What is the difference between an FAA/IR and a JAA/IR?
Thread Starter
What is the difference between an FAA/IR and a JAA/IR?
Can somebody please enlighten me?
I would really like to know why the FAA/IR should be worth less than an JAA/IR.
I would really like to know why the FAA/IR should be worth less than an JAA/IR.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
You used to be able to get a CAA IR on a Bell 206 that was approved for IFR (but not IMC).
You can also do the FAA IR (30 of the 40 hours) in a Flyit 'simulator'. I know there is a move to get the same approval in terms of hours from the JAA.
It is also possible to do the IR test in the Flyit, and but fly one precision and one non-precision approach in a real helicopter.
Also just a note- I find holding patterns easier to do in a higher speed helicopter- less wind effect.
You can also do the FAA IR (30 of the 40 hours) in a Flyit 'simulator'. I know there is a move to get the same approval in terms of hours from the JAA.
It is also possible to do the IR test in the Flyit, and but fly one precision and one non-precision approach in a real helicopter.
Also just a note- I find holding patterns easier to do in a higher speed helicopter- less wind effect.
Thread Starter
Thank's Woolf, that was interesting.
Many who do not know the way of rulemaking of the FAA. It is often forgotten, that even if you get your IR and your CHPL in the US, you are not likely to fly IFR in IMC for a long time. The newbie will not get a job with a part 135 operation before 500h. Under this part are a lot of limitations regarding the pilots experience. Flying part 91 IFR operations is useless, because you can go nowhere with passengers. And then there is the insurance/liability problem. Any loophole with ferry flights or else don't seem to be a problem.
If I got everything right, the difference is not in the procedures and things, but in the type of helicopter the new pilot has to use for his training. I am not sure, if that this is a big advantage.
The normal way of a pilot in the US would be to get an IR with a CPL. Then build hours under VFR - but with the knowledge of an IR - untill he or she gets the required hours to be second in command in an IR ship. There he can build up his IMC experience with an experienced pilot. Until he/she gets to fly single pilot IFR, the pilot has lots of experience flying IFR. It is a slow process of learning and building experience. I do not think, that this is a bad idea.
To get a IR ticket, is always good, because it makes you a better pilot. Regardles if it is in a R22 or a AS355.
But are there any differences in the procedures?
Many who do not know the way of rulemaking of the FAA. It is often forgotten, that even if you get your IR and your CHPL in the US, you are not likely to fly IFR in IMC for a long time. The newbie will not get a job with a part 135 operation before 500h. Under this part are a lot of limitations regarding the pilots experience. Flying part 91 IFR operations is useless, because you can go nowhere with passengers. And then there is the insurance/liability problem. Any loophole with ferry flights or else don't seem to be a problem.
If I got everything right, the difference is not in the procedures and things, but in the type of helicopter the new pilot has to use for his training. I am not sure, if that this is a big advantage.
The normal way of a pilot in the US would be to get an IR with a CPL. Then build hours under VFR - but with the knowledge of an IR - untill he or she gets the required hours to be second in command in an IR ship. There he can build up his IMC experience with an experienced pilot. Until he/she gets to fly single pilot IFR, the pilot has lots of experience flying IFR. It is a slow process of learning and building experience. I do not think, that this is a bad idea.
To get a IR ticket, is always good, because it makes you a better pilot. Regardles if it is in a R22 or a AS355.
But are there any differences in the procedures?
