I don’t think a CAA has the discretion anymore to do what you describe. Also when you let your IR lapse, you are now forced to take a course at an ATO. They feed you to the lions who extract money from you at their own discretion. Very stupid.
I take back my “wing commander” comment earlier 
and actually the ex-military ones I have flown with have all been top blokes so that was an unfair comment…..I used to fly with an Ex Navy Harrier pilot FI/FE now BA Captain. Couldn’t have found a better bloke to fly with and he certainly inspired confidence.
I am afraid I’d fail the CAA IR flight test on NDB approaches alone. It is not something I am ever going to use, my ADF seems all over the place and I am not going to replace it, and I will never fly an NDB approach in anger ever….I’d use the GPS, so it seems madness that we have to use it. I wonder when the powers that be will catch up and realise that no one ever would fly an NDB approach if they have a Gx30W fitted…….
I don’t think a CAA has the discretion anymore to do what you describe. Also when you let your IR lapse, you are now forced to take a course at an ATO. They feed you to the lions who extract money from you at their own discretion. Very stupid.
Not quite so black and white, see AMC1 FCL.625(c) IR — Validity, revalidation and renewal:
RENEWAL OF INSTRUMENT RATING: REFRESHER TRAINING
(a) Paragraph (b)(1) of FCL.740 determines that if the instrument rating has lapsed, the applicant shall go through refresher training at an ATO, to reach the level of proficiency needed to pass the instrument element of the skill test prescribed in Appendix 9 to Part-FCL. The amount of refresher training needed should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the ATO, taking into account the following factors:
(1) the experience of the applicant. To determine this, the ATO should evaluate the pilot’s log book, and, if necessary, conduct a test in an FSTD.
(2) the amount of time lapsed since the expiry of the validity period of the rating. The amount of training needed to reach the desired level of proficiency should increase with the time lapsed. In some cases, after evaluating the pilot, and when the time lapsed is very limited (less than 3 months), the ATO may even determine that no further refresher training is necessary. The following may be taken as guidance when determining the needs of the applicant:
(i) expiry for a period shorter than 3 months: no supplementary requirements;
(ii) expiry for longer than 3 months but shorter than 1 year: a minimum of one training session;
(iii) expiry for longer than 1 year but shorter than 7 years: a minimum of three training sessions;
(iv) expiry for longer than 7 years: the applicant should undergo the full training course for the issue of the IR.
(b) Once the ATO has determined the needs of the applicant, it should develop an individual training programme, which should be based on the initial training for the issue of instrument ratings and focus on the aspects where the applicant has shown the greatest needs.
(c) After successful completion of the training, the ATO should give a certificate to the applicant, to be submitted to the competent authority when applying for the renewal.
Apparently, our CAA simply applies the clause (a)(1)(i) on behalf of an ATO.
I agree the above quote suggests you can let the IR lapse by up to 3 months, but I wonder how many ATOs will simply accept that, without doing any chargeable activity?
Also, see post #5 here
If you keep an ICAO IR current, you can skip the JAA/EASA IR revalidations (in circumstances where you don’t need the latter for another reason). A very recent change.
