Should the IMCR be ditched in the quest for a greater prize?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I am 14 hrs into my IMC and for what its worth:
1: Im a safer pilot than I was 14 hrs ago
2: It isn't wasted money as if they take it away from me I am still a safer pilot, but sadly poorer.
3: I did it now rather than later in the hope that grandfather rights are forthcoming if they do scrap it, and if not I am a safer pilot :-)
Cheers
1: Im a safer pilot than I was 14 hrs ago
2: It isn't wasted money as if they take it away from me I am still a safer pilot, but sadly poorer.
3: I did it now rather than later in the hope that grandfather rights are forthcoming if they do scrap it, and if not I am a safer pilot :-)
Cheers
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm... I see that none has replied to my earlier query.
Would anyone who has actually been there please care to comment on the difficulty or otherwise of getting a full JAR instrument rating?
Based on my own experience, as that's all I have to go on, you might very well be pissing up the wrong wall here.
Would anyone who has actually been there please care to comment on the difficulty or otherwise of getting a full JAR instrument rating?
Based on my own experience, as that's all I have to go on, you might very well be pissing up the wrong wall here.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody has recently organised a group of people, about 30 I believe, to do the JAA PPL/IR, and got a bulk discount on a ground school package.
I don't know if any of them are posting on this forum but I do know that many of them are doing the FAA IR to JAA IR conversion option (15hrs minimum flight training).
There are some interesting strategies which should work for pilots who already fly on the FAA IR and therefore already know the necessary practical stuff. You can revise from the question banks for say 1 week, sit all the seven exams (the 14 for a CPL is something else...) all over a couple of days, and then do serious heavy revision on those which you failed. Done in this way, the study element is only maybe 2x to 3x harder than the FAA IR and its single concentrated exam.
And if you are converting from another ICAO IR, not only is the 50/55hrs (SE/ME) minimum dual training requirement reduced to 15hrs (less in some other JAA countries) but also the mandatory school attendance is at the discretion of the course manager so in principle you could just entirely self study and turn up for the exams at Gatwick.
Whether it is a sensible thing to do the JAA IR right now, ahead of likely changes in the whole area, I doubt but obviously if you desire to fly a G-reg IFR/airways now then you have to do it now. I certainly wouldn't do it out of straight fear.
Personally, I keep half an eye on this subject (because in this game one needs to stay ahead of regulatory moves) but if I was doing it I would probably prefer to do it in some other EU country where the weather is better and maybe some of the silly regs are not present (like the rigid exam timetable).
I don't know if any of them are posting on this forum but I do know that many of them are doing the FAA IR to JAA IR conversion option (15hrs minimum flight training).
There are some interesting strategies which should work for pilots who already fly on the FAA IR and therefore already know the necessary practical stuff. You can revise from the question banks for say 1 week, sit all the seven exams (the 14 for a CPL is something else...) all over a couple of days, and then do serious heavy revision on those which you failed. Done in this way, the study element is only maybe 2x to 3x harder than the FAA IR and its single concentrated exam.
And if you are converting from another ICAO IR, not only is the 50/55hrs (SE/ME) minimum dual training requirement reduced to 15hrs (less in some other JAA countries) but also the mandatory school attendance is at the discretion of the course manager so in principle you could just entirely self study and turn up for the exams at Gatwick.
Whether it is a sensible thing to do the JAA IR right now, ahead of likely changes in the whole area, I doubt but obviously if you desire to fly a G-reg IFR/airways now then you have to do it now. I certainly wouldn't do it out of straight fear.
Personally, I keep half an eye on this subject (because in this game one needs to stay ahead of regulatory moves) but if I was doing it I would probably prefer to do it in some other EU country where the weather is better and maybe some of the silly regs are not present (like the rigid exam timetable).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NO way can you sell 15 hrs of instrument training as any form of IR to EASA.
One thing that is apparent is that it [the current JAA IR] is no way as achievable as the FAA IR (which is ICAO complient and just as "hard" too).....which unless an IR is as achievable as this, no normal working PPL will bother to do apart from a very few. This is no way to encourage flight safety through training.
From a cost POV, ground exams and "ground school" alone for the JAA IR run into the thousands of pounds, even before you have set foot in an aeroplane. The 170A - the required pre test test if you like, will probably set you back another £500, the test fees another £600 or so, not to mention the rating issue fees and the landing and approach fees, all before you get into an aeroplane. Unless some of this "milking" stops then I really can't see many PPLs taking up the EASA IR.....I certainly won't bother, I'd rather spend the money on an N reg aeroplane and base it in Alderney or somewhere
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would anyone who has actually been there please care to comment on the difficulty or otherwise of getting a full JAR instrument rating?
I did the flying trying split between 2 schools both based at Cranfield, both completely flexible to my needs. The fist was Taylor aviation with Bob Moore as my Instructor. A vastly experienced airline captain who knows his stuff inside out. Taylor sold up and so I moved next door to Bonus aviation to finish other half.
Once again, Bonus were a 1st rate organisation, they were completely flexible on training schedule and accommodate people at evenings and weekends. There is nothing difficult about the flight training and you have the option to do quite a bit in the sim. I did a multi engine IR and passed it in 5mins over the 55hr minima and did the whole thing in the aircraft. Bonus let you do a mix of sim, single and MEP to meet the hours if you are intent on keeping the price down.
Like all of these things if you sit and listen to the detractors who I bet none of them have actually done it you will believe it is the most difficult thing on earth. There are also many people who will always look to find a shortcut on a 100 mile straight road.....
Trust me it is not hard, even a monkey can do it.
In fact the perfect IR would be one where you are only required to pass a written exam (it is not rocket science and most is not applicable for the new generation of glass cockpit), cover a minimum flying syllabus with an instructor, then training as required to get you to a sufficient standard to pass the test, and an oral exam (sound familiar?).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wish to remind any newcomers that I have advised "bose x" that I will not be responding to any of his postings.
Obviously this enables him to post the grossly offensive material seen here e.g.
without getting a response from me, but so be it.
I have no idea why he does this.
Obviously this enables him to post the grossly offensive material seen here e.g.
Sometimes you are so full of crap at times I feel the urge to throttle the living **** out of you.
I have no idea why he does this.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wish to remind any newcomers that I have advised "bose x" that I will not be responding to any of his postings.
Obviously this enables him to post the grossly offensive material seen here e.g.
Quote:
Sometimes you are so full of crap at times I feel the urge to throttle the living **** out of you.
without getting a response from me, but so be it.
I have no idea why he does this.
Obviously this enables him to post the grossly offensive material seen here e.g.
Quote:
Sometimes you are so full of crap at times I feel the urge to throttle the living **** out of you.
without getting a response from me, but so be it.
I have no idea why he does this.
A) You have replied to me by making that post......
B) For a man who publicly accused everyone from Jersey of being chid murdering pedophiles just because they did not agree with one of your opinions on the flyer forums, or for the man who thought it appropriate to use scenes from the twin towers atrocity to try and make another point on this forum I suspect you may be on thin ice when it comes to being all indignant........ Perhaps you might want a little bit of 'me time' to think about what is grossly offensive Peter.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal Beagle
I bow to your greater knowledge on the possibility of a legal challenge but regardless hold grave concerns on the attempt to persuade EASA to accept the IMCR.
I see no Reason why they would not accept such training but not in the way it is used in the UK as a mini IR.
Hence my question Should we ditch the IMCR in favour of a better PRIZE ie a more acceptable IR for working people.
But really the picture is greater than that not only in the IR but cross conversion of icao licences such as FAA ATP to JAA where the situation gets even more ridiculous amd absurd. That has no reason other than terratorialism and self protectionism.
Pace
I bow to your greater knowledge on the possibility of a legal challenge but regardless hold grave concerns on the attempt to persuade EASA to accept the IMCR.
I see no Reason why they would not accept such training but not in the way it is used in the UK as a mini IR.
Hence my question Should we ditch the IMCR in favour of a better PRIZE ie a more acceptable IR for working people.
But really the picture is greater than that not only in the IR but cross conversion of icao licences such as FAA ATP to JAA where the situation gets even more ridiculous amd absurd. That has no reason other than terratorialism and self protectionism.
Pace
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, I think ultimately that it should be ditched in favour of the great prize that you seek. HOWEVER, there needs to be a clear transition period and a far more practical route to said prize. Something like the Australian modular IR or the Canadian 2 class system.
What I don't want to see is the loss of the IMC without anything practical to replace it. As I have said many times it is a huge aid to safety and aid to pilot skill.
What I don't want to see is the loss of the IMC without anything practical to replace it. As I have said many times it is a huge aid to safety and aid to pilot skill.
In my formal response to EASA part-FCL, I made the following comments regarding Sub Part I:
Subpart I must include an Additional Rating termed the Class 2 Instrument Rating which would confer the following privileges:
1. Flight in single pilot aeroplanes of less than 5700 kg MTOM in non-VMC conditions without the requirement to hold a full Instrument Rating, subject to the following conditions:
(1) Flight in IMC or under IFR shall only be permitted within those classes of airspace sanctioned by the Member State in which the privileges are to be exercised;
(2) Privileges shall not be extended to multi-pilot aeroplanes or to CAT II or CAT III approach procedures;
(3) The licence holder must hold at least ICAO Level 4 English Language proficiency;
(4) Instrument approach procedure types shall be endorsed in the pilot's personal flying log book and shall be subject to an additional 200 ft allowance for precision approaches and 250 ft for non-precision approaches;
(5) Minimum weather conditions of 600 ft cloudbase and 1800 m horizontal in-flight visibilty shall apply for any take-off or landing;
2. The Class 2 IR shall be valid for a period of 2 years from the date of passing the skill test and shall be revalidated by proficiency check.
The bold text is important as it still gives individual EU Member States the national right to state where and under what conditions the Class 2 IR could be used in their national airspace.
I also included a recommended 20 hour Class 2 IR training course:
1. At least 10 hours Basic Instrument Flight Module, common to the modular IR training course.
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. Any 2 of the following 4 modules:
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.
4. All instrument approach flight training modules shall include:
4.1 Missed approach and go-around training.
4.2 Visual circuit flying under simulated conditions of low cloud and reduced visibility (600 ft cloudbase and 1800m horizontal in-flight visibility).
5. Additional training will be required if Class 2 IR privileges in multi-engine aircraft are sought:
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).
6. Training to be conducted:
6.1 By either:
6.1.1 A FI authorised under EASA part -FCL whose privileges include instruction in applied instrument flying; or
6.1.2 An IRI authorised under EASA part-FCL
6.2. At an approved training organisation
6.3 In suitably equipped aeroplanes or, as specified in para 7., an FNPT2 or FFS.
7. Of the required hours procedural instrument flight training, the following synthetic training may be conducted in a FNPT 2 or FFS:
7.1. 2 of the 4 hours of Module 1; and
7.2. 2 of the 6 hours of Modules 2-5
Skill Test:
8. The Class 2 IR skill test shall be conducted by an FE or IRE authorised under EASA part-FCL to include:
8.1 Full Panel Instrument Flying.
8.2 Limited (or Partial) Panel Instrument Flying.
8.3 Use of radio navigation aids for position fixing and en-route navigation.
8.4 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.
8.5 Bad weather circuit.
8.6 Flight with asymmetric thrust (multi-engined aircraft only).
This isn't hugely different from the current UK IMC course; I haven't included any comments about theoretical knowledge requirements or medicals, but I would envisage an IMCR exam brought up to date, including some international elements and EASA Class 2 medical as the minimum acceptable.
Subpart I must include an Additional Rating termed the Class 2 Instrument Rating which would confer the following privileges:
1. Flight in single pilot aeroplanes of less than 5700 kg MTOM in non-VMC conditions without the requirement to hold a full Instrument Rating, subject to the following conditions:
(1) Flight in IMC or under IFR shall only be permitted within those classes of airspace sanctioned by the Member State in which the privileges are to be exercised;
(2) Privileges shall not be extended to multi-pilot aeroplanes or to CAT II or CAT III approach procedures;
(3) The licence holder must hold at least ICAO Level 4 English Language proficiency;
(4) Instrument approach procedure types shall be endorsed in the pilot's personal flying log book and shall be subject to an additional 200 ft allowance for precision approaches and 250 ft for non-precision approaches;
(5) Minimum weather conditions of 600 ft cloudbase and 1800 m horizontal in-flight visibilty shall apply for any take-off or landing;
2. The Class 2 IR shall be valid for a period of 2 years from the date of passing the skill test and shall be revalidated by proficiency check.
The bold text is important as it still gives individual EU Member States the national right to state where and under what conditions the Class 2 IR could be used in their national airspace.
I also included a recommended 20 hour Class 2 IR training course:
1. At least 10 hours Basic Instrument Flight Module, common to the modular IR training course.
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. Any 2 of the following 4 modules:
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.
4. All instrument approach flight training modules shall include:
4.1 Missed approach and go-around training.
4.2 Visual circuit flying under simulated conditions of low cloud and reduced visibility (600 ft cloudbase and 1800m horizontal in-flight visibility).
5. Additional training will be required if Class 2 IR privileges in multi-engine aircraft are sought:
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).
6. Training to be conducted:
6.1 By either:
6.1.1 A FI authorised under EASA part -FCL whose privileges include instruction in applied instrument flying; or
6.1.2 An IRI authorised under EASA part-FCL
6.2. At an approved training organisation
6.3 In suitably equipped aeroplanes or, as specified in para 7., an FNPT2 or FFS.
7. Of the required hours procedural instrument flight training, the following synthetic training may be conducted in a FNPT 2 or FFS:
7.1. 2 of the 4 hours of Module 1; and
7.2. 2 of the 6 hours of Modules 2-5
Skill Test:
8. The Class 2 IR skill test shall be conducted by an FE or IRE authorised under EASA part-FCL to include:
8.1 Full Panel Instrument Flying.
8.2 Limited (or Partial) Panel Instrument Flying.
8.3 Use of radio navigation aids for position fixing and en-route navigation.
8.4 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.
8.5 Bad weather circuit.
8.6 Flight with asymmetric thrust (multi-engined aircraft only).
This isn't hugely different from the current UK IMC course; I haven't included any comments about theoretical knowledge requirements or medicals, but I would envisage an IMCR exam brought up to date, including some international elements and EASA Class 2 medical as the minimum acceptable.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is quite simple and not the drama that many (who have never done one) make it out to be. All the comments about how hard it is if you are working in a full time job or are not a 24 year old airline wannabee are rubbish. I did the theory for both CPL and IR with CATS at Cranfield. They provided a good standard of materials and were completely flexible around ground school etc. I was the Group IT Director of a FTSE 100 company while doing the study commuting into London on the train. I used the hour in the morning and night on the commute to study and did a day of ground school on a Saturday with CATS before the exams. I passed all of the exams first time an average of mid 90% on the scores.
For the FAA IR, I read the Jeppesen Instrument Commercial manual over about a week in the evenings, turned up at the flight school, had ground school and flew daily - about 2-4 hrs per day as I only had 120 hrs and was short of cross country time. I sat the ground exam about 2 weeks in and passed - I also did the Instrument Instructor exam the same day and passed, 2 weeks later I had my IR. This was with a full 50 or so hours of actual flying, no sim due to the X/C. Cost was about $6500 if I remember correctly. Had I done it part time them I would have pushed for 6 hrs flying per week, so it would have taken nearer 10 weeks.
Most people I meet took nearly a year to get a JAR IR.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose-x
Thanks for your comments.
That was exactly my impression after I did mine.
My impression too.
And I second that comment. You really should see some of the commercial wannabees out there 
Englishal:
That's all very nice how it's done in FAA territory, but asking EASA to change their philosophy to fit some other country's regulatory and cultural background is an altogether different battle. Might as well ask them for $50/hr C152 hire prices.
In any event, not sure how that relates to the discussion at hand. Would you care to elaborate?
Anyway, still waiting for more comments from people who have actual experience training for the JAR IR.
Thanks for your comments.
It is quite simple and not the drama that many (who have never done one) make it out to be.
There are also many people who will always look to find a shortcut on a 100 mile straight road.....
Trust me it is not hard, even a monkey can do it.
Englishal:
That's all very nice how it's done in FAA territory, but asking EASA to change their philosophy to fit some other country's regulatory and cultural background is an altogether different battle. Might as well ask them for $50/hr C152 hire prices.
In any event, not sure how that relates to the discussion at hand. Would you care to elaborate?
Anyway, still waiting for more comments from people who have actual experience training for the JAR IR.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle wrote:-
"(5) Minimum weather conditions of 600 ft cloudbase and 1800 m horizontal in-flight visibilty shall apply for any take-off or landing;"
I'm sorry, but IMNSHO the 600ft cloudbase is far too restrictive. It's even above the present IMC RECOMMENDED minima (500ft for a precision approach).
If an IMCR pilot, who has maintained currency can safely achieve height the published minima NOW why shouldn't that be retained?
Personally, I'm going to be very annoyed if/when my present IMC 'allowances' get reduced/expunged.
"(5) Minimum weather conditions of 600 ft cloudbase and 1800 m horizontal in-flight visibilty shall apply for any take-off or landing;"
I'm sorry, but IMNSHO the 600ft cloudbase is far too restrictive. It's even above the present IMC RECOMMENDED minima (500ft for a precision approach).
If an IMCR pilot, who has maintained currency can safely achieve height the published minima NOW why shouldn't that be retained?
Personally, I'm going to be very annoyed if/when my present IMC 'allowances' get reduced/expunged.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real question to ask is why the # of JAA PPL/IRs issued in the UK is around single digits annually - after adjusting for those in the commercial pipeline so looking at purely private pilots.
Of course the JAA PPL/IR (7 exams) is doable. The JAA CPL/IR (14 exams) is also perfectly doable. Everything is doable.
So why doesn't everybody who wants to fly in cloud just get on with it?
There isn't a single factor which makes or breaks the decision. It's a whole collection of things. The expression "death by a thousand cuts" is very appropriate here.
One factor, for example, is that most commercial students are young men with plenty of time on their hands, and little money. Whereas most private pilots doing the IR are older, often 50+ and with a pretty packed life. Slotting this thing into a young man's life is not the same as slotting it into the latter's life.
I know a bloke who has just spent 2 years doing the CPL/IR ground school ab initio. OK this is 14 exams whereas the PPL/IR is 7 but it took him 2 years. NO flying - just the revision and exams. He is far from stupid. He worked self employed on building sites for that time to make a living and that gave him the time for swatting. 2 years. How ridiculous, given most of the stuff is irrelevant to flying for real.
And I know one immensely bright (utterly brilliant I would say) chap who did the whole lot in a few months - but this one is in top 1% or less of the population. Not really a fair comparison.
One could sit here for an hour typing up yet another long essay on the differences and I am sure this has been done many times. After a while one loses the will to go over it yet again.
But anyway the JAA v. FAA numbers speak for themselves. These people cannot all be stupid, or the victims of misunderstanding (or worse, from schools trying to sell the ATPL syllabus only). They have weighed it up and taken the American route. They represent the vast majority of private pilots aspiring to instrument flight around Europe.
Ni Thomas - I agree 600ft is not right as a blanket figure. An ILS is a piece of cake to fly to 200ft unless one's currency is really horrid. But anyway there is no way to enforce a cloudbase (by which I mean prosecute if it is busted) which is no doubt why the IMCR has no legal limits other than the approach plate DH/MDH.
Of course the JAA PPL/IR (7 exams) is doable. The JAA CPL/IR (14 exams) is also perfectly doable. Everything is doable.
So why doesn't everybody who wants to fly in cloud just get on with it?
There isn't a single factor which makes or breaks the decision. It's a whole collection of things. The expression "death by a thousand cuts" is very appropriate here.
One factor, for example, is that most commercial students are young men with plenty of time on their hands, and little money. Whereas most private pilots doing the IR are older, often 50+ and with a pretty packed life. Slotting this thing into a young man's life is not the same as slotting it into the latter's life.
I know a bloke who has just spent 2 years doing the CPL/IR ground school ab initio. OK this is 14 exams whereas the PPL/IR is 7 but it took him 2 years. NO flying - just the revision and exams. He is far from stupid. He worked self employed on building sites for that time to make a living and that gave him the time for swatting. 2 years. How ridiculous, given most of the stuff is irrelevant to flying for real.
And I know one immensely bright (utterly brilliant I would say) chap who did the whole lot in a few months - but this one is in top 1% or less of the population. Not really a fair comparison.
One could sit here for an hour typing up yet another long essay on the differences and I am sure this has been done many times. After a while one loses the will to go over it yet again.
But anyway the JAA v. FAA numbers speak for themselves. These people cannot all be stupid, or the victims of misunderstanding (or worse, from schools trying to sell the ATPL syllabus only). They have weighed it up and taken the American route. They represent the vast majority of private pilots aspiring to instrument flight around Europe.
Ni Thomas - I agree 600ft is not right as a blanket figure. An ILS is a piece of cake to fly to 200ft unless one's currency is really horrid. But anyway there is no way to enforce a cloudbase (by which I mean prosecute if it is busted) which is no doubt why the IMCR has no legal limits other than the approach plate DH/MDH.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They represent the vast majority of private pilots aspiring to instrument flight around Europe.
What I see is quite a few people who have done FAA IR's which they then use as an IMC in G-Reg aircraft. I do not however see large numbers of N Reg LIGHT Aircraft flying IFR. In fact apart from the die hard evangelists like your self I rarely see much in the way of light aircraft on the N reg in the airways.
So perhaps you would like to share with us where you get this from.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's all very nice how it's done in FAA territory, but asking EASA to change their philosophy to fit some other country's regulatory and cultural background is an altogether different battle. Might as well ask them for $50/hr C152 hire prices.
In any event, not sure how that relates to the discussion at hand. Would you care to elaborate?
In any event, not sure how that relates to the discussion at hand. Would you care to elaborate?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is plainly obvious, even a JAR boy should be able to see this. Looks like you need to get that arrogant chip removed from your JAR shoulder.
You and IO are equally FAA fan boys.
So back to the discussion at hand. The JAA IR is in my opinion as someone who holds one not difficult at all. It is just made out to be that way by the FAA 'fan boys'.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You and IO are equally FAA fan boys.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as someone with a JAR IR and as someone who has taught both IMC and IR students.
The FAA system is far more achieveable for the "average" person. The simple cost of getting a JAA IR is the main problem.
Then add in the reduced costs of operating an N reg aircraft and the renewal costs etc.etc. Then I totally understand why most plump for the FAA system.
There really is no comparison and I cannot understand why people are trying to say that there is.
An FAA IR is cheaper and just as useful if you have access to an N reg machine.
As IO and EA mention. The numbers speak for themselves, unless there is a huge FAA conspiracy.................
The FAA system is far more achieveable for the "average" person. The simple cost of getting a JAA IR is the main problem.
Then add in the reduced costs of operating an N reg aircraft and the renewal costs etc.etc. Then I totally understand why most plump for the FAA system.
There really is no comparison and I cannot understand why people are trying to say that there is.
An FAA IR is cheaper and just as useful if you have access to an N reg machine.
As IO and EA mention. The numbers speak for themselves, unless there is a huge FAA conspiracy.................
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 20th Oct 2008 at 16:52.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A simple practical point. I just flew my Archer 2 from Kemble to Cambridge and landed at Cambridge off a vectored ILS approach.
Even though the weather was pretty poor (sheeting rain and 20kts of gusty wind at 30 degrees to runway, cloud base below 1000 ft, but above recommended IMCR Minimum) this was accomplished without drama, with modest kit and an IMCR.
I didn't need airways and I wasn't anywhere near Class A so IMCR is all I needed and it works if you keep in practice (real and SIM). I got a RIS and zone transit from Brize, RIS from F'boro North and a routine vectored ILS approach from Cambridge. I wasn't the only little aeroplane in the sky either, though it wasn't exactly crowded.
I would like an IR and I'm signed up for CATS and will focus on the theory during the winter (I hope) but it is unquestionably more onerous on the theory front than it needs to be. I'm sure the flying will tighten up my skills a great deal more too.
Even though the weather was pretty poor (sheeting rain and 20kts of gusty wind at 30 degrees to runway, cloud base below 1000 ft, but above recommended IMCR Minimum) this was accomplished without drama, with modest kit and an IMCR.
I didn't need airways and I wasn't anywhere near Class A so IMCR is all I needed and it works if you keep in practice (real and SIM). I got a RIS and zone transit from Brize, RIS from F'boro North and a routine vectored ILS approach from Cambridge. I wasn't the only little aeroplane in the sky either, though it wasn't exactly crowded.
I would like an IR and I'm signed up for CATS and will focus on the theory during the winter (I hope) but it is unquestionably more onerous on the theory front than it needs to be. I'm sure the flying will tighten up my skills a great deal more too.