EIR, IMC rating and Jim Thorpe
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Van,
I hold the FAA/IR but have a number of friends who hold the JAA flavour and a few who have JAA and or FAA ATPLs. There is a fundamental philosophical difference between America and Europe on the knowledge side. In Europe, there is a view these things should be structured qualifications at professional schools. In the US it is that you need to know and demonstrate the application of the knowledge in the real world and they don't really care how you got the knowledge. In Europe, there is an element of knowledge requirements to make it more time consuming.
However, and many people seem to ignore it, I am confident the key objective of FCL.008 was not to save the IMCr but to make access to the IFR system more attainable while not reaching so far as to create something that could not be sold across Europe (which like it or not is what happens when your government agrees to regulate aviation on a pan-European basis).
The flying tolerance are broadly similar with a couple of areas where the JAA/IR is tighter than the FAA/IR, however, the FAA then make type rated pilots (i.e. everyone in a large or turbojet aircraft) fly to higher tolerances in the ATPL exam (and these are slightly tighter than the JAA tolerances). However, anyone who is doing real IFR approaches should be flying to this tolerance anyhow. As several people have pointed out, the weather can always go down hill and an EIR pilot may not be able to do a cloud break and have to land off an emergency ILS, and IR pilot may have what he thought was going to be 600 and 1 mile go down to 200 and RVR700 - and you want to be able to hold it together when that close to the ground.
Many of the comments that have been made seem to be reflect aspect of what I believe is being created in terms of making the IR more accessible. However, there was a view, which by the comments on this thread seems to have been misguided that a stepping stone rating between the PPL and a streamlined competency based PPL/IR was necessary for PPL's to feel they can approach the instrument flying learning curve and backstop the save the IR plan. If there is no interest across Europe in this stepping stone, I would imagine it would simplify FCL.008s work to drop it and focus on a streamline IR and hope AOPA UK comes up with the goods for a UK opt out to keep the IMCr.
I hold the FAA/IR but have a number of friends who hold the JAA flavour and a few who have JAA and or FAA ATPLs. There is a fundamental philosophical difference between America and Europe on the knowledge side. In Europe, there is a view these things should be structured qualifications at professional schools. In the US it is that you need to know and demonstrate the application of the knowledge in the real world and they don't really care how you got the knowledge. In Europe, there is an element of knowledge requirements to make it more time consuming.
However, and many people seem to ignore it, I am confident the key objective of FCL.008 was not to save the IMCr but to make access to the IFR system more attainable while not reaching so far as to create something that could not be sold across Europe (which like it or not is what happens when your government agrees to regulate aviation on a pan-European basis).
The flying tolerance are broadly similar with a couple of areas where the JAA/IR is tighter than the FAA/IR, however, the FAA then make type rated pilots (i.e. everyone in a large or turbojet aircraft) fly to higher tolerances in the ATPL exam (and these are slightly tighter than the JAA tolerances). However, anyone who is doing real IFR approaches should be flying to this tolerance anyhow. As several people have pointed out, the weather can always go down hill and an EIR pilot may not be able to do a cloud break and have to land off an emergency ILS, and IR pilot may have what he thought was going to be 600 and 1 mile go down to 200 and RVR700 - and you want to be able to hold it together when that close to the ground.
Many of the comments that have been made seem to be reflect aspect of what I believe is being created in terms of making the IR more accessible. However, there was a view, which by the comments on this thread seems to have been misguided that a stepping stone rating between the PPL and a streamlined competency based PPL/IR was necessary for PPL's to feel they can approach the instrument flying learning curve and backstop the save the IR plan. If there is no interest across Europe in this stepping stone, I would imagine it would simplify FCL.008s work to drop it and focus on a streamline IR and hope AOPA UK comes up with the goods for a UK opt out to keep the IMCr.
Everyone has to stop thinking in UK terms and start thinking from the perspective of a European licence holder who has never held an IMC rating.
An IMCR in the UK does not infringe on the rights of other European fliers, nor does it cause them any harm. We know it enhances safety (and enjoyment) in the UK. If other countries want ratings for which there is a demand in those countries: good luck to them.
I really don't understand this mind-numbing dullness of thought that regards harmonisation as a desirable end in itself. There's a feeling that the UK is trying to "get away with something" in the IMCR, as though the rest of Europe must clamp down on an evil plot by the fiendish Brits.
We're getting wall-to-wall coverage at the moment of the events in 1989 when we really thought we were entering a new age of freedom, not a illiberal grinding down to a lowest common denominator. The vision of Europe should be about enabling, not preventing. People should stop thinking "why" and start thinking "why not".
mm_flynn wrote:
I'm sure you know more about FCL.008 than I do, but the ToR of the group make two specific references to the UK IMCR in a short document.
The Problem Statement includes:
and the objectives include both:
and
In other words: BOTH consider a more accessible IR for PPLs AND consider an IMC-like rating.
I suppose Jim Thorpe considers that the en-route rating meets the latter objective. I don't agree, but such a rating could also allow national opt-outs like the Altiport rating. Much fuss was made in previous threads about the Altiport rating restricts a license, rather than adding to it. This apparently makes it OK whereas the IMCR is bad, as it adds to capabilities of a licence. So the European IMC rating could allow restricted (higher minima than an IR) approaches, but allow individual countries to impose further restrictions, such as "no approaches".
I can't see anything in the Terms of Reference of FCL.008 that would rule out what UK pilots want - except perhaps the composition of FCL.008.
However, and many people seem to ignore it, I am confident the key objective of FCL.008 was not to save the IMCr but to make access to the IFR system more attainable while not reaching so far as to create something that could not be sold across Europe (which like it or not is what happens when your government agrees to regulate aviation on a pan-European basis).
The Problem Statement includes:
Additionally some of the group experts were in favor to develop a similar rating as the UK national IMC rating with lesser requirements than the current requirements for the Instrument Rating (IR) which allows the pilot to fly in circumstances that require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) but in certain airspace categories only.
Review the existing JAR-FCL requirements for the Instrument Rating with a view to evaluate the possibility of reducing these requirements for private pilots flying under Instrument Flight Rules. This evaluation shall take into account the ICAO Annex 1 SARPs for the issue of an IR
Review the requirements of the UK IMC rating and other national qualifications for flying in IMC and consider whether there is a need to develop an additional European rating to fly in IMC with less training but also with limited privileges
I suppose Jim Thorpe considers that the en-route rating meets the latter objective. I don't agree, but such a rating could also allow national opt-outs like the Altiport rating. Much fuss was made in previous threads about the Altiport rating restricts a license, rather than adding to it. This apparently makes it OK whereas the IMCR is bad, as it adds to capabilities of a licence. So the European IMC rating could allow restricted (higher minima than an IR) approaches, but allow individual countries to impose further restrictions, such as "no approaches".
I can't see anything in the Terms of Reference of FCL.008 that would rule out what UK pilots want - except perhaps the composition of FCL.008.
Last edited by FREDAcheck; 10th Nov 2009 at 22:37.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dublin pilot - Engine failure in IMC enroute for someone with an EIR or an IR or an IMC rating present exactly the exact same issues. It is an emergency and thus the pilot can legally do whatever they think is necessary. However, should a PPL or an EIR or an IR or an IMC rated pilot be flying in VMC over an extensive fog bank and the single engine fails then they are all faced with having to complete a forced landing in IMC with insturments that are in the process of running down due to lack of suction and limited battery life for the turn coordinator and pitot heat etc
So do you think that a basic PPL flying VFR on top or an EIR holder who at the same place and the same level has the engine problem you describe - which will be better equipped to descend through cloud and track a VOR/NDB and/or follow ATC vectors?
So do you think that a basic PPL flying VFR on top or an EIR holder who at the same place and the same level has the engine problem you describe - which will be better equipped to descend through cloud and track a VOR/NDB and/or follow ATC vectors?
As for how an IR/IMC holder would deal with it vs a VFR on top/EIR pilot, well it's pretty simply.
An IR/IMC holder would divert to somewhere close by and perform an instrument arrival.
Neither a VFR on top pilot or EIR pilot would be trained to do such an arrival...hence why I don't see it as a good idea.
Speaking as someone who can legally fly VFR on top, I don't think very many people do, unless they have some instrument qualification. The dangers associated with being stuck on top, and your only way out being an instrument arrival that you are not trained for, are too serious.
I suppose an EIR course could include some instrument arrival training to cover this, but if it was enough to allow it to be done safely, then why not examine the student in it, and give them the privlidige?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you are asking for is for the Europeans to accept the British good old tried and tested IMCR. Trust me it will never happen go that route and we are dead meat.
I hold an IMCr by virtue of of my FAA IR - The CAA exempted me from the ground exams and also the flight test due to my IR. That would be very nice in the case of an EIR but being Europe I can't see this happening. But as such I'd be happy to do 1 theoretical knowledge exam which I can self study for (plus I already have a pretty good grounding in FAA IFR ops having been IR'd since 2002), and brush up / flight test. This seems a very sensible route.
FAA tolerances are easier in some respects (needle deflection on an ILS for example) and harder in other areas (partial panel for example) so it is not "easier" by any means.
The problem with Europe is the high training costs so to make it cheaper (and hence more achievable for the majority) then these have to drop. By reducing the hours required, and consequently cutting some of the course and privileges, this seems a sensible compromise.
I would probably have already converted to JAA via the "15 hr" route, had it not been for the £1000 exam course, the year of study with mandatory residential course, and the silly "170A" . Test fees alone probably amount to £1000, so one has spent at least £2000 and a 6months to a year of study for no extra privileges that I could already enjoy in an N reg.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA IR -> JAA IR conversion eliminates the need for ground school residence. I have the fairly obscure reference for that somewhere.
What it doesn't do is eliminate the need (for most people) for flight training residence - because one has to do it all via an FTO.
And not just any IR FTO is convenient. Where I am based, there is an FTO which does an IR but of the people I know who started with them, all moved on fast and started living out of hotels about 70nm away. This was because the JAA examiners expect you to be doing a specific route, and this route is what is trained, and if the airport you are at is not on that route, you are for ever flying to the airport that is, and it is a big waste of time and money.
What it doesn't do is eliminate the need (for most people) for flight training residence - because one has to do it all via an FTO.
And not just any IR FTO is convenient. Where I am based, there is an FTO which does an IR but of the people I know who started with them, all moved on fast and started living out of hotels about 70nm away. This was because the JAA examiners expect you to be doing a specific route, and this route is what is trained, and if the airport you are at is not on that route, you are for ever flying to the airport that is, and it is a big waste of time and money.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt someone will say this is not always the case....But one of my friends did the IR conversion from FAA. He had to live at Bournemouth for a month, didn't fly for the first week so spent the time hanging around, then they didn't fly at weekends, then they did one hour per day in the aeroplane / or sim. Grand total of a bit over 15 hours + test+170A, 28 days B&B, and £000's., not to mention loss of income as he was self employed. He already had the ATPL's and JAA CPL.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: london
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accelerated IMC Training
Apologies as I am a newbee to this netwrok.
Can anyone recommend a school offering a fasttrack IMC course over a week or less in the UK? Time constraints & other committments mean that completing this rating on the usual once a week at the weekend basis is going to take too long to complete. However, I can take a few days off on holiday, concentrate on the course and get it done.
Many thanks
Can anyone recommend a school offering a fasttrack IMC course over a week or less in the UK? Time constraints & other committments mean that completing this rating on the usual once a week at the weekend basis is going to take too long to complete. However, I can take a few days off on holiday, concentrate on the course and get it done.
Many thanks
