No-Expiry IFR?

[Stevo226]

Hot off the press!:

Heard through the grapevine that TC is juggling the idea of eliminating the 2 year expiry for IFR's. The idea is that and IFR is a Rating, and therefore should not elapse, just like night, multi, seaplane ratings. However the 666 will still apply, of course.

Anyone else heard any rumours?

[A Regulator]

Yes it is going to happen, but then so is the return of annual PPC's for 703 operators which is also around the corner. 704 stays as it is for the moment.

[Bushav8er]

Yes it is going to happen, but then so is the return of annual PPC's for 703 operators which is also around the corner. 704 stays as it is for the moment.

Sarcasm or am I missing something. We (company) already do PPCs as an annual (703).

[The Old Fogducker]

Bush:

There has been an exemption in place for a long time provided for a 2 year PPC, as long as the annual training and a PCC is conducted prior to the 12 month mark.

Many companies declined the possibility of the 2 year, opting to remain at one year validity for the sake of simplicity.

Sounds like there may be some additional Check Pilot work kicking around for us ACPs in the future in 703. I should do a "smash and grab" of the cash and run through a whack of PPCs before I fully retire from the business.

The Old Fogducker

[Big Pistons Forever]

My understanding is that there will still be a 2 year limit but no actual test to revalidate. Instead it will be like the US VFR BFR. You will have to do a training flight(s) with an instructor who will will then endorse your logbook. You cannot "fail" but the instructor can refuse to provide an endorsement if he/she feels you are not competant. The idea is pilots spend their money on training rather than testing and there will be no $300 dollar examiner fee to pay just the dual instruction rate. The question of what the instructor prerequisites will be, is apparently still being discussed. Thankfully it appears some real experience will be required and your 50.1 hr MEIFR class 4 will not be able to do the training. I think it has great potential because it will allow for more realistic IFR training scenarios over the current rating IFR renewal process which concentrates on the flight test profile, to the exclusion of anything else. Also the training could be matched to the the skills of the student.

Maybe TC Guy can provide an update ?

[loopa]

So if ratings don't expire, neither should the instructor rating.

[Big Pistons Forever]

So if ratings don't expire, neither should the instructor rating.

Works for me

[The Old Fogducker]

So they are going to screw over the Check Pilots too .... I knew it had to be too good to be true.

Maybe I've picked just the right time to retire!

Can't fail, but you're performance may be such the examiner refuses to give you the endorsement. What a great example of symbolism over substance.

OFD

[Stevo226]

Yes it is going to happen, but then so is the return of annual PPC's for 703 operators which is also around the corner. 704 stays as it is for the moment.

Whereas they are currently done every 6 months?

[Lurch]

My understanding is that there will still be a 2 year limit but no actual test to revalidate. Instead it will be like the US VFR BFR. You will have to do a training flight(s) with an instructor who will will then endorse your logbook. You cannot "fail" but the instructor can refuse to provide an endorsement if he/she feels you are not competant. The idea is pilots spend their money on training rather than testing and there will be no $300 dollar examiner fee to pay just the dual instruction rate. The question of what the instructor prerequisites will be, is apparently still being discussed. Thankfully it appears some real experience will be required and your 50.1 hr MEIFR class 4 will not be able to do the training. I think it has great potential because it will allow for more realistic IFR training scenarios over the current rating IFR renewal process which concentrates on the flight test profile, to the exclusion of anything else. Also the training could be matched to the the skills of the student.

Maybe TC Guy can provide an update ?

Good news bad news then

I'd rather go up with the examiner every 2 years, it would be cheaper. My last two renewals were done cold no prep and only 1 hour in length.

On the instructor side it won't make much difference as too how much I make. I never teach to the flight test anyway. Every renewal I spend the first 2 flights going over the basics and partial panel, it's amazing how nobody every practices this stuff. I've had students who haven't flown without an attitude indicator for over 10 years.

What are the legal liabilities if you sign off somebody's licence and they crash?

Lurch

[loopa]

What are the legal liabilities if you sign off somebody's licence and they crash?

Lurch

The same they have been until today; nothing.

[Flaperons]

What about the 4-year requirement? Curerntly, if you don't renew within 4 years, your instrument totally expires and you must rewrite the INRAT. Is that changing too?

[modi13]

I've heard that the renewal won't be a test, only a series of recurrency flights to rebuild your skills, and the exercises are signed off once the examiner is comfortable that you're competent with them.

[Big Pistons Forever]

What about the 4-year requirement? Curerntly, if you don't renew within 4 years, your instrument totally expires and you must rewrite the INRAT. Is that changing too?

AFAIK the 4 yr requirement will go away when the change is implimented. The INRAT will be good for life.

[Flaperons]

I hope so.

I currently fly 121 in the US. There is no expiry on the instrument. ATP = your IFR is good as long as you do your 6/6 in six thingy. I think it's ridiculous that all my RVSM time in the US, Canada, and Mexico counts as nothing towards keeping my Group 1 current.

There's full reciprocity on everything else; why is Canada lagging on the IFR?

[Check Pilot]

Yep, this'll be helpful all right, where checking is essentially done away with.

I know folks that go with the 4 year thing. I also know folks that do the 2 year thing as well. I've done rides on them. Mostly, they stink and I don't want them in my airspace under IFR control. Usually they either can't find an airway or get into a hold (if they can find the fix in the first place) or find the runway on an approach straight in, much less doing a circling procedure. They usually needed a bunch of additional training before I'd let them go.

After having done 1200 check rides or so, I think the 2 year rating is the absolute maximum for an IFR to remain valid, even with the triple 6 rules in place as we have them now.

Stupid rule change coming along.

[Flaperons]

Yep, this'll be helpful all right, where checking is essentially done away with.

I know folks that go with the 4 year thing. I also know folks that do the 2 year thing as well. I've done rides on them. Mostly, they stink and I don't want them in my airspace under IFR control. Usually they either can't find an airway or get into a hold (if they can find the fix in the first place) or find the runway on an approach straight in, much less doing a circling procedure. They usually needed a bunch of additional training before I'd let them go.

After having done 1200 check rides or so, I think the 2 year rating is the absolute maximum for an IFR to remain valid, even with the triple 6 rules in place as we have them now.

Stupid rule change coming along.

I think you need to look at what ops people are running. When was the last time a 777 captain or FO had to do partial panel? Do you think it is reasonable that they should, considering it is basically a situation they can never find themselves in? Do you think their recurrent checks do anything to make them useful in a King Air or Navajo?

Personally, I think the whole system is a joke. The people who never fly IFR (just bounce around in their light singles) get tested the hardest, while those that "fly" (meaning AP all the way) it every day only need to memorize profiles and hand fly a little bit. The middle crowd are those that are flying light twins in the shit all the time, and a recurrent ride for them is easy as pie anyway, because they see much more challenging stuff on the line.

Do away with it. It's a cash grab, nothing more, IMHO.

[avcanada]

I like this proposed change.

[crankedup]

Well I certainly hope its true. Time has come for TC to play catch-up with the rest of the aviation world.

[kevinsky18]

1) When is this new rule supposed to take effect? I was considering renewing my IFR but I have no pressing need to do so. If there's a date set within say 12 months then I'll wait. If longer than that I may just go and renew the old fashioned way.

2) If this change comes into effect how would this affect anyone who had ALREADY completely lapsed more than the 4-5 years i.e. someone who got their rating in 2003. Under the current rule you would have to rewrite and retake the full flight exam. Would this change make those pilots holding a completely lapsed (more than 5 years, 2003 for example) and useless IFR rating all of a sudden come to life with a check out and log book sign off? No need to rewrite or intial ride even though you recieved and expired under the old rules?

3) How would a lapsed IFR effect the application for an ATPL under the new rules? If you haven't done your 6 take offs and landings at night you still get your ATPL so I wondering if under these new rules your IFR expires they would still give you the ATPL rating?

[Panama Jack]

Glad to hear this change coming.

I echo Flaperons' observations-- he hit the nail right on the head! I don't renew my Canadian IFR anymore-- too expensive and I don't fly Canadian registered aircraft regularly. I do fly foreign registered aircraft on a daily basis, all of it on IFR rules.

This change will enhance safety by cutting down on .. running. Next summer I would love to rent a 172 to do a little flying. I would much rather file IFR to get a clearance on top or file IFR for a late return after dusk rather than prowl around in the murk under special VFR. Paying $2000 for the privledge of this is out of question.

I hope that Canada will harmonize entirely with the FAA's 6-6-6 concept. For-hire operators operating IFR should be kept to higher standards, but creating a high entry bar for Private GA only encourages .. running and VFR into IMC. Failing that I would like to see Canada accept a foreign PPC or instrument checkride count as demonstrating IFR proficiency.

[Check Pilot]

For flaperons,

You're not getting the point I was trying to make. I know exactly what ops are with different operations. A 777 Captain, of course doesn't need a check to make him useful in a King Air Navajo. You're talking apples and oranges here.

He'll never be there. He gets checked at a minimum every 6 months and the IFR stuff is just part of the job. Those folks rarely ever have trouble interpreting anything related to rhe procedures. It's no different what the wx is. It's just another day at the office. He doesn't care whether it's IFR or not. You confuse Commercial ops with those guys that only fly in the IFR system once in a "desperate" while.

I've done hundreds of check rides on folks that do commercial operations all the time and usually they have very few problems, and when they do it's usually because it's systems related and not some IFR procedure related thing. For most of those folks the IFR environment is just a normal way of operating. In other words, for those folks, no big deal.

You state:

"The people who never fly IFR (just bounce around in their light singles) get tested the hardest"

And from my experience, rightly so. If you can't cut the basics, I've got no time to let you go out on your own to mix it up with others that do know the right stuff.

Mostly the 4 year folks lack the skill and recent knowledge for the most part, but still get into the system with every other guy out there just doing a normal job getting an aircraft up or down sometimes in IMC. I don't want to be around that guys airspace when he doesn't know exactly what he's doing. Commercial or Private IFR in my airspace, I want the pilot to be competent at what is going on around them.

So flaperons, do you really want to be mixing it up with some other IFR environment guy that hasn't done a ride or flown IFR in the last 4 years?

For Panama Jack,

I don't want .. running idiots flying around either. Usually they fall into the Darwin awards category sooner or later anyway. However, I've met more Private Pilots over the years that actually care about their skills and welcome and want a test to confirm they still "have it" than those that just want "the rating". A recurrent renewal of IFR skills is about the only time the guy gets a confirmation that he's still O.K. to get in the plane in marginal wx with the wife and kids and have a comfortable chance of getting to his destination safely, comfortably and correctly. Without a recurrent test, that pilot has no idea if he has got into some idea of flying that will not lead to some kind of demise down the road.

Recurrent testing is not evil or a waste of time for those people. I've never had anyone in the private sector criticize me for the outcome of a check ride, regardless of how it turned out.

A small point here Panama, but we do have the 6-6-6 here in Canada, but we still (and hope will continue to) require a skill recurrent test every once in a while.

I always tried to point out the strengths for individuals but I've always made it clear that some things might be improved on, judging form what I saw on the check ride. If we discontinue that little bit of pressure once in a while as pilots, we'll all think we are perfect and have no incentive to improve or change. (Not that pilots have ANY imperfections anyways).

[Panama Jack]

Your point is taken Check Pilot, regarding the 6-6-6 system however my point is that I would like to see a regime more harmonized with the US's system for IFR pilot proficiency. I don't know present figures, but a few years ago pilot licencing statistics showed a much higher percentage of Instrument-rated Private Pilots in the USA than in Canada. Undoubtably, the greater ease (read lesser expense) at maintaining this qualification was a contributing factor in getting pilots to seek this higher qualification.

One of my points of iritation for the Canadian licencing system is that only a checkride with a Canadian examiner renews my Canadian instrument rating, however, I can maintain my US instrument proficiency flying an airplane under IFR of any country. I understand that there are some bizarre quirks in Canadian IFR regulations, but this comes down to pilot discipline in familiarization. I fly aircraft into about 20 different countries and over probably double that amount. Some are pretty mainstream while others have their own little quirks too. That's life!

I also can appreciate the concerns (which are not often so clearly voiced) of training schools and examiners who forsee a fall in revenue from less IFR renewal checkrides.

[Check Pilot]

Is anyone else gonna respond - especially flaperons.

Ya gonna chicken out flaperons?

Nothing to say?

Panama Jack at least has some positive attributes, while a bit misinformed he does make a few misguided points.

Well? I await your response.

A no reply means you are wrong, doesn't it!!!

[Panama Jack]

Perhaps, Check Pilot, they are heeding advice they received years ago that nothing good can come out of arguing with check pilots!

In any case, it will be interesting to see what TC has cooked up once they release it to the general public (when and if).