New EASA IR(A) and the solo NQ requirement

[Grumman77]

I'm a 160+ hr color vision deficient PPL holder and aircraft owner. Most of my 160+ hrs have been cross country touring and business trips. Over the three years of having my PPL I've found that the number of cancellations due to weather has become a great nuisance and source of frustration. For this reason I've decided to somehow obtain IFR priviliges.

Up until recently I've regarded the JAA (and EASA) path unaccessible, not because the investment in time or money, but solely because of the NQ requirement to obtain the JAA IR. I thoroughly researched the FAA and N-reg route and was very close to going overseas this spring, but for various reasons I had to postpone my plans. Off topic I found som really golden stuff regarding FAA training and N-reg on this website: Aviation

In light of the proposed changes in the new EASA FCL I've reevaluated the EASA route. For two reasons; the EIR and information circulating that the NQ could be completed solely dual. This brings me to my two questions:

1. From those of you who have significant actual cross country IFR experience; how much of an improvement would the EIR be over VFR-flying on top, ie. how often would the 1000 ft MSA restriction cause me problems?
2. There are references on this forum to people having obtained both CPLs and IRs with day only restrictions by flying the NQ portion of the training solely dual; is this correct and if so how did they do it under JAR-FCL (and will do it under EASA-FCL in the future)?

Oh, and I've exhausted the available color vision test methods, and yes, I do have a color vision deficiency, so there is no need to point me to this or that fancy new test or hungarian eye doctor that will lift the restriction on my medical. Also, I have no ambitions whatsoever of becoming a professional pilot, I just wan't to be able to use my aircraft more regularly to get from A to B.


Thanks in advance!



/Anders

[Shunter]

The NQ is a CPL requirement, not IR. There is nothing stopping someone with a colour restriction doing an IR, simply that it can't be exercised at night.

I did the dual thing for my CPL night; I logged P1 and the instructor was a safety pilot. There are loads of instructors (and examiners) in GA with a colour restriction... They all got their CPL like this.

I eventually managed to pass a Spectrolux test and get a clean medical, but during my research at the time I found there were only 2 things you cannot ever do:

1. Carry fare paying passengers on a public transport flight.
2. Exercise your NQ.

All licenses (except ATPL due constraints above) and ratings can be attained with a colour restriction.

[BackPacker]

The NQ is a CPL requirement, not IR.

[...]

I did the dual thing for my CPL night; I logged P1 and the instructor was a safety pilot.

I doubt whether this is correct. JAR-FCL NQ requires, among other things, five full stop landings and take-offs at night. And these need to be done SOLO. Having anybody on board, even an instructor acting as a safety pilot, doesn't count.

And a NQ is an entry requirement for the IR. From LASORS:

E1.2 IR(A) FLYING TRAINING/
EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS
An applicant for a modular IR(A) course shall be the
holder of a PPL(A) or a CPL(A), either licence to include
the privileges to fly by night, issued in accordance with
ICAO Annex 1. In addition, applicants must hold a Flight
Radiotelephony Operator’s Licence

I have a UK-issued JAR-FCL license but fly from the Netherlands. In the Netherlands night flying under VFR is not allowed so you have to fly under IFR. Which you can't do until you have an IR, which in turn (at least for Night-IFR) requires an NQ. (I don't know whether an IR, restricted to day only, is even possible.)

The solution that the Dutch authorities adopted was that you could do the night take-offs and landings for the NQ as P1/S and with an instructor on board, as part of an IR training program. This would then formally be under IFR (with an IFR flight plan filed etc) on the instructors ticket.

I duly did so, then sent the paperwork to the UK CAA. They wouldn't have any of this and simply quoted JAR-FCL 1.something, where it said you have to fly solo. So that effort was wasted.

[pmh1234]

I have contacted CAA regarding the NQ dual possibility.
The answer was a firm NO.
I have tried two times contacting them regarding this with a few years in between, but it seems the dual Night solo is not accepted .

The only way out is the EIR.
I have commented the EU document and written that they should stop discriminating us from being able to gain an IR, but i do not think that will move anything.

[peterh337]

Danish CAA, or UK CAA?

[Grumman77]

As far as Sweden is concerned, prior to JAR-FCL, it was possible (in rare cases) to get an IR restricted to day only, but after JAR-FCL and the NQ requirement the Swedish CAA say they have their hands tied behind the back. An exception is no longer possible according to them.

Maybe I should rephrase my 2nd question to read; if someone has been able to do the solo part dual for the NQ since JAR-FCL was fully implemented in their country?

peterh337:
You being a seasoned IFR-pilot, how large a percentage of your IFR-flights would have been cancelled entirely and how many would have seen you diverting to your alternate, given the restricted nature of the EIR?

[achimha]

Where does it say the 5 night time full stop landings have to be done solo? I can't remember anything like that I am pretty sure I was never solo when I did my JAR NFQ and IR.

[Whopity]

JAR-FCL 1.125

(c) Night qualification. If the privileges of
the licence are to be exercised at night, at least
five additional hours flight time in aeroplanes
shall be completed at night comprising 3 hours
of dual instruction including at least 1 hour of
cross-country navigation and five solo take-offs
and five solo full-stop landings. This qualification
will be endorsed on the licence.

Once upon a time the UK CAA would issue IRs with a No Night Limitation but alas Europe has stopped that.

[peterh337]

You being a seasoned IFR-pilot, how large a percentage of your IFR-flights would have been cancelled entirely and how many would have seen you diverting to your alternate, given the restricted nature of the EIR?

Simple question, very long answer, potentially.

I normally cancel a flight if there is any real prospect of diverting, because on the flights I do there is generally no point in ending up at the alternate (and some don't even have avgas).

My despatch rate on the holiday type flights is about 75% to get away from the UK, increasing to about 95% when we allow a 3-day slot i.e. I have 2 more days to play with.

The EIR would reduce the 75% to perhaps 50%, not because the wx at the destination is bad enough but because I would simply not go in the first place if an instrument approach at the destination was a no-no. But very much depends on where one is going. If going to a coastal destination, with the right kind of airspace around it, one has a lot more options if one is "clever" about it. But I am not really sure. I wouldn't bother with it; I would go for the full IR which will be only a bit more effort. Cancelling IFR at a high altitude, in some places, is a recipe for hassle at best and for killing oneself (or just creating hassle for ATC because one gets pushed into a DIY letdown) at worst.

A very common situation is FEW or SCT with a base of say 3000ft, but the IFR-cancel option which will be mandatory with the EIR tends to not be available that low down. So, I think the EIR will primarily benefit pilots who are "clever" and who know how to work the system - basically what I used to do before I got the FAA IR in 2006.

It is a fact that most IFR flights are done mostly or wholly in VMC but there is a completely separate question whether one would embark on them in the first place if the fully-IFR option was not available, because the FEW or CAVOK conditions needed for an assured legal-VFR descent from the high altitude enroute segment can be totally relied on on only a small % of flights.

[Shunter]

Whilst I don't question the red tape quoted above it's simply not reflected in reality; at least not with any consistency. In the old days medicals were stamped "Day/VFR Only" if you had a colour deficiency. The VFR restriction then disappeared.

I'm well aware that the CAA can give a different answer depending on which way the wind is blowing, but the simple fact is that it can (or at least could, until very recently) be done. I got all the qualifications before I got the restriction removed from my medical and had multiple dialogues with the CAA head of medical over it. Once you've got the NQ the rest is history. The fact that you can't exercise it is irrelevant in the context of getting your licensed endorsed with an IR.

[peterh337]

The UK CAA will give different answers to written questions, phoned questions, and questions made in person.

On top of that, there are many very good people in there but the chance of an email reaching one of them is quite small - unless you get a contact name from somebody.

It is also the case that various concessions have always existed in aviation, and that most regulators will do their best to keep an existing experienced pilot flying (while readily denying entry to a newcomer) but these concessions are not advertised and you are not going to get them in writing.

[Grumman77]

Could someone point me to where flying solo is formally defined in JAR-FCL, as well as the exact wording?

peterh337:
Thanks for your reply! Unfortunately it seems the EIR is my only option right now (apart from maybe possibly the FAA conversion route, which is uncertain at best). I'd love to go for the full IR but unless someone has a clever workaround for the NQ solo part, that option appears, at least for the moment, unaccessible. Hence the interest for the usability of the EIR.

A very common situation is FEW or SCT with a base of say 3000ft, but the IFR-cancel option which will be mandatory with the EIR tends to not be available that low down. So, I think the EIR will primarily benefit pilots who are "clever"

Could you perhaps clarify on that, it was my understanding that you could fly IFR (albeit not a formal approach) down to 1000 ft AGL and then transition to VFR for the landing phase?

[peterh337]

The EASA proposal on the EIR states that SIDs and STARs will not be permitted on the EIR, which means the pilot will have to cancel IFR at the end of his enroute segment.

Now.... he will obviously be aware of that so he will file a route whose terminating waypoint is not the first waypoint of a STAR (which is what you do in "classical" IFR) but will be somewhere "handy" for a DIY descent to the airport.

So that should deal with the lateral issue but it does not deal with the vertical issue if ATC forces you to cancel IFR before descending through altitude XXXX.

My experience is that one cannot remain on an IFR clearance below a certain level/altitude. I don't know what sets that level; it could be radar visibility. On a recent flight down the Adriatic I had to cancel IFR c. 3000ft to go any lower. I have little experience of this however because if you have an IR the absolutely very last thing you want to do is cancel IFR because ATC will generally wash their hands of you ("remain outside controlled airspace") when you do that, so you can fly into a trap whereby you need to sit and beg for a new IFR clearance to climb back up again, and that's a dangerous situation to be in

Maybe some European ATCOs can input here re the lowest levels available for IFR. Is it the MVA, perhaps?

[FlyingStone]

JAR-FCL 1.001 Definitions and Abbreviations
....
Solo flight time:
Flight time during which a student pilot is the
sole occupant of an aircraft.

Originally Posted by peterh337

I have little experience of this however because if you have an IR the absolutely very last thing you want to do is cancel IFR because ATC will generally wash their hands of you ("remain outside controlled airspace") when you do that, so you can fly into a trap whereby you need to sit and beg for a new IFR clearance to climb back up again, and that's a dangerous situation to be in.

Exactly, it's pointless to not have an IFR clearance if you have IR. I think most accidents with EIR - if it will remain in this form - will be in the VFR part, which will probably be some sort of DIY letdown in "VMC". The real benefit of IR is that you can depart and land in ****ty weather (well, depends on many things), and enjoy the sunshine VMC on top. EIR is going completely another way - you can be IFR en-route, where you have to be VMC in almost all cases and VFR in departure/arrival/approach phase, where the weather is usually the worst. You do get very simplified routing though...

In my experience, radar approach control won't let you fly as IFR below MEA/MSA/MRVA unless you are on SID/STAR/approach or established on a published procedure or holding.

Originally Posted by peterh337

So that should deal with the lateral issue but it does not deal with the vertical issue if ATC forces you to cancel IFR before descending through altitude XXXX.

Agreed, and there are tons of sea-level airports with very high MEA/MSA due to some obstacle 20-25 NM out and even if the weather states CAVOK (no clouds below 5000ft or MSA, whichever is higher), you won't be able to get in with EIR if you have a 500ft thick overcast layer at MSA, since you can't fly STAR/approach - even if everybody below is enjoying quite good VFR conditions.

[Grumman77]

Ok, I think I understand. But. In Sweden at least, ATC operating hours at towered airports is more and more concentrated to departing and arriving scheduled traffic with the tower being closed in between. Being based myself at a non towered airport I would believe that a large portion of my flying would be from one uncontrolled airport to another and the rest being flights either originating or terminating at an uncontrolled airport. How much would this affect the usability difference between the EIR and the full IR?

[peterh337]

You do get very simplified routing though...

That is however a huge plus of the EIR, which is why I say it will be good for "clever" VFR pilots who are presently

- trapped below CAS all the way, or

- have to preplan multiple routes, some OCAS, some CAS, and never quite know (especially in Italy ) which one they are going to be able to fly till the last minute, or

- unable to climb above clouds and icing conditions enroute, due to CAS

That said, I struggle to see how the EIR is going to work in practice unless there is some very directed training on how to play it. DIY letdowns are likely to be a popular feature, and there is nothing wrong with that if your nav is 100% (which let's face it it needs to be anyway) and you descend only to the SSA, or local MSA however derived (GPS moving topo map, etc).

FWIW I did comment on the EASA comment form that I think the ban on SIDs and STARs is very bad. Also there is no straightforward way to verify (during planning) what the weather conditions will be at the waypoint where you will be cancelling IFR (which, given the ban on STARs, could be many miles away from the airport unless you do some DCT hacks to get yourself nearer, but that will work only in airspaces where the MAX DCT is nonzero ).

a large portion of my flying would be from one uncontrolled airport to another and the rest being flights either originating or terminating at an uncontrolled airport. How much would this affect the usability difference between the EIR and the full IR?

Presumably there is no IAP at an uncontrolled airport? (There can be in the USA, because they have centrally funded IFR controllers, etc). If so then the EIR will be perfect for you

[BillieBob]

In the old days medicals were stamped "Day/VFR Only" if you had a colour deficiency.

The 'old days' presumably being those before we were hidebound by mindless European bureaucracy.

[riverrock83]

If the proposed EIR doesn't let you remain IFR to land, does this mean that it can't be used at night? (unless you reply on the current UK exemption of being able to fly IFR VMC with an NQ?

[Immortal]

I did my NQ in The Netherlands, 3 months ago. And as BackPacker replied, here in the low lands we are unable to fly NVFR (seems to be dangerous of some kind when you fly over a flat country), so we do our NQ on a IFR flight plan. The solo is done with an instructor next to you who will not touch the controls while you complete your 5 t/g's. This time is counted as PIC time.

So I would ask if the swedish authority will approve a NQ from a Dutch FTO. If the answer is yes, you will have your entry for your IR training.

I have a friend who did his IR in spain. He forgot to check the requirements about night flying and completed the training there including the skilltest. When he returned and someone looked in his logbook, he asked why he didn't have to do night flying before starting the IR.

Long story short, he did his NQ AFTER the IR and still got his license. So I see plenty of options here.

[peterh337]

I'd recommend anybody wishing to explore these very interesting options does so ASAP, before April 2012, and certainly before the summer.

No inside knowledge; just a feeling I have.