New EASA IR(A) and the solo NQ requirement
 

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

Danish CAA, or UK CAA?

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?

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.

JAR-FCL 1.125Once upon a time the UK CAA would issue IRs with a No Night Limitation but alas Europe has stopped that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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 :) ).

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 :)

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

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?

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.

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.

That is indeed interesting. But can I legally be PIC on a night time flight in the Netherlands if I have the restriction "Valid by day only" on my medical? Have you heard of someone in my position doing the NQ that way (or maybe you have this restriction yourself)?

As someone who has broken through the CVD barrier myself I would advise as follows


Do not ask too many questions up front as you will get an array of different answers SO.....keep control yourself by flying the dual hours of night training as normal and then "solo" hours with fellow night q pilot or instructor as P1supervised.

This will allow you to fill in the required form accurately, tick the right boxes and then get some non pilot office bod to issue the new qualification JOB DONE

This is based on "don't ask don't tell"

So what if office bod says but you are day vfr only ?
Then argue that you have filled the requirements in a safe and logical way and that there is no logical reason not to issue qualification.

From my experience do not let them decide up front as most do not have a clue about what is sensible and fair.

The CAA are not that joined up anyway :ok:

UK CAA. I have a UK license PPL/IMC

Belowradar ->
That would seem to be a way out and it may actually work.
I would though not enter into costly and time consuming IFR training if there is a risk I will be told later that the I can't get the rating.
Perhaps a way could be to get the EIR and then try this approach for the full IR - since that is not going to be alot of extra study and flying as I undertand it.

The night qualification is not a great big investment only 5 hrs and once you have the NQ then you will meet entry requirements for IMC/ EIR so no prblems after that.

Hello ,

As i almost have my PPL(A) and even if i won't go for the ATPL , i will certainly get an Instrument Rating , I have read the complete EASA document regarding the possible changes to the instrument rating IR(A). The EASA confirmed that they will not work out any changes for helicopter pilots yet.

In their proposals , there are 3 possible options. Briefly said:
1. Introduction of an EIR , meaning Enroute Instrument Rating. This means that the enroute segment of the flight can be completed under IFR , in IMC. However , no SIDs or STARs may be flown with this rating. Takeoff and landing must be completed under VFR. On departure , this means that the overcast cloud deck should be above 1000ft (i guess AGL). So overcast at 1500 means u can just climb out above.

2. Introduction of a more accesible IR(A). It is mentioned that this IR will be more competency based, meaning that the theoretic knowledge required to get this rating , will be severely lowered. A lot of knowledge that is required for the current IR(A) , makes no sense for just flying a cessna 172... That means that the parts regarding flight of High Powered Airplanes , like jets , will be deleted from this more simplified IR.
The main goal of the changes is to make it more attractive to get the rating.

3. The third and most probable option is the combination of option 1 & option 2. Regarding the EASA's calculation of the amount private pilots that will get an IR after this, option 3 would encourage the most pilots to get either the IR or an EIR, greatly reducing the change of accidents following continued VFR flight into IMC.

I am eager to get a full IR. So i hope that either the second or the third option will come soon.

Greetings,
De Smet Sébastien

I don't have the restriction myself.

In your logbook you will enter the time flown as PIC. In the little remarks column at the end the instructor will put his signature and a little remark, SPIC. This is according to the dutch regulations that the 5 t/g's solo are to be flown in an SPIC situation.

So you comply with the rules. You have 4 hours of Dual night time and 1 hour of PIC. That there is a S at the beginning of PIC doesn't mean it isn't PIC anymore does it?

The only problem you have is that PICS is a intergrated course "thing". Unless you on one of those courses you can't log it.

I would imagine that this thread has been noted and there are a few emails flying around between various national authorities.

BTW Personally I don't think they should be a night requirment for a PPL IR so don't take my comment as putting anyone down. I just cant see how they can justify/allow it to work.

All IRs are Competency based, if you are not Competent, you don't pass the test! This statement in the NPA makes it quite clear there is only one standard irrespective of what you call the IR There was a perfectly good ICAO IR in the UK before the JAA increased it by 26%. Initial CAA statistics showed that fewer candidates obtained a first time pass than on the shorter IR! Option 3 in the NPA looks very similar to the pre JAA course. A step back to reality perhaps.

The Exams are of dubious relevance however; what makes you assume that any new shorter exams will be of any more relevant or quality? The people producing these papers, who remain anonymous, have minimal knowledge on the subject, and there is little evidence to suggest they know anything about how to formulate an examination question. At 50 Euros a question are they even bothered?

I doubt it! There is very little internal communication, let alone cross Authority.

It is approved by the Dutch authorities, ask an FTO in Holland for his syllabus for the NQ, it will have some kind of approvement letter from the Dutch CAA.

I agree that this is not the normal way of doing your NQ, but here in the Netherlands it is not possible to do Night VFR, so we do things on a IFR flight plan. Ridiculous I know, but this is why they came up with a workaround for the the touch and go's for the NQ, SPIC.

The fact that national authorities could grant exemptions from the JARs made a mockery of the whole JAA concept and was one of the prime drivers behind the development of EU legislation. Once the implementing rules are adopted, it will not be possible for national authorities lawfully to grant exemptions and I wonder how this problem will be dealt with in the future.

One may, as belowradar suggests, choose to falsify your logbook and one may even get away with it. On the other hand, one may not and it's a risk that many would not choose to take.

The problem is that JAR-FCL 1.something doesn't require five full-stop landings and take-offs as PIC. They require them to be done SOLO. (BTW in LASORS the word PIC is used, but JAR-FCL talks about SOLO. -1 for LASORS.)

The Dutch authorities have made an exception to JAR-FCL in this respect so if you fly them as SPIC / P1/S or whatever it's called, it's accepted for the Dutch authorities to issue the NQ, and use them as the entry requirements for the IR course.

But the rest of the JAA world doesn't recognize this Dutch exception so if you have a license that's issued anywhere else, you're stuck. I have pointed the Dutch exception out to the UK CAA, but they simply pointed back to JAR-FCL, as that's their guidance document.

It doesn't quite work that way, although in practice, I can imagine someone thinks so.

The JAA is a volunteer organization, founded by the National CAAs of the various countries. As such, the JAA itself has no legal basis whatsoever. They can come up with binders full of paperwork, but the individual countries have to use their own internal process to embed this into law. Sometimes the law simply points to the JAR-FCL text (which then becomes binding in that particular country), sometimes JAR-FCL is 1-on-1 transposed into law (with a possible translation in the local language), and sometimes it is made into law slightly differently from what JAR-FCL wrote down and/or intended.

As long as the difference between what ends up in the laws, and the original JAR-FCL text, is minor, nobody really cares. The result is that anything that happens under the guise of "JAR-FCL compliant" is implicitly recognized/accepted by the other JAA countries. But every now and then there are little corners of this framework where things don't quite work as advertised.

The Dutch way of doing the NQ is an example. Another was the fact that certain medicals (the German ones come to mind) were not accepted by the UK to fly on a UK-issued JAR-FCL PPL, even though they were OK in combination with a German-issued JAR-FCL PPL.

The idea behind EASA is that all of these national twists are going to disappear, as EASA is part of the EU and can pass directives which become law immediately. But that, of course, highlights these and a whole bunch of other issues that were swept under the rug in JAR-FCL, and now need to be sorted properly.

One may, as belowradar suggests, choose to falsify your logbook and one may even get away with it. On the other hand, one may not and it's a risk that many would not choose to take

I never suggested that logbooks be falsified, I suggested that you log P1(S) and fly with instructor for solo hours, this is to sensibly, safely and legally fulfil the requirements for NQ.

At the end of the day you are proving that you can safely fly at night

The definition of 'solo flight time' in JAR-FCL 1.001 is "Flight time during which a student pilot is the sole occupant of an aircraft." If a student pilot records as solo flight time during which an instructor is also in the aircraft (i.e. he is not the sole occupant), how is this not falsification?

It works exactly that way! Individual member states currently pick and choose the elements of the JARs that suit their national interests and either ignore or grant exemptions from those that do not. Once the new EU Regulation comes into effect, however, the option to grant exemptions will be removed and member states will be left only with the option to ignore the requirements and, no doubt, the usual suspects will do so.

There is no fundamental difference between the proposed route, and doing what Ireland was doing until not long ago which was converting an FAA ATPL into a JAR-FCL ATPL :)

I gather the UK CAA used to do the same, until about 20 years ago.

Not to mention various other routes that have appeared over the years. Some still exist but usually involve some hassle, like actually working for an operator of an aircraft of the desired registry.

The aviation business has always been full of this stuff. Nobody in their right mind is going to sit 14 exams and spend £30k+ doing the logbook stuffing if they can get a straight paper swap, which according to ICAO principles should have been offered in the first place :ugh:

It is only blatent in-your-face Euro job creation / job protection which has given rise to the JAR-FCL restrictive practices.

Of course, nobody actually working for an airline, especially a flag carrier, would have done any of this, when a harder route was available to them :E

One thing which makes me smile a little is that whenever one bumps into a bunch of private UK IR holders, it turns out that nearly all of them did it pre-1999 i.e. under the old 700hr route. Of course I never question this because I automatically assume that when JAR-FCL came in, they all went to an FTO and re-did the whole 50/55hr course and re-sat the exams ;) ;)

So, if you can find a route through this maze, go for it, but make sure you are a good and current-on-type pilot notwithstanding, by flying often, and practicing instrument procedures often, using checklists, etc.

Billibob if the regs are illogical it does not prevent us from being logical so as there is no safety issue in flying at night with observing Fi and as the regs require night flight experience then how else can it really be done? Surely some common sense must prevail so they either permit or get rid of night requirement for cvs pilots but if public are not at risk then what is the problem?

What part of "solo" do you not understand? JAR-FCL is 100% clear on this. You have to be the only person on board if your flight is to be classified as "solo". And the take-offs and landings for the NQ have to be done solo.

We can discuss whether this is sensible, safe and reasonable but at the end of the day that is what is written in JAR-FCL, and made into law in most countries.

Okay, I guess I should have made my point clearer. You cannot "grant exemption" from something that's not a regulation. So a country cannot grant an exemption from JAR-FCL. They can only choose not to implement bits of JAR-FCL into law, or implement something slightly different (or even wildly different) into law. And only once it's in the law books they can grant an exemption. From the law, not from JAR-FCL.

But I agree that it's all semantics.

Probably not, but once qualified, the pilot can then exercise the privileges at Night solo, even if his visual acuity is such that he can't see a thing. The medical restriction that causes this problem is surely there for Safety.

The old UK system of permitting an IR with a No Night safety restriction got around the problem without compromising the medical safety issue. The Dutch approach fudges the whole thing and could leave the Authority negligent.

Why is it even in that they require a NQ anyway?

I always thought it was strange that the night currency wasn't required if you had an IR. There is nothing in particular that sets you up for dropping an aircraft into a black hole landing in the IR course.

The problem is that the colour vision requirements are to a large degree not relevant to aviation. See this. The chance of a pilot who fails his NQ medical requirements due to CV and having problems is quite small because most CV deficient pilots can actually see all the required colours.