You're absolutely right.
Whenever you cry-foul regarding JAR, they always play that ANO card!

If it's not in the ANO, it doesn't exist.
:ugh:

Sounds as if everything I hear about the UK CAA is true and they're ANOlly retentive:E

And it's not going to, I'm afraid. This has been covered on numerous previous threads.

We can be 100% certain that CAA staff have read this thread and we can also be equally certain that they never comment on pprune.

manfromuncle, I've spotted that the title of this thread contains "Fighting the CAA". Now whilst I suspect that this is just pastiche on Uncle Ian's very worthwhile thread, does this mean that you will actually be taking the CAA to court over this discrimination? One is more than happy to help and support if you are!

Cheers

Whirls

And I second that.

Many years ago the basic CAA IR training with Bristow was done at Norwich on the 206 and the wonderful :mad: link trainer, we then returned to Aberdeen/Shetland to continue training on the S61 or Puma. In the case of the S61 we also used the BA simulator.
There was no sense in taking the IR in a single engine 206, only to return to the test arena in a twin-engined 61 at a later date, as per the rules.
Subsequently with the introduction of the Tiger (Super Puma) we had a simulator which made CAA IR training much easier to conduct. However for introduction to the dark forces the link trainer was still used.

Bear in mind, the test requires:
Start, nav aid checks, taxi and departure, followed by airways routeing.
Arrival, hold/s as required by ATC and the examiner, an approach followed by a single engined go-round to a second approach from which a landing is made.

The test was predicated around twin operation in IFR, my favourite type of engine layout, a spare!

Seriously, to go back to the initial question. You really don't want to be operating single engine in the murk, not just cloud, add in all the other complications, ice, snow, rain, and turbulence. It's challenging enough in a big twin, it's rectum tightening in a much smaller aircraft which is probably not fitted with any form of AP or nav aids. Basic instrument flying is just that, basic, to help get you out of the deep brown stuff. Procedural work is intended for operations into and out of airports controlled by IFR regulations. There was and maybe still is an anomaly; you were not allowed to use the full scope of the autopilot, eg Height hold, which was understandable in the hold etc, but on an airway section could be a pain.


Then the reply by Flugplatz #3.

I hope the above covers your query. Pull back one engine on a twin and you get yaw, same as pulling back the engine on a single...........except you still have the comforting roar of the second engine, hopefully. Handling emergencies is all part and parcel of the test. :):)

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...


May I make a suggestion for those intending to have a go at the IR? Learn to play darts. Not so much the bit where you hurl the arrows at the board, more the mental maths needed to calculate the score and remaining total. Many moons ago I met a young man who sneered at an engineer who was reading the Sun; he was taken aback when told that the Sun reader could calculate numbers in his head far faster than the youthful university educated pilot, precisely because he played darts. So put away your calculators and use your heads. (What's 313 minus 45?) Get my point?:)

Thanks for the info Bootneck; we live and learn. Hopefully the more widespread use of lower-cost simulators will be the way forward to an affordable IR.

Flug

I'm sure that the non-military among you will be pleased to know that despite every mil pilot completing mandatory IF training each month and having a military Instrument Rating (which for an unrestricted rating means the full procedural format described by bootneck, every year) we still have to jump through all the CAA hoops , and pay the money if we want an IR when we leave:{

Crab

You should be in the Irish Air Corps then - last I heard when I was over there, they get full credit for their Mil training and hours, both flight crew and engineers. I may not be detail perfect on that but they certainly don't have the hardship experienced by those in the UK.

yep.......
 

crab@SAAVN is spot on. with over 3000 hrs, 200hrs instruments, over 100 different IF approaches ranging from QGH to GPS letdowns into bases, SRA and PARs, and the very unreliable Light Weight Nav Aid let downs, 500 night hours and not to mention the monthly and annual 'IF beastings' by the Squadron QHI's.....(and not forgetting the 2 week intensive IF phase of a 12 month pilots course that wasn't paid for...but fought for.... every day with the very real possibility of "the chop") It has just cost me the best part of £12,000 and I still had to sit all the same exams......and we get the reduced course ONLY if we held a GREEN or MASTER GREEN rating.

There are a number of AAC pilots who have left recently with 800 or so good quality hours, with 60-80hrs instruments but only amber ratings.....and have had to shell out for the entire course.

I've had the "yeah but it was ok for you ....you were in the Military and they paid for it" speech before. I can promise you one thing....we paid for it...because we worked and earned it...and personaly it took me 17 years to do so.

:ok:

TRUE BLUE.

This is something that I bitched about some time ago. What theory has actually changed that much that it requires a full re run of all of the IR exams because an IR wasn't achieved within the time period? Agree with the comment earlier about most of the stuff that was mandatory to learn being totally irrelevant in our world anyway DECCA?, complete load of parabollocks! In Oz they do an IREX exam. Just the one! Still requires some studying but a lot cheaper, compact and relevant!!!!!!

It would be nice for some CAA policy input and perhaps the reasoning behind the "resit all the Navs" thing.

The cynics amongst us might suggest it is a revenue generator, but a reply from the authority would be helpful and maybe we would all understand.

No chance. The bods at the CAA aren't that daft.



Why does there always have to be a conspiracy theory? If they wanted to generate more revenue, I can assure you that they would target a slightly larger market then those very few people who have to resit the IR(H) exams.

Anyway, what makes you think that the CAA are to blame? The 3 year theory validity period is a JAA requirement. The CAA no longer really determine policy; they just have to enforce it.

As someone currently studying fixed wing commercial aviation :confused: in order to achieve a ATPL(H) frozen and CPL(H), I wonder whether the views posted so far have been represented to the CAA.

I appreciate we all have our own (generally cynical) views of the CAA, but does anybody know if there is a formal procedure for instigating policy reviews? These type of bureaucratic system generally have complaint procedures that they have to follow for fear of upsetting the external auditors.

Perhaps a well worded, well reasoned letter / document produced by some of the more senior figures on this board could be made available for all members to download, personalise and then send to the relevant section within the CAA.

One would hope that a couple of hundered (hopefully) letters of complaint would force some form of review? Even if it didn't it'd sure mess up somebody's week. :}

As i said earlier....

JAR is not law. The ANO is. The CAA 'cherry-pick' parts of JAR that they want to implement, and conveniently ignore other parts.

They could easily choose to help the helicopter community by not deciding to implement this 3 year rule.

Fireb..
 

Agreed wholeheartedly.... and while we are at it, address the issue of fees, exam fees, admin fees and test fees validity dates (exams/paperwork). Imagine if these were all eased to the full amount under a code of commercial streamlining and cost cutting as per a private company! If the CAA and commercial companies as a whole could be somehow conjoined to run as a single commercial entity.... E.g a published overall GDP equivalent for UK Aviation with subsectors of commercial helicopter operations and fixed wing ops.. This would enable a government target for helicopter aviation expansion (and other) to be followed... as per BAA terminal 5 = 'national economic necessity for business'. National economic benefits would then be calculable and argued at a government level. Is this perhaps in the CAA's remit?

The current CAA situation is stifling UK aviation by about 30-40% (quick estimate of licence fees vs projected income and lost business due to high transferred cost to customers). An example.. it costs £212 to get a CPL licence administrated but appx half that for a PPL. This is the same amount of admin work though, surely. And how is £74 for a type endorsement justified, it's virtually doubled after CPL!...?
It's out of hand and the effects on aviation in general are inestimable. One only needs to look across the pond to see how aviation is stifled here in comparison.

Also perhaps the concept of a union of Heli pilots/operators to regulate/oppose CAA fees/decisions must have been raised before??
Rant over...