The great IR debate
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sigh...FAA bashing again...
I agree with Lightning_Boy. There's a lot of unfair dispersions cast on the FAA IR (and the FAA licences), if you go to a decent school in the USA the IR will be bloody hard.
You don't "convert" an FAA IR to a JAA one. Having an FAA IR cuts the minimum training hours down to 20 (I think, please correct me if I am wrong). That's all.
Having an FAA IR will no doubt make the JAA IR easier and probably slightly cheaper.
Of course you are not going to get a North Sea job with just an FAA IR. The North Sea is in Europe. The employers have the luxury of asking for what qualifications/hours they want from people, as there are tons of people who want to fly the rigs, but only about 10 jobs per year. If more people paid for their S-61 type rating, then the employers would also ask for that too.
I have spoken to people who have done both FAA IR and the JAA IR, they all say that the flying/procedures is pretty much the same, except in the JAR IR you have to learn how to fly a turbine with a stabilisation/autopilot system.
I agree with Lightning_Boy. There's a lot of unfair dispersions cast on the FAA IR (and the FAA licences), if you go to a decent school in the USA the IR will be bloody hard.
You don't "convert" an FAA IR to a JAA one. Having an FAA IR cuts the minimum training hours down to 20 (I think, please correct me if I am wrong). That's all.
Having an FAA IR will no doubt make the JAA IR easier and probably slightly cheaper.
Of course you are not going to get a North Sea job with just an FAA IR. The North Sea is in Europe. The employers have the luxury of asking for what qualifications/hours they want from people, as there are tons of people who want to fly the rigs, but only about 10 jobs per year. If more people paid for their S-61 type rating, then the employers would also ask for that too.
I have spoken to people who have done both FAA IR and the JAA IR, they all say that the flying/procedures is pretty much the same, except in the JAR IR you have to learn how to fly a turbine with a stabilisation/autopilot system.
Yes ... sigh
It is not possible to compare the to worlds just based on the requirements of the training. In the FAA world, you will NOT get a job on an IR-ship with 200 hours. No way, because almost all IR helos will fly for a 135 operation and there are a lot of requirements in that part of the FAR's. For example, you need 500 h minimum. And there is the FOM and so on.
The JAA world still fails to show that they have a signifficant lower accident rate in IFR operations. Some contries don't even have statistics anymore - but still accidents. I wonder why.
The FAA has a rulemaking philosophy that is different from the european one. And without knowing that, you can not compare the two. "On the job training" is more important in the FAA world. First you learn the basics and then you go out in the field and learn. Every examiner I had always told me after passing the test that now I can begin to learn.
Leave the FAA alone, they are way more friendly and helpfull than anybody in europe I met and I think they do a lot better job then any rulemaking body over here.
It is not possible to compare the to worlds just based on the requirements of the training. In the FAA world, you will NOT get a job on an IR-ship with 200 hours. No way, because almost all IR helos will fly for a 135 operation and there are a lot of requirements in that part of the FAR's. For example, you need 500 h minimum. And there is the FOM and so on.
The JAA world still fails to show that they have a signifficant lower accident rate in IFR operations. Some contries don't even have statistics anymore - but still accidents. I wonder why.
The FAA has a rulemaking philosophy that is different from the european one. And without knowing that, you can not compare the two. "On the job training" is more important in the FAA world. First you learn the basics and then you go out in the field and learn. Every examiner I had always told me after passing the test that now I can begin to learn.
Leave the FAA alone, they are way more friendly and helpfull than anybody in europe I met and I think they do a lot better job then any rulemaking body over here.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blithe, I don't usually quote myself but:
Having an FAA IR cuts the minimum training to 15 hours, some of which must be in twin so wheres this wonderful saving? My first 40 hours were done for less than the cost of going to US for 4 weeks and getting an FAA IR. I completed my total course for STG 21.5k +VAT including all test fees. FAA IR and the multi part would have cost more, and thats if I managed to get to the JAA standard in the minimum, which recently several excellent piots with a lot more experience have failed to do as mentioned above! Everyone assumes that having another IR will automatically bring your training required to the min, rarely the case.
Why do the FAA allow you to learn in machines that don't have SAS/Autopilot? If you are going to fly IR then you must be trained in such abilities.
And I agree totally with R'bee, passing the IR is a licence to learn, not go off on your own straight away in an onshore twin. People have died that way. This was the first thing said to me by my examiner after being told I passed. Not sure where these JAA IR accidents are though? Not heard of many recently.
All IMHO.
I know of one person who did FAA IR and FAA IRI (CFII) and still decided to do the entire JAA course as he needed to. Also another who had been using his FAA IR on twin but required significantly more than anticipated to pass JAA test.
Why do the FAA allow you to learn in machines that don't have SAS/Autopilot? If you are going to fly IR then you must be trained in such abilities.
And I agree totally with R'bee, passing the IR is a licence to learn, not go off on your own straight away in an onshore twin. People have died that way. This was the first thing said to me by my examiner after being told I passed. Not sure where these JAA IR accidents are though? Not heard of many recently.
All IMHO.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: South Wales
Age: 48
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What piston single will come down the ILS at 100kts?
What piston single can fly IMC in training legally?
What piston single has SAS or an autopilot so you can manage taking down the weather etc.
What single will let you practise an IMC engine failure on the go-around and on finals during either an NDB approach or an ILS approach?
I still can't see what difference it makes?
Why do you need to fly the ILS at 100kts?
Why do you need to be in IMC to train? Whats wrong with the hood and the blackouts?
Why worry about having a SAS when your only training, use the instructor/examiner as autopilot.
Maybe I'm missing something here but I still cant see how using a twin IFR ship can change procedures or weather etc?
I'm rated as FAA IR, still had to do all the ILS, VOR, NDB, GPS approaches, holding intercepting and tracking etc.
Check-ride consisted of examiner pulling AI, HSI, GPS, DME all in one go, telling me (aswell as carrying out the usual manouvers) I had to hold due to airport problems, cleared me for FULL ILS approach (including a procedure turn) using only HSI needle, whiskey compass and marker beacons, then telling me we had lost radio communication.
After all is said and done, if (when I sat the check-ride) I had done this in a twin IR ship as apposed to a H269, would that have made me a better IFR pilot?? I'm not talking about experience, I mean pound for pound, fresh IR pilots???
Would the fact that (if) I had a twin rating, but still chose to do the IR in a H269 due to the fact I was paying for it myself make a difference?
At the end of the day, I still cannot see any real difference it makes!
Nothing further your honour.
LB
What piston single can fly IMC in training legally?
What piston single has SAS or an autopilot so you can manage taking down the weather etc.
What single will let you practise an IMC engine failure on the go-around and on finals during either an NDB approach or an ILS approach?
I still can't see what difference it makes?
Why do you need to fly the ILS at 100kts?
Why do you need to be in IMC to train? Whats wrong with the hood and the blackouts?
Why worry about having a SAS when your only training, use the instructor/examiner as autopilot.
Maybe I'm missing something here but I still cant see how using a twin IFR ship can change procedures or weather etc?
I'm rated as FAA IR, still had to do all the ILS, VOR, NDB, GPS approaches, holding intercepting and tracking etc.
Check-ride consisted of examiner pulling AI, HSI, GPS, DME all in one go, telling me (aswell as carrying out the usual manouvers) I had to hold due to airport problems, cleared me for FULL ILS approach (including a procedure turn) using only HSI needle, whiskey compass and marker beacons, then telling me we had lost radio communication.
After all is said and done, if (when I sat the check-ride) I had done this in a twin IR ship as apposed to a H269, would that have made me a better IFR pilot?? I'm not talking about experience, I mean pound for pound, fresh IR pilots???
Would the fact that (if) I had a twin rating, but still chose to do the IR in a H269 due to the fact I was paying for it myself make a difference?
At the end of the day, I still cannot see any real difference it makes!
Nothing further your honour.
LB
Or SAR down to 40' IFR. But then again you would need an IR for that.
But to set a 300 feet tower on a 8000 feet mountain, IFR skills do not help you a lot.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,158
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
I beg to differ slightly - IFR skills give you the ability to assimilate a lot of information in a short time, very useful when towing the EM bird at exactly 100 feet over ground!
Phil
Phil
hedski
Would you possibly be able to give details about where you trained for your jaa ir.I have priced with several companies and all are in the region of 35k.Any help much appreciated!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lightning_Boy
You really are missing something, in fact rather a lot. There is a whole world of difference between paddling around with a training hood on in a single engine without stab kit and flying in real IFR in controlled airspace in a twin when one donk stops during the hold and you are still expected to maintain the flight within the required parameters while dealing with it. If you are flying an instrument approach into a real airport, they are not going to be too impressed if you want to fly the whole thing at 60kts cos that is all you are used to!! They've got big plankwing jobs to handle at the same time, all of them wasting fuel and patience in differing amounts while you bumble along...... And as for using the instructor/examiner as the autopilot???
Get real!!
I still can't see what difference it makes?
Why do you need to fly the ILS at 100kts?
Why do you need to be in IMC to train? Whats wrong with the hood and the blackouts?
Why worry about having a SAS when your only training, use the instructor/examiner as autopilot.
Maybe I'm missing something here but I still cant see how using a twin IFR ship can change procedures or weather etc?
Why do you need to fly the ILS at 100kts?
Why do you need to be in IMC to train? Whats wrong with the hood and the blackouts?
Why worry about having a SAS when your only training, use the instructor/examiner as autopilot.
Maybe I'm missing something here but I still cant see how using a twin IFR ship can change procedures or weather etc?
Get real!!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: South Wales
Age: 48
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK flyer43,
Before you start telling me about real flying and what its really like to be in the soup as apposed to flying under the hood, I think YOUR missing the point I am trying to make!!
My arguement is, if a pilot is flying a "real helicopter" for a living and has done so for many years, then decided he wanted to take his Instrument rating to further his career and make himself a safer pilot, but....has to pay for the rating himself....does it make him less of a pilot than YOU because he did his check-ride in a piston helicopter to save himself money???? This guy may have done his check-ride years ago and have since flown 1000's of hours in IMC since, but alas he did do his training in a piston with no SAS.
I am not taking about experience of flying IMC, (two newbies holding a fresh IR are as inexperienced as each other regardless of what they fly) I am talking about the JAA rules and regs as apposed to the FAA. All procedures and test requirements are the same with the exception of the type of aircraft you can sit it in.
So before we start getting into a "who's got the biggest dick contest", you obviously think I'm thicker than a canteen mug for not understanding why you are a better pilot for taking your IR check-ride in a twin rather than a piston..Please educate me and tell me (only for the puposes of training) why it is more beneficial to pay four times the amount to do it your way.
As an after thought, would you agree there would be more instrument rated pilots in the UK if it could be done at a price most people could afford, instead of keeping IR safety out of the price range of most helicopter pilots?
LB
Before you start telling me about real flying and what its really like to be in the soup as apposed to flying under the hood, I think YOUR missing the point I am trying to make!!
My arguement is, if a pilot is flying a "real helicopter" for a living and has done so for many years, then decided he wanted to take his Instrument rating to further his career and make himself a safer pilot, but....has to pay for the rating himself....does it make him less of a pilot than YOU because he did his check-ride in a piston helicopter to save himself money???? This guy may have done his check-ride years ago and have since flown 1000's of hours in IMC since, but alas he did do his training in a piston with no SAS.
I am not taking about experience of flying IMC, (two newbies holding a fresh IR are as inexperienced as each other regardless of what they fly) I am talking about the JAA rules and regs as apposed to the FAA. All procedures and test requirements are the same with the exception of the type of aircraft you can sit it in.
So before we start getting into a "who's got the biggest dick contest", you obviously think I'm thicker than a canteen mug for not understanding why you are a better pilot for taking your IR check-ride in a twin rather than a piston..Please educate me and tell me (only for the puposes of training) why it is more beneficial to pay four times the amount to do it your way.
As an after thought, would you agree there would be more instrument rated pilots in the UK if it could be done at a price most people could afford, instead of keeping IR safety out of the price range of most helicopter pilots?
LB
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: middle east
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, for a newly qualified IR pilot, it makes no difference if you did the training in an piston single or a twin turbine. The procedures and knowledge are exactly the same.
It's just a case of the JAA being a rip-off, as usual.
It's just a case of the JAA being a rip-off, as usual.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality Check Guys/Gals.
Nobody is going to get a job as a Captain in an IFR helicopter operation upon completion of an IR, no matter where its done.
To become an IFR captain takes experience ; experience gained under the supervision of an experienced IFR captain.
Whether a candidate does his initial IR in a piston, turbine , or twin is irrelevant, the candidate will still have to get a PPC on Type.
This whole thing of engine failures in a twin helicopter is over-rated when airspeed is > than VTOSS. There is no assymetric thrust to deal with as in a plank, all you have to do is: maintain control, power within limits, run the memory items and call for the check list.
An engine failure on an ILS does not even require a change in collective setting. The old mantra applies: aviate , navigate communicate.
Nobody is going to get a job as a Captain in an IFR helicopter operation upon completion of an IR, no matter where its done.
To become an IFR captain takes experience ; experience gained under the supervision of an experienced IFR captain.
Whether a candidate does his initial IR in a piston, turbine , or twin is irrelevant, the candidate will still have to get a PPC on Type.
This whole thing of engine failures in a twin helicopter is over-rated when airspeed is > than VTOSS. There is no assymetric thrust to deal with as in a plank, all you have to do is: maintain control, power within limits, run the memory items and call for the check list.
An engine failure on an ILS does not even require a change in collective setting. The old mantra applies: aviate , navigate communicate.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you can fly without any SAS or other augmentation, then you can fly with one. An engine failure in a twin is an annoyance, no more than that. My original IR was in a TH13, and then some years in a UH1, neither of which had any augmentation at all, and it's certainly not impossible to fly either in IMC. I now fly an S76, and it's a piece of cake in comparison. When the check pilot pulls an engine, all I do is check the torque to make sure it's below OEI (and it always is), beep up the Nr, and call for the checklist. It makes no real difference where the engine fails, it's the same drill. If it fails on the ILS, as IHL said, it's really a non-event, you just have to call for the checklist somewhere along the line. An engine failue in IMC in a single is a little more challenging. I've been given engine failures under the hood in singles, and that requires some airmanship to get all the needles where they need to be.
You can argue the superiority of training in twins all you like, but I'll never believe it.
You can argue the superiority of training in twins all you like, but I'll never believe it.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lightning_boy
Calm down, you missed my real point, as have a number of other learned gentlemen. I'm not saying that I'm a better pilot, IF or otherwise, than you or anybody else for that matter. OK, so maybe I did blow up the bit about handling an engine failure for real etc,but I was just trying to put across the point that unless you have sufficient experience, and that includes appropriate training, in handling twins you shouldn't be flying real IFR in any case. The bit about airspeed still applies though!
Training on any type of flying machine is very valuable, but you need to have relevant training and experience before you are let loose.
IHL has got it in perspective
Getting your rating on type will be the expensive bit of course......
Calm down, you missed my real point, as have a number of other learned gentlemen. I'm not saying that I'm a better pilot, IF or otherwise, than you or anybody else for that matter. OK, so maybe I did blow up the bit about handling an engine failure for real etc,but I was just trying to put across the point that unless you have sufficient experience, and that includes appropriate training, in handling twins you shouldn't be flying real IFR in any case. The bit about airspeed still applies though!
Training on any type of flying machine is very valuable, but you need to have relevant training and experience before you are let loose.
IHL has got it in perspective
To become an IFR captain takes experience ; experience gained under the supervision of an experienced IFR captain. Whether a candidate does his initial IR in a piston, turbine , or twin is irrelevant, the candidate will still have to get a PPC on Type.
Paying for an IR in a twin it's stupid.
It makes no sense.
But, here comes the JAA guys...
Flyer43 I'm sure you get the point with GLSNightPilot , IHL comments.
I'm a new guy with an IR in a 206.
Recently I've done my 412 check ride , and yes, a single engine failure on the ILS it's a piece of cake, the real important it's fly the basics (in case you don't use the autopilot)
You are not going to be hired as PIC in a ir-twin just because you have done an ir course in a twin, it's just crazy.
We all just need training by the companies to handle a twin, then a job as SPIC to gain the experience
It makes no sense.
But, here comes the JAA guys...
Flyer43 I'm sure you get the point with GLSNightPilot , IHL comments.
I'm a new guy with an IR in a 206.
Recently I've done my 412 check ride , and yes, a single engine failure on the ILS it's a piece of cake, the real important it's fly the basics (in case you don't use the autopilot)
You are not going to be hired as PIC in a ir-twin just because you have done an ir course in a twin, it's just crazy.
We all just need training by the companies to handle a twin, then a job as SPIC to gain the experience
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no such thing as a free lunch.......
OK, let's try looking at things from a different perspective - that of the operator.
We all agree that getting a full IR costs a whole lot of cash. Some of us can also agree that instrument training of any sort should be given credit. But there is no escaping the requirement to have sufficient training and experience on a twin before you can eventually move up the exhalted ranks.
An operator taking on a newbie with an IR gained on a single, be it piston or turbine, has to commit a large amount of its own cash into training the pilot to the relevant level, including paying for the rating etc. What promise has the operator got that said newbie will thank them by taking his newly gained rating and chasing after a job with the operator he really wanted to work for?
Some operators have "cadetship" schemes in place whereby they take a no time, or low fixed-wing time pilot and pay for him/her to go through training at a preferred school. There is normally a tough selection process with a high attrition rate, the succesful pilots invariably having to sign a penalty clause which ties them to the company for a number of years. Early departure requires a pro-rata payback of all training costs.
When these pilots complete the initial CPL(H), the operator already knows the standards applied during training. Conversion onto a multi-engine type usually takes place at the operators own TRTO school. More time and/or money gets added to the penalty clause.......
Maybe you should try selling yourself to an operator with the proviso that you will pay back training costs in kind. Too many guys are out there looking for a quick and cheap way to feather their nests before moving on. Give the employer something to put their faith in and maybe things might change.........or maybe they wont. But it might be worth a try!
We all agree that getting a full IR costs a whole lot of cash. Some of us can also agree that instrument training of any sort should be given credit. But there is no escaping the requirement to have sufficient training and experience on a twin before you can eventually move up the exhalted ranks.
An operator taking on a newbie with an IR gained on a single, be it piston or turbine, has to commit a large amount of its own cash into training the pilot to the relevant level, including paying for the rating etc. What promise has the operator got that said newbie will thank them by taking his newly gained rating and chasing after a job with the operator he really wanted to work for?
Some operators have "cadetship" schemes in place whereby they take a no time, or low fixed-wing time pilot and pay for him/her to go through training at a preferred school. There is normally a tough selection process with a high attrition rate, the succesful pilots invariably having to sign a penalty clause which ties them to the company for a number of years. Early departure requires a pro-rata payback of all training costs.
When these pilots complete the initial CPL(H), the operator already knows the standards applied during training. Conversion onto a multi-engine type usually takes place at the operators own TRTO school. More time and/or money gets added to the penalty clause.......
Maybe you should try selling yourself to an operator with the proviso that you will pay back training costs in kind. Too many guys are out there looking for a quick and cheap way to feather their nests before moving on. Give the employer something to put their faith in and maybe things might change.........or maybe they wont. But it might be worth a try!