EASA Basic IR (BIR) and conversions from it

Tango wrote:

- for theory does it make sense to do BIR TK if I want to do full IR eventually? Or should I do full IR TK straight away?

Yes it does – if you do BIR theory, pass BIR and then get your 50hrs PIC XC IFR, then it is only a skills test to upgrade to CB-IR.

I believe it could make sense to do the BIR theory even if your intention is to eventually get the full IR (the CB-IR). The BIR theory is cheaper and a little easier to get than the CB-IR. There is no requirement to take additional TK training or test for the full IR, just to “be assessed as having an acceptable standard of competency-based instrument rating knowledge” by the ATO, and “demonstrate orally…” to the flight examiner that you know your stuff (FCL appendix 6, section Aa, pt 10).

Tango wrote:

can BIR be added to FAA piggyback license through foreign pilot exam? I would think no (sub ICAO level rating) but not sure

Nope, BIR is not an ICAO IR and also BIR is not recognized by FAA to fly OO-reg in US under IFR

However, BIR is recognized by FAR as valid rating to fly N-reg under IFR within confines of Belgium

Great, thanks a lot. BIR TK it is then.

Tango wrote:

Great, thanks a lot. BIR TK it is then.

I honestly don’t see the value of doing BIR TK exams (especially if it’s 3 modules but 7 exams) followed by 50h IFR PIC followed by second IR skill test

I see lot of value in BIR as 1/ does not require funky IFR English ELP (in countries where only Shakespeare fly IFR) and 2/ easy re-validation once in two years with instructor but I am disappointed BIR does not extend easily to MEP (unlike my UK IMCR which was valid in DA42)

PS: if one is after N-reg/FAA via IFP route, they should go for CBIR not BIR

Ibra wrote:

I honestly don’t see the value of doing BIR TK exams (especially if it’s 3 modules but 7 exams) followed by 50h IFR PIC followed by second IR skill test

Would you care to expand? I thought it was 7 modules but 3 exams but maybe I misunderstood. The value I see is that you can do 50h IFR PIC as opposed to 30+10h of dual training minimum for CBIR. If of course all ATOs are forced to implement BIR training as 60+h of dual training as indicated higher up in this thread then it becomes a pointless exercise of course

Ibra wrote:

PS: if one is after N-reg/FAA via IFP route, they should go for CBIR not BIR

Also here, I think BIR followed by CBIR would allow a lot more flexibility at lower cost while reaching the same endpoint at the expense of an additional skill test?

At least in France, BIR TK is an approved course of 3 modules and 7 exams in one of NAA approved centres (UK IMCR and French N-IR was one single paper exam in ATO room)

Also here, I think BIR followed by CBIR would allow a lot more flexibility at lower cost while reaching the same endpoint at the expense of an additional skill test?

AFAIK, the quickest way to get CBIR was IMCR (15h), FAA (15h), CBIR(10h ATO or 50h PIC) that was still a long way but it is still 40h? or 80h?

Let’s be realistic, I can’t see anyone without any instrument flying experience* who can pass BIR practical test under 40h-60h?

Someone sharp who pass his initial BIR/CBIR assessment without any glitches (he has nothing to learn before being put to the test), will still need 10h with an IRI and 10h in ATO to go over some boring syllabus box-ticking maybe less if it’s his own aircraft based in an IFR airport with RNP/ILS to both ends

*Experience is a general concept here: logged or unlogged, during job in B737, military instrument flying, with ratings or without, in XP/FSX simulator, under the hood with another PPL, BSRFI in VMC with an FI, proper IFR with an IRI, illegal cloud flying on PPL, flying ILS/GPS under VFR…

OK thx, makes sense. I’m not sure I understand why you say you don’t see value in doing BIR TK exams but you do see a lot of value in BIR itself. I’m looking at BIR for the exact reasons you mentioned, and for the flexibility in training (freelance IRI etc). In theory at least – I’m not aware of any ATO organising BIR in Belgium so far anyway.