Peter wrote:
Also the FAA IR is harder than the EASA IR…It’s mostly currency.
In my view the written exam is easier in the US, but then you get grilled by the examiner during the practical exam, and you need to demonstrate quite a bit of partial panel work.
Keeping the 6 months rolling currency can be quite difficult.
That’s true, but for a pilot who flies with any sort of half reasonable currency the FAA IR 6/6 rolling currency is easy to achieve. I have often heard the view that the 6/6 currency is hard to maintain but when I look at the person’s actual flying, it turns out that he goes for months without getting in the air.
The oral exam is also easy for anyone with IFR knowledge as practiced by IFR flying.
IMHO the proof is how well it works in the USA, and there it works really well.
And if the proposed BIR only has one exam with only minor restrictions on its use in the system, then it completely undermines and highlights the indefensible position that European NAAs / EASA have regarding such long-winded TK requirements. This fact alone (exposing the Emporer’s new clothes) may mean the BIR will never happen….
Yes; probably true. Also it opens the door to BIR holders (a non ICAO IR) being locked out of some airspace.
The 7 exams are a fair bit of work but ultimately the take-up of the IR in Europe is not limited by how much effort it takes to get the IR. The main damper is the lack of utility, due to airports being mostly closed early evening, a lack of IAPs, and stuff like that.
Peter wrote:
That’s true, but for a pilot who flies with any sort of half reasonable currency the FAA IR 6/6 rolling currency is easy to achieve.
I’ll take the 5th amendment on that. But even for someone who flies quite regularly, the rolling currency is not that easy to achieve unless there is consistently crappy weather at your destination, although that might be the case in the UK 
. It is a little bit like the magical VMC conditions or holes in the clouds for VFR pilots who always seem to get to their destinations on top.
Peter wrote:
The main damper is the lack of utility, due to airports being mostly closed early evening, a lack of IAPs, and stuff like that.
I do not agree with that. Having an IR gives you a much higher probability you will get home provided you are based at an airport with a half way decent IAP, or somewhere close to home. Ask @Nestor. 
Well, of course that is true, and I find my IR damn useful, but I was referring to the “global picture” of Europe versus the USA.
IMHO is it wrong to state (as many do) that the reason the USA has something of the order of 20% of PPLs having an IR whereas Europe has maybe 1% is because the FAA IR is “easier” to get.
We have done this many times and I don’t want to derail this thread too much but the relative success of the FAA IR in the USA is due to a list of reasons, starting with the ability to just go back to your old PPL school (something which Europe has totally failed to deliver despite it being a blindingly obvious “convenience / accessibility plus”) and going through stuff like the rolling currency and a lack of an annual test (which enables a high level of risk compensation to be implemented by the pilot) and going all the way to a taxpayer-funded unified airspace structure which provides free approach controllers and the use of Class E cleverly ensures that anybody doing VFR in IMC near an IAP is illegal and knows it.
If EASA wants to make the IR more accessible they need to shut down the whole ATO edifice and enable any PPL school to train the IR – as a starting point. Obviously, that would start WW3 so it will never happen. The USA deals with all this by training the private, commercial and (until recently) the ATP at any old school, with a freelance instructor, and wrapping up the jet specific stuff in a Type Rating. Europe just doesn’t “get it”…
Peter wrote:
the use of Class E cleverly ensures that anybody doing VFR in IMC near an IAP is illegal and knows it
VFR in IMC is illegal everywhere, isn’t it? At least that is what I know as a VFR pilot and I do not see how class E or G has any influence on where I fly VFR. When I did my BFR in California he specifically stated that class E vs G should not affect my route.
JnsV wrote:
VFR in IMC is illegal everywhere, isn’t it? At least that is what I know as a VFR pilot and I do not see how class E or G has any influence on where I fly VFR. When I did my BFR in California he specifically stated that class E vs G should not affect my route.
I think what Peter is saying is that in Class G one can enter IMC and thus become self-declared IFR without talking to anyone….if you do this without an IR (or IR(R)) that is illegal….BUT you will prob99 get away with it because there is no clearance requirement…and therefore no one would have any cause to question your IR credentials.
OTOH, entering IMC in Class E (with the implied IFR status) without an IFR clearance is illegal, IR or not. And doing so, especially near an IAP, will likely get you noticed….and questioned…
[ediited for clarity]
I thought this was already discussed here last year: https://www.euroga.org/forums/flying/5343-easa-concept-paper-for-private-ifr-basic-ir-bir
Airborne_Again wrote:
The intention is good, but the proposed solution is not. The FAA IR is “easy” while still conferring full ICAO IR privileges.
Because they don’t want to change their way, they don’t want the FAA solution. They “analyzed” that option back when they were working on their previous attempt at making IR more palatable which resulted in EIR/ CBIR.
If they go through with it, the biggest benefit might be in the “ancillaries” like getting rid of having to use a computer to generate a routing which you in the end probably won’t fly anyway. Or replacing Eurocontrol’s EAD with a more modern (and open) solution. Or pushing for more IAPs for GA airports.
Peter wrote:
Also it opens the door to BIR holders (a non ICAO IR) being locked out of some airspace.
I don’t think they could “lock you out” just because you took a different route to gain your privileges. That wouldn’t hold in a court. But you obviously can’t exercise privileges you don’t have because you didn’t receive appropriate training (so unless you get that additional training, you’re out of luck). They can do that to you even with a “full” IR. Anyway, they recognize there should be a (convenient) way to “upgrade” it to an ICAO compliant IR.
Peter wrote:
If EASA wants to make the IR more accessible they need to shut down the whole ATO edifice and enable any PPL school to train the IR – as a starting point.
Is that really a problem? I thought they had to be an ATO to do PPL training (or will have to be). And I have seen aeroclubs offering IR training.
Martin wrote:
If they go through with it, the biggest benefit might be in the “ancillaries” like getting rid of having to use a computer to generate a routing which you in the end probably won’t fly anyway.
That would be great, but how is it related to the BIR?
Airborne_Again wrote:
That would be great, but how is it related to the BIR?
Basic IR is just one part of that concept paper. I called them ancillaries because the discussion centered around ratings.
