[ @rate2 post moved to a new thread ]
Can you post a source?
Looked into this a bit more. What seems to be happening is, perhaps understandably, ATOs are focussing on the good stuff and glossing over the hurdles. I am told that language level 4 is EASA soft law and does apply. IREs can only assess language at Level 6 but are expected under the BIR to include a significant oral element to the skill test perhaps more akin the FAA model than the UK or existing EASA model. Thus language is assessed not in a formal sense but in the sense of candidates being able to communicate adequately with ATC. This is my own interpretation and not definitive.
Another interesting aspect is the TK which is supposed to be simpler. I did have a quick scan of the LOs and they are somewhat reduced but still extensive. The 3 exams instead of 7 seems attractive but statistically they will be easier to fail if a candidate has any gaps in their knowledge. My view is that the CBM IR flight training is already about as flexible and minimalistic as any serious IFR qualification can be. The stumbling block is excessive TK. It appears that the TK for an ICAO IR is not defined in detail by ICAO it is effectively whatever the NAA says it should be. Seems to me the ideal model would be to reduce the scope of the syllabus further, have exams that are of proportionate complexity which can be taken easily on line. Then compel the IRE to have a more serious oral assessing whether candidates know enough to be safe flying IFR with a small but real risk some could fail before they reach the aircraft. If that sounds like the FAA model that’s because it is.
Rate2 wrote:
I am told that language level 4 is EASA soft law and does apply.
Apply to what, exactly?
IREs can only assess language at Level 6
That’s interesting. Do you have a reference? What if the IRE him/herself doesn’t have level 6?
As a novice in IT. How could a tk exam be invigalated on line?
I know the FAA theory is done orally by the examiner but I understand it is quite onerous and quite detailed.
There is of course an oral test part to the IR and CBIR just before your flight test, but that just covers your planning and a few what ifs and is around 15mins to 30mins depending on how the examiners sees your understanding of the planned flight.
Whereas AIUI the FAA oral is much longer and covers a wider range of the topics normally covered in the CBIR tk.
I think a lot also depends on what you think can be dropped from the CBIR theory.
I have met an number of qualified IR pilots who don’t understand the difference between minimum safe altitude, minimum sector altitude, and TAA (different terminology but same principle under FAA as EASA) .
I could add to that MOCA, MORA, MEA
I am avoiding the well discussed topic of why so few people in Europe do an IR 
Yes, the TK is a load of BS but doing the stuff locally and avoiding staying in a sh1tty hotel in Bournemouth, and doing it in your own plane, is much bigger for those with enough €€€/£££ to actually fly anywhere, but is outside EASA powers, so we are still in JAA days for practical purposes 
The ICAO IR to CBIR conversion route (which needs 50hrs under IFR) involves an oral with the FE. Doesn’t any route to the CBIR involve an oral? That’s the key really. Even if EASA doesn’t specify how to “convert” ELP, the candidate will fail the oral.
All FAA exams have an oral and this is partly to check you have good ELP, because you cannot hold any FAA papers without that.
gallois wrote:
As a novice in IT. How could a tk exam be invigalated on line?
I don’t know the rules, but I know how it is done in my club. We have a classroom with computers. The invigilator (appointed by the CAA with no formal relation to the club) starts the computers. The students log in to a web page with the test system. The invigilator checks that no cheating is done. I don’t know if there are any technical attempts to prevent cheating, e.g. by preventing window switching during the test.
Do we (again?) have missunderstanding of what CBIR is?
BIR is a rating (non-ICAO one).
CB IR is a programme, to get full IR rating. So there can not be conversion from BIR to CBIR. Or CBIR in this thread refers to something else?
Interesting question.
I think you are right. The “conversion route BIR → CBIR” must consist only of training or other credits. They can’t really call it a “conversion route”.
But ELP could also be a “credit”. Like colour vision, which you do once only per lifetime (except in Germany, according to one German pilot who was here years ago).
But could a “lack of ELP” also be a credit? That’s funny
But isn’t there e.g. an EASA LAPL to EASA PPL route? That is also going sub-ICAO to ICAO. How is that defined?
