boscomantico wrote:
Again, there will be no proper, realistic ATC interaction, no pressure, no unforeseen events, etc.
Debatable how much you get on that even on an AL42 simulator that will cost more than aircraft hourly rate
I still think those 5h were worth it for the relaxed and through brief/debrief than the “sim play” itself (“real flying” was not possible due to low IMC weather 
)
As arj1 mentioned, I use toy simulators and saved tons of money on school training & later currency, after long flying hours in FSX one should know by heart which frequencies to tune and altitudes/headings to fly as well as the emergency drills, and in RANTXL, one does not even need to look at the plates if they spent hours replicating IAP from AIP pages into the software themselves
It is just a tool, still better than arm chair IFR flying where you can’t throw things at yourself, at least in a simulator you will get slightly behind the simulation rate, off nothing beats “real flying with a real IRI and real ATC”….
PS: setting it up avionics in FSX with a mouse/keyboard is a nightmare, much easier than fingers in bumpy air 
boscomantico wrote:
I can’t see the typical European IR examiner cutting any much more slack on BIR test applicants.Also, as often said already, flying an ILS und GPS approach down to 200 feet instead of 500 feet is totally trivial. What is demanding in IFR flying is other things: properly managing the aircraft, briefings approaches, interacting with ATC, planning descents, setting up the avionics, etc. All this in an often very limited bracket of time. Also, holds will still be the same.
This is what i read/heared/debated elsewhere – unfortunately. Why should someone (not holding any other IR-ratings, hence starting from scratch) go for the Non-ICAO BIR when the extra effort of earning the CBIR over the BIR seems relatively limited…?
I guess:
Potentially less training hours on the aircraft /approved sim required (see above)
Potentially less theory to learn / less exams to take
Potentially less onerous revalidation requirements
The devil is in the detail, as they say…
Can you find an FI to do instrument training with you, cheap or free of charge? Most people won’t, but you need one unless you can pick up instrument experience elsewhere. But you always need one eventually, to learn what is expected in the checkride which, in Europe, is usually quite specific stuff e.g. in the JAA IR test I was supposed to, every 1000ft in the climb, pretend to look out of the window and say, “ice check, no ice”. There is clearly room for mentoring here, but most people won’t be revolving in the right circles for that.
The theory factor depends on what they did. AIUI the “learning objectives” (i.e. the syllabus) is the same as all the other IRs and merely comes from the original JAA ATPL QB, as amended over the years since 1999. For the JAA/EASA IR they took out the jet performance etc stuff to produce the 7 exams. For the CB IR they took out a bit more (but still have 7 exams, though you no longer get the HPA credit). For the BIR they took some more and got 3 exams. So the material that is left is unlikely to suddenly be something earth shatteringly relevant to flying. If you asked me whether one could take out 4/7 of the JAA IR theory without missing important stuff, I’d say definitely YES because some 90% of it was junk.
The reval process for the (what is today called) EASA IR is the same as for the CB IR. AFAIK the only people doing the EASA IR are ones working towards the ATPL (and who sat the 14 exams anyway) or a few who want the HPA credit. It is not hard; one precision approach and one nonprecision approach, and free use of GPS and almost free use of the autopilot. Hard to imagine what could be taken out there. Well, they could have adopted the FAA 6/6/ rolling currency but that would produce this
I suppose the main incentive for the BIR is that it is said to have massively less theory and a simplified exam. A LOT of people I know, myself included as I would have to redo the 7 exams fully in order to revalidate my IR, put off doing the IR because they can’t find the time to do the theory. If the BIR comes up like the FAA IR, where it is said you can learn the theroy to pass the theoretical exam within two weeks or so, then yes it will be a huge incentive.
The higher minima, well, for most SEP’s they are maybe not the worst thing anyhow, at least initially. And I understand that if you hold the BIR, you can upgrade to a full IR or CBIR after a while, so that may well be a path which many people may wish to take.
So you start out with a restricted IR which allows you to do almost everything but with higher minima, which may well save lives for beginners, and then can upgrade to a full IR after maybe 2-3 years of gaining experience? Well… sounds like something I could well accept doing.
Now if I could bring in my former IR and my then flown hours into the equation…..
Mooney_Driver wrote:
And I understand that if you hold the BIR, you can upgrade to a full IR or CBIR after a while, so that may well be a path which many people may wish to take.
AFAIK no upgrade path, but you can do CBIR theory, 10hrs at the school and get the CBIR practical.
arj1 wrote:
AFAIK no upgrade path, but you can do CBIR theory, 10hrs at the school and get the CBIR practical.
Would be good if someone who is knowledgable there @bookworm can check on that. I understood from a presentation given a while back that you can upgrade after flying a number of hours on the BIR with a relative minimal effort. Doing the CBIR theory means the full 7 subjects, which is b.s. I understood the upgrade was like for people who have flown in the US and who get an oral exam plus a checkride after they fulfill the hours required for that?
Previously, someone with an FAA IR but not enough hours could get an EIR based on the FAA IR in order to build the hours. Once the hours have been reached, only a skill test is needed to convert the EIR into a CBIR. My understanding that the BIR effectively replaces the EIR, so I would expect the same approach to still work/apply.
chflyer wrote:
My understanding that the BIR effectively replaces the EIR, so I would expect the same approach to still work/apply.
If only… FAA IR is ICAO IR and BIR is not.
Eg If the FAA state that a pilot holding an FAA licence cannot begin an approach if the ceiling is below the DA/MDA given on the IAC plates
But, if we pay attention when reading the FARs, we find no such rule applying to FAA certificate holders. The FAR misquoted above applies to US airspace, not pilots.
In the USA, when taxiing a floatplane up a waterway, the rule is to leave the green lateral marks to port. In the EU, we leave them to starboard. It’s not easy to obey both rules simultaneously.
