IFR Validity Change - No more checkrides

[C-GKNT]

What is the reason for this change? Was there anything wrong or unsafe about periodic evaluation? Professional pilots will still be evaluated on their rides, but what about instrument-rated private pilots? If they do the minimum number of IFR approaches every year, they will never have a ride again? How is that safer? Am I mis-interpreting this?

I go down to SIMCOM every year or 2 for recurrent training. I fly privately and pay for it myself. This is not recognized by transport Canada and I have to spend even more money on an IFR renewal when I get back. How does that requirement make me safer?

Hopefully with this change, and a Transport Canada recognized instructor down there (easier to find than an examiner) I won't have to do this anymore. Having some other options to "legally" maintain my IFR currency in Canada (as opposed to practical currency which I feel is accomplished at SIMCOM) would be a nice change.

Glenn

[gwengler]

What is the reason for this change?

I was told that having an expiry date on the IR is against ICAO rules/standards and TC wants to be conforming with ICAO.

[flyingreg38]

Hi everyone,

It's official as of today. The new Advisory Circular has been posted on TC website: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... -2146.html

Cheers,

Greg

[skymarc]

Ok nice,
I had a group 1 IFR on my initial flight test but my last 2 IFR check rides renewals have been group 3 as I don't own a twin any more.

By the new rules, Technically I should be getting my new sticker as a group 1 IFR rating and its up to me when I do my next IPC if I want to exercise the group 1 privilege or not, im I getting this right?

[photofly]

I'm still not seeing anything to get excited about.

Old rules: every 24 months you need an instrument rating flight test with a designated pilot examiner.

New rules: every 24 months you need an instrument proficiency check with a designated check pilot, who is likely to be the same pilot examiner.

Can someone tell me why this isn't <yawn> stuff?

[Rookie50]

PF,

To me it's an improvement because it's likely a more flexible standard used in determining proficiency vs a formal flight test, which allows for some training element.

I just passed my renewal in March, no problem, but due to season and scheduling, I did it in the Redbird -- well it takes a good hour just to get used to the Redbird -- so the whole thing is without training benefit. IMO. Next time in my airplane, and hopefully a class 2 or 1 at my local FTU will be allowed to do it, so easier to schedule.

Edit -- just read the circular -- and if that is literal , as PF states, the flight test might be quicker.

[rum-runner]

In an earlier post it was said that if your IR was lapsed you would no longer need to re-write the IR exam. Does this new change confirm that? Or do you still need to write the exam? Thanks.

[photofly]

If you read the AC where it describes what should be included in an IPC, it looks like about a 2 hour flight, all in all. A lot longer than a flight test consisting of a hold and two aproaches. (Which you can do in about 40 minutes, in the GTA.) The IPC includes "a leg in the system" - that is a departure, enroute portion, and an approach - then a diversion to an unplanned alternate, approaches there, holds, etc.

Anyone worried about cost at this stage is likely to prefer to take an Instrument Rating flight test, which is still an option (it still revalidates your IR for 24 months) and likely to be a lot quicker and cheaper.

[gwengler]

Perhaps I don’t completely understand this, but I think it is a big improvement for me. I go flying with my instructor usually at least once a year. So next time, we make that session the IPC. I don't have to worry if it is not perfect because my IR will not be invalid as after a failed Flight Test. We just do it again at some later time and in the meantime I can still file and fly IFR. Also, an IPC is supposed to be less formal which I very much prefer. That's just my impression, I fly privately (even though I have an ATPL) and pay for everything myself.
Gerd

[gwengler]

Perhaps I don’t completely understand this, but I think it is a big improvement for me. I go flying with my instructor usually at least once a year. So next time, we make that session the IPC. I don't have to worry if it is not perfect because my IR will not be invalid as after a failed Flight Test. We just do it again at some later time and in the meantime I can still file and fly IFR. Also, an IPC is supposed to be less formal which I very much prefer. That's just my impression, I fly privately (even though I have an ATPL) and pay for everything myself.
Gerd

[photofly]

Perhaps I don’t completely understand this, but I think it is a big improvement for me. I go flying with my instructor usually at least once a year.

For pilots like you who take some pride in keeping their skills polished it's an improvement for all the reasons you mentioned. But for the pilots who have been hailing the "non-expiring" IR purely because they don't want to pay for a flight test every 24 months, it's not what they were hoping. Probably that's a good thing.

[photofly]

Next time in my airplane, and hopefully a class 2 or 1 at my local FTU will be allowed to do it, so easier to schedule.

Without wanting to rehash old ground (too much) - are you really looking forward to sharing teachable moments with the same instructors at the same FTU who you consider don't have enough real-world IMC experience to teach anything worthwhile about instrument flight?

I suspect however the point might be moot. I haven't seen anything from Transport on who gets to be appointed an Approved Check Pilot, but I doubt it's a privilege going to be handed out to many. So it's going to be largely with the same pool of pilot examiners as the flight test.

[Rookie50]

Next time in my airplane, and hopefully a class 2 or 1 at my local FTU will be allowed to do it, so easier to schedule.

Without wanting to rehash old ground (too much) - are you really looking forward to sharing teachable moments with the same instructors at the same FTU who you consider don't have enough real-world IMC experience to teach anything worthwhile about instrument flight?

PF, if we're going to open this can --- As I've stated on numerous occasions, I was quite satisfied with my 2 IFR instructors during my training. Both had loads of time and real line experience doing some charter Navajo flying. Both were highly competent and comfortable in actual IMC. They trained me well, IMO (the first left, hired by Jazz, before I finished)

I would look for similiar in future, I have lots of qualified friends too -- depends on what TC designates as qualified for this.

My concern as you know, is not with my personal training experiences, but with low time instructors teaching IFR without any real IMC time, and often time away from the FTU environment, themselves, and several fatal accidents attest to the foolishness.

Also amusing, is the promotion of the belief at times, that the same low time FTU instructors somehow know more, and are more qualified to teach IFR than my 20,000 hour friends with decades of safe line experience worldwide.

4 bars from whoever flight college don't qualify anyone in my sight, automatically, for anything. Not anymore. Not to say there aren't many great instructors in that environment, as mine were.

Funny enough through this conversation, is as others have posted, IFR is as far away from the sheer joy of flight I posted earlier, as one can get. It's a useful tool in ones box, to be exercised and used when needed. Personally, I'm enjoying a phase rediscovering VFR.

[photofly]

My concern as you know, is not with my personal training experiences, but with low time instructors teaching IFR without any real IMC time, and often time away from the FTU environment, themselves, and several fatal accidents attest to the foolishness. ..


Also amusing, is the promotion of the belief at times, that the same low time FTU instructors somehow know more, and are more qualified to teach IFR than my 20,000 hour friends with decades of safe line experience worldwide.

Your 20,000 hour friend is not going to be appointed an Approved Check Pilot. But what if someone from the FTU that you judge as unqualified to teach instrument flight is appointed an Approved Check Pilot? How will you feel about an IPC with him or her?

[skymarc]

The problem with the new ruling is that we still need a check ride by a TC Pilot Examiner.
We will see if TC approved more of these Pilot Examiner and if Simcom or other US training facility will have one on staff.
Not much as changed but at least if you stop flying for 5 years your IFR is still valid after this new checkride.
Then we also save the TC renewal fee.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The problem with the new ruling is that we still need a check ride by a TC Pilot Examiner.
We will see if TC approved more of these Pilot Examiner and if Simcom or other US training facility will have one on staff.
Not much as changed but at least if you stop flying for 5 years your IFR is still valid after this new checkride.
Then we also save the TC renewal fee.

The requirement to retake the test after your rating has lapsed for more than 24 months is at CAR 421.49 (4) b. The Advisory Circular does not explicitly say this CAR has been rescinded, so it would appear it is still valid. Therefore in your example the pilot who stopped flying for 5 years would have to rewrite the INRAT.

[shaffee78]

I have a question that sort of ties in to all of this. rather than starting a new thread, thought i would start here.
Let me explain my situation.
I am a Canadian citizen who did my flight training in the US. Have a FAA CPL/ME/IR. I have also been working in Kenya (Kenyan ICAO CPL) since 2010. In 2013 I did my FAA to TC CPL conversion and received my TC CPL. However I did not do the FAA IR to TC IR conversion. I am coming to Canada for 3 weeks on May 11th. I am planning to do the FAA IR to TC IR conversion exam. After doing this conversion, will I receive an IR that expires in 24 months? Will I have to come back every 2 years to renew my IR in Canada or will my IR renewal in Kenya count?
I also did my ATP in Kenya (ICAO Member License) just last week. I am planning to do the SARON/SAMRA exams while I am in Canada for the 3 weeks. Would it matter if I do these ATP exams before I do the FAA IR to TC IR conversion exam? In other words, is it recommended to get my IR done on my TC CPL before I do my TC ATP exams?

[photofly]

To maintain the right to exercise the privileges of an Instrument Rating on a Candian pilot licence you'll have to find a Canadian check pilot or "a person who holds an authorization equivalent to a Canadian pilot examiner or approved check pilot from a Contracting state having a reciprocal licensing agreement with Canada;"

[rksteeves@gmail.com]

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... -2146.html

[skymarc]

From what I read it as no expiry so you will never need to rewrite the Inrat.
How would TC know that as now there is no more forms going to them, only an IPC signed in your license by an approved pilot.

The problem with the new ruling is that we still need a check ride by a TC Pilot Examiner.
We will see if TC approved more of these Pilot Examiner and if Simcom or other US training facility will have one on staff.
Not much as changed but at least if you stop flying for 5 years your IFR is still valid after this new checkride.
Then we also save the TC renewal fee.

The requirement to retake the test after your rating has lapsed for more than 24 months is at CAR 421.49 (4) b. The Advisory Circular does not explicitly say this CAR has been rescinded, so it would appear it is still valid. Therefore in your example the pilot who stopped flying for 5 years would have to rewrite the INRAT.