JAR IRI(H) privileges
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere along the ITCZ
Quite clearly the above suggests that ME IR (H) is type specific and therefore a TRI (H) instructing on ME Helicopter type may extend your SE IR to a ME IR.
@ Jet Ranger: you need to get your IR SE (A) converted to a IR SE (H)
Check out JAR–FCL 2.205 Flight instruction
(See Appendix 1 to JAR– FCL 2.205)
An applicant for an IR(H) shall have participated in a course of integrated flying training which includes training for the IR(H) (see JAR–FCL 2.165) or shall have completed an approved modular flying training course as set out in Appendix 1 to JAR–FCL 2.205. If the applicant is the holder of an IR(A) the total amount of flight instruction required by Appendix 1 to JAR–FCL 2.205 may be reduced to 10 hours.
Once you complete the conversion from A to H then do your 5 hours dual instruction with the TRI/TRE for the B212 in order to extend your SE IR (H) to ME IR (H). And last but not least, if no TRTO offers to conduct the latter or the UK CAA rejects it, I suggest you go check out other JARland members
@ Jet Ranger: you need to get your IR SE (A) converted to a IR SE (H)
Check out JAR–FCL 2.205 Flight instruction
(See Appendix 1 to JAR– FCL 2.205)
An applicant for an IR(H) shall have participated in a course of integrated flying training which includes training for the IR(H) (see JAR–FCL 2.165) or shall have completed an approved modular flying training course as set out in Appendix 1 to JAR–FCL 2.205. If the applicant is the holder of an IR(A) the total amount of flight instruction required by Appendix 1 to JAR–FCL 2.205 may be reduced to 10 hours.
Once you complete the conversion from A to H then do your 5 hours dual instruction with the TRI/TRE for the B212 in order to extend your SE IR (H) to ME IR (H). And last but not least, if no TRTO offers to conduct the latter or the UK CAA rejects it, I suggest you go check out other JARland members
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
From: bora scirocco
@PeterPP
...thanks, I understand that
Hm...now, I only wonder may I go directly from SE IR(A) to ME IR(H)? Let´s say, for example, together with some ME-type rating...I think, it is OK but type rating must be with IRI(H)...somebody was talking here about that recently...
...thanks, I understand that
Hm...now, I only wonder may I go directly from SE IR(A) to ME IR(H)? Let´s say, for example, together with some ME-type rating...I think, it is OK but type rating must be with IRI(H)...somebody was talking here about that recently...
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere along the ITCZ
Jet Ranger, as I've said in my previous posts I don't think you can do that, you need to hold an IR (H) first. You may do a ME IR (H) from scratch and your CAA may grant you credits based on your SE IR (A) (i.e. the 10 hours referred on JAR-FCL 2.205) or which is what I suggested if you are trying to save some money: obtain an SE IR (H) to begin with and then since you are already VFR rated on the 212 extend that SE IR (H) to a ME IR (H) after 5 hours dual instruction with a the 212 TRI(H) as per JAR-FCL 2.240 (4).
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
From: bora scirocco
IR(A)-IR(H) SE - IR(H) ME ... That step in the middle is not neccessary... Because if you are going to make transition training on ME heli, you are going directly to IR(H) ME.
...and, IR-H training on SE helicopters is not allowed in many countries accross the Europe anymore ...
Only my opinion ...
JR
...and, IR-H training on SE helicopters is not allowed in many countries accross the Europe anymore ...
Only my opinion ...
JR
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: UK
The basic premise is as follows:
The extension if IR(H) privileges from one MEH type to another is a matter only of the transfer of existing instrument flying skills to the new type and, therefore, may be conducted by an appropriately qualified TRI. When extending privileges from SEH to MEH, however, new instrument flying skills are required and only a suitably qualified FI(H) or an IRI(H) may deliver the training.
The privileges of the IR(A) clearly cannot be extended to a helicopter type; a different rating is required. Consequently, it is necessary to complete an initial IR(H) course, although the flight training may be reduced to not less than 10 hours. The course may be completed on either a SEH or a MEH and the instruction must be given by either a suitably qualified FI(H) or an IRI(H).
The extension if IR(H) privileges from one MEH type to another is a matter only of the transfer of existing instrument flying skills to the new type and, therefore, may be conducted by an appropriately qualified TRI. When extending privileges from SEH to MEH, however, new instrument flying skills are required and only a suitably qualified FI(H) or an IRI(H) may deliver the training.
The privileges of the IR(A) clearly cannot be extended to a helicopter type; a different rating is required. Consequently, it is necessary to complete an initial IR(H) course, although the flight training may be reduced to not less than 10 hours. The course may be completed on either a SEH or a MEH and the instruction must be given by either a suitably qualified FI(H) or an IRI(H).
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere along the ITCZ
@ Jet Ranger: Whatever dude... Perhaps you should take a second look on your facts, IR (H) training on single engines is still conducted in certain JAR countries and that step in the middle as you say is clearly necessary as we are talking about different category of aircraft.
@ rotarywise: I hear you but those "new instrument flying skills" are type specific except for the generic OEI instrument approaches conducted on any type rating that includes instrument privileges. Tracking VORs, conducting holds, flying arc DMEs are all the same as flying on a S-76, HU269 or even a C172. Using a Radalt in the context of an ARA for instance is a different topic but all the previous stuff is basic instrument flying, all you need to do is get familiar with a different instrument display. Let me ask you this: could you please quote JAR-FCL2 for "only a suitably qualified FI(H) or an IRI(H) may deliver the training"?
Perhaps you should take a second look on your facts, IR (H) training on single engines is still conducted in certain JAR countries and that step in the middle as you say is clearly necessary as we are talking about different category of aircraft.@ rotarywise: I hear you but those "new instrument flying skills" are type specific except for the generic OEI instrument approaches conducted on any type rating that includes instrument privileges. Tracking VORs, conducting holds, flying arc DMEs are all the same as flying on a S-76, HU269 or even a C172. Using a Radalt in the context of an ARA for instance is a different topic but all the previous stuff is basic instrument flying, all you need to do is get familiar with a different instrument display. Let me ask you this: could you please quote JAR-FCL2 for "only a suitably qualified FI(H) or an IRI(H) may deliver the training"?
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: UK
PPP - The 'new' instrument flying skills are those not examined in the SE IR Skill Test (i.e. Engine failure after take-off and on/during approach). To extend the IR(H) for the first time to a multi-engine helicopter type it is necessary to complete at least 5 hours of instrument instruction and pass the IR Skill Test in a multi-engine helicopter (JAR-FCL 2.240(a)(4)). The 5 hours training is, therefore, training leading to an instrument rating the conduct of which is not included in the privileges of a TRI rating. Once a MEIR(H) is held, a TRI may extend the IR privileges to other ME types.
Jet Ranger - Suitably qualified FI(H) means an FI(H) who is qualified to instruct for the instrument rating on a multi-engine helicopter (JAR-FCL 2.320C(e) and (f)
Jet Ranger - Suitably qualified FI(H) means an FI(H) who is qualified to instruct for the instrument rating on a multi-engine helicopter (JAR-FCL 2.320C(e) and (f)
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere along the ITCZ
@rotarywise: If you are quoting JAR-FCL 2.240(a)(4), I sincerely don't get how you extrapolate from "complete at least 5 hours of instrument instruction and pass the IR Skill Test in a multi-engine helicopter " to "The 5 hours training is, therefore, training leading to an instrument rating"
Those 5 hours of instrument instruction are not instruction towards an Initial IR(H) rating but instead instruction towards the extension of an already existing IR(H). I agree with you in the sense that a TRI(H) cannot instruct towards an initial IR and therefore a IRI(H) is needed in that case.
Those 5 hours of instrument instruction are not instruction towards an Initial IR(H) rating but instead instruction towards the extension of an already existing IR(H). I agree with you in the sense that a TRI(H) cannot instruct towards an initial IR and therefore a IRI(H) is needed in that case.
Joined: Jul 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL(H)
Posts: 3,054
Likes: 57
From: UK
PPP,
Hmmm, you seem to be very resistant to accepting advice on this matter and seem to be choosing to interpret the JARs in the way that you see fit.
Have you actually tried emailing your NAA for clarification? That will surely clear up the matter, once and for all.
Hmmm, you seem to be very resistant to accepting advice on this matter and seem to be choosing to interpret the JARs in the way that you see fit.
Have you actually tried emailing your NAA for clarification? That will surely clear up the matter, once and for all.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere along the ITCZ
Bravo73,
While I always appreciate reading your insightful posts, I believe that on this topic it is really a matter of "interpreting the JARs in a way that one sees fit" as you stated earlier but clearly not the way both rotarywise and yourself interpret them on this occasion. We are all quoting the same reference but interestingly reading it differently, I sincerely do not see how one could claim that the 5 hours dual instrument instruction for the purpose of the extension of an existing SE IR(H) must be conducted by an IRI(H) and cannot be conducted by a TRI(H) who holds an ME IR(H).
Your point of view suggests that whenever companies such as CHC, Bristow, DanCopter, NHV, Bond... hire a pilot who holds a SE IR(H), say on a B206, and send him to, say a S-92 Type Rating course, the instrument portion of the course will have to be taught by an IRI(H) rated on the S-92 since a TRI(H) with Instrument privileges on the S-92 will not be qualified for the job. Does that make sense?
Ultimately I don't really care about this since I am instrument rated, what bugs me is seeing fellows being misled when trying to navigate the JAR maze.
While I always appreciate reading your insightful posts, I believe that on this topic it is really a matter of "interpreting the JARs in a way that one sees fit" as you stated earlier but clearly not the way both rotarywise and yourself interpret them on this occasion. We are all quoting the same reference but interestingly reading it differently, I sincerely do not see how one could claim that the 5 hours dual instrument instruction for the purpose of the extension of an existing SE IR(H) must be conducted by an IRI(H) and cannot be conducted by a TRI(H) who holds an ME IR(H).
Your point of view suggests that whenever companies such as CHC, Bristow, DanCopter, NHV, Bond... hire a pilot who holds a SE IR(H), say on a B206, and send him to, say a S-92 Type Rating course, the instrument portion of the course will have to be taught by an IRI(H) rated on the S-92 since a TRI(H) with Instrument privileges on the S-92 will not be qualified for the job. Does that make sense?
Ultimately I don't really care about this since I am instrument rated, what bugs me is seeing fellows being misled when trying to navigate the JAR maze.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: UK
PPP - I would have thought that the fact that the 5 hours of instruction culminated in an Instrument Rating Skill Test was enough of a clue. There is nothing in JAR-FCL 2 that distinguishes between an 'initial' instrument rating and any other. However, ultimately it is not your opinion or mine that matters, but solely that of the licensing authority. In the case of the UK, at least, the opinion is that the course must be conducted by an IRI(H). In fact, the UK CAA recently refused to issue an S92 type rating to a candidate, who had completed the FSI type rating course, precisely on these grounds - prior to the course, he held a SEIR and although FSI had conducted the 5 hours extra training, it had been completed by a TRI and not an IRI.
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
From: bora scirocco
Helicopter for IR(H) training?
Question?
Let´s say, if you are doing initial IR(H) training (or transition IR-A to IR-H), with IRI(H) from some JAR FTO(H) ... IFR training in VMC conditions ...
...I wonder, is it necessary that helicopter has IFR certification or some kind of CAA approval for that particular job, or it has to be only properly equiped ( B206 with HSI, DME etc..., or standard equiped 212 ... NAV1-HSI; NAV2-OBS ... with DME, GPS ... but without SAS and auto-pilot...). I think, it should be enough...for IFR training in VMC condition.
How it works?
Let´s say, if you are doing initial IR(H) training (or transition IR-A to IR-H), with IRI(H) from some JAR FTO(H) ... IFR training in VMC conditions ...
...I wonder, is it necessary that helicopter has IFR certification or some kind of CAA approval for that particular job, or it has to be only properly equiped ( B206 with HSI, DME etc..., or standard equiped 212 ... NAV1-HSI; NAV2-OBS ... with DME, GPS ... but without SAS and auto-pilot...). I think, it should be enough...for IFR training in VMC condition.
How it works?
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere along the ITCZ
@rotarywise:
Allow me to paraphrase you, I would have thought that The holder of an IR(H) valid for a single-engine helicopter type wishing to extend the IR(H) to a multi-engine helicopter type shall satisfactorily complete a course comprising at least 5 hours dual instrument instruction time in that type (JAR–FCL 2.240 (a) (4)) and the absence of "Instrument Rating Skill Test" on the original JAR-FCL was enough of clue for not considering this a prerogative of an IRI(H) job.
The UK CAA seems to have been the one introducing the idea of Skill Test following the 5 hours whereas the original texts, quite interestingly, refer to to IR(H) extension to ME on the Subpart F - Type Rating. Not on the Subpart E - Instrument Rating, isn't that interesting? Instrument instruction explicitly related to a type rating, therefore the job of a type rating instructor. That seems to be quite a clue in IMHO.
But you're right, ultimately what matters isn't our opinions here on this forum but what our issuing authorities decide based on those texts, with coming EASA the margin for interpretation will probably shrink substantially and these debates will probably be happening less and less:roll eyes:
Allow me to paraphrase you, I would have thought that The holder of an IR(H) valid for a single-engine helicopter type wishing to extend the IR(H) to a multi-engine helicopter type shall satisfactorily complete a course comprising at least 5 hours dual instrument instruction time in that type (JAR–FCL 2.240 (a) (4)) and the absence of "Instrument Rating Skill Test" on the original JAR-FCL was enough of clue for not considering this a prerogative of an IRI(H) job.
The UK CAA seems to have been the one introducing the idea of Skill Test following the 5 hours whereas the original texts, quite interestingly, refer to to IR(H) extension to ME on the Subpart F - Type Rating. Not on the Subpart E - Instrument Rating, isn't that interesting? Instrument instruction explicitly related to a type rating, therefore the job of a type rating instructor. That seems to be quite a clue in IMHO.
But you're right, ultimately what matters isn't our opinions here on this forum but what our issuing authorities decide based on those texts, with coming EASA the margin for interpretation will probably shrink substantially and these debates will probably be happening less and less:roll eyes:
