JAA IR Training - why only on a twin?
 

Does anyone know why the CAA/JAA insist that IR training is done only on a twin engined heli? (apart from the 206 at Norwich)

Why dont they let people train on an R22/R44 like in the USA?

I believe it's a JAA requirement. Probably so you can legally go into cloud?

Phil

i understand that the r22/r44 is not certified for actual IMC, but i cant understand what they dont authorise it for TRAINING purposes

You only need to do 10 hours in a twin.

Phil

My understanding too - it has to be an actual IR certified helicopter. I imagine it is too ensure that you

a) get to operate all the bits of kit in an actual IR aircraft
b) can go into cloud for training

To be fair, if money was no object, then you'd do everything in such an aircraft....

Since A + B require a twin engine aircraft (you can't get the kit + fuel and pilot in an R22 for example, regardless of the single engine failure issues) most training gets done in a twin.

The 206 in Norwich is a "special" case.

Having done the FAA IR too, I think it's OK but a shame you don't get to try the real thing at least once on that syllabus. It seems to me there is a happy medium where you do some sim for procedures, some single engine Simulated IR for basic aircraft control and cheaper procedure practice, and perhaps 3 - 5hrs Certified IR aircraft at the end to pull it all together.

That shouldn't be too budget crunching (although still not cheap!). Bear in mind your first actual IR flying will be as a Co-Pilot anyway - no one will let a newly minted CPL/IR loose on a SPIFR ship in actual IFR!

As it is, for me with an FAA IR, the conversion will cost ~16000 UKP + VAT for a twin IR :{

BG

It's like deja vu, all over again

Why twin? Except for being legal, there is no reason why we could not fly a properly equiped and certified single in a cloud. Planks do this all the time, why not helis.
Engine failures are rare and one would only have to be a bit more conservative regarding the weather. No problem for private flying and training. Would be helpfull.
:ugh:

Oh, skip it. You are right, 212, it is a déjà vu.

Good old Yogi can also explain your path for the JAA IR .

When you come to a fork in the road, take it !!

Why? I know it is because of existing "grandfather" rights but, if one is "OK", why aren't others?

Cheers

Whirls

Due to several modifications on the machine (Redundant systems on electricity, hyd etc). So it's not your standard jetranger :8
Not sure of the facts, but I think there is a timelimit to actual IMC.

Mr Rotorbee

which one did you have in mind? a single with stabilisation, duplex systems etc etc ?

in a 50/55 hour course they are only asking for 10 hours, (which was reduced from 15 not long ago), so to me its seems reasonable to me to fly in a aircraft that may actually have similarities with one you may fly on the line for real.

flying a Robbie in IR training from an aircraft management point of view is much less of a big deal than flying a real twin.

the bristows one is most definitely not a regular jetranger

regards

CF

Sure, I appreciate that but cannot others be suitably modified and used as IR trainers? A JetRanger may be more expensive than a R22 but it's cheaper than a twin!

Cheers

Whirls

well I guess its possible, but an operator would have to make a case , get a dispensation (dont know if this would be even possible), spend a whole load of money on adapting it and getting the aadaptions approved, and then find that they can only use it for IR training as it would probably be too heavy to use for VFR charter.

I have done the IR and personally I think flying the an appropiate twin is reasonable (even though the cost is high)

regards

CF

We had an IFR-LongRanger in Switzerland for quite a while. No dual hydraulics, I think not even dual generators. Bigger battery I think. It worked. Did not fall out of the sky.:ok:
And by the way, flying a Robbie even in simulated IMC is a lot of work. Remember? No autopilot like your fancy twin.:p
And I still think the only way to really fly helicopters is in the mountains with a load underneath. IFR for helos is like flying planks. If they could build runways on a rigg, they would do it and get rid of all the helos.
:E

I am led to believe that the Bristows Jet Box at Norwich is no longer being used for training due to a parts requirement and dispute between Agusta and Bell. Few people let down who were booked on courses! :{

It CAN be used for training purposes. 10 hours FNPT1, 30 hours suitably equipped R22 (ADF, HSI, screens etc) followed by 10 Hrs AS355 was the make up of the course at one of the IR training schools in the UK.

JAA - It's all a conspiracy. You can get an ICAO job as a Co with a single engine command IR. Over time you're going to learn all the stuff you would on a multi course whilst earning $$ to put away for the multi conversion.

True up to a point. Thing is the quoted cost of single IR vs twin IR is more or less the same.

With the twin course, you get a type rating, for the single, you don't get a 206 type rating....

As for the "special" 206 - I understand it was certified before 2 engines on IFR helicopters became a requirement - an SE engine helicopter cannot be IFR certified today. That is my understanding, and I can't quote chapter and verse for you!

BG.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

I've heard other "things" you see....

BG.

IR
 

Just to confirm the Bristows Jetbox is still flying high. The problem with Agusta/Bell parts is well in hand. Students are still going through with no problem.

One thing to remember with the whole IR thing is that being IFR current is type certified. You may have gone to the expense of getting a twin IR (ie on the AS355 perhaps) but you will still have to undergo training should you get a job flying anything else ie, AS365, 76 etc. This will be payed for by the company involved, therefore in my mind having a twin IR is no real advantage than a Bristows single.

If you think you are going to get a SPIFR job with no real instrument time under your belt then think again.