Stupid IFR theory in JAA world
To get an IFR rating in the JAA world (read most of Europe), a pilot must know:
- How many atomic clock are on board a GPS sattelite
- The topic of each of the 18 annexes of the ICAO convention, per number
- How many lines are painted on the runway to materialize the threshold, as a function of the runway’s width
- The frequency range of each possible navaid, even things like glide-slope that are not visible in the cockpit
- Which ICAO document is known as “Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Air Traffic Management”: Doc 8168, Doc 1234, Doc 4444 or Doc 7333
- Which section of the AIP contains the the detailed characteristics of an airport’s runway
- What does a 9 mean in the field H of a SNOWTAM
I could continue this list almost endlessly, the one meter long bookshelf holding my IFR theory books is kind of a treasure chest for such useless information. The funny thing is that the theory syllabus is extremely vast, but the examination is always based on a relatively limited set of multiple choice questions. These questions are naturally kept “secret” by the examination authorities, but strangely many flight schools seem to know them. Passing the written test is the biggest hurdle in getting an Instrument Rating in Europe, it lasts much longer than the practical training.
Before taking the practical, in flight examination, the Instrument Rating Examiner can ask the candidate pilot a couple of theory questions, but this is usually much more oriented towards “real life” flying, and does not last for long. Nothing compared to the oral exam that US pilots have to go through, which typically lasts for two hours, in front of a real person, not a computer or a form with check-boxes… Any guess which version I do prefer ? And what about you ?
9 Comments, Comment or Ping
SigourneySky
I am currently studying for the IFR and I am SO annoyed at the stupid nonsense I have to put in my head.
I have no problem whatsoever with learning the “real” stuff that is actually useful for flying, but the bureaucratic nonsense is ridiculous. And it does not help either that the official learning material is crap. If I had not found some good books in addition (thanks to Vincent for some very valuable tips!) I would not have a chance to understand stuff. .
Any additional tips with regard to books on instruments would be very welcome (the US books I usually prefer do not help much as formulas are not in the metric system). Any other helpful advice of course also.
Feb 17th, 2010
Matthew Stibbe
I have an FAA IR and a UK IMC rating. The only thing stopping me getting my European IR is the ground school. I can’t afford to give up two or three months of my life to study a bunch of stuff that I will never use and which probably doesn’t make any difference to my ability to fly IFR. For heaven’s sake, I already have an instrument rating so what do all the extra exams prove? When I explain some of the absurd anti-aviation policies of the CAA and EASA to my American friends they literally don’t believe me. It’s like they think there’s ‘real flying’ (all the airlines and perhaps a few big bizjets) and then ‘toy flying’ which can safely be ignored. The American system recognises two important truths 1) the air belongs to everyone, 2) there is a continuum from the humblest PPL student to the most senior training captain on the biggest airline in the world.
Feb 18th, 2010
Sylvia
What does a 9 mean in the field H of a SNOWTAM
Will you explain this one for me?
Feb 19th, 2010
Vincent
@Sigourney: good luck with your theory. May the IFR gods be with you.
@Matthew: I understand you so much. Getting the IFR theory did cost me my week-ends for more than one year. Not to mention that the examination was one week long, and I could take it only in a place 200 km away from where I live. Not even at an airport.
@Sylvia: do you really think I remember that ?
Feb 20th, 2010
Xavier
Take an ATPL course instead. As distance learning programmes are very efficient, you will not spend more time than for an IR. And you’ll learn lots of things about aircrafts. Learning things about large aircrafts is not very useful if you just intend to fly a DA40, but who said the things you learn must be useful?
Once intrument rated, another 20 hours of flight to get a CPL and save some insurance money, why not?
Feb 21st, 2010
Vincent
@Xavier: you’re right! When I took my decision, I really asked myself if I wanted to pass the few extra tests for the ATPL theory, the difference is not that much. But I really think I won’t need a CPL anytime soon. But if you once think of that, or of becoming a flight instructor, the ATPL theory is certainly the correct way.
Feb 21st, 2010
SigourneySky
I would have gone for the CPL/ATPL, but as I understood it my eyes are not good enough to pass the Medical I. Everything else would be fine, I guess, all the other test results are really good. Or does anyone know a way around the vision requirements for the Medical I (in Germany)?
Feb 21st, 2010
Xavier
@SIGOURNEYSKY
Distant visual acuity, with or without correction, shall be 6/9 (0,7) or better in each eye separately and visual acuity with both eyes shall be 6/6 (1,0)
see JAR–FCL 3.220 http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/606984.pdf for full story
Local regulations might slightly differ.
Good luck
Feb 22nd, 2010
Reply to “Stupid IFR theory in JAA world”