There is a central list of approved training devices maintained by the variuos national authorities: https://lisstdis.easa.europa.eu/stdis/?MFF=&ACF=&IEF=&COF=&IAF=D&DES=std_expiration_date&DESText=
I don’t want to awake this thread again, but wanted to thank for this link!
what_next wrote:
There is a central list of approved training devices maintained by the variuos national authorities
There is also https://lisstdis.easa.europa.eu/eqstdis/ with simulators based outside EASA-land.
what_next wrote:
The problem in that case is that your ATPL theory credit is not valid indefinietly. Used to be 24 months, but that may be different now.
ATPL theory is good for three years for the issue of CPL and IR and seven years for the issue of ATPL. However, those seven years are counted from the last validity date of your IR. So IR can keep your ATPL theory valid indefinitely. It’s in some low FCL.0xx.
Martin wrote:
AFAIK you can combine CB-IR flight training with ATPL theory. At least in modular training, this can be done…
Yes, it can be done. Easiest when you know beforehand that you will be doing the ATPL some time in the (near *) future. You do your 14 subjects straight away in that case. But if you decide some years later that you want to go from PPL/(CB)-IR to ATPL you must go and do most of these 14 exams again.
Martin wrote:
Otherwise the hours won’t count for training (just like flying at home in FSX doesn’t count).
There is a central list of approved training devices maintained by the variuos national authorities: https://lisstdis.easa.europa.eu/stdis/?MFF=&ACF=&IEF=&COF=&IAF=D&DES=std_expiration_date&DESText=
Only devices listed there can be used to log hours, and only if the hours are flown within the “best-before date” of that device.
( * ) The problem in that case is that your ATPL theory credit is not valid indefinietly. Used to be 24 months, but that may be different now.
what_next wrote:
And CB-IR is kind of a dead end for someone who plans to get a commercial license or ATPL sometime in the future.
AFAIK you can combine CB-IR flight training with ATPL theory. At least in modular training, this can be done (I’m too lazy to check regs about integrated programs).
Peter wrote:
OK; I recall this too. It is the cheapest way to get an ME IR because flying SE is much cheaper than flying ME.
IIRC, ME IR requires 45 hours on aeroplanes (in the CB case) of which at least 5 must be on multi-engine aeroplanes. It’s up to you whether you take the SE IR skill test (for which you have to pay, obviously), it’s not necessary for the saving.
Bathman wrote:
Also are such approvals really needed?
AIUI, yes. Otherwise the hours won’t count for training (just like flying at home in FSX doesn’t count). You need to write their ID in your logbook. It’s understandable they need certain qualities to be considered good enough substitution for a real aircraft.
For private pilots yes. But most students do the integrated ATPL course and use the FNPT training device as much as they can. And CB-IR is kind of a dead end for someone who plans to get a commercial license or ATPL sometime in the future.
CB-IR is supposed to be just the IR portion, however. So how is the 50/55hrs justified today? The CPL is separate anyway. And of course the 14 ATPL exams are still done.
I have read many times that the FTO business was going to adopt the CB-IR process for the IR portion. They were not too concerned about revenue loss because most candidates need about 50hrs anyway to pass the test. And they have zero experience and zero unlogged IMC time (no previous exposure to GA in most cases). The CB IR is an advantage really for an experienced private pilot who can turn up with a lot of IMC time, logged or not.
At least some schools do (in modular ATPL training) SE IR first and then the 5 hour extension to ME IR. CB-IR for ME is 45 hours, so CB route in both cases brings 10 hour saving.
OK; I recall this too. It is the cheapest way to get an ME IR because flying SE is much cheaper than flying ME.
And why leave the old IR?
Also are such approvals really needed?
Arguably the sim needs to be of a reasonable standard, but the right way to deal with this would be conformance at the manufacturer end, not the CAA approving every single installation of the same sim…
Peter wrote:
SE IR was 50hrs but ATPL training won’t be doing that
At least some schools do (in modular ATPL training) SE IR first and then the 5 hour extension to ME IR. CB-IR for ME is 45 hours, so CB route in both cases brings 10 hour saving.
It always seemed to me like an odd coincidence that the CB-IR is 10 hours shorter which corresponds to the Basic Instrument Flying Module (or some such). AIUI this could be done separately and used for CPL which requires 10 hours of instrument instruction – if you did CPL before IR, you could do the BIFL first (10 hours), get it credited for the CPL (which reduced the training from 25 to 15 hours dual) and then do the IR training (40 hours for SE, 45 for ME). I wouldn’t mind hearing some background about this (where they took those 10 hours from and the rationale behind it).
And why leave the old IR? Especially flight training, but if it’s true that only HPA related theory was removed for the CB-IR, it doesn’t make sense to me to keep even the old IR theory (anyone wishing to fly HPA needs HPA course anyway, or ATPL theory). But I’m getting really off topic here.
Bathman wrote:
It would appear you can buy a FNTP2 simulator for any were between 5 and 15 grand
Sorry. These are sort of the prices I’ve seen for them second hand.
Those CAA charges are simply horrendous. Do such charges exist in FAA land.
Also are such approvals really needed? As far as I am aware there is no charge made to the CAA for an aircraft to be used by an ATO for IR training.
Peter wrote:
UK CAA charges
So they charge more or less the same in the UK as in Germany…
Peter wrote:
For an aircraft owner it is cheaper to fly the plane than to fly the sim…
Depends. Some years ago we had a Bonanza owner who did the IR course and he chose to use the FNPT for as many hours as possible after doing his math. And I even doubt that an IFR capable C172 can beat the FNPT hourly rate if you count the additional costs like airport fees, airport security fees, airport parking fees, approach charges, etc. And one saves a lot of time with the FNPT and can fly in every weather and at every time of day/night.
Peter wrote:
I would think the FTO business too must have moved to the CB IR process.
For private pilots yes. But most students do the integrated ATPL course and use the FNPT training device as much as they can. And CB-IR is kind of a dead end for someone who plans to get a commercial license or ATPL sometime in the future.
From the instructor’s point of view, FNPT training is far superior to training on the actual aircraft (just like real flight simulators give orders of magnitude better training than flying on the airplane itself). Every flight is in real IMC down to minima. No hoods or foggles or other crappy devices to simulate bad weather in an aircraft. One can spend 80 percent of the training time to practice the difficult stuff and not waste 80 percent of the training time for flying straight and level as in a real aircraft IFR session.
