IR training without simulator

[denisgdm]

Is there some flight school in Europe that propose an IR training without simulator. My first idea is that you would log more flight time (good for low hour pilots), however I wonder if the benefit is that good for the quality of the training. The flight simulator allow to see much various scenarios, and you may get more prepared for airline assessments?
What do you think ?

[ersa]

Simply burning holes in the sky whilst training for IR, is not counter productive.

There will be times, where you need to have breathing space , to assess things, pausing the sim and rewinding the approach or sequence helps immensely

[BillieBob]

There are schools in the UK that offer the option of completing IR solely on the aeroplane. Whether it is a good idea or not depends on the design of the course and the fidelity of the FSTD that would otherwise be used. For example, whilst it is only a procedures trainer, an FNPT II that is precisely matched to the aircraft is a better prospect than one that is configured as a different type - if the FSTD were configured as a BE-76 when the aircraft is a DA-42 it might well be better to do the whole course on the aircraft (except for limited panel UPs, of course).

Also, with the advent of PBN and the current scarcity of approved LPV approaches, it will be difficult (although not impossible) to cover the entire syllabus in the aircraft. Of course, this issue will fade as more airfields introduce PBN procedures.

ersa - I think (hope) that you meant to say that burning holes in the sky is counter-productive.

[LegioX]

Originally Posted by ersa

Simply burning holes in the sky whilst training for IR, is not counter productive.

There will be times, where you need to have breathing space , to assess things, pausing the sim and rewinding the approach or sequence helps immensely

I can only quote what has been altready said by ersa....you will need time to rest, digest and understand what are you doing or not doing.

[TryingToAvoidCBs]

Don't forget the cost aspect too. My IR training was almost 6 years ago. I paid around £120/hr for the use of the FNPTII and £508/hr for the use of the aircraft. Given that I did a 55hr IR, 35 of which were in the SIM, that saved me £13,580.

[parkfell]

Although "an ace of the base" ( as rare of rocking horse sh..t) would probably cope without any simulator time, the ordinary joe most definitely needs an adequate amount to fine tune the SOPs etc. The ATO syllabus will specify the split between sim & ac. Ideally fly the route profile in the simulator, and then try in the ac the following day.

The whole process takes time to absorb. Think about the process of OSMOSIS? The brain can only cope with a certain personal daily rate.
Ideally one event a day initially. Perhaps increasing to 3 events every two days. Five ON, 2 days OFF or equivalent. Two events daily is not recommended. You are simply not getting value for money. After all you are paying for it.
There will be individuals who can cope but they are probably fast jet material ~ a fairly rare breed?

In any event you would not be logging P1 time on the course, apart from the successful test.

[KayPam]

Originally Posted by BillieBob

There are schools in the UK that offer the option of completing IR solely on the aeroplane. Whether it is a good idea or not depends on the design of the course and the fidelity of the FSTD that would otherwise be used. For example, whilst it is only a procedures trainer, an FNPT II that is precisely matched to the aircraft is a better prospect than one that is configured as a different type - if the FSTD were configured as a BE-76 when the aircraft is a DA-42 it might well be better to do the whole course on the aircraft (except for limited panel UPs, of course).

Also, with the advent of PBN and the current scarcity of approved LPV approaches, it will be difficult (although not impossible) to cover the entire syllabus in the aircraft. Of course, this issue will fade as more airfields introduce PBN procedures.

ersa - I think (hope) that you meant to say that burning holes in the sky is counter-productive.

It really depends on the country, here in France, an IFR field without LPV approach is rather the exception than the norm.

I don't think a training entirely on the aircraft is fundamentally harder or that it leads to a lower level in the end.
However, it leads to a different type of learning.
Instead of learning skills one after the other, a training entirely on aircraft leads to learning everything a once, at a slower pace.
In the end, I think the level achieved is similar, but how you got there is different.

A good option, which I used, can be the CB-IR :
Instead of paying 160€ per hour to pay an instructor, find a volunteer instructor and use the money for the difference between sim and aircraft.
I ended up getting an IR qualification for 15k€, for 40-45 hours of flight. On the SR20.