Ok I missed the point over high performance aircraft but these are my take-aways:
-I do understand that you can do CB-IR ab initio and that the main difference is the amount of theory vs the “old” IR rating and the fact that some time can be done out of ATO (which will not be useful in my case as I have no plane nor access to a cheap IFR plane).
-E-IR is en-route and can be a pit-stop on the ab-initio CB-IR.
-Regarding the Basic IR it is still nowhere and ready to arrive soon
I thus guess that CB-IR ab-initio is the way – still to decide if the E-IR makes sense in function of time & € -. Thanks for your help.
@Deepak very valuable input as we are (well were) in pretty the same situation :-)
Aviathor wrote:
High Performance in the EASA sense
You mean “complex” ?
I still think it would be nice to see a table of the different “IRs”. What is required in form of hours, experience, theory, training, and what you eventually get it the end. A comparisons based on data.
If we were talking about FAA, it would be easy… just one IR, one route to it…
There is really only one private IR: the CB-IR. The EIR is pointless. The full EASA IR (what was the JAA IR) still apparently exists and some FTOs run it but it is pointless also unless you want to fly a turboprop (in which case you get the exam credit for HPA).
In the UK the IMC Rating is a really great thing to do.
Cobalt wrote:
If we were talking about FAA, it would be easy… just one IR, one route to it…
Exactly and it is accessible enough that recreational pilots can do it without the weight an enormous exam burden and ATO dynamics.
Peter wrote:
There is really only one private IR: the CB-IR. The EIR is pointless
I disagree. Although I think the extra burden of CB is not big (especially for the benefit), most of my trips (and probably yours too!) could have been done under E-IR minimas.
If someone plans on doing the full one, taking the extra exam for EIR in the middle has 2 advantages:
- You can use it while you don’t get the rest. For people with familiies, etc, it allows spreading the time for CBIR more.
- It stops your theoretical exams from lapsing! (useful again, if you want to spread things).
I had a IR(R), so whole CB IR ended up being fast (I think I posted here, practical was 4 weekends, 2 of which 3 day), so never even considered EIR, but if for some reason I had to spread my “Full” IR training over a couple of month, it’s likely I would have gone for the EIR first.
LeSving wrote:
You mean “complex” ?
In US High Performance means > 200 HP and complex is the combination of constant speed and retractable gear.
jfw wrote:
-I do understand that you can do CB-IR ab initio and that the main difference is the amount of theory vs the “old” IR rating
There is a little more to the CB than “just” a lighter TK. The idea is that you can credit any prior instrument or IFR experience towards obtaining the IR. As such the BIR will fit nicely into the CB route.
If you have a FAA IR and enough experience (50 hrs IFR as PIC) you can obtain the EASA IR through the CB route by passing the skill test – without going through an ATO. (that’s what I did)
Aviathor wrote:
The idea is that you can credit any prior instrument or IFR experience towards obtaining the IR
I got that one but as I am VFR only with no other license, in my case, the difference is the amount of theory 
Thanks to all for you input, I now have a better view… guess that the normal next step for me is thus CB-IR
There is a little more to the CB than “just” a lighter TK. The idea is that you can credit any prior instrument or IFR experience towards obtaining the IR.
I think that it’s not so easy for non-UK pilots to get IFR time. They have to do it with a freelance IRI and most of them want to be paid. UK pilots can accumulate IFR time on their IMC Rating.
As such the BIR will fit nicely into the CB route.
Unless the BIR exams turn out to be a subset of the CBIR exams (more than likely) but none of them count wholly towards the CBIR (also quite likely, looking at the past). Then you get credit for IFR time (which admittedly is the biggest cost saving) but have to do the exams twice.
I would never do the BIR IF the 500ft minimum DH and the 1500m min vis are a legal requirement, because it devalues it substantially. OK, we all know that the 500ft can only ever be pilot-interpreted (and thus unenforceable) but the RVR is sure as hell enforceable. I have flown a good number of ILS approaches down to 300ft, or in vis well below 1000m.
If you have a FAA IR and enough experience (50 hrs IFR as PIC) you can obtain the EASA IR through the CB route by passing the skill test – without going through an ATO. (that’s what I did)
Doesn’t the test and the examiner need to be booked via an ATO?
Peter wrote:
Doesn’t the test and the examiner need to be booked via an ATO?
No. At least that is not a Part-FCL requirement, but I can’t speak for how it is implemented in all EASA countries. The Norwegians initially asked me for my training record from the ATO but that was because the CB route was brand new to them so they did not know the new regulation 
and particularly that pilots that had a minimum of 50 hrs PIC IFR were exempted from any TK exam, or ATO evaluation.
Peter wrote:
I think that it’s not so easy for non-UK pilots to get IFR time. They have to do it with a freelance IRI and most of them want to be paid.
You can use a freelance IRI for something like 2/3rd of the hours required for the IR.
