What about a modular IR?
Moderator
Thread Starter
What about a modular IR?
Here's a thought:
Let's propose splitting the IR up into segments. I'll suggest four segments:
(1) Ability to fly in IMC (required by all instrument pilots, say 5 hrs training beyond PPL/CPL)
(2) Basic ability to fly instrument approaches (say 10 hrs training + exam)
(3) Ability to fly airways en-route (say, another 10 hrs training + further exam)
(4) Advanced instrument flying and approaches (perhaps a further 15 hrs training, including multi + either further exam or holding ATPL passes?)
Then we need some names for these. Let's assume that (1) carries no privileges on it's own, but needs to be added onto something else. But then we could go for:
(1) + (2), we could call that the "IMC rating"
(1) + (3), we could call that the "en-route instrument rating"
(1)+(2)+(3) would give a PPL most of the privileges that they're likely to ever want. We could call that something like "PPL/IR"
(1)+(2)+(3)+(4), we could call that the "instrument rating" and require it for all air transport pilots, or anybody wanting to fly category approaches.
Presumably this could be proposed at an EASA level, adopted across Europe for flight in Europe, but only the full IR declared to ICAO and acceptable for commercial air transport.
And let's say we could have a currency check every, oooh, 24 months, regardless of the combination of modules, but with each module assessed separately within the same flight check?
Could this work, and stop everybody getting upset about the current (or proposed) state of affairs concerning instrument flying in Europe?
G
Let's propose splitting the IR up into segments. I'll suggest four segments:
(1) Ability to fly in IMC (required by all instrument pilots, say 5 hrs training beyond PPL/CPL)
(2) Basic ability to fly instrument approaches (say 10 hrs training + exam)
(3) Ability to fly airways en-route (say, another 10 hrs training + further exam)
(4) Advanced instrument flying and approaches (perhaps a further 15 hrs training, including multi + either further exam or holding ATPL passes?)
Then we need some names for these. Let's assume that (1) carries no privileges on it's own, but needs to be added onto something else. But then we could go for:
(1) + (2), we could call that the "IMC rating"
(1) + (3), we could call that the "en-route instrument rating"
(1)+(2)+(3) would give a PPL most of the privileges that they're likely to ever want. We could call that something like "PPL/IR"
(1)+(2)+(3)+(4), we could call that the "instrument rating" and require it for all air transport pilots, or anybody wanting to fly category approaches.
Presumably this could be proposed at an EASA level, adopted across Europe for flight in Europe, but only the full IR declared to ICAO and acceptable for commercial air transport.
And let's say we could have a currency check every, oooh, 24 months, regardless of the combination of modules, but with each module assessed separately within the same flight check?
Could this work, and stop everybody getting upset about the current (or proposed) state of affairs concerning instrument flying in Europe?
G
I do like the idea of a modular IR. I have two issues:
1) Given that FCL.008 appears to be set to propose an ICAO-standard IR with 25 hours of training (ICAO minimum is 10), why do you want to make it difficult for PPLs by adding a further 15 hours of training to get an IR and making the (1)+(2)+(3) version sub-ICAO?
2) Since any IFR flight in an airspace system other than the UK's is likely to require flight on airways, isn't (1)+(2) as much use as a chocolate teapot -- oh sorry, I think that simile might be taken. For a properly pan-European rating, wouldn't you do (1)+(3) first, since that's the easy bit, and get them a bit of experience in weather and the ATC system while they learn to fly approaches for another few hours?
1) Given that FCL.008 appears to be set to propose an ICAO-standard IR with 25 hours of training (ICAO minimum is 10), why do you want to make it difficult for PPLs by adding a further 15 hours of training to get an IR and making the (1)+(2)+(3) version sub-ICAO?
2) Since any IFR flight in an airspace system other than the UK's is likely to require flight on airways, isn't (1)+(2) as much use as a chocolate teapot -- oh sorry, I think that simile might be taken. For a properly pan-European rating, wouldn't you do (1)+(3) first, since that's the easy bit, and get them a bit of experience in weather and the ATC system while they learn to fly approaches for another few hours?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The concept of a modular IR was considered some time ago.
It is an excellent way to approach things (based on the Australian IR) and at the same time would provide a stage into which UK IMCR holders could be grandfathered.
For some reason the idea didn't go anywhere, but I have no idea why.
It is an excellent way to approach things (based on the Australian IR) and at the same time would provide a stage into which UK IMCR holders could be grandfathered.
For some reason the idea didn't go anywhere, but I have no idea why.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Hi Bookworm'
Good comments but I think fairly easy to address.
For the first; I'd always argue that test standards are far more important than hours anyhow. So, let's change the hours to 5 / 5 / 5 / 10.
For the second, surely the benefit of such a system is that a pilot can choose for themselves from (1)+(2), (1)+(3) or (1)+(2)+(3) without anybody else dictating what they should want.
G
Good comments but I think fairly easy to address.
For the first; I'd always argue that test standards are far more important than hours anyhow. So, let's change the hours to 5 / 5 / 5 / 10.
For the second, surely the benefit of such a system is that a pilot can choose for themselves from (1)+(2), (1)+(3) or (1)+(2)+(3) without anybody else dictating what they should want.
G
For the first; I'd always argue that test standards are far more important than hours anyhow.
So, let's change the hours to 5 / 5 / 5 / 10.
For the second, surely the benefit of such a system is that a pilot can choose for themselves from (1)+(2), (1)+(3) or (1)+(2)+(3) without anybody else dictating what they should want.
Moderator
Thread Starter
At the moment the theory part of the IR is in the ATPL but it can also be studied separately. The flight test is separate from the CPL test but you need to have passed both to get the ATPL. That seems to me something that could safely be left alone.
G
G
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best kept secret in UK IFR appears to be that flying in controlled airspace is much easier (and therefore safer) than messing around outside it.
It is little to do with being in a "controlled" environment.
And whats wrong with the way I did my IR; you do enough training to pass the test. Then you could call it something like Competencey based training.
Didn't we throw that out of the window when JAR-FCL came in? The 40 hour approved course became 55 hours and guess what, less people passed first time? Reduce it to 25 hours and the pass rate should go up - less time to get bored!
Didn't we throw that out of the window when JAR-FCL came in? The 40 hour approved course became 55 hours and guess what, less people passed first time? Reduce it to 25 hours and the pass rate should go up - less time to get bored!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modular ? How about just studying for the FAA-IR test, train with a good instructor and become a proficiant IMC pilot ?
What's wrong with that ?
What's wrong with that ?
Moderator
Thread Starter
G
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden, Canada, Japan
Age: 57
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why not make #1 part of the PPL syllabus? Then there's no need to separate #2 and #3, just call it an IR. I think #4 is actually included in #2/#3 anyway. What's more complex than joining and flyng an instrument aproach? I have no interest in ME flight, or having an ATPL. Just leave that to the guys who are building careers.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a good idea to me.
I can choose the privileges that I want. I train for them, and if I can prove to an examiner in a test that I can meet the standard, then I get to exercise those privileges.
What I don't have to do, is train for additional privileges that I don't need, or at least can defer training for them, until I want them.
Sounds just about perfect.
I can choose the privileges that I want. I train for them, and if I can prove to an examiner in a test that I can meet the standard, then I get to exercise those privileges.
What I don't have to do, is train for additional privileges that I don't need, or at least can defer training for them, until I want them.
Sounds just about perfect.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys are nuts.
Even getting the IR ticket means nothing. It's the work you do afterwards to get the experience to fly in real IMC.
Even getting the IR ticket means nothing. It's the work you do afterwards to get the experience to fly in real IMC.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even getting the IR ticket means nothing. It's the work you do afterwards to get the experience to fly in real IMC.
Totally agree with you I have not been involved in this thread but will add this to your comments!
Any licence whether its a basic PPL or an IMCR or an IR or even a type rating is a licence to start to learn.
The experience you gain afterwards is what makes you a competant pilot.
But you have to start somewhere and that somewhere is to have a certain training standard and to be able to meet those standards in your flying.
What is required to meet that basic standard is the question? Take an FAA IR and a European IR. One is much harder to achieve and takes far longer in ground studies.
You would think the European IR would produce much better and safer IR pilots than the FAA variety yet statistically this is NOT the case.
That beggars the question is one "overkill" ? as any training is expensive not only financially but in time it is quite in order to question whether the rating can be done to produce the same standard pilot at a lower cost and quicker speed.
Pace
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again like I said, as a private plane owner flying for yourself you have no reason not to put your plane on N-registration so you can get the FAA-IR. Problem solved.
But a Modular IR ? Completely insane, apparently these guys have no clue what it is to fly in the system, single pilot and under heavy IMC. You have to be current and that means full commitment from your side, there's no modular partial way possible. Period.
But a Modular IR ? Completely insane, apparently these guys have no clue what it is to fly in the system, single pilot and under heavy IMC. You have to be current and that means full commitment from your side, there's no modular partial way possible. Period.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sternone
Modular to me would not involve flying standards but more to exams tailored to PPLs and Lower non RVSM airspace.
The IR flight test is the determining factor as to whether you can handle all the aspects of IR flight while flying to the required tolerances. Whether you could do more training away from approved IR training schools and have the option to fly a pre test test which signs you off as competant to fly a full IR test is another option?
EASA would never accept an FAA style IR but I am sure they could look at relaxing the route to getting a PPL IR without dropping standards or encrouching on their commercial licences. Calling it modular might give them a way out in creating something acceptable.
I agree with you that you cannot have a half trained pilot flying to lessor tolerances in the airways but what I do question is whether a fully trained pilot flying to the same tolerances cannot be achieved with less cost and in less time. That is what they should examine. The answer BTW is YES!
Pace
Modular to me would not involve flying standards but more to exams tailored to PPLs and Lower non RVSM airspace.
The IR flight test is the determining factor as to whether you can handle all the aspects of IR flight while flying to the required tolerances. Whether you could do more training away from approved IR training schools and have the option to fly a pre test test which signs you off as competant to fly a full IR test is another option?
EASA would never accept an FAA style IR but I am sure they could look at relaxing the route to getting a PPL IR without dropping standards or encrouching on their commercial licences. Calling it modular might give them a way out in creating something acceptable.
I agree with you that you cannot have a half trained pilot flying to lessor tolerances in the airways but what I do question is whether a fully trained pilot flying to the same tolerances cannot be achieved with less cost and in less time. That is what they should examine. The answer BTW is YES!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 2nd Dec 2009 at 08:08.