Why is the FAA IR Easier?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sure your NDB hold might be spot on, but in the real world, exactly how many of those are you going to do. I've never had to do one in real life.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the JAR IR is "harder" to get but I do not think that that makes it any better than the FAA
FAA is easier to get in terms of examination requirements, costs etc
Once you get it it is also less costly to maintain and you are not tied in to paying an IR Examiner for their annual holidays.
FAA is easier to get in terms of examination requirements, costs etc
Once you get it it is also less costly to maintain and you are not tied in to paying an IR Examiner for their annual holidays.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I remember (it's been a while), the design of most FAA NDB approaches also make them easier to fly than the UK ones (don't know about rest of Europe). Most of the time, you fly over the beacon, go outbound for 10 miles (plenty of time to get the track right), then do a procedure turn comprising of a 45 deg turn outbound and 180 back to intercept at 45 inbound. The final intercept is, IMHO, a lot easier than intercepting after a 180+ turn on a lot of UK NDB approaches. And because they don't involve a hold, you have less opportunities to screw up (NDB hold on a windy day on one engine, yuk...).
That said, there are some evil NDB approaches in the US too. Like Charlie Zulu, i remember one (at Tracy, California, across the bay from San Francisco) where the missed approach point for the hold is the intersection of two VORs. IR students in the area celebrated for weeks when the beacon became U/S. There are no other NDB approaches in the area!
P
That said, there are some evil NDB approaches in the US too. Like Charlie Zulu, i remember one (at Tracy, California, across the bay from San Francisco) where the missed approach point for the hold is the intersection of two VORs. IR students in the area celebrated for weeks when the beacon became U/S. There are no other NDB approaches in the area!
P
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Near Shobbers
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did my FAA IR in the LA basin in 2000. Hardest thing I've ever done in an aeroplane including learning how to teach ADF tracking/NDB approaches and CPL test in 90F under JAA.
It's real world- you have to do a 300nm xc with 5 approaches IFR (did mine at night in Santa Anna induced wave rotor) and the SoCal RT is REALLY HECTIC (no 'Exam' callsigns and Gawd helpyer if you fluff and falter). Also the 3 hour oral is no picnic, managed to fail my 1st and not even get as far as the plane.
Yet to convert to JAA IR due to JAA CPL exams not being valid for an IR, so can't compare. Undoubtedly made me a far better pilot and more competent than I otherwise would be when teaching as an FI in the UK.
PF
It's real world- you have to do a 300nm xc with 5 approaches IFR (did mine at night in Santa Anna induced wave rotor) and the SoCal RT is REALLY HECTIC (no 'Exam' callsigns and Gawd helpyer if you fluff and falter). Also the 3 hour oral is no picnic, managed to fail my 1st and not even get as far as the plane.
Yet to convert to JAA IR due to JAA CPL exams not being valid for an IR, so can't compare. Undoubtedly made me a far better pilot and more competent than I otherwise would be when teaching as an FI in the UK.
PF
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer lies in comparing the practical test standards from the FAA versus the JAA accuracy requirements. Both can be found easily enough.
There are those of us who have been tested by a single examiner wearing both hats at once - an interesting experience.
Regards
Rob
There are those of us who have been tested by a single examiner wearing both hats at once - an interesting experience.
Regards
Rob
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did my FAA IR, I asked the examiner to examine me on the NDB as that was what was going to be the norm back here in the UK. Having explained the situation to him he was happy to go that way and I was happy to demonstrate competence with the NDB.
Approaches were VOR/DME, ILS, NDB and a localiser with partial panel which I made easier by getting "no giro" from ATC. Not what the examiner had in mind but solved the problem and he was pleased with that.
The most challenging part is the oral exam and whlist the written is relatively easy, the oral will test whether it was just repetatively going through the questions that got the eam pass or actually knowing the stuff. Doing the oral 6 months after the exam meant I could not ease off on the learning.
Approaches were VOR/DME, ILS, NDB and a localiser with partial panel which I made easier by getting "no giro" from ATC. Not what the examiner had in mind but solved the problem and he was pleased with that.
The most challenging part is the oral exam and whlist the written is relatively easy, the oral will test whether it was just repetatively going through the questions that got the eam pass or actually knowing the stuff. Doing the oral 6 months after the exam meant I could not ease off on the learning.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have done both the JAR and the FAA IR, and I found the JAR IR a bit harder, mainly becuase it contains more elements. There is simply more attention to detail, more to know, more checks, calls, briefings and so on. As an example, in the US they don't use QNH/QFE, and flight levels are only used above 18k ft, so one less thing to think about.
On the other hand, when doing a JAR IR you'll know more about your flight before even taking off, such as where you will have your engine failure, the FAA test is not as structured, more surprises.
I flew plenty of NDB approaches in the US (partial panel and full panel) and did not find them much easer over there, so can't say that is much different.
On the other hand, when doing a JAR IR you'll know more about your flight before even taking off, such as where you will have your engine failure, the FAA test is not as structured, more surprises.
I flew plenty of NDB approaches in the US (partial panel and full panel) and did not find them much easer over there, so can't say that is much different.
