EASA Basic IR (BIR) and conversions from it

Peter wrote:

No surprise about the EIR, and it is amazing how long it ran for despite it being so obviously useless to most (not all) prospective IFR pilots.

Why that? It depends, what you want from it. Of course it would be nice to be able to also land in poor conditions. However, if you are not flying it regulary, I wouldn’t feel very comfortable to do that anyway. I’m now going for the EIR and think I can make good use of it enroute, like e. g. this flight https://www.euroga.org/forums/trips-airports/9851-using-my-eir-for-the-first-time#post_190210 shows.

And if it’s only to have an easier access on longer flights through complex airspaces. In my experience from >600FH the enroute segment was rather the tricky bit, when (again) the weather didn’t behave according to the forecast.

I consider the EIR as a first step with the option to upgrade later (CBIR/BIR) in case I feel like I’m missing something. Anyway I’m looking forward to that

And sadly I imagine the exams won’t give credit if you want to upgrade to CB IR..

The exams are identical EIR / CBIR.

The limits have been lifted straight from the UK IR(R)

Thanks for posting the summary. Too bad it takes so long to implement. The only positive is that we might get it into the DTO by that time.

Circling Minimum is the lowest height/Alt for a visual manoeuvre to get you from an approach, around to a visual landing on another runway.
One which doesn’t have an instrument procedure.
I.e. fly the ILS to rwy 24 then circle to land, into wind on 06, which doesn’t have an ILS.

QuoteThe limits have been lifted straight from the UK IR(R)

Except the IR(R) are recommendations only, not actual limits, aren’t they?

Noe wrote:

Except the IR(R) are recommendations only, not actual limits, aren’t they?

Correct. But quoting the recommendations as legal limits in this case is probably the biggest Old Wives Tale in the UK training system.

No minimum training hours is also a commercial concern for the training schools. They do not want people pitching up who have been flying dodgy VFR and teach-yourself-IFR for years, taking a couple of flights to prove they are really quite good and then asking to do the test. This would lose training revenue, so you can bet that recommended minimum training hours will start to appear, and these will be passed down as requirements – another Old Wives Tale will start.

I am seeing similar at the moment as I am looking to convert to tailwheel for some fun back-to-basics VFR flying (though I am not selling my TB10 share). CAP804 says no minimum requirements for tailwheel differences training (other than things to be covered), but nearly every school I enquire with say it is a fixed 5hr training package ‘as required by the rules’ and none are prepared to make any allowance for the 2hr tailwheel training I have in my logbook from some years ago. Ultimately, it is about selling £1k worth of dual training.

Graham wrote:

I enquire with say it is a fixed 5hr training package ‘as required by the rules’ and none are prepared to make any allowance for the 2hr tailwheel training I have in my logbook from some years ago

I had a very good experience with the Tiger club recently. A bit far from you though. After not having flown TW for many years – I think the last I flew was the (I believe) now-scrapped G-WLAC, i got to do a couple circuits with one of the instructors, and was sent solo after less than 1h, despite their PA18 being fairly different to WLAC (60hp less and no flaps)

europaxs wrote:

The exams are identical EIR / CBIR.

That’s not what’s implied by the first post:

Airborne_Again wrote:

There will be a single theoretical examination for each of the modules.
The theoretical examination will not re-test PPL level knowledge and its “scope and depth” should be “broadly similar” to that of the FAA IR TK.