PIFR - Good idea or not?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: cambridge
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PIFR - Good idea or not?
There are rumours that the Oz PIFR model could usefully be applied to Europe as Licences and Ratings across those countries are gradually standardised.
According to CASA stats, there were 19 passes for the PIFR Exam in 2005/6 compared to 1259 passes for the Private Pilot, which suggests the rating is unattractive.
Before Europe gets too enthusiastic to adopt it or something similar, any ideas why this might be?
According to CASA stats, there were 19 passes for the PIFR Exam in 2005/6 compared to 1259 passes for the Private Pilot, which suggests the rating is unattractive.
Before Europe gets too enthusiastic to adopt it or something similar, any ideas why this might be?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably because by the time you've trained for the mandatory enroute bit and then done a couple of the addon FPAs' such as SID/STAR/several Nav/several Approaches, it becomes cheaper and quicker to just do the whole CIR.
Because unless you do all the add-on bits, the PIFR is a "licence" to get yourself into strife.
While it is true that 90% of the time (particularly in NQ) flying on an IFR plan only involves a climbout to VFR on top on departure and a cloud break let-down at the destination, its the other 10% that requires an ability to handle the harder IFR stuff.
My ATO and I have an annual ritual. Every time I do an IR renewal I ask my favorite ATO to write me out a PIFR - and every time he ignores my request. In fact he refuses to have anything to do with the PIFR. Now that may be because of all the paperwork involved in writing out a PIFR with all the add-ons to the level of an IR, but I think its because he figures if you are going to fly IFR - you need to be competent in all of the procedures that make up a Command IR.
Dr
While it is true that 90% of the time (particularly in NQ) flying on an IFR plan only involves a climbout to VFR on top on departure and a cloud break let-down at the destination, its the other 10% that requires an ability to handle the harder IFR stuff.
My ATO and I have an annual ritual. Every time I do an IR renewal I ask my favorite ATO to write me out a PIFR - and every time he ignores my request. In fact he refuses to have anything to do with the PIFR. Now that may be because of all the paperwork involved in writing out a PIFR with all the add-ons to the level of an IR, but I think its because he figures if you are going to fly IFR - you need to be competent in all of the procedures that make up a Command IR.
Dr
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: A suburb near you...
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did my PIFR many moons ago as it was the only option within my financial limits. As I had no NVFR it was conducted at night to add a night FPA when the rating was issued. It was never used and with my limited hours at the time I am a little happy with that! I now have a MECIR plus alot more hours and find the the option of the PIFR valuable as it is less restrictive on currency and recency requirements for IF and approaches, I am probably opening a can of worms here but I am well aware of my own limitations and practise those approaches on a basis as required.
Dr - I just rang the CASA licensing centre and they added all the approaches and proceedures I obtained with my CIR to my PIFR el pronto!!
rN
Dr - I just rang the CASA licensing centre and they added all the approaches and proceedures I obtained with my CIR to my PIFR el pronto!!
rN
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Belowthebelt
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a lot of dribble written about Piffer's from people who probably think there may be some status in one form of rating against the other sheeze !
I fly a number of different a/c up to very high powered singles and I reckon the PIFR is second only to an aerobatic rating for skills enhancement, that is if you are a xcountry flyer if you're a local patch flyer don't bother. But some guide lines for you
1. Do the rating at a school that does CIR and does not differentiate between the two
2. Do all the FPA's with RNAV being optional
3. Make sure you do night FPA makes it all worth while
4. Take it seriously and there will be no difference between the two
5. Get MS Simulator and practice approaches until you are sick of them
6. Keep current
7. Learn learn and keep learning if 10 000hr pilots can CFIT then 1000 hr pilots can do it just as easily
As I said it is second only to Aero's
I fly a number of different a/c up to very high powered singles and I reckon the PIFR is second only to an aerobatic rating for skills enhancement, that is if you are a xcountry flyer if you're a local patch flyer don't bother. But some guide lines for you
1. Do the rating at a school that does CIR and does not differentiate between the two
2. Do all the FPA's with RNAV being optional
3. Make sure you do night FPA makes it all worth while
4. Take it seriously and there will be no difference between the two
5. Get MS Simulator and practice approaches until you are sick of them
6. Keep current
7. Learn learn and keep learning if 10 000hr pilots can CFIT then 1000 hr pilots can do it just as easily
As I said it is second only to Aero's
I opted for the PIFR because the company (helicopter) chariot was the only one of its model in Australia, and there was a hell of a time trying to find an ATO or FOI who was able to renew the rating - unfortunately, the gent who issued the PIFR on this type managed to spear in 3 years later while flying a plank. Once he departed the scene, I had to import an ATO from Adelaide (type qualified but hadn't flown the model in 10 years) and another time from Melbourne (CASA FOI, barely endorsed on type, never flown the model).
Fortunately, the PIFR renewal/review is every 2 years, so the drama occurred at half the rate of a MECIR renewal.
Fortunately, the PIFR renewal/review is every 2 years, so the drama occurred at half the rate of a MECIR renewal.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a few people I have talked to in the industry the PIFR is marketed to pilots who have held full command instrument ratings for many years who want something permanant like cficare said. They generally know the procedures back to front from years of experience and can determine if their skills are up to scratch before flying the plane IFR. A novice IFR pilot is better off having all the regular checks which seems to be the reason flight schools prefer teaching the full command instrument rating.
"How many fatal accidents involving PIC with PIFR have there been since the introduction of the PIFR? Been plenty VFR and MECIR in the same period"
Beachy
Now an edumacated man like you'all should know that's not a valid question.
Maybe that's cause the 1 or 2 pilots in Oz who hold only PIFR's only fly a couple of hrs per year each in IMC versus the squillion hours a year flown by holders of MECIR's.
Dr
Beachy
Now an edumacated man like you'all should know that's not a valid question.
Maybe that's cause the 1 or 2 pilots in Oz who hold only PIFR's only fly a couple of hrs per year each in IMC versus the squillion hours a year flown by holders of MECIR's.
Dr
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct-but
I knew business people who owned their own aircraft and flew regularly VFR although they could easily afford to get a rating. I kept telling a doctor that he should have a rating and he said "yes, but I can't spare the time." He sold his aircraft and stopped flying. He lived. The others died scudrunning. One was lucky and just got one hell of a fright.
Anything that will make it easier or less costly or time consuming to get a rating should be done. It appears the PIFR is a system that allows this to be done in smaller bits so it is easier. That is good. It will save lives. Flying schools and ATO's should promote it, as a first step.
Traditionally our class one instrument rating has been more of an eletist status symbol, and renewals have too often been used as an administrative tool. It is also extremely important that pilots have somewhere to renew their rating that is not their work place or CASA.
Renewals are often a problem just because of the logistsics. (unless you live on the coast)
Our system is too much about control, and not enough about safety.
And yes, I did have one for many years.
Anything that will make it easier or less costly or time consuming to get a rating should be done. It appears the PIFR is a system that allows this to be done in smaller bits so it is easier. That is good. It will save lives. Flying schools and ATO's should promote it, as a first step.
Traditionally our class one instrument rating has been more of an eletist status symbol, and renewals have too often been used as an administrative tool. It is also extremely important that pilots have somewhere to renew their rating that is not their work place or CASA.
Renewals are often a problem just because of the logistsics. (unless you live on the coast)
Our system is too much about control, and not enough about safety.
And yes, I did have one for many years.
When you live....
Some comments on other posts:
Paper Planes - I've heard Peter Gibson (CASA) say several times that the PIFR is actually aimed at PPLs with the intent of preventing accidental encounters with IMC (178 seconds to live...)
FTDK - I normally agree with your posts but have to take you to task. Beach is correct to say that there have been no PIFR related fatalities but for you to say it doesn't count because of the maths misses the point above - that they were in IMC and could otherwise quite possibly been scudrunning in marginal conditions. I'd also contend that you're vastly underestimating the number of both pilots and hours that fly on their PIFRs each year - last year I logged about 20 hours IMC and I know many others with the same rating who did similar. (Yes, still very small compared to the number flown under the MECIR but not insignificant).
My opinion of the PIFR (based on personal experience):
I did the initial issue and then added FPA's for NDB & VOR approaches. Initially, it was very much an enroute tool - got me into/out of Melbourne and as I felt more experienced (including exceeding the hour requirements for a MECIR issue) then the happier I felt as the 'margins' between VMC and the arrival TAF decreased. Only once have I actually had to make a full approach 'in anger' (TAF forecast SCT at 3000', it was OVC at 1400') but I (still) regularly cancel flights that involve conditions at/near the minima at the other end.
Both I and most PIFR pilots I know treat it as a MECIR in terms of recency - in fact in many ways, we regularly do a run with an instructor before setting of any trip when instrument approaches may be on the cards. The other point that I noticed as a difference between PIFR training and MECIR is the emphasis in the PIFR training that another, non-IMC plan is a key part of flight planning - for example a standard training exercise is to arrive over Bendigo, be told you're still in cloud despite being at route LSALT/MSA and being expected to turn to the north and use the new route LSALTs to get visual. Likewise, hit the coast and head away - you will get visual (assuming it's not very marginal - and then I wouldn't have been flying).
So to those who dismiss PIFR as a mickey mouse, dangerous rating, think about what it's designed to achieve and ultimately trust the airmanship of those who've felt the need to go and get one. PIFR pilots with 24 odd instrument hours who blast off for solid IMC down to the minima may very well exist but if that's their mentality then without the rating I contend they'd be prime candidates for accidental flight into IMC.
To anyone considering it - go for it - it's interesting, exciting, challenging and at the end of the training you'll know what/when/how you feel safe to operate in. Just don't expect that it's a license to fly anywhere anytime and that you've still got an awful lot still to learn.
UTR.
Paper Planes - I've heard Peter Gibson (CASA) say several times that the PIFR is actually aimed at PPLs with the intent of preventing accidental encounters with IMC (178 seconds to live...)
FTDK - I normally agree with your posts but have to take you to task. Beach is correct to say that there have been no PIFR related fatalities but for you to say it doesn't count because of the maths misses the point above - that they were in IMC and could otherwise quite possibly been scudrunning in marginal conditions. I'd also contend that you're vastly underestimating the number of both pilots and hours that fly on their PIFRs each year - last year I logged about 20 hours IMC and I know many others with the same rating who did similar. (Yes, still very small compared to the number flown under the MECIR but not insignificant).
My opinion of the PIFR (based on personal experience):
I did the initial issue and then added FPA's for NDB & VOR approaches. Initially, it was very much an enroute tool - got me into/out of Melbourne and as I felt more experienced (including exceeding the hour requirements for a MECIR issue) then the happier I felt as the 'margins' between VMC and the arrival TAF decreased. Only once have I actually had to make a full approach 'in anger' (TAF forecast SCT at 3000', it was OVC at 1400') but I (still) regularly cancel flights that involve conditions at/near the minima at the other end.
Both I and most PIFR pilots I know treat it as a MECIR in terms of recency - in fact in many ways, we regularly do a run with an instructor before setting of any trip when instrument approaches may be on the cards. The other point that I noticed as a difference between PIFR training and MECIR is the emphasis in the PIFR training that another, non-IMC plan is a key part of flight planning - for example a standard training exercise is to arrive over Bendigo, be told you're still in cloud despite being at route LSALT/MSA and being expected to turn to the north and use the new route LSALTs to get visual. Likewise, hit the coast and head away - you will get visual (assuming it's not very marginal - and then I wouldn't have been flying).
So to those who dismiss PIFR as a mickey mouse, dangerous rating, think about what it's designed to achieve and ultimately trust the airmanship of those who've felt the need to go and get one. PIFR pilots with 24 odd instrument hours who blast off for solid IMC down to the minima may very well exist but if that's their mentality then without the rating I contend they'd be prime candidates for accidental flight into IMC.
To anyone considering it - go for it - it's interesting, exciting, challenging and at the end of the training you'll know what/when/how you feel safe to operate in. Just don't expect that it's a license to fly anywhere anytime and that you've still got an awful lot still to learn.
UTR.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Boggabilla
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a lack of recency and experience that will get you into trouble.
With a PIFR do you still require the 3hours IF in 90 days, NDB/VOR in last 90days etc etc to remain current?
If you've had previous experience in IMC, it really isn't that hard to fly 'the line' while remaining above LSALT. If you didn't have that sussed, it's unlikely the ATO would've signed you out in the first place. The 90 day requirements are the bare minimum but have personally proven adequate after a few months of nothing but blue skies.
Well said UTR
With a PIFR do you still require the 3hours IF in 90 days, NDB/VOR in last 90days etc etc to remain current?
If you've had previous experience in IMC, it really isn't that hard to fly 'the line' while remaining above LSALT. If you didn't have that sussed, it's unlikely the ATO would've signed you out in the first place. The 90 day requirements are the bare minimum but have personally proven adequate after a few months of nothing but blue skies.
Just don't expect that it's a license to fly anywhere anytime and that you've still got an awful lot still to learn
When you live....
Smoking hole - no, there are no recency requirements for PIFR FPAs (i.e approach types) and this is the bug bear of most critics. But it simply follows the 'private ops' theory that the individual is responsible for their own (and their non-fare paying passengers).
You'll also note that many here use this 'feature' to regain currency for CIR operations.
UTR
You'll also note that many here use this 'feature' to regain currency for CIR operations.
UTR
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night FPA with a MECIR
I recently did my IR-C-ME (MECIR) renewal and asked the ATO to do a PIFR as well (seperate label). He wrote the same thing on it as on the CIR label i.e. VOR, ILS, NDB, LLZ, DGA.
Say I allow my CIR to expire by a month (13 months since issuance of PIFR) but that I've got my recent night experience, does this mean that I cannot use it to fly IFR at night? Can the ATO rectify this with the stroke of his pen by writing the word "night" on my label after he's sent it in to CASA?
Thanks in advance,
FRQ CB
Say I allow my CIR to expire by a month (13 months since issuance of PIFR) but that I've got my recent night experience, does this mean that I cannot use it to fly IFR at night? Can the ATO rectify this with the stroke of his pen by writing the word "night" on my label after he's sent it in to CASA?
Thanks in advance,
FRQ CB