What exactly is the benefit of FN-IR, and especially Modular IR, compared to CB-IR ? They aren’t mentioned in the table….
The FN-IR was created by the DGAC to provide private pilots (in France) with an easier path to instrument rating which does not require ELP. When the CB-IR came about, they aligned the TK with that of the CB-IR, but the FN-IR still does not require an ELP contrary to the EASA IR.
The modular IR is valid also on HPA.
What’s ELP??
ELP=English Language Proficiency.
Merci.
The proposed higher minima of the BIR vs CBIR are what makes it barely worth the wait. Probably less of an issue in southern Europe.
Honestly. If the BIR requires – again – the same amount of theory as the EIR, it will not take off. Key problem of all these IRs are the trizillions of questions in the EASA database. It’s ridiculous. 1350 questions for meteorology alone ? More than 3.500 all in all, and that’s only 95% of all ‚possible‘ questions ? Give me a break….
The FAA has about 800 – in total ! And they don’t fall out of the sky either.
True, but nobody will ever change the IR QB fundamentally. Sorting the men from the sheep by sitting a load of exams it is the political quid pro quo required to achieve anything in Europe 
EuroFlyer wrote:
Honestly. If the BIR requires – again – the same amount of theory as the EIR, it will not take off. Key problem of all these IRs are the trizillions of questions in the EASA database. It’s ridiculous. 1350 questions for meteorology alone ? More than 3.500 all in all, and that’s only 95% of all ‚possible‘ questions ? Give me a break….
The FAA has about 800 – in total ! And they don’t fall out of the sky either.
I always said that the biggest hurdle to an IR in Europe is the TK. I fortunately never studied for it myself since I did the FAA IR, so I have no first hand experience with it. For the FAA IR my only study material was the Jeppesen Instrument Commercial Handbook supplemented by ASA Instrument Flying. Then I attended a week-end class at the end of which I sat the TK and passed with flying colours.
The NPA does not explicitly state the number of subjects and hours of studying required for the BIR but it refers to FCL.615 which lists the same 7 subjects and refers to Appendix 6. In appendix 6 there is no new paragraph for the BIR but a number of changes are made to paragraph Aa (Competency-Based Modular Flying Course), and as far as I understand, the theoretical knowledge for the BIR is the same as for the CB-IR.
On the subject of practical flight training the NPA describes the following modules
(1) Module 1: Pre-flight operations and general handling;
(2) Module 2: Departure, precision (3D) approach procedures and non-precision (2D) approach procedures;
(3) Module 3: En-route IFR procedures;
(4) Module 4: Optional flight with one engine inoperative (multi-engine aeroplanes only).
I have not been able to compare that to what is currently required for the IR.
The EIR requires 15 hours of flight training in SE, the EASA IR 40 hours and the FAA IR 40 hours. I assume the BIR will require something in between. Those BIR holders will essentially have the same privileges as IR holders, so how much training can realistically be removed from the syllabus?
I think I read in the BIR proposam that being compétence based blablabla, no minimum flight time would be required, only the student’s progress will decide (guess how some FTO will behave with this kind of regulation).
We can’t expect a miracle :
Module 1 alone won’t give any IMC rights I guess (maybe en-route IMC in class G like in the UK)
Module 1+3 will replace the EIR (I read it somewhere)
Module 1+2+3 will be CB IR like. New CB IR students are not really up to making approaches to minimums (from what I heard) so BIR don’t change much.
Maybe 35 hours total instead of 40.
Why all this work for so little result ?
