Can one pick the type of 3D/2D approaches to conduct during his IR test (initial & renewal): say the candidate insists on doing ILS+LNAV OR LOC+LPV and nothing else? can the PIC cancel his exam or change his route, if ILS+LNAV & LOC+LPV are not available? due to technical reasons: NOTAMS, SBAS, alternate, wind, traffic…
I am only asking about initial & renewal tests, usually within ATO, for re-validations one talks directly to his IRE and tend to agree on the plan, if ILS/LPV are not available, fly to another country to get them 
Assuming the student, who is PIC have good reasons to cancel: say, they master ILS & GPS and suck on VOR/NDB/BCLOC? or simply refuse to fly VOR/NDB/BCLOC as they believe they are unsafe, useless, out of fashion?
Also, to retain IR/PBN, the requirements in FCL is 2D & 3D with one being RNP, so if one goes for 3D ILS + 2D NDB, they would lose RNP APCH until they fly one in an aircraft of simulator to regain that privilege (some say in EASA land, when you lose RNP APCH you also lose PBN (RNAV1 for SID/STAR, RNAV5 for cruise), I doubt that is true as people confuse IAP RNP APCH with PBN for SID on RNAV1? I even heard you lose the entire IR privileges as after 25/8/2020 an IR without PBN = nothing in EASA land but I am sure this is wrong
Most revals at an ATO are very pragmatic, so your IRE should not have a problem.
The answer to the question is no! The candidate needs to be able to fly all types of approaches and the examiner selects which of them need to be demonstrated.
Having said that, in practice all examiners I’ve ever met actually were open to proposals. Obviously it is not a good reason to say “I can’t fly VOR approaches”…
If you don’t want to fly an NDB approach in an exam or review (I’ve never been asked to do that anyways) just pick a plane w/o NDB – or put an “ADF Inop” placard on your panel. That’s simple…
Malibuflyer wrote:
The candidate needs to be able to fly all types of approaches
That is clearly not the case, the exam requirement is to show you can operate 3D & 2D with one being RNP and 2D (preferably on CDFA), I doubt it’s about being able to fly any type of approach one can throw at you?
There is no requirement for sensor, level of minima…I am just giving VOR/NDB/BCLOC but there is lot of fun out there: ‘raw data’ , ‘performance based’, ‘ ATC guided’, how about the 3D PAR & 2D SRA during youyr exam? or VDF/QGH/QDM while we are at it? how many people with an IR know how to fly these?
It goes the other way around, how about doing your IR exam in Cannes (CAVOK 99.99% days in calm CAVOK) and 2D CDFA on LOC-A or RNP-A followed by VPT17, you fly straight at 2kft and go-missed at 2kft minima…
Pushing it a bit further, is it ok for a student to plan and execute an IR exam and say it’s GO in 1.5km visibility & 300ft ceilings while planning right at NDB/VOR minima? after all candidate & examiner can fly any approach down to it’s minima
Most revals at an ATO are very pragmatic, so your IRE should not have a problem.
I think the right word is pragmatic
Ibra wrote:
It goes the other way around, how about doing your IR exam in Cannes (CAVOK 99.99% days in calm CAVOK) and 2D CDFA on LOC-A or RNP-A followed by VPT17, you fly straight at 2kft and go-missed at 2kft minima…
That one could be tricky if you try to climb when calling “Go around”.
My IRMe exam was 1 ILS in Avignon and then RNP A in Cannes, that same as LOC A but with RNP :D. 2hours 25m easy conditions in Bright morning sun, easy traffic.
My team mate did the same the day before, stormy/icing/turbulent with 5 holdings in Avignon, night all the way. 3hours 30, he was tired…We both got it but I was lucky.
Conditions is what will differentiate the difficulties, whatever the approaches,
greg_mp wrote:
tricky if you try to climb when calling “Go around”
Ibra wrote:
That is clearly not the case, the exam requirement is to show you can operate 3D & 2D with one being RNP and 2D (preferably on CDFA), I doubt it’s about being able to fly any type of approach one can throw at you?
I don’t know where you get the info from – but yes it is the case! AMC to FCL.610 clearly says that you need to demonstrate the relevant procedures – and these are all that are in the IR syllabus. Point 4 of AMC to Appendix 7 states that “The route to be flown shall be chosen by the examiner.”
Even if you might never use it in real life, you need to be able to fly an NDB approach and to demonstrate that to the examiner upon request (at least if you happen to be in an airplane that can do it …). You als need to be able to fly and NDB hold (much more fun and much more useless at least in Central Europe) and a DME Arc – both very unlikely to happen in a practical skill test but again not a good reason to say “I don’t because I can’t”.
On PAR and SRA I’m not sure if they are really part of the syllabus.
And let’s be realistic: What kind of Instrument rating would that be if an applicant could say "but I’m only able to fly exactly one type of 2D and one type of 3D approach?
Ibra wrote:
Pushing it a bit further, is it ok for a student to plan and execute an IR exam and say it’s GO in 1.5km visibility & 300ft ceilings while planning right at NDB/VOR minima? after all candidate & examiner can fly any approach down to it’s minima
Again: It’s clearly the role of the examiner to chose the route. While I don’t know any examiner who would really have an applicant fly down to minima in a skill test, there is no rule against it.
In one of my skill tests I actually flew an ILS with a 250ft ceiling – but the examiner knew me and I knew him long enough to know that both of us can handle it…
My skill test for the MEIR was an ILS down to the 200ft minima.
A week before my SEIR 3D approach was again an ILS with a cross wind.which kept changing from 30kts at 3000ft which increased to 40knts to 45kts at 2000ft much to my surprise and that of the examiner. On the runway it was only 20knts. IMO it depends what you get on the day.
in real life, runway in use and the type of approach is decided by the ATC and broadcasted in the ATIS
I am not sure where do you get that NDB/VOR approaches are part of a mandatory syllabus training & test? while VDF, QGH, PAR, SRA are not?
Looking at ‘AMC2 to Appendix 6, Modular training course for the IR’, all I see is exercise 6 (seems for cruise not IAP): (1) radio navigation using VOR, NDB or, if available, VDF; interception of predetermined QDM, QDR…there is no requirement to fly an NDB/VOR approach, however, the UK CAA used Ex6 to mandate NDB hold & approach on initial IR tests and many applications got rejected (some slipped though), it will be daft if Germany does the same
While I love to see the standard of the IR getting raised to do every funky approach out there, the only legal requirement for the student is to plan & execute 2D + 3D where one is RNP !
As I said, if an examiner chose route/approach that has VOR/NDB, the student can try to find an alternative plan or just cancel his test, what is wrong with this? same if you are told you will be flying to Ramstein USAF and do QGH/PAR (there are no plates published, so good luck planing)
Malibuflyer wrote:
On PAR and SRA I’m not sure if they are really part of the syllabus
But an IR rating entitle you to ask for them? and an examiner can test you on these…
Malibuflyer wrote:
Again: It’s clearly the role of the examiner to chose the route. While I don’t know any examiner who would really have an applicant fly down to minima in a skill test, there is no rule against it.
On departure aerodrome, no way as it involves the risk of getting stuck somewhere else and not coming back it does happen (unlikely with an IRE but it does with IRI), at some destination/alternate for low pass, well you gotta crack on with the test and no reason to cancel
Malibuflyer wrote:
In one of my skill tests I actually flew an ILS with a 250ft ceiling – but the examiner knew me and I knew him long enough to know that both of us can handle it…
Of course, it’s an ILS, when visibility is higher than 2km it’s called good flying day for ILS !
The real challenge is rarely ceiling on an ILS it’s visibility, winds & gusts…
It would have been a different story if you have said you went for an NDB with 1.5km & 350ft ceiling, I am sure no PIC & IRE would go for this one? natural-selection, self-preservation, life-expectancy, health-safety….and all of that
Ibra wrote:
in real life, runway in use and the type of approach is decided by the ATC and broadcasted in the ATIS
I agree that this is broadcast in the ATIS, but the type of approach is not necessarily “decided” by ATC. Usually, if an ILS is available it will be announced as the active approach. But there is no requirement to have ILS capability in the aircraft and I have never heard of anyone requesting an RNP LPV approach in such a case and having it refused by ATC. When practicing, I often request the same when the ILS is available and it has never been an issue with ATC. Vectoring for both will be pretty much the same.
