Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA Basic IR (BIR) and conversions from it

What we need to get more people flying IFR(and these people will be better trained pilots and therefore safer) is:

No ATO involvement, it should be done in a DTO or completely freelance until skill test.

Theoretical knowledge needs to be very simple and based on distance learning, now the students learn all kinds of weird stuff but they have no idea how to interpret the simplest plate from Jeppesen.

RNP approaches to non-instrument runways shall be cheap(ish) and easy to establish and maintain.(has nothing to do with FCL but still)

Last Edited by Fly310 at 07 Mar 06:43
ESSZ, Sweden

Fly310 wrote:

No ATO involvement, it should be done in a DTO or completely freelance until skill test.
It’s hard enough to get FIs in some places, let alone IRI. We are back to the whether the demand for a CPL is proportionate to light GA.
PPL+FI+IRI would make it practical for DTOs.
ESMK, Sweden

The point about freelance IRIs is well made. I spend a lot of time preparing pilots before they go to an ATO when training via the CB-IR training route.

It took quite a lot of effort to obtain my IR, FI and IRI and there is no chance of paying back the investment; you just have to do it for the love of instrument flying. I love the independence of being a freelance IRI and enjoy flying different aircraft with their owners. The approach is a little different being more be spoke to meet the needs and requirements of pilots I teach and dove tailing into their busy business lives.

United Kingdom

After EASA, there were three kinds of countries – those who were less regulated, those about the same, and those much more so.

The ones in the first two categories pointing out to the ones in the last category that it isn’t so bad does not make it better for those people who lost freedoms they had before.

While it is a myth that the UK lost out everywhere, Part-FCL and SERA introduced many new restrictions, the endless uncertainty about the continuing existence of the IMC rating being the most egregious example.

Biggin Hill

Egregious is an extremely well chosen word for the way Brussels/Cologne treated the IMC Rating. The approach was a totally blatently “we are implementing a uniform playing field, and you have to abandon the IMCR unless every EU member wants it also”. Actual words from Eric Sivel.

It didn’t win many friends.

In public they pretended they supported the IMCR but that was just words. In one presentation, Mr Sivel said “this is off the record; don’t quote me” in a room with maybe 100 people. It was laughable.

My notes from a 2008 presentation
Slides for above

And 12 years on, the IMCR is still “due to be killed off” by Brussels. Nobody believes the CAA would do it, however, because everybody knows that practically everybody will just fly in IMC as needed, only illegally.

Perhaps this helps to explain the different UK view of EASA. I don’t think EASA ever managed to climb back up the PR hill they created early on.

No ATO involvement, it should be done in a DTO or completely freelance until skill test.
Theoretical knowledge needs to be very simple and based on distance learning, now the students learn all kinds of weird stuff but they have no idea how to interpret the simplest plate from Jeppesen.

Yes; exactly, and any “student” of the FAA IR and Euro IR scene will conclude that also, but this approach flies in the face of everything that Brussels stands for. Trust is vested in approved organisations, not individuals.

The UK is no better in this area, however, and from my business (industrial electronics) I reckon the UK is among the world leaders in pointless compliance procedures. Maybe 50% of the vendors advertising in the trade magazines are selling compliance related products or services, so basically the rats now own the sewer So I am not expecting any magic post-brexit in this area.

One hassle will be that those changing their EASA papers to UK papers may get a new license number and will have to renew their 61.75 piggybacks, which was always “fun and games”.

I don’t think the BIR addresses the main issues.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

One hassle will be that those changing their EASA papers to UK papers may get a new license number and will have to renew their 61.75 piggybacks, which was always “fun and games”.

When JAA turned into EASA, the number didnt change, but they added a few letters. My UK-PPL number has not changed from what is was on the EASA PPL at all, but after SOLI, I have a completely different French issued EASA PPL number.

Regards, SD..

When I changed address on retirement in 2006, I was given a new licence number, UK/PP######J/A, but keeping lifetime validity. My FAA 61.75 was revalidated on this. My EASA license and UK licence retain that number, but have different letters. My 61.75 will need revalidating on one of these latter 2, now probably the UK one.
.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

As a freelance IRI I have to say @Peter and @Fly310 are spot on!

…a dramatic shortage of freelance IRIs. And a freelance IRI is the only way to save money, because if you book an IRI via an FTO you are not saving anything …. and …. most CB IR candidates fail to realise the cost saving potential of this route.

Additionally it is also about flexibility and training objectives. Even though legally the training objectives are of course the same, a freelance IRI can focus more on personalized training in line with what an owner pilot wants to achieve (IFR A-B touring flights). ATOs that cater to full time airline wannabes are not very interested in providing such „hassle“ training.

Nearly all pilots who fly significant IFR are owners, or in a few cases syndicate members.

In my opinion the CB IR is fantastic for owner pilots or those that have access to a plane and can block charter it for set times. Especially the 30 or more freelance hours are valuable to learn actual IFR touring, decision making, weather, different ATC etc..

While the required 10 hours in the ATO aren’t much, it seems that Private/owner Pilot IFR touring and the typical ATO IFR training environment are worlds apart – the latter definitely „set in their ways“.

Any ATO flight training requirement is a big obstacle because the ATOs resist putting a customer plane on their books – for various organisational / restrictive practices / laziness reasons.

Some ATOs do add a plane but it should be much easier.

I’ve gotten so used to pointless rules that they „normalized“ and it takes a post here and there to remind me! Example: Pilot pursues CB IR in his own plane with freelance IRI. To finish in the ATO, plane needs to be added to ATO. Same pilot, same plane and same instructor will fly the remaining 10 hours, but now the airplane suddenly needs CAMO/CAO causing a mountain of bureaucracy and €€€. All for only 10 hours. :(

No ATO involvement, it should be done in a DTO or completely freelance until skill test.

Absolutely! The services for students would be equal to or better than a typical ATO but it wouldn’t require a truckload of paperwork (and money)!

Last Edited by Snoopy at 10 Mar 10:48
always learning
LO__, Austria

While a freelance IRI/DTO route may work am not sure there is enough demand to develop a standardised training product – by this I mean not a one size fits all, but a consistent level of applied IF practices.

The EASA IR is a highly choreographed check ride, where in addition to demonstrating good instrument flying skills, the candidate has to manage the flight. Typically they will have flown to half a dozen destinations or more, with diversions, in the system, so competence in getting from A to B in real weather is a given.

Invariably when the candidate comes from a freelance environment there is a need to refine some basics. Also there is an element of ensuring the train to test elements are understood. In this sense the FAA is a more realistic test than EASA, where the test is less choreographed. And the larger USA market also allows a freelance business to thrive.

YMMV but I would suggest going down an ATO route with a high throughput (5,000-10,000 IR training hours p.a.) which offers a CBIR course. The airline cadet schools tend to be nearly 100% integrated or MPL, so are not an avenue.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

RobertL18C wrote:

I would suggest going down an ATO route with a high throughput (5,000-10,000 IR training hours p.a.) which offers a CBIR course. The airline cadet schools tend to be nearly 100% integrated or MPL, so are not an avenue.

It’s notable that the number of (mostly commercial) ATOs in the UK registered to offer the CBIR exceed those offering the (original 50 hour) IR. I estimate 24 vs 19 nationwide based on a recent CAA standards document. One of the popular modular schools offers a CPL/IR/ME package that explicitly includes the CBIR rather than the IR. In the recent past, students have told me they prefer to do the full IR route, allowing them to fly more qualifying hours in a simulator and thus reduce the total cost. I’m not exactly sure why the change, but it seems that more commercial schools are adopting that approach. Perhaps there is some flexibility in hours and/or total cost.

I would have expected more (most?) commercial pilot training to be going through the MPL route, which I understand does not end up with an SEP rating or privileges to fly anything other than an airliner. But the CAA stats don’t seem to bear that out. Recent pilot licence/rating issue statistics for years up to March 2019 show 1051 ATPL, 838 CPL(A) but only 67 MPL issued. Maybe I have misunderstood what licence/ratings are issued on an MPL course but I would have thought it was a straight MPL that later gets upgraded to ATPL after 1500 hours and further testing.

Although there were 67 IRs issued in the UK to PPL holders in year to March 2019, my guess is somewhere around 30 were already FAA IR holders vs 30-40 directly taking the EASA CBIR training route. Almost all of those would already have an IR(R) with some IFR experience. Number of PPLs taking the CBIR in the UK remain very low (vs 286 gaining the IR(R)).

There are a few ATOs offering the CBIR course aimed at non-commercial/PPL pilots, and these are more likely to be able to accommodate the style/pace of instruction sought including the use of the student’s own aircraft. I suspect there are also quite a few of those registered to offer the course who don’t train any.

Last Edited by DavidC at 10 Mar 16:23
FlyerDavidUK, PPL & IR Instructor
EGBJ, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top