PPL (A) With (IR)

[englishal]

To put it in perspective though....

There are a bunch of people on the Flyer website who started their IR's in Jan I believe. Some are just finishing now.

By contrast, I went to the USA and did my FAA IR when I had about 120 hrs TT in 2001. It took 5 weeks from start to finish, and I had never flown on instruments and was short of cross country time. Before I went I read the Jeppesen Instrument Commercial manual and some Gleim books, I then sat the exam a week or so after I arrived and aced it.

The flying standard is the same and some would argue the test is harder than JAR - no set format, 1.5 hr oral exam, so you can't say it was "easier".....Just far more achievable.

Cost was about £10,000 cheaper

[collectivefriction]

If you can afford 5 weeks off that is - that would cost me more than 10K.

You say 10K cheaper though - what was the total cost for your IR including flights and accomodation etc.?

Some of the flyer bunch are current FAA/IR's it will be interesting to see whether they are ready for the exam in the minimum 15 hours.

[IO540]

To put it in perspective though....

There are a bunch of people on the Flyer website who started their IR's in Jan I believe. Some are just finishing now.

By contrast, I went to the USA and did my FAA IR when I had about 120 hrs TT in 2001. It took 5 weeks from start to finish, and I had never flown on instruments and was short of cross country time. Before I went I read the Jeppesen Instrument Commercial manual and some Gleim books, I then sat the exam a week or so after I arrived and aced it.

The flying standard is the same and some would argue the test is harder than JAR - no set format, 1.5 hr oral exam, so you can't say it was "easier".....Just far more achievable.

That's very true. However there are so many (mostly individually small) differences between the Euro and the US system that while a comparison is interesting it is never going to result in the Euro system coming into line.

Take me as I was 3 years ago. JAA PPL, FAA PPL, IMCR, 500hrs TT.

Had I gone for the JAA IR - 50hrs, 7 exams, probably a year to fit it all in (I did give it a very close look).

I went to Arizona, and 2 weeks later I had done the FAA IR, ~ 25hrs flying. Also sat the single CPL exam on the last day after the IR checkride; cost $90. Earlier in the UK, I had revised for a total of about 20hrs for the FAA IR written exam; also done in the UK.

To a degree, it is not a fair comparison because one cannot compare a solid 2-week project with the same project spread over 6-12 months. The latter will always be less efficient. However there is a vast difference in costs and general hassle. In the USA, you do your PPL and IR and the same place. In the UK, the vast majority of PPL holders will have to go elsewhere for the IR training and since most people live within realistic access of only one airfield, this introduces a major hassle. Add it all up, throw in the other bag of differences (custom made screen v. the hood, the rigid JAA exam timetable, etc) and one can see why so few bother.

History of this kind of group booking suggests that a fair % of the Flyer group will drop out. I believe they got a discount on the ground school (the training material etc) but not on flight training which is the really major expense. OTOH they benefit from being together with other pilots they know, which is nice. A lot of training in the USA is very lonely - I had precisely zero social contact in the two weeks. OTOH, had I gone to do the JAA IR say now, I'd be doing it with a load of mostly very young ATPL candidates....

The FAA oral is feared by ab initio candidates but pilots with previous experience find it easy - even if it stretches to several hours like mine did.

[englishal]

Some of the flyer bunch are current FAA/IR's it will be interesting to see whether they are ready for the exam in the minimum 15 hours.

Right and I'd say no way, unless they had been training in the USA with a view to converting to JAA. A friend of mine did it in minimums, but he'd been trained for the FAA IR with a view to conversion by a place in the USA run by Europeans who had been through the conversion. He did it in minimums, but the astounding thing was that the whole conversion process in Bournemouth took 5 weeks, even with only 15 hrs, of which I think 5 or so were in the sim (full time course this was and he already had the ATPLs). He had to rent digs for the 5 weeks......

[collectivefriction]

So if they can't do it in 15 hours then is the air over their different as is osmetimes claimed after all the only things that are really likely to fail you are the skill based stuff - holds, approaches and busting levels. Or is it not really trained to the same standards as maybe the CAA would have us believe.

[englishal]

No because more emphasis is placed on single needle NDB stuff in the UK whereas more emphasis is placed on everything but in the USA e.g. WAAS Precision GPS approaches with synthetic vision as an example, no NDB for 1000 miles

I could fly a complete procedure on GPS, including missed approach, hold and re-approach down to precision minimums all via GPS with a G1000 equipped twin star, something which might give an examiner in the UK nightmares Equally dead reckoning your ground track to ORTAC on a Gurnsey SID would give me nightmares

[421C]

So if they can't do it in 15 hours then is the air over their different as is osmetimes claimed after all the only things that are really likely to fail you are the skill based stuff - holds, approaches and busting levels. Or is it not really trained to the same standards as maybe the CAA would have us believe.

It can be and is done in the minimum of 10hrs in the sim and 5hrs in the aircraft. It's not easy, but it's not an issue of different standards - more a different test structure and some skills not practised often - the NDB tracking and formal Hold entry and pattern with wind/drift adjustment.

There are 6-12 standard training routes from each of the airports where the test is conducted. They take 1.5-2hrs to fly. So the 15hrs needs to include whatever de-rusting you need, practising NDB work, flying as many of the test routes as possible to get familiar with them, and, in general, practising the way you will be expected to conduct the Test flight (using the school's operations manual, performing simulated ice checks).

The ab-initio candidates will have spent 55hrs on the course - so they will know the training routes and approaches off by heart. Doing a conversion, if 15hrs sounds a lot for an existing IR, remember a lot of that is flying the training routes.

If you took the opposite case, a JAA IR going to pass the FAA IR checkride, it could take someone say 10hrs of training - to de-rust, and to get used to the ad-hoc way tasks and unbriefed procedures are thrown at you - plus the expectation that you know how to use all the aircraft equipment in what might be an unfamiliar aircraft at a training school, plus the rapid-fire ATC style and the partial panel approach. But the total time would probably be lower because there is less reason to fly long practice routes.

brgds
421C

[englishal]

MY flight portion of the FAA/IR comprised of a random DME arc, the instructions given a matter of seconds before so not much time to think it out. An LDA approach with a circle to land, an ILS down to minimums

I got a 5 DME arc around Seal Beach - After my instructor said "You never get less than a 10 DME arc"

[collectivefriction]

The ab-initio candidates will have spent 55hrs on the course - so they will know the training routes and approaches off by heart. Doing a conversion, if 15hrs sounds a lot for an existing IR, remember a lot of that is flying the training routes.

50 hours in a single - in my case about 27 of them in the air prior to 170a. 20 in the SIM.

[Airbus Girl]

I also did the route of PPL then IR. I did my single engine FAA IR first, as a relatively inexperienced PPLer, and I did mine in 15 days from start to finish. I didn't have any instrument experience prior. By the way, I'm not saying it was easy!!! Certainly lots of hard work!! When back in the UK I asked for a dispensation from the CAA and, back then, somehow I managed to convince them to let me do the UK multi IR in "as many hours as instructor deems necessary". Which meant around 8 hours training and then the test. Doing it this way, even with flights and accommodation included, was still way cheaper than doing it all in the UK. One of the biggest savings is actually on approach fees - in the UK it was around £20 an approach, if not more, and in the USA it was $0. So that makes a big difference.

Once you have your IR there isn't a lot of difference between countries, if you were taught well. After doing my FAA IR I did my CAA IR and then did a bit of flying in Europe and USA. USA is much easier from the point of view of filing a flight plan and the fact that many more places have ILS or VOR approaches rather than NDBs, and also more radar coverage.

Doing an approach in Greece still generally requires you to have your wits about you and remember your basic instrument flying!!!!

[eddiec]

wow.................. I fancy you!

[chrisbl]

Going back to the original question, if you are bored already after 125 hours, then an IR and a higher performance aircraft will leave you just as bored having spent a lot of money in the process as you watch the automation fly the aircraft.

Two options, give up flying and do something else or try helicopters until you get bored with that.

[Ghosted]

Howdo, I would say that if your bored of fixed wing flying then why not give rotary a go. If you have the time and resources as you seem to have available then it would be daft not to give it a blast. Its a damn sight harder than fixed wing and gives you plenty of options for new 'adventures', 'challenges' and a nice AW109 would see you right.

Happy landings.

[IO540]

The OP needs to define what he wants to do flying-wise, and obtain the papers and the plane which matches that mission profile.

Nobody else can tell him how to stop himself getting bored.

IFR flying in itself is fairly pointless. What is great about it is the way one can use it to go A to B, while sitting comfortably in sunshine (above any clouds) and not worrying about ATC clearances into CAS, and potentially having great views.

IFR flying is actually same as VFR flying would be if one did not need a clearance for anything. If I fly from the UK to say Greece, IFR, I go the same way as I would go if I was going VFR. But I can't go VFR on that route because there is some CAS into which I would never get a clearance....... the result of totally meaningless restrictions, implemented for totally arbitrary rule-based reasons.

[englishal]

IFR flying is actually same as VFR flying would be if one did not need a clearance for anything

Actually much easier! Coming back from Spain our clearance went something like this:

Direct Barcelona
Direct (somevoronfrenchborder)
Direct Bordeaux
Direct Nantes
Direct Guernsey
Direct SAM

Easy peasy, twiddle the knobs every half hour, speak to ATC every half hour, eat bacon butties and drink coffee in between.

[Fright Level]

Actually much much easier!

At work, I've often had clearances when somewhere over the Med "direct ALESO" (UK FIR). Over Canada last week we got cleared direct to the US entry point which was over 1,000nm away.

Went IFR from Fairoaks to Plymouth recently and after Farnborough handed me over to London, they said "do you have ERMIN in your nav box?". When I replied they cleared me direct to it and after a few seconds looking for it on my chart (it wasn't there), I discovered it was the IAF for Plymouth on the approach plate about 130nm away.

IFR is much much easier!

[IO540]

I don't think you guys read what I wrote

I wrote:

IFR flying is actually same as VFR flying would be if one did not need a clearance for anything.

If one didn't need a clearance, one would fly DCT most of the time. Exactly what one does under IFR, with a nice long DCT like those described.

The whole VFR v. IFR division is a bizzare legacy of old times and silly local policies. It is self evident that ATC will let IFR traffic through the controlled airspace - they HAVE TO. And if they can do that, why can't they let VFR traffic through?? It is up to the pilot to maintain the VMC rule but after that, nothing is different. It's a funny old world we live in.