That PDF is a good description.
I have a few questions...
Essentially, about half of the former IR TK syllabus has been eliminated. This should go a very long way to addressing the frustration many pilots have had with the depth and relevance of the JAA syllabus. The minimum duration of the TK course is reduced from 150hrs to 80hrs, of which 8hrs must be classroom attendance. The number of exam papers, their duration, and the number of questions should all approximately halve.
50% is a lot less of a reduction than what I recall from the EASA proposal where something like 75% was stripped out. So it looks like there has been a "drawback" on this. Is there an updated list? Or maybe the remaining topics were "fattened up" i.e. more questions were generated from a particular topic?
The EIR training course is a minimum of 15hrs dual instrument instruction, 10hrs of which must be a formal course at an ATO (Aviation Training Organisation) and 5hrs which may be conducted independently by an IRI. The course will include training on emergency procedures in the event of deteriorating weather and IFR approaches for emergency use
Which approaches will be taught?
a conversion candidate should be advised that it might still require some significant study time to meet the Oral Exam standards and some significant flight training to pass the Skills Test, and plan accordingly.
Is there a document on the oral exam content?
About the last two questions, I think that nobody even has a clue yet.
Anyway, the PDF summary is well done and the content is good news.
50% is a lot less of a reduction than what I recall from the EASA proposal where something like 75% was stripped out. So it looks like there has been a "drawback" on this. Is there an updated list? Or maybe the remaining topics were "fattened up" i.e. more questions were generated from a particular topic?
No nothing has changed. 150 hours down to 80 hours.
The AMC including the LOs were last published in the CRD last year. That part stays within EASA until the regulation becomes law, when it is published as a decision. I suspect changes since the CR will be minimal.
Advice please having read the pdf.
Which would people advise on doing the IMC (extended to April 2019) or this new EASA EIR?
Which would people advise on doing the IMC (extended to April 2019) or this new EASA EIR?
Both of course!
I would do the IMCr first - this is definitely the most useful in the UK as it immediately adds a new dimension to all of your flights. I'm reasonably certain the IMCr will be extended indefinitely - the political will to can it has been spent.
If you have an IMCr, most of the effort for the EIR will be in the theory - you will already be perfectly competent flying straight and level on instruments. The combination of the two will effectively give you a full IR within the UK.
Alternatively, why not do an IMCr than a CBM IR? If you are current, the training for the full IR certainly won't take 40+ hours, and the theory workload is the same as the EIR.
I'm in the middle of the (old) IR theory at the moment - its really not too bad: I spend my commute alternately reading the material and hitting the QB. The CBM syllabus should be quite doable over 2 or 3 months for anyone with an hour a day to spare.
I would do the IMCR anyway because you can do it at your local school, with zero FTO/ATO stuff.
You can even do it wholly with a freelance instructor and he (the same person) can even do the skills test, so it can be done totally outside any school - here.
The IMCR - if done with an instructor who flies for real - will teach you 99% of what you need to know about European / Eurocontrol IFR. I did the IMCR in 2002, the FAA IR in 2006 and the JAA IR in 2011, and the amount of stuff I learnt in the last two, over what I already knew from the IMCR, could be put across in 5 minutes. The JAA exams in particular were mostly useless dross. The IMCR will (should) teach you to fly any approach plate anybody sticks under your nose.
The IMCR training can then be used as a credit towards the CB IR or the EIR, so you lose nothing.
If you are starting IFR from nothing at all, it can be quite hard to get your head around. But you do not want to be "getting your head around" anything at an FTO because for most people FTO = hotel residence and it will probably cost you a lot of extra money. I narrowly avoided hotel residence (Bournemouth, probably) for my JAA IR but it was complicated because there were certain unsatisfactory goings-on at the FTO where I did it.
The JAA IR is supposedly 55hrs for an ME IR but in reality many of the ATPL students take 70-100hrs and you can count the extra cost of that! They have no choice because they know nothing and are stuck there. They would probably have done themselves a favour by flying with a freelance instructor first to learn the basics (even though that time would not be admissible towards anything) but they probably thought they are aces and will do it in the 55.
The CB IR is min 10hrs at an FTO plus 30hrs instrument time and this instrument time can be done most conveniently and cost effectively with a mix of
One thing which concerns me a little is whether the CAA might do a bit of a rearguard action and mandate those 30hrs to be done via some training organisation.... it comes down to their view on how many ATPL students will be savvy enough to realise they can do this and save themselves a bundle. My view is "very few" because most of them have no clue about the options. They just throw 50k-100k at somebody to become airline pilots.
Recently I spoke to an ATO owner who thought this would happen. Obviously he has a business reason for wanting it to happen, so we will have to see... I don't want to spread rumours especially as most turn out to be false but the CAA is doing a lot of rearguard actions on EASA regs e.g. the insistence on the window screens... Obviously if the CAA requires the 30hrs to be done at an FTO then it is almost all the way back to the 50hr (SE) JAA IR!
So maybe wait a bit for the regs to firm up before spending much time on training.
Even if the CAA tries to change it back to screens and 30hrs ATO, does it matter? You can shop around and do it in some other EASA country. Poland comes to mind. If you go down the hotel route, hotels are cheaper there.
The CAA examiners are reportedly insisting on screens, which means the FTOs will all continue to use them for training.
However I think the main issues with screens are
for owner-pilots, getting them made is a right pain (but owner pilots have issues with most FTOs anyway)
the FTO screens I have seen were way over the top relative to the actual CAA reg. They tend to go all the way to the ceiling which makes the cockpit like a stone age cave and quite unpleasant.
Otherwise, I don't think flying with screens is a problem, and I prefer them to foggles which just get in the way. There is of course a problem: the examiner can't see out very well, and the last airprox list has one airprox where this was given as a factor. But 90% of traffic is never spotted anyway...
Re Poland (etc) I don't think this is a solution, because of the upheaval to one's life. And if I was going to live abroad to do this job I would pick somewhere nice and warm and as "easy" as possible - Greece!
If this were to truly modernise the EASA programme... then:
1) Why were NDB's not removed from the course?
2) Why are EASA still afraid of electronic E6Bs?
3) Why do UK examiners question the use of Foggles?
4) Why is there not a major emphasis on GPS operation?
I think the underlying problem is, the rules are defined by old people (they are now senior enough) and in their lifetime, they won't let go to the ways they were taught - preventing us benefit from progress.
