It’s the same as for the CBIR course. 10 hours in ATO. That’s where it stems from.
who have received at least 10 hours of instrument flight time under instruction at an ATO
FlawlessFlare wrote:
I wonder how they came up with “at least 10 hours of instrument flight time”. This should be “at least 40 hours” for the result to be ICAO compliant…
It says “10 hours of instrument flight time under instruction”, which is also what ICAO Annex 1 says. The 40 hours ICAO requirement is for total instrument time – not necessarily time under instruction.
FlawlessFlare wrote:
I tend to agree, the “problem” is Part-FCL Annex 1 Appendix 6 Aa (9):
Can you please specify the edition that you checked? I cannot find that paragraph, so I want to understand whether I got the wrong version.
The problem with EASA publication, that I learned the hard way, is that everything looks like it was valid, but you have to dig a lot deeper to understand what one holds in the hands. The regulations change so often that the internet search engines aren’t picking up on this.
Can you please specify the edition that you checked? I cannot find that paragraph, so I want to understand whether I got the wrong version.
Last amendment date is 26. November 2025. See https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/easy-access-rules/easy-access-rules-aircrew-regulation-eu-no-11782011
The 40 hours ICAO requirement is for total instrument time – not necessarily time under instruction.
BIR holders who are going the CB-IR route are exempted from this requirement, hence the discussion.
Thank you, that is indeed a more recent edition.
I read item 9 as "a person who holds a BIR and after finishing the BIR made 10 hours IFT and anyone signs off that he got CBIR knowledge level could do the practical exam.
So theoretically, if you get the BIR with 2 hours flight time, do thereafter 10 hours with an instructor and he/she assesses that you’re proficient, do the exam.
Of course one could also come up with that the 10 hours can also be included in the BIR training. Maybe whenever the first student comes up with such a request (that no one expects) this could be changed.
I soloed on gliders after only 14 takeoffs (aerotow). My case was discussed a lot and a minimum number of takeoffs before soloing was introduced the next year. Things are moving in aviation mostly only after something happened… (in my case nothing happened..)
Yes, if you did 10 hours at ATO as part of BIR, then in theory you could do the BIR skill test in the morning and the IR skill test in the afternoon. Even with the same examiner. And no IR theory exams needed.
In reality, it is unlikely that you’ll find an ATO and examiner who wants to play ball, and the first one who does certainly will get their CAA surprised. But it isn’t illegal, so it would be difficult to see how the CAA could render the IR skill test invalid. It’s not the applicant’s fault that the regulation makes no sense.
What makes me puzzled is what that item 9 is really meant to be used for. The BIR-by-experience (50h IFR PIC) is item 10, so there must be some other purpose for item 9. Could it be some flight school who lobbied for this and now have their perfect loophole to cheap IR training?
FlawlessFlare wrote:
Yes, if you did 10 hours at ATO as part of BIR, then in theory you could do the BIR skill test in the morning and the IR skill test in the afternoon
Says who? You? Or is that official information from any official source that confirmed the interpretation of the rules? I still think the 10 hours instruction time are after having obtained the BIR. Just like the 50 hours without instructor.
Agree with Udo – I suppose you can interpret the 10h statement in different ways but as I wrote above, at the end of the day both the ATO and your CAA need to approve and their interpretation is what matters. For me after 50h IFR PIC (and before that 10h ATO for getting the BIR in the first place) it was another 10h ATO to be deemed having received “appropriate training”. Not sure if I was the first to ask in BE but there can’t have been many before – pretty sure I was amongst the first to get a BIR. From what I can read online, this interpretation is highly variable between countries – for example NL apparently does not accept BIR TK for this purpose and requires new theory exams instead of assessment at the ATO. Best to inquire first. As they say, YMMV.
UdoR wrote:
Says who? You?
I referenced the relevant EASA regulation above. Here is the Swedish CAA’s intepretation of this rule, which I believe agrees with what I wrote above:
Applicants for a CBIR who holds a BIR and have received at least 10 hours of instrument flight training at a training organisation may receive a credit for the whole practical flight training course towards a CBIR, as long as all competency-based instrument rating topics have been included in the BIR training, and assessed by the training organisation that provides the competency-based modular flying training course. This means that there is no minimum requirement of flight training for the CBIR if the BIR-holder has received at least 10 hours of instrument flight training at a training organisation, it is up to the training organisation to assess how much further training that is needed. Additional theoretical training at the training organisation is required in order to cover all the theoretical topics for the CBIR.
Can somebody recommend me an ATO for the BIR in nordic countries (or where ever its guaranteed that I will fly in IMC) that has accommodation ? During the PPL I ended up spending a little over 10k euro on accommodation in Prague because the location I was staying, recommended by the ATO, had mold and I have asthma, and I genuinely felt depressed in that location. Also there were two months (Dec and July) where I couldn’t fly for the whole month because of the weather or because all the airplanes were fully booked but I already booked the Airbnb!
I genuinely prefer to pay a little more, have accommodation and pay exactly the quote then go somewhere else where its cheaper but I will end up paying far more then expected because of the weather, aircraft availability, or because of my competence.
