It seems to me that the solution to the ATO-only issue is to train to test standards with a local IRI and then present to an ATO to do an assessment and test. If the ATO refuses, find one that will. If it becomes a market, as it should, then some DTOs may even get an ATO solely to meet that demand.
Compared with the minima for someone having a regular IR. As I wrote, a BIR holder has to add 200 ft to the decision height. A BIR holder can’t make an approach or departure with less than 1500 m visibility, while a regular PPL/IR holder can depart with down to 400 m RVR and make an approach with down to 550 m RVR, depending on the approach, the airport and aircraft equipment.
OK thanks. IMO this seems to be the IR “light” even I would consider doing. A functional EIR that actually works. It all depends on availability, being able to do the training locally, and price of course.
LeSving wrote:
A functional EIR that actually works.
Yes. I find the limitation on visibility and the decision height add-on a bit silly but not very limiting in practise. At least not with the weather where I live. The 600 ft ceiling requirement is much worse a limitation.
Upon looking at the documents I see this BIR as a step in the right direction. A quick scan over my last years flying I estimate about 80 percent of my cancelled by weather VFR flights would have been ok on the BIR basis – if I would upgrade the VFR aircraft to IFR. Any chance they introduce a lighter version of IFR equipment needed?
No training is required, but that Nil Training has to be conducted at an ATO!
You can complete 30 hours of the CBIR training with a FI/IRI without going near an ATO
So why not do the training with an IRI/FI and then present for test. No DTO or ATO required?
Timothy wrote:
It seems to me that the solution to the ATO-only issue is to train to test standards with a local IRI and then present to an ATO to do an assessment and test. If the ATO refuses, find one that will. If it becomes a market, as it should, then some DTOs may even get an ATO solely to meet that demand.
Can you see why I might be reluctant to embark on that plan and invest the money and effort necessary without a firm assurance that an ATO will cooperate with it? They are hardly likely to be keen, given how much revenue it would deprive them of.
Access to an examination for a qualification should not remain in the gift of a commercial training organisation. It’s as simple as that. If you allow them to act as gatekeeper, they will perform that function in their own interests rather than as an impartial adjudicator.
dejwu wrote:
Any chance they introduce a lighter version of IFR equipment needed?
Lighter compared to what? You only need the navigation equipment that is necessary to fly according to the flight plan and to conclude the flight safely (but not necessarily according to plan) in case of a single piece of navigation equipment failing. So a panel-mount IFR GPS and a single separate VOR/ILS receiver or ADF would be sufficient.
It is even permissible in principle (but clearly completely impractical) to fly IFR without any navigation equipment whatsoever (except a heading indicator) if you have the ground in sight, using visual navigation.
Access to an examination for a qualification should not remain in the gift of a commercial training organisation. It’s as simple as that. If you allow them to act as gatekeeper, they will perform that function in their own interests rather than as an impartial adjudicator.
Since when have ATOs controlled examinations or tests?. That is down to the NAA.
Unless I missed it or don’t understand, there needs to be more information on the path from this Basic-IR (BIR) to Full-IR (CBIR), i.e. PPL —> BIR —> CBIR
It would be a great win for all to give GA pilots a non-burdensome (time, cost, etc) stepping stone (as is somewhat the case with IR(R)) first to the BIR, and then if desired, onto the CBIR, where the CBIR credits some amount of the TK and Hours gained with and after the BIR. Pilots could also go directly from PPL to CBIR (as they can now) if they wanted to, but I am sure a large majority would go the intermediate BIR first, as happens with the IR(R) now. But what we need is the confidence that it’s been properly planned and joined up and acknowledges the accumulated time and effort already put in – this is very very weak at the moment with some of the credits permitted in the CBIR. The BIR should be permitted at a DTO so that it can be broadly delivered and provide additional revenue and ongoing support to DTOs, but it would make sense to restrict the CBIR to an ATO.
I’d also be interested in seeing how the revalidation can be turned to two-years, so it correlates/attaches to PPL revalidation and better matches the IR(R). Perhaps every other year requires an instructor flight, and the year in between requires self-completed requirements (e.g. certain number of approaches / enroutes / etc) – a slightly higher revalidation bar than PPL or IR(R), but not too higher that it becomes a burden for PPLs and they might lapse.
If anyone reading this is in a position to lobby / provide feedback for all that, please do. I will send a note to AOPA UK at some stage.
This is a really good opportunity to better tune instrument flying for private pilots and the nature of their operating (time, cost, etc) environment, and establish a strong level of competency that builds upon PPL.
matthew_gbr wrote:
Unless I missed it or don’t understand, there needs to be more information on the path from this Basic-IR (BIR) to Full-IR (CBIR), i.e. PPL —> BIR —> CBIR
Perhaps you’re looking for this:
(48) In Appendix 6, Chapter Aa is amended as follows:
(a) paragraphs 9 and 10 are renumbered to 11 and 12;
(b) paragraphs 9 and 10 are inserted as follows:
‘9. Applicants for the competency-based modular IR who hold a BIR in accordance with FCL.835, and who have received at least 10 hours of instrument flight time under instruction at an ATO, may be credited in full towards the training course mentioned in paragraph 4, provided that all competency-based instrument rating topics have been included, as assessed by the ATO that provides the competency-based modular flying training course.
10. Applicants for the competency-based modular IR who hold a BIR and have, at a minimum, experience of at least 50 hours of flight time under IFR as PIC on aeroplanes, shall:
(a) at an ATO:
(i) be assessed as having an acceptable standard of competency-based instrument rating theoretical knowledge;
(ii) receive appropriate flight training to extend IFR privileges in accordance with FCL.605.IR;
(b) after completion of (a);
(i) successfully complete the skill test for the IR in accordance with Appendix 7;
(ii) demonstrate orally to the examiner during the skill test that they have acquired an adequate level of theoretical knowledge of air law, meteorology, and flight planning and performance.’;
