IR/Exam Discrimination: Fighting the CAA?
Guest
Posts: n/a
IR/Exam Discrimination: Fighting the CAA?
Here's a question for all you UK pilots:
How many pilots do you know who are re-sitting the CPL/ATPL exams because they didn't get their IR within three years? Quite a few I am willing to bet. I know at least five personally.
Also, you can gain a fixed wing IR on a single engine piston, but not a helicopter IR? Why is that?
I think it's time the CAA seriously considered changing the rules for helicopter instrument training. They need to understand that by forcing people to train on a twin turbine (yes, I know there is one 206 at Norwich) this makes it prohibitively for people to gain an IR within three years of getting their CPL. And let's not get into the utterly useless groundschool knowledge we have been forced to learn under the "interim" period.
In the USA people seeking to be a professional pilot generally do their IR straight after their PPL - much more sensible than forcing people to fly round in circles hour building to get to 155 hours.
Am I alone in thinking this situation is crazy?
Discuss.
How many pilots do you know who are re-sitting the CPL/ATPL exams because they didn't get their IR within three years? Quite a few I am willing to bet. I know at least five personally.
Also, you can gain a fixed wing IR on a single engine piston, but not a helicopter IR? Why is that?
I think it's time the CAA seriously considered changing the rules for helicopter instrument training. They need to understand that by forcing people to train on a twin turbine (yes, I know there is one 206 at Norwich) this makes it prohibitively for people to gain an IR within three years of getting their CPL. And let's not get into the utterly useless groundschool knowledge we have been forced to learn under the "interim" period.
In the USA people seeking to be a professional pilot generally do their IR straight after their PPL - much more sensible than forcing people to fly round in circles hour building to get to 155 hours.
Am I alone in thinking this situation is crazy?
Discuss.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I alone in thinking this situation is crazy?
Nope!
Can’t think of anything to discuss; completely agree with you!
In addition, there are a few people (including me) who got through part of their CPL exams thinking that eventually CPL/IR exams plus hours experience could be converted into an ATPL who are now finding that this “method” has been withdrawn and the only way to ATPL is to sit ATPL ground exams.
Cheers
Whirls
Yep, it sucks major league! I can understand training on twins-only as most aeroplane commercial work is on twins, and you have the whole asymmetry thing to deal with; but when the rotors are driven through a single gearbox...
It is a bit of a hangover from the days when there were virtually no 'light' twin helicopters and even less certified for actual IFR flight. Seems to be still hanging on as the usual training helos for initial IR (in the States at least) are the R22/H300 which are not certified for actual IFR, and so the CAA are being a bit conservative over here. As long as pilots don't try to actually use an IR in their R44, etc and wait until they are in a proper machine really suitable (autopilot, etc) as you will find at a much lower level in aeroplanes.
Flug
It is a bit of a hangover from the days when there were virtually no 'light' twin helicopters and even less certified for actual IFR flight. Seems to be still hanging on as the usual training helos for initial IR (in the States at least) are the R22/H300 which are not certified for actual IFR, and so the CAA are being a bit conservative over here. As long as pilots don't try to actually use an IR in their R44, etc and wait until they are in a proper machine really suitable (autopilot, etc) as you will find at a much lower level in aeroplanes.
Flug
Last edited by Flugplatz; 4th Feb 2008 at 22:45.
So why do a single engine IR(H) then? It serves no purpose. I'm all for people being confident to fly on instruments if necessary, but most people shouldnt even be flying if they are not suitably qualified, in an aircraft not certified for IFR flight and in IMC. If the wx is sh*t, you shouldn't be there in the first place, kind of thing.
If someone knows of a piston single, certified for IFR (does it have the necessary Autopilot/IFR fit etc) then please let me know.
Helicopters are predominantly VFR machines but the ones used for IFR commercial ops, are all twin engine (uk)
I think this argument could run and run.
Ok, do the training on a single perhaps but for what purpose? To then go and do the conversion to a twin anyway? Why not get the experience on the Twin, in IMC, more complex aircraft to keep on top of etc.
Or why not this:- Consider it part of the joining fee to a fairly exclusive club???
If someone knows of a piston single, certified for IFR (does it have the necessary Autopilot/IFR fit etc) then please let me know.
Helicopters are predominantly VFR machines but the ones used for IFR commercial ops, are all twin engine (uk)
I think this argument could run and run.
Ok, do the training on a single perhaps but for what purpose? To then go and do the conversion to a twin anyway? Why not get the experience on the Twin, in IMC, more complex aircraft to keep on top of etc.
Or why not this:- Consider it part of the joining fee to a fairly exclusive club???
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 52
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IR
The system in the UK does indeed need a re-think. It should'nt be modelled on the fixed wing, it should stand alone.
In my opinion the process should be something like the following:
Sit ATPL(H) or CPL(H) exams. They should be valid for 3 years to gain your CPL(H) licence then you have a further period of time, say 3 years in order to get your IR(H).
This then gives people time to save some more money for the course but also, which I think is the most important reason for allowing more time, is for pilots to gain valuble experience within the industry i.e build more time, progress onto single turbine then onto twin turbine. The main way of doing this is to go the instuctor route.
In my opinion the process should be something like the following:
Sit ATPL(H) or CPL(H) exams. They should be valid for 3 years to gain your CPL(H) licence then you have a further period of time, say 3 years in order to get your IR(H).
This then gives people time to save some more money for the course but also, which I think is the most important reason for allowing more time, is for pilots to gain valuble experience within the industry i.e build more time, progress onto single turbine then onto twin turbine. The main way of doing this is to go the instuctor route.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please could someone clarify the nature and purpose of the Instrument Rating for me? I thought much of it was procedural as well as flying in IMC conditions so aren’t there circumstances when one could be flying IFR in VMC conditions? Obviously, the other way round ain’t too clever!
Surely the procedural aspect of the training could be undertaken on a single piston helicopter which would thus reduce the cost?
Cheers
Whirls
Surely the procedural aspect of the training could be undertaken on a single piston helicopter which would thus reduce the cost?
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirls
Got it in one! The same argument applies for the use of an FNPTII or Procedures Trainer on the ground. And much of the time on the training twin is spent with blinds up to re-create the "environment" while the instructor happily takes in the sunlit, broad daylight view from the other seat.
The difficulty is the time - unless you're starting almost from scratch on a sponsored programme (scarcer than rocking horse s**t and/or hen's teeth) then the only way to acquire the qualification is by paying for it yourself - tough call just after paying for the PPL, then the CPL and Instructor's ticket.......but inside three years - nae chance!!
However, the absence of the aforementioned rocking horse s**t - sorry sponsored programmes - notwithstanding, the industry still basically expects individuals to possess a CPL/IR when they turn up for interview to fly larger twins.........
All things are not equal and it is far from being an ideal world!!!
"If Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!!"
Got it in one! The same argument applies for the use of an FNPTII or Procedures Trainer on the ground. And much of the time on the training twin is spent with blinds up to re-create the "environment" while the instructor happily takes in the sunlit, broad daylight view from the other seat.
The difficulty is the time - unless you're starting almost from scratch on a sponsored programme (scarcer than rocking horse s**t and/or hen's teeth) then the only way to acquire the qualification is by paying for it yourself - tough call just after paying for the PPL, then the CPL and Instructor's ticket.......but inside three years - nae chance!!
However, the absence of the aforementioned rocking horse s**t - sorry sponsored programmes - notwithstanding, the industry still basically expects individuals to possess a CPL/IR when they turn up for interview to fly larger twins.........
All things are not equal and it is far from being an ideal world!!!
"If Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!!"
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Up North
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main reason (like previously mentioned) is the fact that the UK CAA don't want people to be careless about flying into IMC conditions in a VFR single engined machine just because they have an IR and feel confident.
A load of bull if you ask me. I have a mother, I don't need a second one. The CAA are just being cowards in the face of (in their view) potential litigation and I presume feel that as newly minted IR rated pilots we will be overcome with childish excitement and take our R22s straight into the nearest cloud! Admittedly there might be a few, but legislating for the minority is paranoid at best.
Just to add insult to injury, even though we are in 'JAR land' and we 'supposedly' have the freedom to get our training and ratings in any country that is JAR compliant, if you get your SEIR(H) in a country that allows it (like Sweden), the UK CAA will still refuse to put it on your licence. So much for Mutual Recognition!
There's a word for people like that, it starts with 'F' and ends with 'uckers'..
A load of bull if you ask me. I have a mother, I don't need a second one. The CAA are just being cowards in the face of (in their view) potential litigation and I presume feel that as newly minted IR rated pilots we will be overcome with childish excitement and take our R22s straight into the nearest cloud! Admittedly there might be a few, but legislating for the minority is paranoid at best.
Just to add insult to injury, even though we are in 'JAR land' and we 'supposedly' have the freedom to get our training and ratings in any country that is JAR compliant, if you get your SEIR(H) in a country that allows it (like Sweden), the UK CAA will still refuse to put it on your licence. So much for Mutual Recognition!
There's a word for people like that, it starts with 'F' and ends with 'uckers'..
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eh......................
So what's to stop an irresponsible, but qualified IR driver, complete with twin hours in training, scooting of into the grey and muggy yonder in an under-equipped single?
I did a job in Ireland some years ago and, upon leaving Galway on a very poor day en route to Dublin in an IFR twin, climbed to 5000ft, getting clear on top at about 4,500ft to hear a JetRanger driver doing exectly the same thing not more than 20 miles ahead of me, fortunately on a diverging track.
I learned afterwards he was intrument rated and alternating between a larger IR twin and the 206. It would hardly seem to matter what kind of training was carried out if such is the mind-set of the pilot, now would it?
Slightly off-thread but effectively preventing or making it extremely difficult for people to qualify is hardly an acceptable method of maintaining standards, now is it?
So what's to stop an irresponsible, but qualified IR driver, complete with twin hours in training, scooting of into the grey and muggy yonder in an under-equipped single?
I did a job in Ireland some years ago and, upon leaving Galway on a very poor day en route to Dublin in an IFR twin, climbed to 5000ft, getting clear on top at about 4,500ft to hear a JetRanger driver doing exectly the same thing not more than 20 miles ahead of me, fortunately on a diverging track.
I learned afterwards he was intrument rated and alternating between a larger IR twin and the 206. It would hardly seem to matter what kind of training was carried out if such is the mind-set of the pilot, now would it?
Slightly off-thread but effectively preventing or making it extremely difficult for people to qualify is hardly an acceptable method of maintaining standards, now is it?
Last edited by heliski22; 4th Feb 2008 at 14:11.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South east England
Age: 53
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree with you!
Im fretting over the time I have left to pass the IR but I just cant afford it at the moment.
My Gripes also include the following...
I did all the ATPL (A) exams needed plus the ATPL (H) POF to get my CPL. I also have a fixed wing licence and thought "Why not get the CPL (A). I only have to do the POF (A) and Performance papers. Because its been more than 18 months since I started the ATPL Study I willl have to take ALL 14 ATPL (A) Exams again. SO flying around for 12 months using my CPL counts for nothing, Even though I had to bow to the CAA and do their interim exams which had very little to do with Helicopters.
Mad world, can deal with the mad, cant deal with the extra expense!!
Flash
Im fretting over the time I have left to pass the IR but I just cant afford it at the moment.
My Gripes also include the following...
I did all the ATPL (A) exams needed plus the ATPL (H) POF to get my CPL. I also have a fixed wing licence and thought "Why not get the CPL (A). I only have to do the POF (A) and Performance papers. Because its been more than 18 months since I started the ATPL Study I willl have to take ALL 14 ATPL (A) Exams again. SO flying around for 12 months using my CPL counts for nothing, Even though I had to bow to the CAA and do their interim exams which had very little to do with Helicopters.
Mad world, can deal with the mad, cant deal with the extra expense!!
Flash
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do their interim exams which had very little to do with Helicopters.
Cheers
Whirls
thwock,
Ah. That is one of those strange requirements.
IIRC, one hour of IR training or one hour of IMC actually counts as 4 hours IFR.
Therefore, if you've sat a 50hrs JAA IR course, you will have more than the required 100hrs IFR.
This repeatedly comes up on the fixed-wing wannabe forums.
Ah. That is one of those strange requirements.
IIRC, one hour of IR training or one hour of IMC actually counts as 4 hours IFR.
Therefore, if you've sat a 50hrs JAA IR course, you will have more than the required 100hrs IFR.
This repeatedly comes up on the fixed-wing wannabe forums.
Mutual Recognition
Smokin
Guess you’re referring to Proflight’s course in Sweden: they use an SE Bell I think. A friend of mine did their IR course recently, had no trouble getting it recognised by the Norwegian authorities and now works for one of the majors. It can be that straightforward
One problem area seems to be where different countries have implemented different amendments to JAR-FCL 2. So an overseas syllabus and its requirements can be non-aligned with the requirements of the licence-issuing authority. Here it’s perhaps important to make sure an overseas IR provider is experienced in dealing with the licence holder’s authority and aware of any problem areas.
Helimutt
Some countries allow IMC certification of SE aircraft, so it is possible to get IMC training during a SE IR(H) course
You are right, self-funded conversion to ME is still going to be expensive in practice, but if done as part of TR training by a major operator, quite straightforward.
Guess you’re referring to Proflight’s course in Sweden: they use an SE Bell I think. A friend of mine did their IR course recently, had no trouble getting it recognised by the Norwegian authorities and now works for one of the majors. It can be that straightforward
One problem area seems to be where different countries have implemented different amendments to JAR-FCL 2. So an overseas syllabus and its requirements can be non-aligned with the requirements of the licence-issuing authority. Here it’s perhaps important to make sure an overseas IR provider is experienced in dealing with the licence holder’s authority and aware of any problem areas.
Helimutt
Some countries allow IMC certification of SE aircraft, so it is possible to get IMC training during a SE IR(H) course
You are right, self-funded conversion to ME is still going to be expensive in practice, but if done as part of TR training by a major operator, quite straightforward.