I thought the whole point is that there is no such thing as a CB-IR Test as distinct from an IR Test. The difference is only the training course, the test is supposed to be the same, is it not?
Yes, but IMHO the issue is that the examiner guidelines came out only a few weeks ago, and anyway there is bound to be some resistance in the system, because some of the changes are pretty big and it was only months ago that there was “absolutely no way” the window screens would be avoided for example. Politically and in terms of modernisation this is a triumph. It must have been some very new broom in the CAA who pushed this stuff through.
No, it’s just that the way the regulations break down the hours (instruction by an IR holder, instruction by a non-IR holder etc) needs careful analysis
That could be a challenge to say the least, because how can you tell if some instructor had a valid IR 10 years ago? On the UK PPL (RF) scene, historically, IME, almost no IR-holding instructor had a valid IR at the relevant time because only an FTO could train towards an IR, so revalidating an IR was a waste of the instructor’s money. They would have revalidated it only just before going for airline interviews.
how can you tell if some instructor had a valid IR 10 years ago? On the UK PPL (RF) scene, historically, IME, almost no IR-holding instructor had a valid IR at the relevant time because only an FTO could train towards an IR, so revalidating an IR was a waste of the instructor’s money. They would have revalidated it only just before going for airline interviews.
It’s not quite that bad: The rules allow for up to 15 hours of instruction from a non-IR holder. You need 25 hours instruction total and 10 has to be at an ATO, so you only need extra top up hours if you passed the IMC with less than 15 hours FBSRI.
In practice of course you will almost certainly need more than 10 hours at the ATO (or else with an instructor who is up to date on the IR requirements and teaches with the manual of your chosen ATO in mind), so it really shouldn’t be an issue.
With an EASA PPL VFR, you ned only 10 hours instruction with IR? Surely this cannot be right or??
With an EASA PPL VFR, you ned only 10 hours instruction with IR? Surely this cannot be right or??
Nope, you need 40 hours total, of which only 10 must be a school (an ATO). Of the 40, 25 hours must be under instruction, the rest can be P1.
I have a UK IMCr – so there was instruction time there, along with a handful of hours I did with an independent instructor. Then I only had to do the last 14 hours of instruction at an ATO – that’s the benefit of the CBM IR: credit for prior training and experience.
Outside the UK the EIR is now the natural stepping stone to the IR: You take the new reduced IR theory exams, do 15 hours instruction with an ATO and take the EIR test. You then use the EIR to fly 15 hours IFR and go back to the ATO to finish off in 10 (or likely a few more) hours and take the test.
In the UK the natural path is now to take the IMCr (approx 20 hours for most people), then fly for a bit and come back to finish off the CBM IR at an ATO.
Some theory books have just come out.
So “somebody” out there seems to know the syllabus.
Well, they might just have guessed which of the JAA ATPL QB questions should remain, and stuffed them into a QB. That’s what I found when I was doing the JAA IR – loads of very bad questions in just about all of the online QBs.
The syllabus was published ages ago, its the QB that’s “unknown” – and will presumably remain so until enough people have taken the exam for the TK ATOs to build up a good picture.
Sure, but without the QB, the study is a huge amount of work. I would say 5x to 10x more work to learn from the FTO study manuals.
The CB IR theory without the QB is far far more work than the old JAA IR 7 exams with the various online QBs (even the crappy one I used).
True, the QBs make a huge difference.
Having looked at the syllabus (from the EASA AMC/GM material), I reckon 40% of the old questions can be thrown out straight away. That should make a huge difference!
IMHO, for most people, the online QBs make the difference between doing the IR and simply not bothering.
The whole ATPL sausage machine moved to QB learning years ago, long before the internet. They got a guy to stand outside the exam room who quickly wrote down anything the exiting candiates could remember (it was sometimes better organised than that).
I suppose you could learn the CB IR theory by using one of the existing JAA IR 7-exam QBs, which should be a superset of whatever the CB IR QB is. But then the CB IR theory brings no benefit.
Some of the theory was interesting in its own right, like Meteorology. I think people only turned up to the consolidation events to get the free login to the question bank though.
