The PBN is something you would normally do with the ATO when doing an IR, CBIR, or conversion. It is hardly onerous and is useful knowledge as more glass enters the cockpit.
PBN theory relates only peripherally to knowing how particular avionics work. Anyway, it can be done as an oral with the FE.
I don’t think there is at present any significant discussion with the UK CAA as it is still trying to find its own way.
What is relevant in this context is a potential US-UK BASA.
The EU is not relevant, and indeed a UK based N-reg pilot can fly the plane all over the world, outside the UK, without any problem (no need to comply with EASA FCL, etc).
These treaties existed many years before the EU came about as we have it today. The US never liked the way the EU forced its member countries to terminate their previous treaties with the US (happened with JAA, late-1990s) and much prefers treaties with individual countries. Probably the CAA will dig out one of those, and add a “licensing annex”.
But, nobody seems to know which way the UK anti N-reg politics will swing. The UK has already terminated the regular derogation – presumably this was not helped by the Minister for Transport having had his hands tied politically (he flies an N-reg himself so could not get involved). Fortunately, the effect of this is much less than it would have been pre-brexit (because UK based pilots can now fly to mainland Europe freely, even if they are “illegal” on the “operator residence” provision if flying in the UK). Probably, most UK N-reg pilots will just get the IMCR (which incidentally does not need PBN) and avoid UK Class A.
Peter wrote:
The PBN is something you would normally do with the ATO when doing an IR, CBIR, or conversion. It is hardly onerous and is useful knowledge as more glass enters the cockpit.PBN theory relates only peripherally to knowing how particular avionics work. Anyway, it can be done as an oral with the FE.
Yes, but previously, if you had an IR without PBN, you had to get some training with an ATO.
Hence my next question is: if an ICAO IR pilots shows up with an ATO PBN completion certificate, how could IAA tell them “no, still does not work, still have to do the full theory”?
The PBN is not an exam. Well not here anyway.
It might form part of the oral questioning with the examiner before a flight test or a revalidation.
I read the book put out by PPL/IR and that made a simple subject very complicated and incredibly long. It can be covered by an instructor in an hour or so before the flight. Or made part of the preparation for each instructional flight. Perhaps its much more complicated in the UK.
You don’t need PBN to fly IFR, especially if only using conventional instruments.
As A_A wrote PBN is generic not specific to an avionics package. If you want specifics you read the owners manual.
Yes, if you had an IR without PBN you had.to get some training with an ATO. You can do it with differences training, or part of blowing the rust off before a revalidation. Here, its usually done as part of some other training. Maybe an hour in a simulator and a debriefing. It’s not normally (here at least) a course.
@Peter yes if you fly N reg on an N licence and are resident of a third country, you can fly it in EASA land providing:-
1) The country in which you reside permits it.
2) You adhere to the strictest of the regulations of, the country being overflown, the FAA in case of N reg, and the UK if you reside in the UK. (I’m not sure this last is in force yet.)
Someone flying G reg on a UK CAA licence, and resident in the UK has the same restrictions and freedoms.
The licencing regulations in the EU no longer apply to the UK, they now come under UK law and the CAA can make any changes it likes to the EU regulations which were brought into UK law.
This may be slightly off topic but reading ever more carefully the IAA’s PLAM009 (that was quoted on page 80 above by Qalupalik):
Qalupalik wrote:
6.5.2 Any applicant presenting to the IAA for issue of a CBIR (whether
initial issue or issue on transfer of SOLI) must be able to provide
proof of a pass the EU Part-FCL IR theoretical knowledge examinations.
So I wonder whether this means that a CBIR applicant must have done the full IR exams, not the CBIR exams? A typo (that I doubt)?
The preceding paragraph 6.5.1 dealing with third-country IR conversion is clear that, in that case, the required exams are the CBIR ones.
Probably someone here has been down this road ……
I reckon that when you get into a plane in Ireland and go for a flight, and flying along the northern border you get traffic info passed to you on somebody flying along the southern border, you may well conclude that, assuming the number of private IR pilots is the “european average” i.e. of the order of 1-2%, the number in Ireland will be countable on the fingers of one hand, without resorting to binary, and is undoubtedly exceeded by the number of people in the CAA drafting this reg 
I posted about this Irish reg in an obscure EASA forum and somebody there responded saying they will examine the matter.
The only private pilots doing the 7 EASA IR exams instead of the 7 CBIR exams are the very few who want the credit towards the HPA. The credit towards the 13 “ATPL” (CPL/IR) exams is negligible either way.
Peter wrote:
the number in Ireland will be countable on the fingers of one hand
I think that is an exaggeration! A lot of Irish private pilots originally trained in the USA for convenience, cost and weather. I’d say some tens are affected by these IR issues, maybe 50+. Any currently studying for the CBIR may find my question relevant.
I would be shocked if there were 50 private GA IR pilots in Ireland. I’d guess it’s about half that. I know of 4 N-reg planes here that fly IFR, and I can’t think of more than about the same number on EASA reg.
This is a pointless argument but off the top of my head I can think of over 10 I know affected by these issues.
Interesting! My assertion is based on nothing but a hunch. Myself and 2 other IR guys could only come up with about 10 planes when we put our heads together. Where are they all hiding?!
