Doesn’t sound like anything has become much easier really…
From that point of view, I can only continue to recommend the FAA IR. Takes about a week to study for the written test. Then, later, “convert” to EASA IR with the oral test.
I think the new EASA IR is much improved on TK and the CB-IR is also better with 40h (instead of 50) of which only 10 must be done in an FTO(ATO?)
I started under JAA and the TK was a real PITA.
And now I “just” need to find the right slots with me and IRI as we both work (outside aviation that is) and have families 
(my FTO is actually my airclub and not a commercial structure)
It certainly is challenging and I take my hat off to those who have studied and passed the ATPL’s. I do find it extremely rewarding though and I does keep me out of the Pub My non aviation friends and colleagues have no idea of the enormity of the task and just think I’m nuts!!!!
Just a quick update……
I sat Met. and IFR Comms. yesterday at Gatwick. I’m pleased to report that I passed both with a pass mark of 86% and 100% respectively. I’m just about to schedule the next three for the start of next month. Its taken 2 months of hard work to get to this position, I hope its all worth it in the end
good work
if you’ve done air law and met i think these were the hardest…
PapaPapa, not done Air Law yet!
I sat Met. and IFR Comms. yesterday at Gatwick. I’m pleased to report that I passed both with a pass mark of 86% and 100% respectively.
Good for you! Met was definitely the most dreaded subject for me.
IR Met is almost totally irrelevant. Not because you don’t need to know Met (you definitely do) but because of the almost total disconnect between the theory taught and the way one can practically obtain the data (=internet).
For example (not a good example) there would be little point in teaching the properties of various fronts if there was no website on which you could get charts showing fronts.
What you do get in the “ATPL-style” Met is a lot of stuff which doesn’t happen on the actual day so e.g. you learn about the properties of an occluded front but if you go flying through one, the actual conditions might be totally different. The same-looking front with a SFC pressure of 1030 will be completely different at a SFC pressure of 970, and that’s before you bring the wind gradient into it.
Somebody who does this for a living can work it out, and that is where tafs and metars come from Plus of course those people have access to confidential 3D wx data which would cost you 4 or 5 figures a year to get. Why confidential? Because the met offices sell it to commercial wx repackagers who sell it to e.g. DIY shop chains so they can work out whether on a particular weekend they should push paint (indoors) or gardening (outdoors).
The industry gets away with this crappy theory because 99% of its output never flies GA. They go on to do a jet TR and then fly a plane with amazing performance and wx capability in which it is very hard to screw up (well, the screwups tend to be proper ones, like AF447 ) and which can bore a hole through wx which would kill you (via ice accretion) in your SEP in minutes.
Back to work 
@Peter : i definitely agree…
Well, I find it interesting to learn the principle of fronts (warm, cold, warm/cold occl, cold/warm occl although these last 2 could right out of the first two…)
… but all the crap about the different clouds and precips and what-not, geostrophic wind blah-blah…
Send a PM to Rob2701. Got a reply:
The user Rob2701 on EuroGA has sent you the following message:
======== Body was corrupted ========
Rob2701 → I hope you are all-right, even though your body was corrupted
