Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

EASA Basic IR (BIR) and conversions from it

here [ local copy ]

I have not read it myself due to lack of time, but it may interest someone. It was posted on a site behind a paywall (which has few readers) but is obviously a public document.

The obvious problem with this sort of thing is that it opens the door to discrimination against private pilots, so they could be excluded from e.g. some airspaces. The CB IR is a full ICAO IR which doesn’t have this problem. But I may not have understood that right…

Europe doesn’t need yet another IR. What is needed is a flexible way to do the existing IR i.e. freelance training and study outside the ATO machinery.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The link to the paper is here local copy

Yes; that’s the link I posted originally.

I wonder what this all means?

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Oh I’m sorry, I thought you meant the link was behind a paywall.

Upon casual reading it appears to be an attempt at splitting up the instrument rating (IR) into parts:

2.2.1 – The applied instrument flying modules will contain departure, holding, approaches, and en-route navigational procedures, including performance-based navigation (PBN).
2.2.3 – For example, completion of the core instrument flying module and the relevant applied instrument flying module could give the applicant the privileges to fly approach procedures. Alternatively, if only the core instrument flying module and modules covering en-route flying have been completed, en-route flight under IFR would be permitted – similar to the current en-route IR.

As far as limits, also from 2.2.3:

On completion of all the training modules, the final privileges would be similar to those of the IR, but limited in the following manner:
– limited to single-pilot aeroplanes for which class ratings are required, excluding those classified as high-performance or for which operational suitability data (OSD) has determined that additional training is required; and
– the minima for instrument procedures would be higher, for example 200 ft above published approach minima, down to an absolute minimum height of 500ft. A 600ft cloud base and visibility of at least 1500m would be required for arrival and departure, to ensure that a visual ‘bad weather’ circuit will always remain a viable option

A possible “conversion path” to a “full IR” via CB-IR is mentioned in 2.2.4.

Possible “IFR light” instrumentation requirements are hinted to in 2.3, including this:

consistent and proportionate requirements for matching the reasonable capabilities of avionics and their associated installations with appropriate performance-based navigation (PBN) airspace specification requirements

In 2.4 there is some hope for less stringent IAPs for GA fields.

In 2.5 here is also some “EAD bashing” and a mention of a:

cost-effective (preferably public-domain), central database of all the aeronautical information required for GA IFR flight (including flight procedures), accessible through modern IT architectures

NPA to follow in 2016/Q2.

Discuss… ;-)

Last Edited by tmo at 21 Dec 19:23
EPKP - Kraków, Poland

Sounds like a Euro IMC Rating

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

I thiought this was what the CB-IR was supposed to be. We seriously need another not-quite-IR?? Or after all the modules will it be an actual ICAO IR?

EGTK Oxford

As far as I understand 2.2.4 passing all the modules put together will make the holder eligible to do a CB-IR, but not necessarily grant it automatically.

EPKP - Kraków, Poland

If this is a step towards a Euro IMC rating that would be excellent. Even better if us UK IMC holders were granted privilege automatically :)

Last Edited by AviatorDelta at 21 Dec 19:56

In principle I like the idea of modules with appropriate privileges.

Adding just approaches would be a very useful step for VFR only pilots. It would allow us to fly on top, without fear that we won’t be able to get down again. To me that’s more beneficial than enroute privileges.

Later being able to add enroute privileges would make it much more useful.

Departure privileges are probably the lest relevant to me, and would be added last.

However, if the pilot would end up with a “lesser IR” at the end, I suspect people would shy away from it. As I see it there are three possible ways to avoid this.

1. Ensure that a pilot who has completed all modules can take the full CBIR without any further hurdles or training.
2. Ensure that a pilot who has all bar 1 modules completed has the option of taking a full CBIR instead of the last module.
3. Ensure that as each module is added, the previously earned privileges are also tested. This would mean that when you are adding the last one, you are in effect doing a full IR test.

EIWT Weston, Ireland
698 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top