem able to accept that the flight test should be good enough to determine if a candidate is suitable to have the rating issued. Instead (re. FAA IR conversion) they say "must do 15 hrs"...Why? Surely if you are the worlds best instrument pilot, you can jump into the left seat in any airspace and fly the flight test to the required standard.

Another thing that gets my goat is the 170A - a pre test, test. You need to "pass" this to be put forward to the test! Why!! My instructor in FAA land knew when I was suitable for the test and put me forward. They don't put people forward willy nilly because if they put people forward who fail, the examiner comes to find them to "have a chat".

I wanted a Night qualification on my JAA PPL and asked the CAA if I could have one based upon my extensive night hours flown in the USA (under VFR and IFR). All they did was cut and paste me the relevant section saying what training I required and that I'd have to complete the training in accordance with blah blah blah.....

[BillieBob]

Do you have a reference for how much it may be reduced?

Only that it may not be reduced to zero since JAR-FCL 1.205(a) states "An applicant for an IR(A) shall have .... completed an approved modular flying training course."

Now, IO540, you still haven't explained which part of my previous "scaremongering" post was factually incorrect.

[IO540]

BB, you have posted a reference for a requirement for a training course, followed by one saying it can be "reduced" but you haven't found one saying how much it can bre reduced by. So, reducing it to zero is still "reduced". I seriously doubt the paragon of virtue called Switzerland would bust JAA rules after joining up.

Regards scaremongering, you have posted rumours about people having problems by not following what you call proper procedure but no references to actual cases.

Like I said, the CAA isn't happy about ATPL candidates going to Bongo Bongo Land for their initial CV test (presumably so that a failure is not recorded on their UK pilot record, enabling them to re-take it elsewhere later) but they can't do anything about it. Once you have the paper, you have the paper. This game is mostly about paper. Flying a plane under IFR is the (relatively) easy bit.

I can see that doing a JAA IR in say Switzerland could get one into a blind alley if one has only got a UK JAA PPL and wants to add that IR to that PPL, and the CAA refuses to play ball. But do they refuse?? If so, when have they refused - actual cases please.

I wouldn't do a JAA IR now anyway. EASA will take over FCL soon enough and then all bets are off. The IR (which has got harder year on year since day 1) cannot possibly get any harder under EASA, IMHO. What is sure to happen under EASA is that all this "we are in JAA but we refuse to accept papers from another JAA country" stuff will come to an end.

[flightbooking]

The CAA are not delighted about so many ATPL candidates doing their initial colour vision test in Hungary, but they cannot do anything about it.

What is the point of the ATPL candidates going to Hungary to do vision tests?

[IO540]

I am sure somebody will correct me on this, but AIUI there are about 4 different CV tests approved under JAA, and once you have done one of these (and failed it) you are not allowed to repeat that test ever in your entire life. You have to move to one of the others. So pilots shop around.

Many people fail the initial test - the Isihara plates. This test is a meaningless indicator of CV anyway, as a recent study commissioned by the CAA (I read it but wish I could find the URL again) confirmed. So they have to do one of the others.

The advantage of doing the CV test in some far away place is that a method may be available which is not available in the UK. Or that a failure is not recorded so you could later try the same test again?

The problem is on the JAA initial medical. On a renewal medical you are not tested for CV, and you can invoke demonstrated ability on a lot of things anyway. The JAA initial/renewal system is a farce.

[S-Works]

The JAA initial/renewal system is a farce.

Only for those who can't pass it. Those who don't are a minority and it's no good moaning about it as it is unlikely to change, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few I suspect.

[IO540]

OK, bose, I have a question for you.

You go to Heathrow for a holiday. Which JAA medical are the two pilots on the G-reg 747 flying on?

- the initial, or

- the renewal

Should be an easy question to answer.

Next, how long ago did the average British Airways (the cream of the cream) ATP do his initial medical?

I await a rational case for the stricter initial medical

[S-Works]

Sorry mate you are asking the wrong person, I don't care.

The fact is the standards exist, they effect a minority and moaning about it won't change it. Making it out to be some sort of conspiracy won't change it.

The initial baseline was set and some people don't make the bar, tough it's the same in all sort's of work.

I suppose you would like to see the standards lowered? How about allowing the deaf or the blind or just the plain stupid fly a 747?

The line has to be set somewhere, the JAA set theirs at a level you don't like, they have less restrictive renewal to account for the fact that as people age they wear out, seems pretty reasonable to me!

Here is a totally random link (power of the internet), did you know for example that if you have had laser eye surgery you cant work for North Wales police and that is one of many examples. Shall we get them to change the rules so that if someone does not meet the grade they can still get in?

And as far as people going to places like Hungary etc to try and circumvent the system, one could ask if they are prepared to find a curve in a straight road what else are they prepared to cut corners on?

[IO540]

they have less restrictive renewal to account for the fact that as people age they wear out

and the time lag for an ATP candidate from the initial to the renewal is what, 1 year, isn't it. Yeah I really think the 25 year old graduate of the initial medical is going to be so worn out and knackered at 26 that he needs a more lax renewal medical. Then it's another 10 years before he is in the LHS so he's had 10 (ten) renewal medicals by then.



You need to do better than this kind of argument, bose. Actually for some single pilot Transport ops the renewal gap is 6 months. You really need the renewal medical to be easier then

I am all in favour of adequate competence, or demonstrated ability as it's called in medicals. It's pure stupid pointless illogical elitism I object to. It would be just as good to have an initial medical requiring your two big toes to be within 3mm of each other, or some other rather more personal "dimensions" I could think of, and allow any larger variation under "demonstrated ability" on the renewal.

In the RAF, where there used to be hundreds of applicants for every fast jet job, they could do this kind of stuff because they actually want to kick out 99% (especially in recent years where they don't need so many navigators anymore). But civilian aviation? Look at some of the obese unfit captains climbing into a British Airways (G-reg) 747 these days. They would have never passed an initial medical in that state. Many will be on BP and probably other medication. They are perfectly safe pilots though, which is what matters.

did you know for example that if you have had laser eye surgery you cant work for North Wales police and that is one of many examples

which will last precisely until somebody gets some pennies (lots of them) together and takes action under the European disability laws. This stuff is illegal nowadays and exists only because nobody bothers to challenge it.

The CAA is living on borrowed time. Baseless rules have already been challenged - see e.g. the Pape victory in Australia.

[S-Works]

What argument. You are arguing with yourself.

So what if they choose to set a different standard for initial to renewal? The line has to be drawn somewhere and thats where they have chosen to draw it.

I am an average beer drinking pie eating member of the flying community and I passed a Class I medical. If I had failed should I have asked them to lower the bar to fit me. How far do we ask them to lower the bar?

Lets see, we ask them to lower the hearing bar so you can pass, then we ask them to lower it again so those who are colour blind can pass. What next we ask if they will lower it for those with high blood pressure or diabetes?

Yes some people might need an medical every six months and I am sure those people would still pass the initial standards. In 10 or 15 years they might not and so a little allowance is given for the effects of age. Seems reasonable to me, or are you saying we should keep the initial standard for ever? No I think what you want is for the standard to be lowered to meet your perception of what is right?

[IO540]

One should have the same constant standard for ever. That's what the vast majority of the world's pilots (including 747 pilots flying into Heathrow right this minute) fly under: the FAA Class 1 medical. I've got one of those myself.

With demonstrated ability, not arbitrary requirements that are as relevant as the pilot's private part dimensions.

Then it becomes demonstrably and objectively fair.

[S-Works]

You know what I will agree with you, the initial level should be maintained and it should be ICAO standard with no filed differences.

[llanfairpg]

It would be difficult and prohibitive for the average AME to equip his surgery with the same level of equipment as the CAA have for conducting medicals to initial Class 1 standards.

CAA have always been loathe to take a pilots livelyhood away for not meeting standards that they would have needed for the initial, which makes sense in my opinion.

As our company doctor said once, " basiclly if you can walk, talk, hear and see you have passed the Class 1 medical."