Latest EASA PPL IR looking good especially for FAA IR holders

[AdamFrisch]

Hang on - wasn't EASA supposed to ruin aviation with their Stalinistic bureaucracy?......

[englishal]

but with an FAA IR and purely convert the IR with a flight test and oral on return?

Could that not be done in the USA too? I know certain situations where a US based school cannot examine for an INITIAL IR abroad, or for that matter a PPL, so what some schools do if have a UK examiner resident, then you do the FAA PPL, and as you are now CONVERTING an existing PPL to a (then) JAA one, you could do the conversion in the USA. I wonder if this might become possible for the IR under EASA?!

IFR time is a stupid concept which no one logs. IFR can be anything really, bimbling along in class G "In accordance with IFR" or on an "IFR flight plan with ATC directed routing". However one thing which is undeniable is "Actual instrument time" or "Simulated Instrument Time" and which everyone logs. I have done many IFR trips in Gin Clear weather purely because it is a lot easier to negotiate airspace (i.e. you don't have to). I have no idea how many hours "IFR flight" I have done at all!

Speaking of sabotage in the UK....When I did my JAA PPL in the USA in 2000, I came back to the UK and did a check out at a large flying club. On the taxi out, chatting with the old boy FI, he asked where I learned to fly. When I said the USA his snooty response was "oh we don't like those here". I thought Fjsdfwk you mate, and actually at the end of the check out he did admit that "I flew very well".

Luckily the second FI I flew with learned to fly in South Africa, so he didn't have an attitude.

[BackPacker]

IFR time is a stupid concept which no one logs. IFR can be anything really, bimbling along in class G "In accordance with IFR" or on an "IFR flight plan with ATC directed routing".

That was only true in the UK. EASA have now clearly defined what "IFR" and "IFR flight time" really is, what the requirements are and how it should be logged. In fact, the explanatory note that accompanies the NPA goes into this issue specifically.

http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measure...ory%20Note.pdf Para 2.4.2.9.

Here's the draft regulation which details the conversion rules (A.2.IR(A))

8. Applicants for the competency-based modular IR(A) holding a Part-FCL PPL or
CPL and a valid IR(A) issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the
Chicago Convention by a third country may be credited in full towards the training
course mentioned in 4 above. In order to be issued the IR(A), the applicant shall:
(a) successfully complete the skill test for the IR(A) in accordance with Appendix
7;
(b) demonstrate to the examiner during the skill test that he/she has acquired an
adequate level of theoretical knowledge of air law, meteorology and flight
planning and performance (IR); and
(c) have a minimum experience of at least 50 hours of flight time under IFR as
PIC on aeroplanes.

So what you need is 50 hours "flight time under IFR".

EASA-FCL.010:

‘Flight time under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)’ means all flight time during which the aircraft is being operated under the Instrument Flight Rules.

EASA-FCL.600 as it will be amended by this new regulation:

FCL.600 IR — General
Except as provided in FCL.825, Operations under IFR on an aeroplane, helicopter, airship or powered-lift aircraft shall only be conducted by holders of a PPL, CPL, MPL and ATPL with an IR appropriate to the category of aircraft or when undergoing skill testing or dual instruction.

(FCL.825 basically says the same thing, but applies to EIR holders.)

So regardless of how many hours you have logged as "IFR" in your logbook in the past, for the purpose of the conversion you can only count those hours where you were the PIC of an airplane that was operated under IFR rules, and you held an IR.

That doesn't make those "UK-style IFR in VMC outside CAS" logging entries retroactively wrong or illegal, but just means you cannot use them as credit towards the license conversion.

At least, that's the way I see things. It looks pretty watertight to me.

[englishal]

That doesn't make those "UK-style IFR in VMC outside CAS" logging entries retroactively wrong or illegal, but just means you cannot use them as credit towards the license conversion.

I don't see that. For example, I did my FAA IR when I had 125 (+40) hrs. Since that time I have flown numerous flights IFR on an IFR flight plan, but also I have bimbled around in UK Class G IAW IFR....Therefore surely that Bimbling can count towards the hrs rqd for a conversion if I so wished?

[BackPacker]

If you had a valid IR while bimbling, then I don't see why not.

My comment is directed at non-IR holders who could fly IFR in the UK, as long as they maintained VMC, remained OCAS and complied with a few other rules. In fact, that kind of IFR was the only way you could fly at night if you did not have an IR or IMC.

As EASA-FCL now clearly states that you can only operate under IFR if you have an IR or EIR, I can't imagine they intend to let those UK-style non-IR IFR hours count towards license (*) conversion.

(*) Spelled as "license" since you are converting a US license to an EASA licence.

[Ellemeet]

flight time under ifr only starts counting after you ave got your ir.

[peterh337]

flight time under ifr only starts counting after you ave got your ir.

That's obviously not the case for UK IMCR holders, but I think there is little point in guessing, since the whole thing has not even been through comitology and could be modified heavily, or even chopped completely.

And, ultimately, the acceptance of previous training will be at the hands of the FTO, who will have zero commercial incentive to accept any of it. So any ambiguity will be resolved in their favour

[421C]

And, ultimately, the acceptance of previous training will be at the hands of the FTO, who will have zero commercial incentive to accept any of it. So any ambiguity will be resolved in their favour

There is a precedent - the conversion of ICAO IRs to JAA ones, where in the UK the previous training was credited for all but 10hrs FNPT2 and 5hrs aircraft training. Very analogous to the new model where all but 10hrs can in principle be done outside an ATO.

In my experience of speaking to a good number of people (and in my personal experience) doing the FAA to JAA conversion, I never met a single one who felt the ATO had required them to do any more than the minimum hours needed to be ready for the test.

I know of one exception () who feels the ATOs are a bit of a scam, using all sorts of tricks, like the 170A, to get people to spend more money on training they don't need. But that is an unusual exception and otherwise I think people will be able to depend on ATOs judging competence fairly.

[Fuji Abound]

I have never met a single one

I know of one exception

Is that nearly unique.

[pmh1234]

An EASA full IR doesn't require a colour safe pass.

They have moved the colour safe to the CPL requirements.

Since when?
I know this is in the new proposal, but it is new to me that it is already like that.
I'm restricted day only being color unsafe and I have asked CAA several times during the last years if I could train for an IR rating and have been denied every time.

[englishal]

I know of one exception () who feels the ATOs are a bit of a scam,

(this was a few years ago....)

£200 + VAT per hr for a FNPT2, £350+VAT per hr for a Duchess, £150+VAT per hr for instructor (it is IR training after all!), all to fly between Bournemouth, Yeovil, Southampton and Alderney! Oh and don't forget the 170A, plus the Duchess, so add another grand. Don't forget the CAA test fee either, though of course this is nothing to do with the ATO.

This is the situation my buddy encountered when he converted the FAA to JAA IR. He did it in 15 hrs (10 FNPT2) + 2ish hrs for the test, and it cost him near on 10 grand. All this for a bit of paper even though he was already perfectly well qualified to fly IFR and had done for a while under the N reg. this doesn't include the ground school either which adds another grand plus significant time input. Plus accommodation too, the school only flew 1 hr per day with him so he sat twiddling his thumbs in rented accommodation for the rest of the time.

I guess this is why FAA IR holders object to "conversions" with an ATO as it essentially means we sign a cheque for 10 grand for a new bit of laser printed paper. Conversely in the USA, you employ a freelance CFII and pay him or her directly if you so wish and fly as much or as little as you wish. Oh yea, and you don't have to wear shirt with stripes and black trousers and you don't get a bollocking for walking out to the aircraft with a baseball cap on!

Interestingly I flew a flight sim in the USA which was equivalent to an FNPT 2. In fact it WAS an FNPT 2 under a different authority. Software was EXACTLY the same, it could have been an FNPT 2 with the right certification, and it was only $95 per hour.

[mad_jock]

it does seem to be the south coast that rapes the punters

[421C]

This is the situation my buddy encountered when he converted the FAA to JAA IR. He did it in 15 hrs (10 FNPT2) + 2ish hrs for the test,.

Thanks, you support my point. Your friend did it in minimum hours.
That was my point, the ATO did not scam him for unnecessary training.

Flying is expensive in the UK. I am not defending that, although I tend to think anyone who thinks they can run an ATO with lower costs is welcome to try. It's a business I would not touch with a barge pole. As I understand it, no-one is forced to go to an ATO and they do publish their prices. There is a difference between a reasonably competitive market which ends up with a high price point and a scam.

The high cost of training can either be
a) because the ATOs are a secret money-making machine, lavishing returns on employees and owners through their scammily-high pricing
or
b) the ATOs costs are high because of the perfect storm of UK circumstances of provincial airports that charge £100 for a light twin approach, fuel at £2/l, CAA approval charges etc etc etc

I have a view that it's b. But anyone convinced it's "a" should surely consider going into the ATO business?

[421C]

it does seem to be the south coast that rapes the punters

I see you are based in Aberdeen. I am on the South Coast but fly to Scotland a few times a year, went to Aberdeen a few weeks ago. The avgas pricing in Scotland is the most eye-watering I have seen anywhere in the world. Try the South Coast for that! Flying in Scotland is great but landing at Aberdeen with handling for a light twin 1 crew no pax 4hr stay came to a total of £300....

[peterh337]

Of course the 170A "flight test" is a moneymaking scam, because by definition you are not going forward for the 170A until you are ready for the real IR test, so this is just another way to get an extra £1k or so from the average ATPL punter who is ready for the IRT and doesn't know any better.

And since there are no set standards for the 170A, the FTO can just fail you, and get another £1k. The one I had was a complete farce, with the examiner not liking power checks with tailwind, not liking my perfectly reasonable choice of alternate, etc.

However recent changes mean the FTO is no longer obliged to give you the 170A course completion certificate upon completion of the approved course (which then enabled you to book the IRT with the CAA directly) so the old scam has been formalised in favour of the industry.

When everything has been said and done, gigabytes of bandwidth used on the internet talking about stuff, very little actually changes in reality because the people are the same and their commercial motivations are the same.

[mad_jock]

I was talking about flying schools.

And there is very good reason why Aberdeen is expensive. They don't want GA there. So NATS fire on a navigation charge, Landing fee through the roof and mandatory handling as well.

Just the same as MAN,LGW,STN take your pick of other international airports in the south that everyone avoids in a SEP.

If you had flown to Inch or Dundee you would have been fine.

[421C]

The one I had was a complete farce

I did say with one exception. Many people do the training (full or conversion) in minimum hours so there is no scope for the 170A to be a scam, since it occupies training hours that would otherwise be required.

However recent changes mean the FTO is no longer obliged to give you the 170A
course completion certificate upon completion of the approved course (which then
enabled you to book the IRT with the CAA directly) so the old scam has been
formalised in favour of the industry.

When everything has been said and
done, gigabytes of bandwidth used on the internet talking about stuff, very
little actually changes in reality because the people are the same and their
commercial motivations are the same.

But the change is a very meaningful one. There is no longer a requirement (or perception of a requirement) for a 170A. Yes, you need a course completion certificate. You need the equivalent for just about any qualification - eg. the endorsement from an FAA CFI before you take a test.

[BillieBob]

Yes, you need a course completion certificate.

Not quite, you need a recommendation for test. It may seem like a fine distinction but having completed the approved course does not necessarily mean that a candidate is ready for the test.

[peterh337]

I did say with one exception

Not so; an IR instructor I know who used to be a 170A authorised examiner for a well known southern UK FTO tells me about 25% of the 170A flight tests they did were in his view scams.

And a lot of the punters took 80-100hrs to do their ME IRs (min time is 55hrs).

Yes, he went along with it. One needs the job...

An often expressed sentiment in the trade is that the 170A flight test, which has no set standard so the FTO can repeat it several times, having the punter over a barrel especially at such a late stage in his IR training, has been used to make the FTO's first time IR pass rates (which are published) look good. What isn't published of course is the # of hours they took or how much money they spent.

It may be true that a lot of FAA PPL/IR holders did their JAA IR in the minimum time of 15hrs but that's because they have a lot of instrument experience.

Not quite, you need a recommendation for test

What exactly does that mean in reality? Specifically, is the option to book the IRT direct with the CAA now gone?

I recall reading a CAA document, about a year ago, which basically said that the option to use a 170A examiner from a different FTO is being removed. It used to live here... I thought this was an odd move, especially in view of Cabair's then very recent bankrupcy and the number of nearly-done-CPL/IRs who were left hanging by their goolies and looking at spending some thousands re-doing some training which they had already done.

[mad_jock]

Since when?

Last year when EASA FCL came in.