@hmng I’m aware that things are very different in other parts of the world (see Pakistani ATPLs!), but it is true I had no idea that things were quite so different so close to home!
As @MedEwok suggested I would have expected a degree of commonality across the EU but this is clearly not the case.
The theory test is relatively new, yes. I had to do one and that was in 1999 – at the time it was very new, probably only 1 or 2 years old. More recently it has gone online and includes a ‘hazard perception’ part where you have to watch a drivers-eye view of a drive down some streets and click the mouse every time you noticed a developing hazard.
I now notice that I should had said that I was talking about Portugal. Not my current location.
I wonder if anybody has looked at the BIR detail…
How is this supposed to work?
Is the DH being formally adjusted by 200ft upwards from the approach plate figure? The only person who will know if they are busting this will be the pilot or passengers, because it is pilot-interpreted.
Or will ATC be supposed to refuse the approach if the METAR is below DH+200?
On the 1500m, is that active only when there is official RVR reporting, or will any tower report be sufficient? The approach ban needs official RVR.
Looking at my 18 years of IFR, I can see the departure cloudbase having to be above the circling altitude to have a serious impact on getting out. Looking at a few sample plates, we are talking about 700-900ft. Is this “cloud ceiling” OVC, BKN, SCT, or any cloud at all? This is not defined.
The UK IMC Rating has greater privileges in this respect: you have just the 1500m. You can land down to the DH on the plate, and similarly for departure minima.
@bookworm may know about what was actually intended.
On the plus side, it looks like an ICAO IR holder should be able to get the BIR with just an oral exam and a test, but then you can get the CB IR the same way.
In an article written by an ex CAA guy, it seems clear the BIR is sub-ICAO, and this is an interesting post-brexit angle:
Peter wrote:
The UK IMC Rating has greater privileges in this respect: you have just the 1500m. You can land down to the DH on the plate, and similarly for departure minima.
IR(R) has got a recommended minima of DH+200 or at least 500/600 for precision/non-precision approaches correspondingly and 1500m RVR.
UK IMC minima IIRC was making these hard limits.
At least, that was in the book…
Yes; that is normal, and except for the 1500m it is wrong 
Peter wrote:
I wonder if anybody has looked at the BIR detail…
Sure. It was discussed in this thread already in 2016….
Is the DH being formally adjusted by 200ft upwards from the approach plate figure? The only person who will know if they are busting this will be the pilot or passengers, because it is pilot-interpreted.
Yes. But that is already the case. The DH can differ between flights for many reasons (SOPs in airlines, Cat II/III ability or not, etc.) ATC has no way of knowing. Also ATC has no way of knowing if the pilot has IR or BIR.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Also ATC has no way of knowing if the pilot has IR or BIR.
… or any IR for that matter!
Other than common sense (and invalidated insurance), is there any reason why a PPL with the right IR skills and no formal IR qualification can’t file a Eurocontrol flight plan?
You don’t need a pilot license to file a flightplan. Dispatchers do it all the time.
The DH can differ between flights for many reasons (SOPs in airlines, Cat II/III ability or not, etc.) ATC has no way of knowing. Also ATC has no way of knowing if the pilot has IR or BIR.
Sure, but the possession of a rating can be determined post-landing, whereas the points I mentioned can’t – depending on the definition.
Other than common sense (and invalidated insurance), is there any reason why a PPL with the right IR skills and no formal IR qualification can’t file a Eurocontrol flight plan?
He could file one (in the same way that it is legal to install a GTN750 in a Vauxhall Viva despite the lack of an STC) but would have to meet the required flight conditions on the actual flight i.e.
It’s a good Q actually. It certainly used to be legal for a UK JAA PPL holder to execute an IFR flight, and even log it thus, provided the conditions were VMC etc. I believe, not really sure, this ended with the EASA PPL.
There have been cases of IMCR holders filing Eurocontrol IFR flight plans, intending to fly in Class D (and probably Class G too, not knowing you don’t get a joined-up service) and then the whole London Control system going berserk when the pilot said he can’t enter Class A… I recall reading one pilot’s account and it was ATC mayhem. This was maybe 10-15 years ago, and I believe avoiding this kind of situation was implemented by the “interesting” method of London Control throwing out flight plans which are “not high enough”.
Peter wrote:
Is the DH being formally adjusted by 200ft upwards from the approach plate figure? The only person who will know if they are busting this will be the pilot or passengers, because it is pilot-interpreted.Or will ATC be supposed to refuse the approach if the METAR is below DH+200?
As Airborne_Again has pointed out, that is the same with any DH. ATC should not “refuse the approach” under any circumstances — policing AOM is not ATC’s job. But there is no operating restriction based on reported cloud, for the BIR or any other AOM.
On the 1500m, is that active only when there is official RVR reporting, or will any tower report be sufficient? The approach ban needs official RVR.
The criterion is visibility, not RVR. In AOM, ground visibility is used, rather than flight visibility.
Looking at my 18 years of IFR, I can see the departure cloudbase having to be above the circling altitude to have a serious impact on getting out. Looking at a few sample plates, we are talking about 700-900ft. Is this “cloud ceiling” OVC, BKN, SCT, or any cloud at all? This is not defined.
Ceiling is defined in Part-SERA (though it is used extensively in the Air Ops regulation):
‘ceiling’ means the height above the ground or water of the base of the lowest layer of cloud below 6 000 m (20 000 ft) covering more than half the sky
In other words, the lowest BKN or OVC layer. For anyone who finds that would have a serious impact on their operations, I would suggest an IR rather than a BIR.
I would imagine that the intention is that a take-off in a situation that, in the event of a problem, would inevitably require a full departure followed by a full instrument approach procedure is considerably more demanding than a take-off in a situation where a visual circuit to land is likely to be possible.
