I cannot see any way the CBM IR could possibly be ready in time to enable anybody to do it for April 2014.
With thousands of FAA licensed IR pilots (including much of the business jet community) getting shafted in April 2014, there will either be another postponement (maybe 2 years, like the last one) or there will be a complete fiasco.
But you can be certain that EASA will leave this till the last minute.
Do we have any clearer idea yet when the CBM IR will be online? One assumes that it would be sensible for it to be online at the time the IMCR was effectively ditched? Common sense and politics will no doubt, scupper this?
No difference. It is just a different flight training route which would enable a savvy student to do 30hrs outside the FTO and thus save a pile of money.
The ATP customers will still need to do the normal 14 exams. PPL customers will have 2-3 exams.
The flight test is the same and that is pretty important in realizing the benefit or lack of.
Once you're awarded the CBM IR, does the rating on your licence say "CBM IR" or "IR"? And is there any difference in privileges?
What will be the initial test and subsequent revalidation requirements for the EIR?
If the TK is the same and the annual reval is the same (as the CBM IR) then there is no point in keeping the IMCR+EIR.
But the CBM IR is going to be a lot harder for people to achieve than the IMCR has been, because of the training structure (FTO mandatory fo some of it = a hassle for most people) and also the CBM IR initial test will be the same as the JAA IR initial test.
What about the EIR? As far as I can tell EIR + IMCR = IR in UK airspace...Apart from visibility limitations for landing at 1800m
I see this proposed so often. If you have an IMC rating, why not just do the CBM IR? The same TK as the EIR, and 10 hours instrument training, just like the EIR, if you have 30 hours of IF, which surely you have if you use the IMC.
The GM published in the CRD says:
PRIOR EXPERIENCE OF FLIGHT TIME BY REFERENCE TO INSTRUMENTS To be taken into account and credited as prior experience of instrument flight time as PIC on aeroplanes only instrument flight time completed under the following criteria should be credited by the ATO. (a) The instrument flight time should have been completed: (1) under a rating providing the privileges to fly under IFR and in IMC issued by a competent authority of a Member State; or (2) under a national instrument rating issued by a Member State completed before Part- FCL entered into force; or ?(3) under a valid IR(A) issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country. ?(b) A maximum of 15 hours dual flight training time should be credited towards the 25 hours of dual training required.
I've not seen any sign that EASA intends to change that.
Don't get me wrong... I think the EIR is a very good proposal. It would have been brilliant for me during my pre-2006 (pre-IR) days, when I flew everywhere, ahem, "VFR", and had to develop some, ahem, "tactics" to arrive at certain airports.
However the EIR will IMHO not attract many takers because its study requirements (always a chestnut for the "IFR GA age group") are proposed to be the same as for the CBM IR
I don't fully agree... For me it's quite attractive. I'm getting towards the end of my ppl and I doubt very much that I'll manage to get the IMC rating by april. So EIR is a good stepping stone towards a CBM. Don't really mind studying the full material of the CBM if I plan in the future to have it. What I dislike about it is that it also seems to have the requirment of 10hrs at an FTO (if I read the proposal correctly). I think it makes sense to split the FTO time between the EIR and CBM.
However what is the supposed EIR benefit to a pilot in say France? S/he already enjoys access to the extensive network of French VFR airways below FL115.
Those are not "airways" in the UK PPL training "keep out or they will execute you" sense - they are just lines on the map in what is Class E airspace, in which VFR is allowed, even non-radio i.e. no clearance required.
But let's say the cloudbase is 3000ft and the tops are FL130. The Class E base is mostly FL065 and below that you have various military airspace. You are now screwed into sitting in the muck.
And if you want to e.g. cross the Alps, you might be screwed into flying at FL129, 1000ft above the peaks, by Swiss ATC, because the Class C base is FL130. There is no traffic above but rules are rules...
Also often the cloud cover might be higher; say FL160.
If you can get the magic IFR clearance then there is no upper limit to how high you can go. ATC don't usually care at all - below about FL200/250 anyway.
ICAO allows VFR in Class C but in practice many ATC units have "private policies" on this.
One might point out that a C150 cannot go to FL130 or whatever but that has always been a limiting factor on the takeup of any IR, in Europe (outside the UK) where low level IFR is not normally viable. You do need the aircraft performance to make use of it.
Yes you still have to land "officially VFR" but that is normally easy enough to arrange if going somewhere in the warmer south. Especially if going to an airport on the coast...
Does anyone know any details of the proposed CBM IR or EIR exams? I have seen the proposed syllabus (the "learning objectives") which is the same as the JAA IR 7-exam syllabus but with a load of items removed. I think they took out about 75% of the stuff.
