I agree with you Achim but what you describe is way different from the UK CAA guidelines on the IR revalidation 
For a start, anybody who gets to do their IR reval without the hood is not going to be posting about that…
I think I can pretty well guarantee that if you do the IR reval with a CAA staff examiner (an option open in the UK for about £250+VAT) then you can expect to be put through the correct procedure. That is obviously why everybody uses their favourite freelance examiner. Same as why people drive (or fly, but that’s bad for the blood pressure) hundreds of miles to their old AME.
If the freelance IR examiner system was tied up to be “to paper” strict, all the comments about the EASA IR being easier to keep than the FAA one would disappear instantly. One would need to do several training flights, just before the revalidation test.
And no way would I pass the initial JAA IR skills test now. Even less would I pass the FAA IR checkride I had in 2006… I would need two weeks of training, 2 flights per day, for that. And I fly a lot of IFR.
For a start, anybody who gets to do their IR reval without the hood is not going to be posting about that…
That’s a UK thing, you can get your check ride in another country if you like. No such thing over here.
If the freelance IR examiner system was tied up to be “to paper” strict, all the comments about the EASA IR being easier to keep than the FAA one would disappear instantly. One would need to do several training flights, just before the revalidation test.
Absolutely not. The checkride is not difficult. You just have to demonstrate a few standard things, among them a precision approach and a non precision approach. I have no reason to believe that I would fail the test if the examiner was any stricter. In fact I don’t see how my examiner would not follow the guidelines.
And no way would I pass the initial JAA IR skills test now.
Why not? I don’t remember anything special about it. The failure ratio for the initial test is close to zero anyway because you are not supposed to sign up for the exam when you’re not ready and it would reflect badly on the FTO. I think I would pass it quite easily because I have more routine. Maybe I would study the holding entry and wind correction procedures according to the book because for the entry I just look at what seems practical and for the wind, just follow the GPS.
The hood and this weird NDB fetish in the UK are two good reasons to not do the exam there 
In the Germany the 2 year VFR flight review IS called a Checkflight now (i hope i have the latest information but that’s what the Bavarian authority told me …) , and of course if the examiner doesn’t sign it you are not allowed to fly beyond the date in your licence. Which means you did not pass. Reality is different though …. I know.
As a CRI I do VFR checks every now and then, and two or three times I was really worried IF I should really sign a pilot off. When a pilot tells you that he would “rather not do a power of stall in 5000 ft” (in a 172) or when you see he’s afraid of a 45° steep turn … well, I decided that i do not want to do these flights anymore.
For a start, anybody who gets to do their IR reval without the hood is not going to be posting about that…
I’ve never flown with a hood during a check ride :)
Last year, the examiner took a VFR chart from his flight bag and put it in front of the windscreen. But only during the approach.
This year it was even easier: The examiner had put his headset bag in front of me. "If the bag is there, it is IMC :-) ". He didn’t remove it at all so the approaches where followed by flying the Missed Approach.
I don’t have that problem because my annual IR check is in February … I think i did only one in VMC conditions in the last ten years.
I don’t think I would pass an official checkride with an examiner at the moment, I think. A couple of years ago I was sick at the date of my checkride and then i had to do the official checkride with an examiner from the LBA (CAA) … I was lucky that I got a nice guy, and we practiced a bit before he let me fly the NDB approach, and since he was a nice guy I passed …
I guess it’s up to each and everyone how they approach their IR PC. Is it just a thing that cost money and to “be done with”, then I guess the examiner with the least amount of requirements will suit you well. For the pilots who are waiting for their first pilot job and might not be up to the same standard as when they got their IR I can also understandard that they would like the easiest way out.
I’ve used my 2 IR PCs to train and discuss my weak spots, the parts of flying that I seldom do after getting the ticket. It feels good to bury that insecurity together with the examiner and to refresh some parts of planning, flying and quick calculations that needs to be done.
I did my IR check last week and no hood as well ;-). As we all know – having hood is by far different from being in actual IMC and loosing peripheral vision. So once you get some proficiency in IR the hood is not bringing any additional level of complexity so why to bother IMHO. Training is a whole different story – I also put some side shields.
my IR check was as mentioned above – 2 approaches (ILS+VOR).
If you hold a type rating you can now revalidate your IR SPA by experience. I did it a few weeks ago – free! You need to have completed a type rating revalidation in a sim or an aircraft and flown three IFR departures and approaches in the previous twelve months in the SPA.
That’s great news – is than an EASA thing now? Going to make my life much cheaper!
That’s great news – is than an EASA thing now?
I guess so. Here’s the flowchart from the CAA’s Standard Doc 14.
Thanks Chris – really helpful.
