Having been involved in the IFR scene for ages I think what limits adoption is the same old stuff, done in many previous threads: the cumulative hassle effect of getting the qualification.
In the US, you walk into a school and do the PPL, then you come back and do the CPL, then you come back and do the IR. All these can also be done wholly outside any school, with a freelance instructor and an examiner. Each one has just 1 written exam. So there are few silly barriers. But Europe erects lots of barriers to protect the old institutions and industry players. The NAAs are complicit in this because they get lots of money from the various players, in annual license fees.
It is good to see the theory exam reduction, but what actually matters is how much time you have to spend on the sofa banging the question bank (and how good the QB is – will there be a commercial incentive to produce a BIR QB?). Can you sit the exams at a normal PPL school, like you can sit the PPL exams?
Peter wrote:
Can you sit the exams at a normal PPL school, like you can sit the PPL exams?
That, I think, is up to the NAA. In Sweden the schools do not administer the exams — the NAA does through a number of appointed invigilators. Obviously the schools have agreements with the invigilators to administer tests for their students but there is no restriction on what tests you can take.
In the US you can also walk into numerous places, mostly flight schools, to sit you exam. My CPL/IR study and exams required five months of hard work, four 800km trips to Braunschweig, four nights in the hotel, and luckily I have not even failed one subject! Otherwise it could have been even more. At least I did not have to take a day off from work. Freelance instructing would be a huge game changer, but Europe does not seem to be ready for this.
You could do that for the PPL in the UK, up to the 1980s, I am told.
Europe is extremely nervous about IR exam cheating, hence the tight controls. Cheating is endemic in the ATPL scene, especially among students from certain countries, which are major European FTO customers. So IR exams are not likely to relax.
Thank you for the additional info on circling minimums! Much appreciated.
Most of the detractors of the BIR on this thread seem to be Full IR holders. To me as a VFR only pilot the BIR seems like a good stepping stone for instrument flight and possibly all I ever need.
MedEwok wrote:
Most of the detractors of the BIR on this thread seem to be Full IR holders.
I have held a full IR for 33 years and I am an IRI and I think it’s brilliant.
A lot of private IFR pilots cancel if the weather is poor anyway, not because they are incapable, but because their children don’t want to play on the beach in the wind and the rain.
There are things about the UK system which people think are worse than the rest of Europe, but I think that there is fairly universal agreement that the IMCR is a great privilege. The main things wrong with the IMCR are the limitations to the UK and to Class D.
To have (effectively) the IMCR across the whole of Europe, with access to all airspace is brilliant!
If you want to land in 550m and 200’, the CB-IR is still there, but you now have the choice.
I sometime wonder if some forumites (not just here, everywhere) will object to anything on principal. If you don’t want a BIR, don’t get one; but don’t try to prevent others from having it.
The reality is that it was commonplace for an ATO to require you to pass a mock test before issuing the certificate, and thus they were a gatekeeper. Rumour has it that at some establishments the mock test was especially strict, with an almost-routine first-time-fail because of the revenue to be gained from further training and testing
This is all very historical and relates to the Pre JAA days when the CAA introduced a mock test (often called a 170A) although the 170A was actually the original National Course Completion Certificate. The mock test was introduced in the 90s because of the number of failed tests and to reduce the workload of the CAA Staff Examiners. It made sense to set it at a higher level than the actual test to ensure that candidates taking the expensive CAA test stood a good chance of passing. Neither the JAA nor EASA has required such a test, so that is now 20 years in the past, but still elements of it linger on.
Rather than suggesting the new BIR will allow ATOs to milk the candidates, the vagaries in the new opinion are such that its really not an economic option for an ATO to consider seeking an approval to conduct a course that doesn’t actually require any specified training!
The rating itself is a good replacement for the IMC, yet the proposed method of implementing it displays the usual EASA lack of understanding of how the industry operates.
Alone the fact, that the theoretical stuff is reduced once again is very positive. I have to admit, that I underestimated that when choosing to go for the EIR. First I thought, that it would have probably been worthwile to wait for the BIR. However it’s good to have the option to upgrade to the CB-IR with the lower minimums (might well be, that I stick with the EIR for the reasons Timothy mentioned). Anyway it’s good we can choose. For each his own…
I’m currently training towards my CB-IR. At the moment that’s the only IR that’s available to me here in the Netherlands for a reasonable investment in time and money. (I have a lapsed IMC/IR(R) but that would only be valid in UK airspace.)
The CB-IR has quite a few requirements and represents a huge investment in time and money. But for the type and amount of instrument flying I intend to do, BIR privileges would be sufficient. If the BIR can be gotten in far less time, and with a lower investment, than the CB-IR, I’m all for it. In fact, I might eventually just let my CB-IR lapse to the point where just BIR privileges remain.
