CBIR / CB IR - 10 years on

This is just my perspective.

The CB IR path took a few years to catch on, mostly because of FUD spread by some parties („you won’t get a full IR“). It started to pick up a bit lately, but there is still opposition and the recent increase in prices (fuel) also does it’s part.

ATOs naturally aren’t very fond of the „outside ATO“ part, and while most now offer it, all the flying is done at the ATO, but only on paper officially the 30 hours are done „outside ATO“. This is facilitated by telling interested candidates that „only coming for 10 hours“ isn’t appreciated and unless they have been trained up to the ATO‘s „high standards“ they will need much more than 10 hours at the ATO to finish.

I fear the BIR will see a similar fate.

On paper it might make sense, in reality it doesn’t.

People pay ridiculous fees for educationally worthless „approved“ computer based training courses. Nice cashcow.

However, in order to pass the theory exams, people need to memorize question banks by rote memorization. Another cashcow.

Too many obstacles that actually detract from learning to fly IFR safely.

To increase the rate of IR holders

- the ATO requirement needs to be done away with
- no requirement for any theory course
- theory exams reduced to what is really necessary for flying IFR instead of knowing the orbital trajectory of individual GNSS satellites or the limitations of a Boeing FMS
- a sign off from an instructor for theory and practical exam should be all that’s necessary

I could produce someone who can fly IFR safely in two weeks using @ErlendV ‘s books
+ real IFR flying.

Instead the whole thing is dragged out over months, sometimes years, costing double of what it could.

Snoopy wrote:

I could produce someone who can fly IFR safely in two weeks using @ErlendV ‘s books
+ real IFR flying.

This is proven by the popular 10-day program in the US, where a CFII comes to you with a sim and you bang it all out as fast as possible. It’s hard to believe that less than 5% of PPL holders have an IR. I remember when I started IFR training in 2002 that it seemed like a whole new world had opened up. I literally went from feeling like a whole pilot to only half a pilot. The IR changes everything IMHO, and I can’t help but think the lack of IFR training is a major limiting factor in the growth of practical GA flying in Europe.

Snoopy writes:

To increase the rate of IR holders
- the ATO requirement needs to be done away with
- no requirement for any theory course
- theory exams reduced to what is really necessary for flying IFR instead of knowing the orbital trajectory of individual GNSS satellites or the limitations of a Boeing FMS
- a sign off from an instructor for theory and practical exam should be all that’s necessary

Isn’t that what the FAA IR does?
Isn’t it just ‘patriotic pride’ which stops European countries doing the same?

There are 3 barriers why a “mass IR” is not possible:
- “Private use only” would have been rather than muddling with ATO/CAT with all sort of restrictions and mushrooming of ratings
- “Restricted use only” on small airports rather than muddling with ATC/CAT (maybe along airspace?)

If anyone wanted “full IR”, they can restart from scratch, a bit like PPL vs CPL/ATPL, this would have saved a lot of hassles when it comes to ATO/ATC interests, otherwise, I can’t see how it works like US?

There is no 1500h ATP and Part135 like US, the IR is the only “threshold” one need to sit as FO in Part121 or receive separation by ATC

The actual utility of an IR is really low for the typical summer private pilot on budget, even so for those who fly often, it just makes planning easier for the simple minds…

We might consider the fact that the challenge is not licensing environment but rather a limited demand/utility for the actual rating in Europe. The structure of our GA is different than in other parts of the world:
Demand is lower as e.g. we have very few SME that are operating across different markets so very few business owners that fly GA airplanes between different business locations. Also much less people with a vacation home that is 800km away from their place of living. Finally our commercial licensing system is completely different so that we have almost no GA-Pilots that do their IR on the way to finally become an airline pilot one day.
Utility is lower as we have a much better rail and road system than most other parts of the world. And our Airfield density is lower. Therefore the cases where GA is really the most efficient means of transportation are much narrower.

All of this together could lead to a situation where the share of “purely recreational flying” in GA is much higher than in other places of the world. Fore pure recreational flying, however, the value of IR is much lower. If I fly for fun, I don’t want to fly in clouds and ice for 3 hours.

Most recreational pilots I know who actually have an IR mainly did it for “no longer worry about these airspaces in France” and not really for flying actual IMC down to minimums…

Snoopy wrote:

To increase the rate of IR holders

- the ATO requirement needs to be done away with
- no requirement for any theory course
- theory exams reduced to what is really necessary for flying IFR instead of knowing the orbital trajectory of individual GNSS satellites or the limitations of a Boeing FMS
- a sign off from an instructor for theory and practical exam should be all that’s necessary

I could produce someone who can fly IFR safely in two weeks using @ErlendV ‘s books
+ real IFR flying.

Instead the whole thing is dragged out over months, sometimes years, costing double of what it could.

I’m not sure I fully agree that the training happens only at ATO, I know some IRIs that could teach you on your plane (or on a sim and then on a plance) to the right level and then recommend an ATO for the final assesment and test. But I have to admit I see no point in limiting it to a training organisation at all, be that ATO or DTO.

Agree on theory – I’ve just done 6 CBIR exams out of 7 (Meteo still to go) and have to agree that the amount information needed for a non-HPA pilot is excessive and often duplicate. I haven’t learned much in the six exams, only Meteo presents some really new info. Instruments, HPL, AirLaw, Comms, Radio Nav – these present almost no new info.
Yes, some things in AirLaw re: minimums and separation, a very few bits in Radio Nav re: RNP. Almost all extra info they put in Meteo should be in PPL theory anyway.
And FPL… What a useless course! Half of it is just reading Jepp approach plates (I’m not using those anyway), which should be checked during the exam anyway. Another half of the FPL covers enroute nav, which is pointless – people use some computer-based planning anyway. If you try to plot a course manually, there is a gazillion of limitations applied anyway, like you can’t take that shortcut between two point near Biarritz, unless you departed London City airpot (real world example).

I know that the CBIR was a compromise and I’m grateful that it exists (otherwise I’d have to double the amount of hours of home study), but it would be really nice to see a next step in making IR more relevant for a GA pilot.

What I’ve discovered is that none of the CBIR theory cover what you could be using for your flight planning, weather etc in Europe, I mean what should I use for weather? My IRI teaches me this, yes, but I expect that it should be covered in the theory course. It feels as if they’ve got a course aimed at airline pilots with their access to FPL & weather and the whole dispatch deparments and cut it down a little. It doesn’t work that – I don’t have access to a dispatch department.

If they want me to pass some theory, why can’t it be done the same way as the PPL theory, but much smaller amount of material?

I was hoping that BIR would be more relevant. It is, but not that much. Less theory, yes, but not much. And to my knowledge you still need to get that theory somewhere and pass the exams at the same place as for ATPL/CPL/CBIR. The good thing about BIR is that there are no requirements in terms of hours at all. But, the UK decided not to adopt it anyway. :(

Back to the OP – I think if the BIR KB was much reduced further (with exams passed whereever) and no ATO rule was introduced, then that would have help a lot.

Frankly speaking, if you have an examiner checking important things during the skills test anyway, what is the point in all this crap with ATO?

Malibuflyer wrote:

Utility is lower as we have a much better rail and road system than most other parts of the world. And our Airfield density is lower. Therefore the cases where GA is really the most efficient means of transportation are much narrower.

All of this together could lead to a situation where the share of “purely recreational flying” in GA is much higher than in other places of the world. Fore pure recreational flying, however, the value of IR is much lower. If I fly for fun, I don’t want to fly in clouds and ice for 3 hours.

Most recreational pilots I know who actually have an IR mainly did it for “no longer worry about these airspaces in France” and not really for flying actual IMC down to minimums…

It depends on local weather – in the UK you will have a rubbish weather quite frequently. I’m not sure that IFR flying is all about “fly in clouds and ice for 3 hours”, I was told by many that it is all about going through the bad weather (and most often not THAT bad weather). And in the UK the difference in the dispatch rates between pure VFR and “light-IFR” is 50% and 75%, so that means that you much more likely to be able to fly at a specific airfield if you have at least some IR.
Another thing is CAS access – in Germany there is no Class A. Malibuflyer, you are the lucky one! :)
You could depart at one airfield, climb VFR on top, fly over some clouds and then descend into another place with good weather.
Not possible in many places in Europe.

And what do you mean by “pure recreational”? No A to B flying? Because if you want to get from A to B, and you need to cover some distance, then IFR quite often the best – look at Peter! :)

arj1 wrote:

Half of it is just reading Jepp approach plates (I’m not using those anyway), which should be checked during the exam anyway.

You would wonder how many even licensed IR pilots miss out a lot of important information when reading an approach plate.

arj1 wrote:

if you have an examiner checking important things during the skills test anyway, what is the point in all this crap with ATO?

There are different training/testing philosophies: You can either have a “controlled environment training” with a final test that only checks pieces of what you need to know or you can rely completely on a full test of capabilities in the final examination.
In Europe (e.g. opposed to some Asian countries) we have a strong tradition of the former one: You typically can not earn university access by “just showing up at the final high school examinations” in many countries and you can not become a licensed physician by just doing the final exam.

Malibuflyer wrote:

You would wonder how many even licensed IR pilots miss out a lot of important information when reading an approach plate.

I think it is not about the theory, but mostly about the attention to detail! :) And I’d suggest to offer a choice of native Eurocontrol plates/maps and Jepp – I’m not using Jepp in real life.

Malibuflyer wrote:

There are different training/testing philosophies: You can either have a “controlled environment training” with a final test that only checks pieces of what you need to know or you can rely completely on a full test of capabilities in the final examination.
In Europe (e.g. opposed to some Asian countries) we have a strong tradition of the former one: You typically can not earn university access by “just showing up at the final high school examinations” in many countries and you can not become a licensed physician by just doing the final exam.

Completely agree, that for a PROFESSIONAL person that might be the best way, but for a person that use it for personal flying?