Interesting question! I don’t know the answer but note that BIR also requires a yearly appointment – the difference is you can alternate every year between a checkride and a 1h PPL style training flight (plus 6h PIC IFR and some approaches done in the past year)
Would it be possible to “downgrade” a CB-IR to BIR?
So: Could an IR holder request issuance of a BIR on his name just because he has the IR?
Background: one could let lapse the IR and after two years make a simple biannual checkride to sustain the BIR…it’s yet another hassle less.
My understanding is both topics are discussed in this thread.
Qualupalik was responding to Peter about no requirement to involve an ATO when obtaining an EASA IR based on existing ICAO IR + experience.
I quoted FCL regs for obtaining an EASA (ICAO) IR with an existing BIR.
Quote
For the ICAO IR conversion? Pretty much everywhere, including the “standards” document.
I thought the thread was talking about a BIR conversion not from already having a full IR
Yes, BIR could be so much easier than CBIR. But where I live that is not reality. The difference is negligible in terms of time and cost involved.
Could be? It is!
What more than someone here who’s done it stating “if it weren’t for the BIR, and instead I went for the CBIR, I couldn’t fly IFR at all for lack of any IFR rating..” do you need?
Where you live? The person from the above quote did the theory in self study, practiced with an instructor 1000km away via remote sim and finished the rating+skill test within 4 days at a great ATO during a short family holiday far away from home.
Prep for theory exams:
CBIR a few months (4500 questions)
BIR a few weeks (1500 questions)
Practical training:
CBIR attain at least 30 +10 hours (book a certified sim or fly in certified plane)
BIR do whatever it takes. Remote sim training, self sim training, practice some basic IR flying alone when you have time but your instructor has not. Fly two flights “in an ATO” to demonstrate competence (Basic / Procedures). Enroute module can be done outside ATO.
And 50 hours later unlock the CBIR.
I hope not too many people read about these imaginary difficulties and assumed complots of airlines/EASA/ATOs etc. against PPLs obtaining an IR. It is deterring for no substantiated reason.
The BIR is a great option and the slightly higher minima are not a factor. Someone taking a typical SEP into “real weather hard IMC” right after the skill test obviously didn’t learn some key ADM during training and is over relying on everything (engine reliability, instruments etc.) going right anyway and always, and especially when it’s OVC001 and RVR400m.
GA_Pete wrote:
surely many ATO websites are lying
Do you have some examples?
Appendix 6 Aa.8 fully credits the holder of an ICAO IR, who has 50 PIC IFR hours, towards the theory and practical training course. Therefore, there is no course to complete and so no completion certificate can be issued.
The UK CAA Flight Examiners’ Handbook recognises this in a note to para 2.2.1:
“Note: applicants for the IR or EIR who are credited in full with the theoretical knowledge
training and examinations and flight training on the basis of holding a valid IR issued in
accordance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the to the Chicago Convention, and who have
not undertaken training at an ATO prior to test, will not be in possession of training records, a
course completion certificate or a recommendation for test."
Also in the penultimate note in table A3 A:
“Examiners are advised that applicants for a Competence Based IR, credited
in full with the Part-FCL training requirements and who have not received
training at an ATO, are not required to have a course completion certificate
and recommendation for test. Additionally, they might not be able to provide
certified evidence of competence to fly on limited panel instruments using a
rate gyro."
And once more in appendix 1, pre-test section, last sentence in first para.
GA_Pete wrote:
Once again, there is no requirement for an ATO to become involved. It is between the candidate, the examiner, and the CAA.Where is this written? If true, surely many ATO websites are lying.
For the ICAO IR conversion? Pretty much everywhere, including the “standards” document.
Quote
Once again, there is no requirement for an ATO to become involved. It is between the candidate, the examiner, and the CAA.
Where is this written? If true, surely many ATO websites are lying.
Clipperstorch wrote:
Who in his right mind in EASA can honestly state yes, we did a good job by giving this set of rules to the GA pilot community?
It is not a bad rating but I agree with many here that if it was shifted from ATO + xAA examiner to DTO+school examiner, that would have actually made much more difference.
