What I have been told, by a very well placed source, is that many FTOs run with GPS databases at least 1 cycle out of date, which prevents the GPS being used in the IRT, which avoids them having to train how to use GPS.
That's one approach (no pun intended) 
That's practically true but is the "JAA IRT" changing to go along with reality?
Slowly. I did mine today (again- upgrade from SE to ME IR, which these days is a full re-test), and my non precision approach was the GPS procedure at Manston (but still preceded by an NDB hold). Also, the instructor told me that the CAA has put the school on notice that as of April next year, they expect all students to be able to fly RNAV approaches - so while in theory they could ask for it now, it appears to be quite slow.
When I asked my examiner, he basically said he wants to see
(a) CDI tracking
(b) RMI/RBI tracking
(c) a hold
(d) an approach with vertical guidance
(e) an approach with no vertical guidance
(f) use of all types of Navaids available (VOR, NDB, R-NAV/GPS)
because that is what your licence entitles you to use, and given that most approach holds at smaller airfields in the UK are NDB based, he said that an ADF hold is pretty much a given, although he could see alternatives in rare cases.
Use of an autopilot is also now expected, although not mandatory.
if you want to train somebody for real-life IFR flight (not a "get the paper" cadet who cannot fly anything but the test profile), you need to use a GPS (GNSxxx or similar), and also teach R-NAV approaches, as they are the future.
That's practically true but is the "JAA IRT" changing to go along with reality?
The CAA document is here and the GPS usage guidelines are here.
AFAIK these are not changing for the proposed CBM IR, and no change was suggested by those behind the CBM IR, to avoid the risk of the CBM IR being branded as a "second class" or "non professional" IR.
The examiner can choose a GPS/RNAV approach as the nonprecision approach in the IRT, but he can equally choose an NDB hold+approach, and the candidate won't know till the preflight briefing which he is going to get.
I forgot about the old KNS80. Proper RNAV!! Remember the old Data bins. You could save 4 VOR/DME waypoints.
A KNS80 is a useless piece of junk.
Sorry, Peter - I disagree, A KNS80 is a useless marvel of late 70's technology. The very similar Narco NS-800 is the piece of junk.
@Bathman - really, if you want to train somebody for real-life IFR flight (not a "get the paper" cadet who cannot fly anything but the test profile), you need to use a GPS (GNSxxx or similar), and also teach R-NAV approaches, as they are the future.
I'm also pretty sure the person that we lease some of our aircraft off would have a say in it as well.
If he is like others I know, he leases out planes which he services, and he treats the time he spends servicing them as time spent earning his livelihood.
And he buys parts in the way I described.
It is a very cost effective way to make a living.
However if the CB IR ever comes into being then you would have to fit mode S
That's true for the current UK CAA IR skills test, which requires a demonstration of talking to the "airways" authority, so (down here) one climbs to FL060 and speaks to London Control for about 5 minutes and then goes back down. However I can't see why you could not get a dispensation for that.
OTOH that point is likely to be moot since the IRT requires a VOR, DME, and ADF. Plus, to be legal for IFR in enroute CAS, you also need an IFR GPS installation.
I don't see a huge number of people doing any IR anytime soon (because the basic constraints remain e.g. lack of utility value for GA in Europe) but you may want to sort out one plane with the required kit...
A KNS80 is a useless piece of junk.
Cheers for that silvaire now I know. But it manages well enough in a DA20 with a fixes pitched prop?
Peter you may well be right but I have no knowledge of engineering and I really don't won't to go down that avenue. After all if I really wan't to make money I could sell my weekends to private practice. I'm also pretty sure the person that we lease some of our aircraft off would have a say in it as well.
I agree mode s makes no difference to PPL flight training and I know of a couple of operators whose aircraft are not even fitted with transponders.
However if the CB IR ever comes into being then you would have to fit mode S and we would look at trying to sort this out for the 172. It would also need a 430 (or KNS 80) fitting as well.
I think the 912 goes a long way to resolving most of these problems however as of yet no one has managed to mate that engine to a decent airframe. Or when they did (Cessna Rotax) they fitted it with a wobbly prop which really isn't needed for flight training and simply adds more to running costs. And at 57000 euro per conversion the cost savings are simly not enough to make it commercially viable.
The Rotax has a relatively narrow power band, meaning that it needs the VP prop to achieve enough climb rate with a 'heavy' C 152 airframe - the airframe that doesn't break. Load up the prop for climb, rpm drops, and the power drops off with reduced rpm. Its a 1400 cc engine, and there's no free lunch. Unless they run only at full rated speed, '100 HP' engines are not necessarily created equal.
I'm currently leading design of a MW scale industrial drive that makes full power over a 5000 rpm range - because customers found basically the same issue in their application.
Personally, I love the Continentals and Lycomings for their rebuildabilty, simplicity and serviceability. Private ownership is for sure different than commercial operation, but for me these engines are part of what makes flying practical. If I had to deal with retail operations, selling Rotax and the like (in polo shirts, no doubt :-) and making a living by carefully limiting my options to themselves, It would be a lot more expensive for me, and less pleasant.
Apologies if this is pontification but in any business you try to avoid throwing money at outside services if you can do them yourself.
A really obvious example is an airport which allows an outside franchise to run the cafe. The profits should go to the airport, not to the franchise holder. Maybe running a cafe, especially one serving cucumbers which bend back onto themselves because they were chopped up the day before, needs specialised skills?
I have seen plenty of flight training businesses that did the maintenance in-house. That makes complete sense. Then, the ~ £400 gross profit made on the £500 50hr check goes to the school. Get a consultant in to set you up as a CAMO. I am sure there are loads of failed ISO9000 quality managers doing just that 
The US school I did my IR at did it all under the one roof. They were putting 700hrs/year on their PA28s, but the principle is the same for 400hrs. And because you maintain only your own planes, you know what is coming so you can e.g. buy consumable parts in bulk e.g. buy 20 air filters, and new parts can be bought from the USA with an 8130-3 form. You will probably get the bits for half the price you are now getting billed. Obviously you will have the salary of the bloke doing the work, but he can do other jobs too.
Regarding radios and Mode S, frankly the cost of those barely features on the scale of your Annual price tags. Narco stuff is crap, but it's been crap for as long as anybody knows. Also, do you need Mode S for UK PPL training in Class G, or occasional Class D? You can buy overhauled items from e.g. South East Aerospace in the USA, who are EASA approved so they can give you a dual release 8130-3 which is good for a G-reg, and get a freelance avionics chap to put them in.
Yes I feel regulation adds a significant cost and I could go on and on about that.
Although the airframes are old the costs of operating them are minimal Cessna built a tough bird.
The instruments do cost a lot from time to time largely because they are old and are simply worn out.
The radios can be problematic read Narco and 8.33khz is only going to add to costs and from a GA point of view will offer no benefits. Same with mode S.
The engines are the real problem as they need way too much maintenance. In this day end age who the hell has heard of a top end overhaul. Yet one of ours had to have two new cylinders at 1200 hours and this is pretty much the norm. The mags are a pain in the arse as well.
They also drink way too much fuel and fuel that is expensive. One of our aircraft has an STC for Mogas but the CAA have never allowed mogas to be used for flight training. Despite the long gone four star probably being the perfect fuel for 0-200s.
I think the 912 goes a long way to resolving most of these problems however as of yet no one has managed to mate that engine to a decent airframe. Or when they did (Cessna Rotax) they fitted it with a wobbly prop which really isn't needed for flight training and simply adds more to running costs. And at 57000 euro per conversion the cost savings are simly not enough to make it commercially viable.
So we are stuck where we are.
