The Dumbing Down of Instrument Rating Tests
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dumbing Down of Instrument Rating Tests
Under the Australian CASA Regulations the flight test for issue or renewal of a Command Instrument Rating is broadly the same whether the aircraft is a Boeing 747 or a Beech Duchess.
Most general aviation ATO's conducting the CIR in the real aircraft (light twin such as a Seminole or Duchess) will require the whole test be hand flown except for a brief period of a few minutes to allow for change of approach charts. The CIR is therefore a test of pilot manipulative skills under IMC or simulated IMC. This will include engine failure management during instrument approaches.
In marked contrast the CIR for an airline pilot conducted in a full flight Boeing or Airbus simulator is conducted with full use of automatic pilot, FMC, automatic throttle systems, flight directors and a first officer who not only works just as hard at "monitoring" the captains monitoring of the automatics, but is entirely responsible for all radio calls. In addition it is permissable to use GPS coupling to conduct an NDB or VOR approach coupled to the automatics. In short, a "no-brainer" instrument rating test if pilots would be truthful about it. Even an engine failure after take off normally calls for engagement of the automatics as soon as practicable.
The flight test report form which lists the sequences required to renew or issue a Command Instrument Rating, has a note that states one instrument approach should be conducted without use of flight director. Terrifying stuff to some (jesting, of course...)
Traditionally, and this goes back many decades, the instrument rating test was a primarily a test of the pilot's instrument flying skills. At the outset, it was never envisaged the pilot would use an automatic pilot since obviously this did not test the pilots basic flying skills. One only has to watch the sometimes embarrassing gyrations of a pilot welded to use of automatics, having a go at hand flying raw data in a Boeing.
Rather than just have the one official form to cover a CIR regardless of aircraft type, is it not time to accept the inevitable and have two distinct classes of CIR. One that covers manipulative instrument flying skills for non-automation general aviation aircraft. The other tailored for the airline pilot where manipulative raw data skills are considered lower priority and less important than competency at full use of all automatics - and that includes the monitoring role by the PNF.
The fact is manufacturer's and airlines have long since mandated the prompt engagement of automatic systems after lift off - with disengagement to partial automatics in the last few hundred feet of final approach if visual. It becomes imperative that airline crews therefore are tested for competency in these areas. In other words a CIR (Automatic Flight). This would not be inter-changeable with the general aviation non-automatics command instrument rating.
Constructive comments invited
Most general aviation ATO's conducting the CIR in the real aircraft (light twin such as a Seminole or Duchess) will require the whole test be hand flown except for a brief period of a few minutes to allow for change of approach charts. The CIR is therefore a test of pilot manipulative skills under IMC or simulated IMC. This will include engine failure management during instrument approaches.
In marked contrast the CIR for an airline pilot conducted in a full flight Boeing or Airbus simulator is conducted with full use of automatic pilot, FMC, automatic throttle systems, flight directors and a first officer who not only works just as hard at "monitoring" the captains monitoring of the automatics, but is entirely responsible for all radio calls. In addition it is permissable to use GPS coupling to conduct an NDB or VOR approach coupled to the automatics. In short, a "no-brainer" instrument rating test if pilots would be truthful about it. Even an engine failure after take off normally calls for engagement of the automatics as soon as practicable.
The flight test report form which lists the sequences required to renew or issue a Command Instrument Rating, has a note that states one instrument approach should be conducted without use of flight director. Terrifying stuff to some (jesting, of course...)
Traditionally, and this goes back many decades, the instrument rating test was a primarily a test of the pilot's instrument flying skills. At the outset, it was never envisaged the pilot would use an automatic pilot since obviously this did not test the pilots basic flying skills. One only has to watch the sometimes embarrassing gyrations of a pilot welded to use of automatics, having a go at hand flying raw data in a Boeing.
Rather than just have the one official form to cover a CIR regardless of aircraft type, is it not time to accept the inevitable and have two distinct classes of CIR. One that covers manipulative instrument flying skills for non-automation general aviation aircraft. The other tailored for the airline pilot where manipulative raw data skills are considered lower priority and less important than competency at full use of all automatics - and that includes the monitoring role by the PNF.
The fact is manufacturer's and airlines have long since mandated the prompt engagement of automatic systems after lift off - with disengagement to partial automatics in the last few hundred feet of final approach if visual. It becomes imperative that airline crews therefore are tested for competency in these areas. In other words a CIR (Automatic Flight). This would not be inter-changeable with the general aviation non-automatics command instrument rating.
Constructive comments invited
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I sympathize with you.
Why have a Command Instrument rating at all? A person can either fly on instruments and pass the test or they cant. Why the command thing??
I am well aware of the Australians abilty to complicate things and I think a bit more "KIS" is still needed there.
The basics are still very important as it is a must for a candidate to be able to perform without the aid of automatics, even in this day and age.
Why have a Command Instrument rating at all? A person can either fly on instruments and pass the test or they cant. Why the command thing??
I am well aware of the Australians abilty to complicate things and I think a bit more "KIS" is still needed there.
The basics are still very important as it is a must for a candidate to be able to perform without the aid of automatics, even in this day and age.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: _
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tee Emm, not really sure what your geographical situation is (apologies if teaching and sucking eggs come to mind please) given you talk of Australian CASA but your profile says you're in the UK, however under JARs (and their EASA equivalent when they get around to licensing I guess) then the instrument rating confers only single pilot or multi pilot privelages and must be maintained separately. The multi pilot instrument ratings obviously require a type rating to go with them, hence the IR is only valid on that type. The single pilot IR is split into single engine and multi engine, the latter allowing you to exercise the privelages on the former as well if I recall correctly. So all that remains is your class rating be valid and you can exercise the privelages of your single pilot IR as you so chose, with the caveat you must be able to demonstrate your ability to manage the flight and control the aircraft without flight directors etc whilst an engine is failed, and god forbid do the radios 
If any of the fancy kit is fitted to a GA aircraft you sit the test on though, prudently, the examiner will check you know how to operate it as well. Is this broadly what you're pushing for?
If any of the fancy kit is fitted to a GA aircraft you sit the test on though, prudently, the examiner will check you know how to operate it as well. Is this broadly what you're pushing for?
