bookworm wrote:
arj1 wrote: AFAIK no upgrade path, but you can do CBIR theory, 10hrs at the school and get the CBIR practical.There certainly is an upgrade route. See point 55 of the amending regulation. It’s similar to the upgrade from a third-country ICAO IR.
So, does that mean:
9. If I just have BIR then it’s like IR(R)-rated student→CBIR, right? I mean 50hrs PIC XC IFR, pass ALL CBIR threory (with a course), at least 10hrs ATO and a skills test.
10. If I have BIR and 50hrs PIC IFR post-BIR (or before and after?) then I read a book, answer a few questions, get assessed by the FI (and get some training) and then pass the skills test? Or do I need to pass the actual 7 exams for 10. ?
Thank you!
As an aside, is this true? I’ve never heard of it…
a pilot holding an FAA licence cannot begin an approach if the ceiling is below the DA/MDA given on the IAC plates
arj1 wrote:
So, does that mean:
9. If I just have BIR then it’s like IR(R)-rated student→CBIR, right? I mean 50hrs PIC XC IFR, pass ALL CBIR threory (with a course), at least 10hrs ATO and a skills test.
Yes, I think so.
10. If I have BIR and 50hrs PIC IFR post-BIR (or before and after?) then I read a book, answer a few questions, get assessed by the FI (and get some training) and then pass the skills test? Or do I need to pass the actual 7 exams for 10. ?
The former: no written exams.
Peter wrote:
As an aside, is this true? I’ve never heard of it…
No, I think gallois was just proposing a hypothetical example. A real one, which is perhaps still interesting, is 14 CFR 91.169(c), IFR alternate airport weather minima, which are much more restrictive than the equivalent under Part-NCO. Would the pilot of an N-reg in Europe operating under Part-91 be expected to use the FAA alternate minimums, or could they use the Part-NCO rule?
That’s like the 91.175 debate which, writing quickly, seems applicable in US airspace only. I don’t know if the famous 1/2/3 FAA alternate rule is similarly constrained.
As a practical aside, I have always found that alternate choices in Europe are driven by practically every other factor e.g.
I don’t even know the NCO rule 
But anyway the BIR will not valid on N-reg as the FAR says you need an “instrument rating” to fly N-reg IFR not a “basic instrument rating” or “competency based instrument rating” or “instrument MC rating” even in domestic airspace 
and second you will need an FAA to fly across borders, long story short you need FAA PPL & FAA IR anyway to exercise EASA BIR privileges outside the EASA PPL licence country, and for based operators that amounts to FAA PPL+IR and EASA PPL+IR
Hopefully everybody is taking my comment with a pitch of salt or sense of humour rather than serious interpretation…
I am sure this is not correct as far as the FAA is concerned
One bit is here.
Another one is from when I was in Arizona doing the FAA IR; they accepted the IMCR as a full IR and the FAA DPE, John Walkup, said so (in case anybody wants to create trouble, as a well known “GA personality” did many years ago when I posted this at one UK GA chat site on which I used to waste my life in those days, I met the full FAA IR requirements with training at KCHD with a CFII anyway).
The IMCR law (the ANO) does not restrict the IMCR by aircraft reg.
For sure the BIR will not be valid in US airspace, or actually anywhere outside EASA-land. This is why, apparently, the UK will create its own mirrored version post-brexit. A bit like the Channel Islands have a mirror version of the IMCR.
What is funny is that the BIR holder should have an IMCR anyway (knock both off in the same checkride, which is required every 12m and every 25m respectively, at zero extra cost, as well as revalidating one’s PPL, LAPL, NPPL, whatever) and then in the UK can fly down to the Jepp plate minima, but outside the UK he can’t.
I hope the BIR is not constrained by aircraft reg!
Knowing this stuff exactly right is gonna be a great chat-up line at a party
Peter wrote:
I don’t even know the NCO rule
Yet it applies to you, too…
Ibra wrote:
But anyway the BIR will not valid on N-reg as the FAR says you need an “instrument rating” to fly N-reg IFR not a “basic instrument rating” or “competency based instrument rating” or “instrument MC rating” even in domestic airspace and second you will need an FAA to fly across borders, long story short you need FAA PPL & FAA IR anyway to exercise EASA BIR privileges outside the EASA PPL licence country, and for based operators that amounts to FAA PPL+IR and EASA PPL+IR
The “competency based instrument rating” is a fully ICAO-compliant IR. It should not even show on your EASA license whether you have a “full IR” or a “CB IR”, so there is absolutely no reason why the FAA shouldn’t recognise the CB IR.
The FAA Chief Counsel opinion to Whittaker would clearly be applicable to the BIR as well, but noting the limitation to the state of issue of the licence, per Condell.
Local copies of above PDFs:
whittaker_civil_aviation_authority_282015_29_legal_interpretation_pdf
Condell_282009_29_Legal_Interpretation_pdf
