The great IR debate
Guest
Posts: n/a
The great IR debate
Why have the CAA opted for the expensive IR route?
£25k for a Squirrel IR or a little less for a useless 206 rating?
Why have they made it so cost inhibitive to obtain a rating which could save lives?
The amount of bad weather heli accidents which occour could have been avoided if the pilots had proper IR training. The FAA allows it in suitably equiped SE pistons thus making it affordable to most pilots. Plank pilots are allowed to obtain the curiosity killed the cat IMC rating, which may do more harm than good. I have always found hood flying easier in a heli than a fixed wing.
Who are they protecting? The pilot flow and the training industry?
It seems to me as life is cheap at the CAA. Apart from auto flight systems, icing, built up areas etc, what are the true reasons for not allowing the cheaper option? It's better to have an IR than not to have it?
£25k for a Squirrel IR or a little less for a useless 206 rating?
Why have they made it so cost inhibitive to obtain a rating which could save lives?
The amount of bad weather heli accidents which occour could have been avoided if the pilots had proper IR training. The FAA allows it in suitably equiped SE pistons thus making it affordable to most pilots. Plank pilots are allowed to obtain the curiosity killed the cat IMC rating, which may do more harm than good. I have always found hood flying easier in a heli than a fixed wing.
Who are they protecting? The pilot flow and the training industry?
It seems to me as life is cheap at the CAA. Apart from auto flight systems, icing, built up areas etc, what are the true reasons for not allowing the cheaper option? It's better to have an IR than not to have it?
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cost inhibitive to obtain a rating which could save lives
On the wider and possibly intended subject of training for an IR in SE/ Piston then this would make a lot of sense and the JAA are probably being inflexible on this point.
I have heard a rumour of a Robinson development with a twin diesel in the back to give two engine capability for IR training, which would change the game in JAA-land for IR training for the ATPL(H).
The amount of bad weather heli accidents which occour could have been avoided if the pilots had proper IR training
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As i understand it the plank boys cant get an IMC rating with a JAR licence, only with a CAA licence and only for use in the UK, so that will die a slow death.
regards
CF
regards
CF
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rotary IFR
I was asked to cost out a JAA IFR course for a friend who felt it would help them get a job. 50 odd hours in a twin squirrel comes out at silly money, it was cheaper for them to get a PPL (A) then do their IR then convert it to rotory!!
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
??? Why do you need to do the training in a twin? Why not just the type conv and test (plus some extra fam. training) ???
I thought the IR(H) was about £19K but 50+hrs would be nearer £30+
I thought the IR(H) was about £19K but 50+hrs would be nearer £30+
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
50 hrs: 20 in R22
20 in FNPT2
10 in whatever multi you want
Mine was completed as JAA IR within 21k +VAT including test etc.
Cheaper than any advertised, passed first go too!
Dig around and you'll do well. IR training on piston single is unrealistic, even FAA IR holders I know of agree. And FAA to JAA conversion usually costs more than I paid. Ask any North Sea operator about converting FAA IR to JAA and see what answer you get........... I speak from experience on this one!
The future in bright, the future is IR!
20 in FNPT2
10 in whatever multi you want
Mine was completed as JAA IR within 21k +VAT including test etc.
Cheaper than any advertised, passed first go too!
Dig around and you'll do well. IR training on piston single is unrealistic, even FAA IR holders I know of agree. And FAA to JAA conversion usually costs more than I paid. Ask any North Sea operator about converting FAA IR to JAA and see what answer you get........... I speak from experience on this one!
The future in bright, the future is IR!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,158
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
I don't see why doing it in a single pistom is unrealistic - instruments is instruments, regardless of the platform, although there is a difference between heli and FW. I can also see the difference between doing it in a squirrel or a 206, but two engines has nothing to do with it! Looks like a classic case of FW people making the rules.
Phil
Phil
Is the R22 cleared in the RFM for instrument flight (ie in actual conditions) and does it have any form of icing clearance? If not then that is probably a good reason for not being able to train on it for an IR (simulating actual with a hood is not enough - you need to experience real IMC)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Iceland
Age: 53
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Paco on this.
IMO it doesn't matter what kind of thingy you fly during IR training, if its a box a plane or a rotary. You train the IR procedures first of all.
It makes no sense that the only way to get a rotary IR in most of the JAA countries is to get a twin IR. I can get an IR and well I have one on my PPL(A) SEP but cannot on a rotary. Why, I can't understand because there are a few single engine helicopters out there IFR certified. I know that it is possible according to the big book of JARs to do it the SE way but there are only a few JAA flight training organizations providing that kind of training.
I believe that those operators that operate multi-engine helicopters in IMC would appreciate their entry pilots to have at least gained and renewed their IR a few times, even on a single-engine, before throwing them into i.e. Super Puma IR training and all that comes with that.
The reaons people are trying to bring out here are about being able to get yourself an IR without having to worry about losing an arm and a leg for it. Get it on a single-engine first and if you don't get a job flying IFR in a twin then you should at least be able to renew your IR on a single and keep yourself current in the aircraft because that is what we need. Oh yeah, safety, thats also a part of this. It has been analysed that a contributing factor in many helicopter accidents are related to poor or no IR training amongst the pilots involved.
I think Paco is right, to many FW people making the rules.
Maybe I'm just plane stu... but this is my opinion.
Heli-Ice
IMO it doesn't matter what kind of thingy you fly during IR training, if its a box a plane or a rotary. You train the IR procedures first of all.
It makes no sense that the only way to get a rotary IR in most of the JAA countries is to get a twin IR. I can get an IR and well I have one on my PPL(A) SEP but cannot on a rotary. Why, I can't understand because there are a few single engine helicopters out there IFR certified. I know that it is possible according to the big book of JARs to do it the SE way but there are only a few JAA flight training organizations providing that kind of training.
I believe that those operators that operate multi-engine helicopters in IMC would appreciate their entry pilots to have at least gained and renewed their IR a few times, even on a single-engine, before throwing them into i.e. Super Puma IR training and all that comes with that.
The reaons people are trying to bring out here are about being able to get yourself an IR without having to worry about losing an arm and a leg for it. Get it on a single-engine first and if you don't get a job flying IFR in a twin then you should at least be able to renew your IR on a single and keep yourself current in the aircraft because that is what we need. Oh yeah, safety, thats also a part of this. It has been analysed that a contributing factor in many helicopter accidents are related to poor or no IR training amongst the pilots involved.
I think Paco is right, to many FW people making the rules.
Maybe I'm just plane stu... but this is my opinion.
Heli-Ice
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For once, I don't think it is fair to blame FW people or the JAA for the situation in the UK:
- You can get a SE FW IR, so if the normal "ull across" to heles applied we would have SE IR(H) in the UK. It cannot be used for PT, but that is another story.
- The JAA do not prohibit the use of SE for IR(H) trg. It is the combination of the JAA rules and the pre-existing CAA RW requirements that do it for us.
- You can get a SE FW IR, so if the normal "ull across" to heles applied we would have SE IR(H) in the UK. It cannot be used for PT, but that is another story.
- The JAA do not prohibit the use of SE for IR(H) trg. It is the combination of the JAA rules and the pre-existing CAA RW requirements that do it for us.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Iceland
Age: 53
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it is not fair to blame the FW lot, but it was so very convenient at the time.
So true.
But of course the relevant training helicopter has to be certified for flight in IMC, IFR certified. That means some type of turbine helicopter=expensive stuff. It makes no sense to me that it costs more to get an IR(H) than it is to get the CPL(H) the JAA way.
That is what the heli training market is confronted with, expensive aircraft for basic IR training resulting in fewer pilots going IR.
I think that the CAA will have no problem with building a regulatory frame around IR heli training in single-engine piston helicopters not certified for flight in IMC, at least they have come up with all kind of good reg's for us and I have a strong belief in them. This is how it was done just a few years ago and I can't see why it can't be done anymore?
Heli-Ice
- The JAA do not prohibit the use of SE for IR(H) trg.
But of course the relevant training helicopter has to be certified for flight in IMC, IFR certified. That means some type of turbine helicopter=expensive stuff. It makes no sense to me that it costs more to get an IR(H) than it is to get the CPL(H) the JAA way.
That is what the heli training market is confronted with, expensive aircraft for basic IR training resulting in fewer pilots going IR.
I think that the CAA will have no problem with building a regulatory frame around IR heli training in single-engine piston helicopters not certified for flight in IMC, at least they have come up with all kind of good reg's for us and I have a strong belief in them. This is how it was done just a few years ago and I can't see why it can't be done anymore?
Heli-Ice
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there is any harm in doing some of the flying in a light piston. Just to get the hang of holds and the procedures. However you should be able to do basic instrument flying before you start the IR. You must be able to fly straight and level and execute coordinated turns without having to work too hard. After all the instrument rating is more about aircraft management rather than handling. I agree that at some point in the course you should be exposed to hard IMC and that means Bristow's 206 or a small twin. Being a graduate of the Bristow's school I am biased towards doing the single IR and then doing a multi upgrade once the twin type rating has been done. I believe this used to be reflected by the IR pass rate, although that was some time ago.
However I think the major point is the availability of a Stab system. I believe a SAS would make the IR so much easier than in a floppy stick machine and is more important than the one engine or two issue.
However I think the major point is the availability of a Stab system. I believe a SAS would make the IR so much easier than in a floppy stick machine and is more important than the one engine or two issue.
As i understand it the plank boys cant get an IMC rating with a JAR licence, only with a CAA licence and only for use in the UK, so that will die a slow death.
However, it does modify the pilot's IFR minima, so it will allow a pilot to legally fly VFR in much poorer visibility than without, even outside UK airspace. That however is unlikely to apply to you rotary chappies anyhow.
G
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm planning to do the FAA IR(H) on top of my JAA CPL(H) (including FAA CPL(H) at HAI.) I know it's not worth anything over here in the UK, but the way I see it, I'll be safer, and it may put me up the ladder a step if I want to apply for a North Sea job that would involve them having to assess whether I'm worth sponsoring to do the JAA IR, i.e. potentially lower training risk.
Si
Si
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,158
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Well, I did my Canadian IR on a 206, non-IMC with an examiner who didn't let me get away with anything and as far as I am concerned it's just as valid an IR as anything else on the market.
Phil
Phil
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: South Wales
Age: 48
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hedski, why would you say its more expensive to convert an FAA IR to a JAA IR, than taking the JAA IR from fresh? Why is taking your IR in a single piston unrealistic? Surely the clouds are still the same and the approaches havent changed??
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread.
In Canada there is only 1 helicopter IR.
One can do it all in a Robbie or Bell 206, there is no twin requirement. The only twin IFR requirement is for the issuance of an ATP-H.
Most people over here do about 20 hours IPT, 20 hours in a Cessna 172 type aeroplane
And do another 5 hours in a Bell 206 and then to an IFR ride.
The Bell 206 is not approved for IFR in Canada because most of them are not equipped with SAS. Therefore if you can demonstrate that you can fly IFR in an aircraft that doesn’t meet the stability requirements then in theory flying a real IFR helicopter shouldn’t be a problem.
In reality the initial IR is just to get the job, anywhere you got to fly IFR for real will require a PPC on a Twin and a PPC is an IFR ride; plus you will be spending quite a bit of time as an FO.
I don’t understand the pre-occupation in Europe with the twin IFR helicopter rating. It must be a throw back to fixed wing where an engine failure while intercepting the LOC can be a handful with the asymmetric thrust, and feathering the {wrong} prop to deal with. That same scenario in a Twin helicopter is no big panic.
When I did IR training(for type rating) I preferred a candidate with an IR on an aeroplane twin than a candidate with an IR helicopter done on a Bell 206. The reason, simply; they were better and it made my job easier.
If I was running the helicopter world it wouldn’t matter what you did your IR on whether it be a single aeroplane or twin helicopter, the PPC is still the catch all for standards.
In Canada there is only 1 helicopter IR.
One can do it all in a Robbie or Bell 206, there is no twin requirement. The only twin IFR requirement is for the issuance of an ATP-H.
Most people over here do about 20 hours IPT, 20 hours in a Cessna 172 type aeroplane
And do another 5 hours in a Bell 206 and then to an IFR ride.
The Bell 206 is not approved for IFR in Canada because most of them are not equipped with SAS. Therefore if you can demonstrate that you can fly IFR in an aircraft that doesn’t meet the stability requirements then in theory flying a real IFR helicopter shouldn’t be a problem.
In reality the initial IR is just to get the job, anywhere you got to fly IFR for real will require a PPC on a Twin and a PPC is an IFR ride; plus you will be spending quite a bit of time as an FO.
I don’t understand the pre-occupation in Europe with the twin IFR helicopter rating. It must be a throw back to fixed wing where an engine failure while intercepting the LOC can be a handful with the asymmetric thrust, and feathering the {wrong} prop to deal with. That same scenario in a Twin helicopter is no big panic.
When I did IR training(for type rating) I preferred a candidate with an IR on an aeroplane twin than a candidate with an IR helicopter done on a Bell 206. The reason, simply; they were better and it made my job easier.
If I was running the helicopter world it wouldn’t matter what you did your IR on whether it be a single aeroplane or twin helicopter, the PPC is still the catch all for standards.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 401
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?
For flying a twin, which is what you need for real world IR then these things must be practised in training, it becomes a handful very quickly up there.
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. When it comes to something as dangerous as IMC IR those looking to make it as easy and cheap as possible should stop and think. I did my research beforehand too: Bristow North Sea said they would not employ me with FAA IR and try to convert it as the last time they tried their students had to do the full SE IR course at Norwich to make the grade. CHC had to convert some FAA IR's recently and ended up letting some people go as they couldn't manage to make it either, so no go there. Finally Bond just said "we will not give you a job if you have an FAA IR" and also said they would not attempt to convert it. So regardless of opinions if you want a job like that, a great IR breeding ground as you could still kill yourself if you blast off onshore straight away, then do as they ask.
Having done the full JAA course I would reccomend it, its tough for a reason. IMHO
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?
For flying a twin, which is what you need for real world IR then these things must be practised in training, it becomes a handful very quickly up there.
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. When it comes to something as dangerous as IMC IR those looking to make it as easy and cheap as possible should stop and think. I did my research beforehand too: Bristow North Sea said they would not employ me with FAA IR and try to convert it as the last time they tried their students had to do the full SE IR course at Norwich to make the grade. CHC had to convert some FAA IR's recently and ended up letting some people go as they couldn't manage to make it either, so no go there. Finally Bond just said "we will not give you a job if you have an FAA IR" and also said they would not attempt to convert it. So regardless of opinions if you want a job like that, a great IR breeding ground as you could still kill yourself if you blast off onshore straight away, then do as they ask.
Having done the full JAA course I would reccomend it, its tough for a reason. IMHO
