EASA Basic IR (BIR) and conversions from it

Timothy wrote:

In an ideal world you could have a BIR(R) with “differences training” to remove the 200’ restriction. The 1500m might also be reduced to, say 1200m.

I beg to differ. In an ideal world, you would have a single instrument rating, based on the same syllabus proposed for the BIR, but without the licence privilege limitations. Unfortunately, EASA was not bold enough to propose this, for fear of it being rejected by the member states.

Since there are regular updates, possibly in future there is a possibility for a rulemaking proposal being adopted.

I have just read a summary on the BIR by Jan Brill in PuF (who is much more keen on reading all those EASA docs than me). Coming back to my first reaction in my first post here (#2 in this thread), it DOES in fact seem to be true that each of the “modules” ends with a theoretical test (each covering all the relevant subjects). And the modules are completed sequentially! So three tests. It seems that it is the “idea” of EASA that these tests may take place at the ATO (not at some distant CAA headquarters), but that is NOT written in the regulation itself!! This will be interesting to see. A possible problem, which might make the BIR another “dead in the water”. Gotta watch that.

Plus, allowing DTOs to train for the BIR is not currently planned.

boscomantico wrote:

I have just read a summary on the BIR by Jan Brill in PuF (who is much more keen on reading all those EASA docs than me). Coming back to my first reaction in my first post here (#2 in this thread), it DOES in fact seem to be true that each of the “modules” ends with a theoretical test (each covering all the relevant subjects). And the modules are completed sequentially! So three tests.

So you didn’t believe me who had read all the docs until you also read about it in PuF by some other guy who had read the same docs!?

Plus, allowing DTOs to train for the BIR is not currently planned.

I believe I wrote that, too, in my #1 post!

Airborne,

I also read the excellent summary by Jan, whom I consider one of the foremost GA journalists in Europe. I have to say that I understand much better how the BIR is supposed to work than before, but in all fairness, Jan has much more space to elaborate than a simple forum post, as good as yours was written. Quite a few answers were given which I was not clear with.

In my case, it was not at all not believing your post, but I do understand much better how the thing works now.

For me personally, I doubt that I will go that route as it will take too much time and after all I once had the full IR, but were I in the market to do an initial IR, I would almost certainly go the route via the BIR to the CB-IR. That route looks very attractive to me following my read of Jan’s article.

boscomantico wrote:

I have just read a summary on the BIR by Jan Brill in PuF (who is much more keen on reading all those EASA docs than me). Coming back to my first reaction in my first post here (#2 in this thread), it DOES in fact seem to be true that each of the “modules” ends with a theoretical test (each covering all the relevant subjects). And the modules are completed sequentially! So three tests.

No. Three TK papers. The content of each is associated with a module, but there is no requirement on timing other than that all three TK papers must be passed before the skill test.

I would be more than happy if it turned out to be this way (one test only, taken at the ATO). Let‘s see what will happen in practice, which will depend on the ATO industry too. We are anyway talking things years away. If they say 2021, then it will likely be 2023. And then – again from experience, see EIR – it will take another two years at least before most national CAAs approve the courses for ATOs. So something like 2025.

boscomantico wrote:

It seems that it is the “idea” of EASA that these tests may take place at the ATO (not at some distant CAA headquarters), but that is NOT written in the regulation itself!! This will be interesting to see.

In Norway a “CAA headquarter” (read: AVINOR training centers placed strategically around) is more preferable than an ATO situated several hundred of miles away in some desolate place. Besides PPL theory exams are taken at traffic stations placed everywhere. Anyway, why on earth is EASA concerned about where the exam is taken?

boscomantico wrote:

It seems that it is the “idea” of EASA that these tests may take place at the ATO (not at some distant CAA headquarters), but that is NOT written in the regulation itself!!

The EASA opinion (see my link in the first message in this thread) says “It is intended that EASA Member States shall adopt a secure process that would allow the exams to be conducted at training organisations that are equipped with the appropriate technology to meet the ECQB requirements.”

As you say, the proposed regulation itself doesn’t say anything about it so I don’t see how Member States can be forced to do so. (There is also an update to part-ARA, but that also does not mention this.)

LeSving wrote:

Anyway, why on earth is EASA concerned about where the exam is taken?

As boscomantico writes, the proposed regulations does not say anything about where the exam is taken. I assume that like the case of e.g. the PPL, which has the same wording, it is up to the individual NAA to decide where exams are taken. This can mean very different things in different countries. I understand from reading this forum that the IR exams in the UK have to be taken at the CAA Gatwick office, while in Sweden you can literally take the exams at any location equipped with internet-connected computers as long as an invigilator is willing to go there.

So the reason EASA expects that exams may be taken at the ATO could only be to make things easier for people living in countries where examinations are currently centralised. That would clearly be an improvement as long as the “allow” really does mean “allow” and that it would be compulsory.