The Future Airspace Strategy will require a total rethink about the way training is conducted for the IR with the proposed removal of ground based navaids yet nobody at the regulatory end has even considered how pilots will be trained for it.
I have recently got an EASA lifetime licence and made sure that the now named IR(R) got added to the rating sheet - and have been asked the question why bother if you have an IR? Main reason is to keep the historical record, also if the IMC survives, the two year validity (vs one year for IR) might come in useful. It is worth reminding the examiner to fill in the IMC renewal at the time of the IR renewal.
That's a really good point Robert.
Doesn't one has to send a cheque for £70 to the CAA at the same time?
My IMCR lapsed the bigger part of 10 years ago, but if I can get the signature (had the JAA IR reval in January) I will go for it.
Peter if the rating is valid they transfer it as part of the licence conversion to EASA, the conversion, however you pay for (GBP139?) - fees for adding new ratings now start at GBP89. Again for historical record purposes I asked for a lifetime national CPL to be issued using the reason that I also fly Annex II. The EASA also allows operating an Annex II but, thinking about these interesting times belt and braces might apply.
The Future Airspace Strategy will require a total rethink about the way training is conducted for the IR with the proposed removal of ground based navaids yet nobody at the regulatory end has even considered how pilots will be trained for it.
Just saw this one posted back in October and thought I'd comment. There's an EASA rulemaking group under the name of MDM.062 (RMT.0256, 0257). ToR, GC. The purpose of the group is to work out how to get rid of the need for specific approvals for PBN operations, which in practice means how to incorporate PBN into the training and testing regimes that are currently based on conventional ground-based navigation, as well as into the ops rules.
Most instructors that I know (that don't teach IR) fly on their IR for 12 months then fly on their IMC for a further 13 months. Then renew both. Keeps the costs down and for all purposes gives exactly the same privileges.
Of course those with UK CPL never needed to do this as they had built in IMC privileges for life.
Most instructors that I know (that don't teach IR) fly on their IR for 12 months then fly on their IMC for a further 13 months
They won't be able to do this anymore because now if you let an IR lapse, you are back to an ATO for "retraining".
Ref here (search for "Keeping the JAA IR Valid")
This is a huge gotcha under the new regime. You cannot afford to delay the IR revalidation at all, otherwise (unless you can, ahem, line up some sort of "informal treatment" at an ATO you work at) you are back into the clutches of the money-making system.
If you just revalidate an IR you can do it with a freelance IRE or CRE/IRR and there is no fuss.
The other big change is that flying on another ICAO IR used to keep your JAA IR "frozen" so you could just revalidate it with the freelance man. Not any more!
I don't know what EASA will decide, but I can say a few things about France. Since 2011 we have had a National IR for private pilots. Compared with the IMC (if I'm not mistaken), it gives extra privileges. For exemple the ability to fly in any airspace, including class A. It's a real IR. The difference with the commercial one is the theory. Several parts of the syllabus of the european IR have been removed. For exemple parts concerning jets, turbines and international conventions. As a counterpart, it is valid only with SEP and MEP. To fly a turbopro, you have to get the european IR.
Training is more convenient for people who work and can't afford to take several weeks off to get their rating. You have to attend a 2 days session in a FBO, then you have 18 monthes to study at home with books when you have time to do it. The flight training can be done in any aeroclub near your place provided that they have an IFI and they have concluded a agreement with a FBO about the program of the training. Also, a few hours will have to be flown within an FBO. As far as I know, very few aeroclub comply with these 2 points, making it fairly difficult to train out of an FBO in real life. This National IR is valid in France only. The DGAC hopes that it will be used as a base for the future european private IR. To enable this, several requirements of the EASA have been met, such as the 2 days course in a FBO, and some parts in the syllabus, which seems pointless but were kept to comply with the EASA wishes.
We have now several pilots in France (I wouldn't know the number) who fly with this IR.
Interesting...
There was much made by France of their IR being ICAO compliant.
One wondered why they said that. One reason might be that EASA could not kill it off. Another might be that the French could simply upgrade all "French IR" holders to the "EASA IR" if/when it comes.
If it is valid in French airspace only, it's not worth much, because France has Class E to FL115 (generally) so VFR in France is quite easy, and in any half decent weather one is VMC above any cloud.
It would be worth doing if you believe that you will get a straight swap for the EASA IR (the CBM IR or whatever).
Or maybe French IFR-capable pilots do not fly outside France much? If that is the case, it is almost opposite of the UK where the IR is mostly for flying abroad. Within the UK, you can hack around "VFR" in Class G.
Australian private instrument rating (PIFR) is also valid ONLY within Australia (more details here), but unlike the British the vast majority of pilots here never take their little craft outside The Island :)
