Latest EASA PPL IR looking good especially for FAA IR holders

[BEagle]

Quote:
They have moved the colour safe to the CPL requirements.

Mad Jock

Are we talking about knickers here?

Or, dare I say it, headsets?

Regarding attempts to use the CbM IR to short circuit the CPL/IR route, note that the additional 'HPA' course will not include credit towards a future IR(A):

A pass in any theoretical knowledge subjects as part of the HPA course will not be credited against meeting future theoretical examination requirements for issue of a CPL(A), IR(A) or ATPL(A).

It's not immediately clear how someone will obtain credit towards a 'normal' CPL/IR or an MPL if they hold a CbM IR.....

[Genghis the Engineer]

For a PPL or CPL who holds either an IMC or a foreign IR however, it looks pretty good.

For a UK/JAR/EASA IMC holder with 30+ hrs PiC/IFR it looks like 5 hours in an FNTP1 and another 5 airborne training, nominal 2 weeks self study, one day in the classroom, written(s) and a skill test.

Assuming, of-course, you can get to test pass standard in those hours, which is always an issue for anybody.

[mad_jock]

This is it Beagle.

As ATPL theory exams trump all others I presume if you hold them that will take care of the theory side of things for all flavours of IR.

The only way I could see it working is if you couldn't hold it on a CPL and it wouldn't count as a pre course requirement for any type rating. The cross over experience was 500 hours IFR or 250 hours IFR on a multi engine or something of that order and held the full set of ATPL theory if you wanted it to go onto a EASA CPL

I don't think the schools will care if there is a definite block on a work round skipping the 55/45 hour IR course.

[AN2 Driver]

Thanks Pace, good to see that this will finally go forward.

Means that I'll probably get my IR back any time within a few months of this becoming law. (Mine lapsed due to a > 7 year hiatus and I'd have to retake the whole current theoretical exam, decided to wait, good by the looks of it).

For those who have a problem with the EIR, I think it needs to be seen in a broader context than most seem to do here. Personally, while I will go for the full one, I find it an extremely useful thing to propose.

Looking at the airspace mess many countries have, not least huge Class A airspaces in the stupidest places, an EIR will allow the holder to fly airways quietly and relaxed rather than dodiging all that red and other marks on a 1:500k map at low altitude. It will do away with the need to do scud running in the Milano and Rome TMA (and other equally useless airspace monstrosities) but allow you to fly at normal flight levels consistend with safety and options in case of emergency.

Flying with an EIR does not mean you HAVE to fly solid IMC all the time, but it gives you the distinct advantage to fly an airways enroute part of your flight, in VMC or within the limits of your airplane in IMC too.

Most of the airplanes available to the average PPL who might want to go that path do not allow "hard" IFR anyhow, in as sofar that they are not FIKI equipped, are single engine. Many of our airports do not have IFR Approaches either. So for many of those people, having the option to fly the enroute part with a pick up and release after departure and before landing, becomes a very viable thing to do.

One question I will want to have addressed is what of the airplane itself. Will it need to be fully IFR equipped for it to be able to fly EIR legs or will the equipment necessary do. As EIR Pilots do not have the authority to fly approaches, it consequently would not need to have (certified) approach aids on board but rather needs enroute navigational equippment up for the task. Probably the answer will be yes, fully IFR certified. But seeing as the facilitating of getting an IR was a distant dream not 2 years ago, one never might stop to wonder.

[mm_flynn]

AN2,

Given the EIR holder is going to fly in the airway system, he needs BRNAV. Which either means e is hard core and has an FM immune KNS80 or he will have something like a G430 which gives pretty much all the approach aids you would want. You then just have left the question of needing a DME and/or ADF for enroute (which I think is going away or has gone away ).

[AN2 Driver]

Yes, that is what would make sense. BRNAV in most probably the form of one GNS430, Mode S XPDR is technically all you need for the purpose, plus the DME/ADF Combo we are so fond of in Europe...

The question however will be what the regulators will prescribe. European rules say, the aircraft has to be IFR equipped AND approved by the authorities before it can fly the normal IFR. Question is, will there be exemptions to that for flights by EIR rated pilots? I guess not, IFR is IFR and that is quite a lot more in Europe.

As it stands any airplane flying IFR needs at least:
- BRNAV device
- 2x COM FM immune (pretty soon with 8.33 enabled )
- 2x NAV of which one with GS
- DME
- ADF
- HSI or other slaved gyro
- 2 axis AP system for single pilot ops.
and the aircraft needs to have "IFR CAT I" written into it's docs.

[Pace]

As ATPL theory exams trump all others I presume if you hold them that will take care of the theory side of things for all flavours of IR.

MJ

Stop being such a miserable old sod We all know the ATPL theory exams are mostly a load of irrelevant junk!!!
Oh well they move onto commercial licences in October and when I get my exchange EASA ATP through the post as a direct swap via parcel force you really will be doing this



Pace

[mad_jock]

Dream on mate until there is a direct swap with no exams to be passed the theory will still be required unless the FAA budge on that which they have no real reason to do so.

I don't actually know that because I have actually used a fair bit of mine. And every year or new area of operation I use a bit more of them.

[Pace]

MJ

Only an affectionate tease If they do not give me a sensible conversion You will find me under the arches with a begging hat and and a card stating ex FAA ATP unable to work because of a load of Burocratic and protectionist NONSENSE" Please give 50 p so the poor old sod and ex Biz Jet Captain can get a cup of tea

Pace

[421C]

It's not immediately clear how someone will obtain credit towards a 'normal'
CPL/IR or an MPL if they hold a CbM IR.....

It's not clear because there is nothing to clarify IMHO. An IR(A) is an IR(A) whether it's obtained through a Modular route, and Integrated route or a Competence-based Modular route. It should be crystal clear that the "CB IR" is a new training route to the IR(A) not a new qualification. Please let's not let this myth slip into the psyche that there is a new IR. It's a competence-based training method for the existing IR.

You can have all the privileges of a CPL/IR having trained through the CB route. The only subtle distinction is that to get an IR(H) you need the HPA exam because the new TK for the CB IR omits certain learning objectives considered relevant.

For multi-pilot aircraft or an ATPL you obviously need the ATPL TK.

The only way I could see it working is if you couldn't hold it on a CPL and
it wouldn't count as a pre course requirement for any type rating. The cross
over experience was 500 hours IFR or 250 hours IFR on a multi engine or
something of that order and held the full set of ATPL theory if you wanted it to
go onto a EASA CPL

I don't think the schools will care if there is a
definite block on a work round skipping the 55/45 hour IR course.

Fortunately, EASA FCL is not primarily about assuring ATOs of artificially long courses. Competence-based training is the principle that the training fits the candidate's needs, not one size fits all. You absolutely can hold a CPL/IR with the IR trained by the CB method.

Having said that, the difference between the CB IR and traditional Modular IR is 15hrs FNPT2 time, so £2-3k in principle. However, I would imagine most ab-initio candidates seeking a "frozen" ATPL would be better off with the structured approach and full-time training model of a Modular IR. The benefit of the Competence-based is mainly for people who either want to accumulate experience in steps over time, train ad hoc on their own aircraft or who simply can't take 6 weeks off for a Modular course (try asking an ATO if they can fit an IR into you work schedule, mainly training on weekends and on your own aircraft and you will get blank stares from most). Having said that, it's quite likely that one could end up spending more on the CB route in many scenarios (certainly on a fully allocated cost basis if flying one's own aircraft).

It's also analogous to the present Modular vs Integrated. Why doesn't Modular kill-off Integrated, given how much more expensive Integrated is? There are candidates who perceive that Integrated suits their needs better as a training structure and that it will serve their career prospects better. The same view may drive ab-initio pro pilot candidates away from the CB IR. On the other hand, if the airline industry and the trainee pilot community find the CB route is successful, then that's a good thing surely?

The CB IR makes little difference to the attractions of the FAA route for an ab-initio candidate IMHO. The old conversion needed only 10hrs of FNPT2 and 5hrs aircraft training, the difference in the new conversion is that it needs 50hrs PIC time under IFR but conceptually no minimum training. But everyone is going to need some training before an IR Skills Test.

brgds
421C

[BEagle]

The only subtle distinction is that to get an IR(H) you need the HPA exam because the new TK for the CB IR omits certain learning objectives considered relevant.

No. The CbM IR is not available to helicopter pilots.

In order to extend the privileges of the CbM IR to include other types or classes of aeroplanes under IFR, the CbM IR holder will be required to pass the HPA examination.

This is not the case with the current IR(A), but is a result of the 40% reduction in theoretical knowledge requirements for the CbM IR.

Whether commercial schools will embrace the CbM IR for its prospective airline pilots, particularly if any IR training is outsourced to freelance IRIs, remains to be seen.

[mad_jock]

50p! I will go to a haggis supper covered in curry sauce for you mate.

[peterh337]

While I agree with 421C on the technicalities, I fully expect the FTO business to sabotage the CBM IR in every way they can, because about 30hrs of the required instrument time (yeah I know they call it "IFR time" but a plain PPL could log time flown IAW IFR) can be done with freelance instructors, and any ATPL cadet who is clued up (most aren't but some will be) is going to spot the cost saving opportunity.

People don't change.

[BackPacker]

a plain PPL could log time flown IAW IFR

Not anymore under EASA-SERA (or -NCO, or -OPS, or -FCL), as I understand. You can only file and fly IFR if you are properly rated, in an IFR certified aircraft and so forth.

[Pace]

Peter

I thought that due to the high costs over here most of the large remaining training organisations sub contract out to USA organisations who do both FAA and JAA anyway ?

Pace

[Fostex]

You cannot do a JAA/EASA IR in the USA, only in a JAR/EASA state. You can however do a JAR/EASE PPL/CPL out in the USA. Most schools who sub-contract out the training to the US do the PPL/CPL over there along with perhaps an FAA IR and then do the JAR/EASA IR back in Euro-land.

[Pace]

ou cannot do a JAA/EASA IR in the USA, only in a JAR/EASA state. You can however do a JAR/EASE PPL/CPL out in the USA. Most schools who sub-contract out the training to the US do the PPL/CPL over there along with perhaps an FAA IR and then do the JAR/EASA IR back in Euro-land.

Fostex

So with the new IR situation they could do the lot there adding the EASA CPL but with an FAA IR and purely convert the IR with a flight test and oral on return?

Pace

[BEagle]

So with the new IR situation they could do the lot there adding the EASA CPL but with an FAA IR and purely convert the IR with a flight test and oral on return?

Only after having first achieved 50 hrs IFR time as PIC on aeroplanes. And that means real PIC time, not American time!

[peterh337]

And that means real PIC time, not American time!

No prejudice here, clearly.

Not anymore under EASA-SERA

Yes but it could be past logging.

[BackPacker]

Yes but it could be past logging.

Mmm. I wonder if that's going to fly (pun intended). EASA have clearly defined what the criteria for conversion are, what IFR really means and what the requirements for IFR are.

If you have logged "I've got a PPL but no IR, am outside CAS, in VMC but fly according to the quadrantal rule for IFR, am above the MSA, and am looking at my instruments" IFR time, my gut feeling tells me that that is not acceptable both to the letter and the intent of the legislation.

What's more interesting, is whether IFR flight as an IMCR holder will count.