Wow, with how this has kicked off I thought I'd better clarify my position. I didn't mean to imply that flying on instruments is dead easy, or that training isn't required.
I meant that once you've been trained, and if you are reasonably current, then it isn't the hardest skill in the world. Currency is king.
Most of the training is what to do and when to do it, rather than how to keep the aeroplane the right way up, is it not? It certainly was for my IMCr.
I have to agree though, that the scare stories told to vanilla PPLs about how quickly they'll die in IMC are not helpful. I've discussed this with instructors previously, and where they are adamant that in a tricky situation you must maintain VMC at all costs, I contend that if you have basic instrument flying skills then maintaining MSA comes before maintaining VMC. What's the use of seeing the ground if you hit it.
I don't think VFR pilots die in VFR-into-IMC incidents because they are told they will die. Certainly in the US no one tells PPLs that they are surely going to die if they go into IMC, in fact there's a mandatory 3 hours of hood training in the US PPL which at least demonstrates that it is possible to control the aircraft without looking out the window.
Certainly in the US no one tells PPLs that they in IMC
That's the big difference between the US and Europe! We have no such thing as the 3 hours mandatory simulated IMC training.
On the contrary, during the PPL training I had one lesson designed to instill fear of IMC. I was completely blindfolded (so I couldn't even see the instruments), and was tasked to fly the aircraft. The expected outcome was that I would fall out of the sky pretty quickly, with the instructor taking over. The actual outcome was that the instructor got bored after 3 minutes or so, and terminated the experiment. When the blindfolds were taken off, I was in a shallow (<10deg) turn and had lost about 50ft.
The fact that we should be getting the EIR rating with relatively little required instruction hours, and the fact that current european full IR syllabi only dedicate about 10 hours to basic instrument flying, with the remaining 40 hours dedicated to flying approach procedures, kind of validates the point Achim made.
The VFR into IMC accidents cited in this thread look to me that these guys died because they panicked and/or had no plan on how to get out. This is IMO important, you cannot bimble in IMC/IFR, you have to have a plan.
Peter,
It is important that we do not have a lower standard "private IR" test because it would enable some anally retarded aviation regulators to ban pilots with such an IR from their airspace.
What the proposals are is that the THEORETICAL exam needs to be reduced to the level that is a) achievable even for full working professionals with a schedule (e.g. get rid of the 100 hrs classroom requirement, throw out all the ballast stuff which ATPL's will need in their career but PPLs won't.) That is the major point in the revision which is currently being discussed. The others are the possibility to do your IR on your own airplane as well as acknowledgement of hours flown on a foreign license. That is for the full PPL/IR. The flight test will not be any different from today, nor do I see that it should be. It is the flight test which will really show if someone is competent, not knowing how to repair one's radio in flight.
Regulators who would then ban PPL/IR under the new law would face legal challenge, big time. There is stuff which even they can't do, much less now that EASA basically has taken much of the authority away from them.
IFR GA has loads of enemies everywhere.
GA has loads of enemies everywhere. And that will change, but for the worse.
Denying GA the possibility to obtain IR (or rather make it more difficult) has been a policy in Europe for decades. Many reasons, none of them valid if there was a WILL to overcome them, some of them vaild because there is no such will.
One major problem I hear is the fact that low speed IFR is a major problem at larger airports, due to separation. A 90 kt airplane climbing on a SID can mean the 747 behind it will have to wait for up to 20 minutes until that aircraft has put sufficient distance between it. The answer would be relatively easy, device dedicated SID's for these planes to keep them out of the way. Nobody wants to do that however, but rather I keep hearing demands to "ban IFR traffic unable to keep >200 kts on all terminal procedures".
One other current argument I keep hearing is that "European airspace is too dense and full", suggesting getting rid of everything below a 737 would help. One guy I had a pretty hefty discussion with told me "we had it great in the old DDR, only airliners and the military flying, no amateurs. I wish Europe would go this way." Then he went on how lovely it was only to have a state airline per state and how he would love to get rid of privatized airlines at all, in other words, back to the 1950ties.
The major argument against GA I keep hearing from ATCO's however is the "lousy training level and voice" by the GA pilots, and it is the only one I have to agree with. When it comes to RT and proficiency, maybe we should up the standards quite a bit in order to get that argument out of the way once and for all. On FIS and sometimes even on controlled airspace Towers e.t.c. it is sometimes really embarrassing if you hear GA pilots babble their stories instead of proper RT. This annoys a great many ATCO's and makes them our enemy.
As GA ourselfs we need to be the ones who take apart these constant arguments whereever they have a grain of truth in them. We will not be able to convince Greens, Communists or other enemies of aviation and GA out of personal motifs, but we can do something to make us more welcome with ATC.
Loads of people fly nice planes with autopilots, but they barely know how the stuff works, and with a bit of "finger trouble" or an autopilot failure you could so easily lose the plane...
Yes, people need to be able to fly by hand, yes they need to know and DEMONSTRATE how to use their AP equipment at a test or IR revalidation. I do see people, even owners, whose planes are equipped with the best AP money can buy but don't know how to use it. That is not only a shame, but stuipd. But again, this is not a question if you make the IR a theroetical university level degree course, but how these people are taught and examined ON THE AIRPLANE!
To make the IR compulsory for all PPLs would again decimate the number of new pilots by, I'd wager, 80%. To incorporate the IR they currently teach into the PPL would mean nobody will graduate before approximately 80 to 100 hrs air time plus 200 hrs theory. Nobody has the time nor the money for this.
I personally think the proposed solution with the EIR as a stepping stone to the full IR following a normal PPL is an almost ideal solution for GA pilots, which will make the IR something people will take on who simply could not do it beforehand due to time and financial constraints. Both will help considerably in terms of safety and both will be a massive help when it comes to fly in Europe.
Frankly, for me it will be a decision point sometime next year if the new EASA IR comes or doesn't. If it does not, I know I won't be able to do the full current JAA IR 7 subject theory course so the IR is then beyond my possibles and I will probably hang up flying.
Tom,
The fact that we should be getting the EIR rating with relatively little required instruction hours, and the fact that current european full IR syllabi only dedicate about 10 hours to basic instrument flying, with the remaining 40 hours dedicated to flying approach procedures, kind of validates the point Achim made.
FULL AGREEMENT!
The major argument against GA I keep hearing from ATCO's however is the "lousy training level and voice" by the GA pilots, and it is the only one I have to agree with. When it comes to RT and proficiency, maybe we should up the standards quite a bit in order to get that argument out of the way once and for all. On FIS and sometimes even on controlled airspace Towers e.t.c. it is sometimes really embarrassing if you hear GA pilots babble their stories instead of proper RT. This annoys a great many ATCO's and makes them our enemy.
Wholeheartedly agree. I can only speak of what I know, but a good 70% of the RT from UK VFR GA is frankly embarrassing.
Come on people, it isn't hard. We just need to sound like we know what we're doing.
Farnborough LARS West aren't interested in how many people you have on board, or which sixteen villages you'll be routing via as you head from Denham to Goodwood, or what time you estimate crossing the M40, or that you intend to remain outside the White Waltham ATZ by at least three nautical miles.
Short and snappy, and leave out what they don't need please. Better yet, if you don't actually need anything from them then don't call them at all.
Farnborough LARS West aren't interested in how many people you have on board, or which sixteen villages you'll be routing via as you head from Denham to Goodwood, or what time you estimate crossing the M40, or that you intend to remain outside the White Waltham ATZ by at least three nautical miles.
I do agree with that in principle, but Farnborough radar on occasions have said to me "report when crossing the M40" (though only on a basic service), or "will you be routing around White Waltham, or Booker" etc... I'm not saying I list the sixteen villages, I tend to only the next intersecion waypoint when informing them of my route (at least intersection waypoints have a common understanding) but maybe a number of pilots epxect to be asked about the M40 or the ATZ they may well be going over the top of so just tell farnborough upfront anyhow.
The major argument against GA I keep hearing from ATCO's however is the "lousy training level and voice" by the GA pilots, and it is the only one I have to agree with
But that's a self-correcting problem! Pretty much 95% of GA pilots who do an IR will have decent R/T practises just because they've spent the last 40-50 hours doing nothing but ATC procedures (my instructor always would simulate ATC on the occasions we were working outside of class B/C/D airspace). In the US, one thing that's notable is any GA pilot who's done an instrument rating will have decent R/T skills.
The solution is to just implement a US-style IR already. It works fine there. Their airspace is just as busy (New York, Socal etc). It's not rocket science and another major country has had this problem solved for decades. We don't need to re-invent any wheels, just copy the US. EASA merely needs to download the relevant chapters of 14 CFR of landings.com and do a global search and replace of "Federal Aviation Administration" to "EASA" and be done with it.
Firstly I don't think anything is ever going to change, because in Europe there is only one initial IR test and it is the same one for PPLs as for CPLs, and the ATPL "doesn't really exist" because you are given one when you have logged 500hrs multi pilot...
Peter, that bit about the ATPL, is that based on fact as in "I have one myself"? Because it is totally untrue. An ATPL requires a skilltest on a multi pilot aircraft, it's a Commander/Captain test more than anything and certainly involves demonstrating IR skills as well as, and even more importantly, Command skills in a multi-crew environment.
Yes, you do need 500 hrs multi crew but also on multi-crew aircraft (FAR25 or FAR23 commuter for example) in order to be elligible for the test.
What I was told is that you do the CPL/IR, the TR, get a RHS job in a MP plane, and after 500hrs (and yes some proficiency tests) and with 1500hrs TT (incl 100 night) you are given the ATPL. But there is no 'ATP' checkride.
