EASA IFR practical exam tips

Try not to commit yourself to ‘10’ hours. You may be a Sky-God in the making, or you may not, but enjoy the flying and see how long it takes.
You’ll know when you’re test ready.

If you can, try to schedule the ATO time in as short a time as possible to help prevent needing to re-learn stuff. 2 sorties a day on two linked days each week, worked well for me.

When you have done your 1st couple of sorties, write yourself a checklist of items, in order, that your instructor like to see you do. A kind of Break-down of the key points of the flight in the way that your instructor teaches. Afterall, you can already fly, but he will have a process he wants from you, that may be different form the way you have done things in the past.

In all my briefings and de briefings I wrote notes in an A5 notepad that I always kept with me.
If I picked up some nugget of information or a tip that was new but essential, it went in there too. Before the flight test this was a valuable resource for reminding myself rather than text books or my other study notes.

Good luck and enjoy it.

Maybe my experience isn’t typical because I was converting an FAA IR, but I found the practical test generally straightforward with a couple exceptions. The first was that the examiner asked me to do stalls while flying a holding pattern, which definitely increased my workload and complicated timing and WCAs. The second was that he tried to emulate a localizer-only approach by configuring for an RNP while doing something on the GNS530W that removed vertical guidance. He didn’t make it clear what he was doing, and he kept fiddling with it while I was trying to fly the approach which made the CDI indications erratic and difficult to follow. I made a PIC decision to switch to the VOR and let him know I was doing so, at which point he acknowledged he wasn’t getting his desired result on the 530. Possibly it was a test of my judgment, but not entirely sure.

In any case I found the test much easier than the FAA checkride, but YMMV. Good luck!

WOW – that just shows that 75.3% of the IR skills test is knowing the peccadiloes of the examiner.

In 2011/2012 when I was going for mine, one UK examiner – not a CAA staff examiner but an “industry” examiner – had a reputation for debriefing people until about 10pm i.e. something like 5-6hrs. The FTO where he worked advised me to call in “sick” and keep repeating that until I got a different one. He was a true sadist. The one I actually got, early 2012, a CAA staff examiner, was very professional.

I found it quite a bit easier than the FAA IR checkride in Arizona in 2006. Detail.

By9468840 wrote:

I really want to nail down the check ride

I understand the temptation to show all the good stuff you´ve learned to the examiner but this is putting too much pressure on yourself. Keep it simple. Few call outs, simple check lists, think ahead (the all important “what´s next” question), focus on flying. Show you are safe pilot ahead of your plane.

It is good to know examiner´s personality and basic expectations just to be mentally prepared in case he is “special”. I got legendary ex-military/test/airline introvert perfectionist in combination with +30kts winds, low cloud base, freezing level on the ground with nice touch of VOR switching off in the middle of the procedure. It was not my best day…

Peter wrote:

WOW – that just shows that 75.3% of the IR skills test is knowing the peccadiloes of the examiner.

I think this is it, and both my FAA and EASA examiners seemed to find it useful to increase workload and complexity by testing more than one skill simultaneously, presumably to see how I would do under a high stress situation. My FAA examiner had me do a VOR-A partial panel, then “pause” the approach to do unusual attitudes, then resume the approach—of course ending in a circle to land as any non-aligned approach does. I’m not sure how necessary such additional stressors are, as practical exams are already stressful enough.

Destinatus wrote:

Few call outs, simple check lists, think ahead (the all important “what´s next” question), focus on flying. Show you are safe pilot ahead of your plane.

100% agree with this. As a general rule, test or not, I follow airline-style procedures and call out everything—especially the what’s next. I do this even if I’m alone. For example, if I’m making a turn, it’s “right 120, 10 miles to XXX, then left 090.” Start calling distances/altitudes/timings at 1 mile / 1k ft / 10 sec (“0.5 to XXX”, “500 to top of climb”, “10 seconds to turn”, etc.).

Another point on staying ahead of the airplane in a test scenario is with regards to the briefing. In a real-world situation I brief the expected approach on the ground, then again while still in cruise, then I only have to do an abbreviated configuration check just before I begin the approach. In the test scenario you’re typically doing back-to-back procedures, trying to brief while you’re busy with something else and possibly hand-flying the airplane. I simply told the examiner I always brief any expected procedures on the ground in the briefing room so I can be ahead of the airplane regardless of what happens, and I asked him to let me know what to expect. Then, after getting the departure clearance, I said I would like to treat the departure and first approach as a single procedure and brief it on the ground. He complimented me on both of these suggestions and was happy to oblige.

Remember you’re PIC. Unless the examiner starts talking to ATC for you, you’re in control. For example, on my last approach ATC asked if I wanted the full approach or vectors. I accepted vectors without consulting the examiner, figuring he would step in if he wanted. He did not. And as stated above, when I was uncomfortable with him fiddling with the 530 I made a decision to switch to the VOR so I could have a stable course indication. As things were getting a bit messy, I also asked if he would call out my altitudes for the CDFA, and he did so. I would think most examiners would like to see that you’re in control, ahead of the airplane, and able to think critically.

Last thing is if you make a mistake, admit it as soon as possible, then correct it and move on.

It may be somewhat prosaic but check Practical test Standards Document 1, I don’t believe it has changed since Brexit.

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Standards%20Document%2001(A)%20v10.pdf
Standards_Document_01_28A_29_v10

The EASA IR check ride should not be a Soviet test to destruction exercise. The example of an IRE requesting slow flight/stalls in the hold would normally be an open and shut case through the appeals process (CAP1049). If anything the EASA IR is too choreographed, and emphasis is on PTS limits.

If modular/conversion the examiner is likely to ask questions: aircraft docs/prep/SOPs/nominated speeds/minima calculation/comms failure procedure/airspace/airways/radio nav equipment/PBN/EGNOS. The SEP IR is relatively straight forward as there is no asymmetric or diversion, just 3D, 2D approach, hold and GH.

You need to fly to nominated speeds and meet limit standards. Being behind the aircraft evidenced by not flying nominated speeds for the phase of flight is probably the main cause of a problem, followed by loss of situational awareness. The examiner can tell pretty quickly early on what the likely outcome is going to be. Poker tells include not using attitude based flying, trying to fly attitudes with trim, not updating SA as flight progresses, not using the heading bug correctly. The examiner is human and has done this a thousand times, so by the first level off, and the accuracy of this level off, they will have a pretty good opinion of the outcome.

RobertL18C wrote:

The example of an IRE requesting slow flight/stalls in the hold would normally be an open and shut case through the appeals process

As an IRE myself my guess would be that by the time the examiner called for slow flight he had already ticked off the “holding” part in his mind as satisfactorily. After entry and the first outbound turn basically you’ve seen what you need to see. Doing the airwork right away in the hold was probably just an effort to streamline the flight.

Other than that I fully agree with your post.

tschnell wrote:

After entry and the first outbound turn basically you’ve seen what you need to see. Doing the airwork right away in the hold was probably just an effort to streamline the flight.

Interesting insight. You may be right. I also wonder how different it might be evaluating someone with 20 years IFR experience vs an ab initio pilot. I imagine there was a sort of “box ticking” mentality in general as opposed to really feeling like he needed to evaluate everything thoroughly.

Don’t forget to manage ATC.

On my IR test, with the “EXAM” callsign, I had an approach controller that was trying to be helpful but the undesired side effect was an increase in RT (“do you need extra track miles? Would you like the lights turned up?”). That controller also put me on vectors but forgot to clear me for the ILS – so I shot through the localiser. Apologetic controller vectors back to intercept. I should have first queried whether I was cleared for the ILS when closing in the LOC. Second, absent a clearance I should have taken the initiative, gone missed, and tried again. Instead I battled to save an approach that was unstable and out of GS limits.

Examiner debrief acknowledged that ATC was at fault, but the IR is a worldwide valid qualification and an IR holder may have to deal with standards far below those of Cardiff ATC!

Good luck when your time comes!