You dont need an IR because we don't use it in our line of work.
Might (and I say that loudly) come in handy in less than 1% of jobs...so not cost effective.

The job is a VFR job....has to be.

TC,So you don't need an ATPL then!

:ok:
SS

Sorry dont understand where you're going with this Sil....

AT for air transport

AT for commercial

AT for experience

CP for commercial

CP for less experience

TC,

I see you're as up to date now as you were 3 years ago!

:rolleyes:
SS

When you come to renew your CAA ATPL licence, what will you get back in the post?

So TC just 1% of jobs would benefit from a pilot with an I/R? (assuming an instrument fit a/c and all relevent parts of sect 4 of the paom complied with).

Is this a best guess? Have you carried out any kind of study to come up with this figure? or is it just plain old fashioned bias coupled with; to old to learn something new :p

Some units will find it useful, some will not. My opinion is: We would not really benefit from an IR here at liverpool, however any extra IF flying has to be better than our current 3 or 4 hours a year. I have a fixed wing IR, so please don't accuse me of being too old to learn.

Sil: When I renew my CAA ATPL(H) i have a choice. Either I get one back - exactly the same, or I can opt for a JAR ATPL(H) for an extra £80 provided I have previous experience of 350hrs multi time in my inventory. Spoilt for choice really. Whatever - I still get my ATPL.

Still don't see where you're coming from?? Just come out with it and speak your mind dear chap.




Semi - Yes I have done a paper on it. It went to the home office and a CAA sub committee on 12th feb 2003 to be specific. The final assessment based on the views of 14 police units went thus:
---------------------------------------
In summary, operators felt that most if not all police tasking required the pilot to be visual with the surface at all times. A move to full IFR was deemed to be an over correction and not in the interests of the operator. Instead, a review of current standards based on realistic expectations for instrument conditions, should be the way ahead.
It was suggested that future procurement and funding programmes also take into account aircraft stability systems and NVG.
---------------------------------------

Perhaps I should have edited my previous post to negligible rather than 1%.

And it's not: "to old...."

it's: ".....too old...."

This subject has been thrashed to bits in our industry, semi....do keep up old boy.

The last time we had this conversation, it ended in;

"Yes, all my pilots have an ATPL and an instrument rating We haven't any vacancies anyway, so it's all irrelevant !"

I was only trying to find out what he industry was after in a pilot TC :sad:

Perhaps it was not only my Christmas wishes in Welsh, that were not understood that week!

It's been a few years since I was in the job, but didn't the (UK) debate over the IR begin after a police helicopter crashed at night, when the pilot became disorientated in cloud very shortly after takeoff and attempted to manoeuvre and land back on? (I remember it because I also got airborne and went inadvertent IMC that night - it was a stinker, weather far worse than forecast as the front went through).

The IR was proposed along with the mandate that all base helipads should be lit to a suitable standard, IIRC. It wasn't to make the aircraft more effective in the job, but to give the pilot full confidence in his ability to climb to MSA and recover to a diversion, rather than make a mess of trying to land back on with insufficient visual references.

TC. Yes I know we have thrashed this out many times before, but how can you conduct a study on the use of an I/R (in our line of work) when; those conducting the study have no experience of using an I/R ? Surprisingly the result turns out to be - we don,t need an I/R :\

Shy torque; Spot on, this is more of a safety issue than an operational one. The fixed wing world came round to this way of thinking years ago.

Sil - I apologise if I seemed defensive I noticed in the past that you have a computer for a memory and often catch people out that way!!! Which (it seems) you have here with me!
I don't recal saying that. If indeed I did, cancel the IR bit that was and is not correct. The industry doesn't require an IR.




Semi - Don't even go down the road of "safer inadvertant IMC".with an IR..
It won't happen if you don't push it...end of story! Only twice have we gone IMC here - BOTH were with contract pilots with an IR:\

The study was actually carried out by a Chief Trng Captain of a large service provider, he has an ATPL(H)IR and is an IRI. The application I put in also comes from 14 operators, some of whom were IR's.
If as you point out to Shy the emphasis is on safety - you have to approach the issue with moderation. 2 x crashes (the last of which involved a pilot with an IR).
Of course IR would be a good move, but is it the answer to the problem. What is the problem. Is there a problem?
A pilot with an IR actually remains current less frequently than a non IR pilot :ooh: He only has to fly an ILS each month to stay current????
I personally believe the CAA have it right this time with regard to cause and effect.

TC: Quote: A pilot with an IR actually remains current less frequently than a non IR pilot: Did you actually read that before typing it?

It would be good see that report to see how the conclusions were reached.

Don't you find it strange that the two ASU's that have rated pilots (one of which also operates with NVIS) appear very quiet on the issue?

Is one of the reasons for the IR reluctance that many police pilots are ex-mil and have a lifetime of IF behind them and therefore unlikely to spear in following inadvertant IMC.

However if your pilot is civilian through and through and has never held an IR, then surely he is the lowest common denominator - surely the only way to ensure all your pilots can hack inadvertant IMC is for them all to hold an IR.

This might be the time for a separate thread on the subject to avoid hijacking the current thread.
I've PM'd Crab and semi.

crab: I think you will find that a lot of the civvies have or have held I/R's as the experience required means they are probably ex north sea. It is some of the ex mil's who "appear" a little reluctant to go down the I/R route, having had a lifetime of low level vfr.

But your conclusion is correct, some companies in the UK are starting to see the benefits, and in time it will be the norm as in the fixed wing world. It is just a shame that some people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a newer and safer world :)

TC,

"A pilot with an IR actually remains current less frequently than a non IR pilot He only has to fly an ILS each month to stay current????"

Not sure of your logic in that statement. How does an IR rated pilot usually get to the top of the ILS letdown? VFR only?

The first accident I believe you refer to was a CFIT which occurred because the pilot, having encountered very poor visibility, unsuccessfully tried to use visual techniques to land back on an unlit helipad with insufficient visual cues to carry out the manoeuvre (i.e. at night in IMC). Had the pilot gone onto instruments, climbed to MSA and diverted it might possibly have ended differently. I think most police pilots could say "There but by the grace of God go I" over that one. I certainly could.

The second accident, if it's the EC135 one I'm thinking of, was an unusual one which involved unfamiliarity with the aircraft and inadvertent disconnection of the autopilot followed by loss of control.

The suggestion that all pilots employed on police duties should hold instrument ratings was strongly resisted mainly because of the pilot training and currency costs for what was seen as minimal return in job effectiveness. However, most pilots might be more prepared to launch in marginal wx conditions for a look-see transit to a job if there was a viable IFR recovery option. However, we are now getting into the realms of IMC / GPS letdowns back at base helipads that don't lie near an IFR airfield, another long gnawed bone of contention... ;)

The second reason was that some police aircraft in use at the time did not meet the minimum equipment requirements for IFR.

IFR fuel reserves could also be an issue, in view of the limited weight capacity of some older helicopters.

I totally agree that the police job is mainly a VFR/ VCF one but it's important not to "cloud" the true issues, so to speak.

Edit: Sorry, posted after I saw your suggestion for a separate thread! :O

Crab, you would be suprised to see how quickly IF skills fade after you leave the military!! Our practice every few months allows us to survive an IMC, not fly to IR standards. That said, it is now enough.... Just.
The glasgow crash was aided by a lack of knowledge in how the autopilot worked :(

jayteeto, after having just had 6 weeks off flying post op I am well aware how perishable a skill IF currency is - that's when you fall back on experience if you have it, which was my point about the previous backgrounds of police pilots.

However semi-rigid, I dont think zillions of hours actual in a straight line with the holds in on a 2 pilot twin is much of a preparation for inadvertant IMC in a single pilot machine.

Shytorque, that first one wasn't CFIT, it was complete disorientaion due to transitioning into fog at a site which had been known for years as a black hole....there never was any proper attempt to land back on. Due to the potential hazards of the site having been left unaddressed it could have happened to me, you, or any one of us - IR or no IR, though I'm personally in favour of IRs for all police ops [...and NVIS, and 24hrs....Ok I'll get me coat]

It is my understanding that there is no requirement for an IR pilot to actually fly on instruments, whether simulated or for real, to stay current. Only the requirement to carry out an ILS once a month.

So it seem reasonable to say that us non-rated pilots, who are required to fly 1 hour under the hood every three months, could be more current on intruments than someone with an IR.