because CAA rules insist that you only fly from home base
I wonder why that is.
Is the CAA concerned that if they allowed non based flights they would lose control of the "FTO" principle where you have an organisational approval for Premises X (on which the CAA fees are assessed)?
And if another FTO sets up 100m down the road, the CAA gets a second lot of fees from them.
If the CAA allowed non based flights, it would be easy for multiple training operators to be "affiliated" with one "registered premises" and they could operate all over the country or even abroad, and reduce the CAA income.
good on Jim Thorpe for being so far sighted. it must of take some balls to fork a lot of cash out for that sim before this becomes law
Apart from the cash, it's taken a lot of sweat to get it through the CAA approval process. AIUI they still haven't approved it for use in ME mode because the rudder pedals don't have force feedback.
The ATO approval process has also been very painful. As I see it, there is a tranche of old-style reactionaries at the mid-level in the CAA who are determined to do things their own awkward way, regardless of how the people at the top want to change. We've seen this with screens, and we see it with stuff like getting the ATO ops manual signed off.
For example, despite me and Jim both being based at Gloucestershire, we had to do our training at Bournemouth (where the umbrella FTO is based) because CAA rules insist that you only fly from home base (it's slightly more complicated than that, but that's the effective result). Jim has been trying to push at these restrictions, but it has proved to be a slow and painful process.
i think the cb ir will change the face of ir training. at present all the approval and manual writing expenses have to be passed onto the student. we also have the situation where the ir test is going to set you back 1500 quid. the end result is that you are trained for a test route rather than how to fly ifr.
it looks like we now have the situation where you can train in your own aircraft (or a schools 172) this is not only bring the cost down dramatically but also bring in a different revenue stream who will have different demands.
good on Jim Thorpe for being so far sighted. it must of take some balls to fork a lot of cash out for that sim before this becomes law.
i can't want to improve get going on this.
Jonzarno, I don't think John can (yet) do EASA IR training? I may be wrong, in which case I would also recommend him.
Ah, perhaps my mistake: I thought TAA was qualified to do both FAA and EASA. Sorry if I got that wrong!
Jonzarno, I don't think John can (yet) do EASA IR training? I may be wrong, in which case I would also recommend him.
I did my EASA IR at Wycombe in a G1000 C172, they now have two of these. Instructors are up for IMC, including when there's a risk of not being able to come back to base - ended up at Brize once. Only lesson we canceled had a SIGMET for severe icing and turbulence. I was happy with the experience overall, but I was probably much less prepared for real-world IFR (as opposed to IMC) than Rich who did his with Jim Thorpe.
I did my IR training at south Sweden school of aeronautics and I am very satisfied and had a good instructor (Mats). Don't let the looks of the website deceive you, their training is better ;)
They have a Cessna 172S with G1000 available, although they usually only fly that on the long x-country part.
In answer to the original question: try John Page at TAA Denham. They operate Cirrus SR2X with Garmin Perspective (G1000) and are very good indeed.
An alternative would be to do the training in the US where there are many good schools. I did my own IR with The flight Academy in Vegas and Seattle and they are also first class.
Weren't we talking about EASA or JAA? Not the same thing as EU AFAIK
AFAIK the only nations in EASA but not in the EU are Norway and Switzerland and because they are non EU they have very limited rights to influence. EASA is not like JAA which was a collection of like-minded NAAs...it is an EU institution
Interesting to see the widely varying attitudes towards the infamous NDB approaches taught in Europe (generally) and in the UK (bordering on the fanatical).
When I did my FAA IR a year so ago my instructor talked me through the various approach types we'd be doing. NDBs were not on her list and when I asked about them (knowing they were a hot topic in the UK) she looked at me like I'd just asked for a pony and trap for the ride into town - "we don't teach those, they're history" was the eventual reply.
Knowing that I'd never use an NDB approach 'for real', I've been putting off spending time, effort and money to convert my FAA IR to an EASA one. Especially since it seemed necessary to join a group of spotty youths to do an equally useless ground course. But with the CBM IR a step closer and the course mentioned by Rich as an IR course actually designed with the PPL in mind, I may have to reconsider.
Yes - that was what I found. You still needed to carry an ADF to fly an NDB approach.
That was why my friend's IRT report suprised me.
The problem I see is that no school is going to put that sort of thing in an email...
