EASA PPL IR/ En-route IR

[pembroke]

Does anyone have an up-date on the above? Rumour has it that unless objections are raised, EASA is close to approving both PPL-IR and the En-route IR. It also begs the question who could instruct and examine these ratings and what would happen to the UK IRR(A).

[Whopity]

The rumours can be found here (http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/opinions.php#2013)the Agency proposes a competency-based instrument rating (CB IR) and an en route instrument rating (EIR) for private (PPL(A)) and commercial pilot (CPL(A)) licence holders. To instruct for an IR one must either be a FI with Instrument instruction privilegres or an IRI, either to hold at least the rating for which instruction is to be given. Examining requires an IRE. and what would happen to the UK IRR(A). Why would anything happent to it? Its not an EASA rating. It has been extended for a further 5 years to 2019 and hopefully will continue beyond that.

[citabria06g]

This was updated 28th October:

http://aopano.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/pplir-org-ga_ir_v1-4-1.pdf

Big thanks to the people behind this for putting the information together, and also for their lobbying efforts.

[S-Works]

I should also add that an IRI must also hold a minimum of a CRI in the class of airplane they wish to teach in.

This is a change that has been agreed and is due to come into effect shortly.

[pembroke]

Tks for the above. Sticking strictly to EASA Part FCL, my licence privileges under FCL 905 includes para. (g),(g) (IR(R). I assume because my previous JAR FI rating lifted the instrument restriction, I maintain FI instrument privilege, even though I haven't qualified as in the para (g) 1,2.
And on the basis that instruction or examination can only take place if the same qualification is held (or higher), I can instruct/examine the PPL/IR or en-route IR when I gain these ratings, or of course resurrect my lapsed SEP/SP IR.

[Whopity]

I can instruct/examine the PPL/IR or en-route IR when I gain these ratingsYou cannot examine any rating unless you have the privileges in your Examiner Certificate. The FE(A) may cover you for the IMC and IR(R) but you will need to qualify as an IRE to do anything else.

[nick14]

Or CRE with IRR privileges

[Level Attitude]

I can instruct/examine the PPL/IR or en-route IR when I gain these ratingsObviously we have to wait for the actual legislation to confirm exactly
what is included. However I do not envisage EASA creating a new EIR
Instructor Privilege (certainly not in the short term)- rather they would
expect EIR instruction to be given by someone with the privilege to instruct
for the IR.

By PPL/IR I assume you mean the proposed Competency Based IR. Again,
to teach this, an Instructor would need the privilege to instruct for the IR.

As pembroke already has FI Privilege (g) then renewing their own IR would
allow them to instruct for these two ratings - remembering that some of the
training will need to be under an ATO approved for these courses.

[BEagle]

The Part-FCL requirements for an FI(A) to instruct for the IR are:

(1) at least 200 hours of flight time under IFR, of which up to 50 hours may be instrument ground time in an FFS, an FTD 2/3 or FNPT II;

(2) completed as a student pilot the IRI training course and has passed the skill test for the IRI certificate; and

(3) in addition:
(i) for multi-engine aeroplanes, met the requirements for the issue of a CRI certificate;
(ii) for multi-engine helicopters, met the requirements for the issue of a TRI certificate.

Conversion of a UK-issued Instructor Rating to a Part-FCL instructor certificate requires that the holder has the experience 'As required under Part-FCL for the relevant certificate'. As the UK used to have a 4:1 policy with respect to (1) above for instrument flight time rather than 'flight time under IFR', it cannot be certain that an FI(A) with less than 200 hrs flight time under IFR may instruct for the IR(A) - even if he/she previously did so..... Also, the 'removal of no applied instrument' course / check needs to be 'grandfathered' as being equivalent to (2).....

The whole area of instrument instructors and examiners is a known EASA problem which the CAA highlighted at least 2 years ago - as did I at the EASA FCL Partnership Group meeting in May 2011, recommending that EASA should adopt the proven UK 4:1 policy; a similar recommendation was raised at the EASA joint TAG/SSCC/FCL meeting in June 2013.

However, as yet nothing appears to have been done to address the problem satisfactorily though.

[Level Attitude]

it cannot be certain that an FI(A) with less than 200 hrs flight time
under IFR may instruct for the IR(A)If the privilege is listed on their EASA Licence (as Pembroke says his is), no
matter how it got there, then I would say it is certain that they can instruct
for the IR(A)
(providing they remain suitably qualified eg have a valid IR themselves)

If not, then the whole process of listing Privileges on a Licence becomes
totally meaningless.

[pembroke]

Tks. for all the replies, I guess it's "wait and see"

[W.R.A.I.T.H]

Rejoice my fellow bimblers! The regulation was published as ED 245/2014, find and read it here (http://www.mfa.aero/LexUriServ.pdf) for instance. It is in force and being transscribed into national legislative frameworks. Some of the main elements:

EIR is established: you need a PPL, 20 hours crosscountry PIC and a NQ if you intend to exercise your EIR at night. It comprises 80 hours of theory (not clear yet if it is all classroom or distance) with a 75 pc pass mark on the test, 15 hours of flight instruction and a skills test. It is valid for one year and can be revalidated by experience or by a PC. This is what applies to the SEP category, check for yourself for multiengine if you wish.

IR is replaced with IR(A) or IR(H) respectively. They are equivalent in privileges as far as I can see but the training routes are much simpified. IR(A) can be acquired through the modular IR(CB) route, which allows you a broad range of potential credit for earlier IFR experience. I interpret it so that IFR under EIR counts towards IR(A) and required 80 hours of theory can be credited in full. Conversion from a non-EASA IR is made much simpler as well.

UK gets to keep its IMCr.

Excellent news and a good piece of legislation coming from EASA as far as I am concerned. I welcome any corrections in case I read things wrong or left out something.

[Aware]

I personally think everybody is getting far to excited about the CBM IR.

1. Nobody but nobody will be able to pass the very stringent UK IRT with the minimum hours and allowance for previous training due to all the NDB work, so nothing will really change apart from building experience outside an ATO with a freelance instructor.

2. Having spoken to my old ground school provider who is now one of the new e exams centres there's not much that's has come of out the theory content. Yes the mandatory hours have changed but still a lot of unnecessary content in there. And he feels not really that much different, as CAA have n't removed that much.

3. Don't know much about EIR so can't comment looks reasonable, and good for fair weather IFR pilots who like to travel high in good weather, but you can do that in some countries anyway VFR on the airways such as France.

My experience as an instructor and examiner and ATPL ground instructor and from having taught courses over a number of years nothing will really change, the test is no different and the IREs are not all of a sudden going to treat these tests like club tests it's just not going to happen I'm afraid, the test is still one large hurdle to get over.

As with all ratings its not the getting it thats the issue, its maintaining it, private IFR in UK is an expensive business, not many can participate, so we have about 20 PPL IRs a year will this change much it will be interesting to see the numbers in a year or two, one thing that crossed my mind is how are the CAA going to charge for the EIR test, cam't be the ridiculous fee they presently charge for the IRT can it ?

[Whopity]

as CAA have n't removed that much.Surely its EASA not the CAA!

[RVR800]

Not a big change?

I disagree - It will change a lot because people can do the test anywhere in EASA land - NOTE: the CAA are NOT the only game in town - Spain is a favourite of many who elect to do the IR anyway

[Aware]

You have always been able to do the test in Spain, Greece, Poland or whereever carries EASA regs lots done over the past few years, CAA would happily put the IR on the JAR licence using UK exams so not a big change really to that facility, was a little bit more palatable in Spain little NDB work and test fee was 200 Euro, SE course was about 6K Euro, I think many do not understand whats been available over past few years, FIS in Jerez have been carrying out IR's for the Brits for several years.

[Aware]

Surely its EASA not the CAA!

Correct, my bad grammar and bad English, should have said UK CAAs interpertation of the rules.

Still stand by my view, things won't change that much apart from being able to train outside ATO which will reduce cost, but to get somebody ready for the IRT using previous experience ie IMC 30 hrs I think this is right, so leaves 10 hours, no way unless very skilled. One of my students recently (I didnt train them went through well known IR course) took 3 times to get the test he was good and FI who taught IMCs, so I still believe people are being blinkered, maybe to get to the test a little easier, BUT THE STANDARD IS SAME AT THE TEST, a tough test in UK, Spain was not a walk in the park but was not like balancing a ball bearing on a dinner plate, as in the UK.

[cessnapete]

Rang around to a few UK ATO and Training establishments about an initial flight test and oral as prescribed by EASA for conversion of an FAA IR to EASA. Some mentioned waiting for CAA to approve training manuals, why are they involved?
None of them offered any idea or enthusiasm for providing the service. Most required a probable ground school and some extra training in their aircraft, not the single turbo prop we normally fly.
Seems may not be as simple as EASA have prescribed in UK. Perhaps rest of Europe will come up with the goods before next April deadline.

[Whopity]

Some mentioned waiting for CAA to approve training manuals, why are they involved?Because EASA require an ATO to have a Training Manual for all courses it offers. That applies in Spain as well as the UK.

[Level Attitude]

Because EASA require an ATO to have a Training Manual for all courses it offersBut there is no Training Course required for someone who holds a non-EASA ICAO IR and the relevant experience. The Candidate can go straight to an Examiner and take the Skills Test (and oral TK Check).
As there is no 'Course' there is no need for a 'Course Approval'.

For safety reasons an ATO may want to check out a pilot before hiring an aircraft to them, but even that shouldn't be necessary as the Examiner (who, presumably, they would know) would be PIC.

[BigGrecian]

But there is no Training Course required for someone who holds a non-EASA ICAO IR and the relevant experience. The Candidate can go straight to an Examiner and take the Skills Test (and oral TK Check).
As there is no 'Course' there is no need for a 'Course Approval'.

Since when? The poster was talking about an FAA IR > EASA IR

The regulation states:

(2) Applicants for Part–FCL licences already holding at least an equivalent licence, rating or certificate issued in accordance with Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country shall comply with all the requirements of Annex I to this Regulation, except that the requirements of course duration, number of lessons and specific training hours may be reduced.
(3) The credit given to the applicant shall be determined by the Member State to which the pilot applies on the basis of a recommendation from an approved
training organisation.

Therefore the law requires an ATO to make a recommendation. The ATO must be approved to make that recommendation - that's just common sense.

Also FCL.030 requires a recommendation for test:
Except for the issue of an airline transport pilot licence, the applicant for a skill test shall be recommended for the test by the organisation/person responsible for the training, once the training is completed. The training records shall be made available to the examiner.

The UK recognising that the volume of conversion requests will be huge has released an AMC :
IN-2013/134: UK Alternative Means of Compliance for conversion of ICAO Pilot qualifications issued by Non-EASA Member States | Publications | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=5708)

The problem lies that you are flying a turboprop. You will find the number of ATOs across the whole of Euroe with a Single engine turbo prop approval will easily fit in one hand.

Now that's a lot of regulations for this time of night :bored:

[Level Attitude]

Since when?Since March 2014
COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 245/2014 of 13 March 2014

amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew

(52) Appendix 6 to Part-FCL is amended as follows:

(b) a new Section Aa is inserted:
‘Aa. IR(A) — Competency-based modular flying training course

8. Applicants for the competency-based modular IR(A) holding a Part-FCL PPL or CPL and a valid IR(A) issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country may be credited in full towards the training course mentioned in paragraph 4. In order to be issued the IR(A), the applicant shall:

(a) successfully complete the skill test for the IR(A) in accordance with Appendix 7;

(b) demonstrate to the examiner during the skill test that he/she has acquired an adequate level of theoretical knowledge of air law, meteorology and flight planning and performance (IR); and

(c) have a minimum experience of at least 50 hours of flight time under IFR as PIC on aeroplanesAlso FCL.030 requires a recommendation for test:
Except for the issue of an airline transport pilot licence, the applicant for a skill test shall be recommended for the test by the organisation/person responsible for the training, once the training is completed. The training records shall be made available to the examiner.No one responsible for training, hence no recommendation for test required

[BEagle]

No one responsible for training, hence no recommendation for test required

I agree. But it seems that the UK CAA Examiners require both a 'recommendation for test' and also that the Skill Test for an FAA IR being converted to a C-bM IR must be conducted by an allocated CAA Staff Examiner.

Gold plating, I would venture to suggest....:uhoh:

[cessnapete]

Definitely appears gold plating. Surely an FAA to EASA candidate who is current and flying regularly IFR/Airways in Europe, by definition,is obviously fit for test. Also I can't see why aircraft type used for the Test is a factor, as the candidate can be P1,he is exercising his FAA qualification during the EASA conversion. Therefore no requirement for the Examiner to be qualified on type either.
I doubt though if common sense will prevail.

[Level Attitude]

Therefore no requirement for the Examiner to be qualified on type eitherYes there is! The Examiner will be PIC during any Flight Test and must, therefore, be appropriately qualified.

the candidate can be P1,he is exercising his FAA qualification during the EASA conversionNo they cannot. EASA Single Pilot IR Test. Only one PIC allowed, and that will be the Examiner. In UK Candidate will be PUT if Test failed or PICUS if Test passed and Examiner agrees

[cessnapete]

EASA madness. An FAA IR rated fully qualified pilot is being tested purely because he lives in Europe and needs another piece of paper. He is already qualified and in our aircraft case, has in excess of 2000 hrs 800 on type and has flown all over Europe IFR in the same aircraft for eight years.
Competency is not the reason for a test but beurocratic bull..it!
Rant over!!

[eagleflyer]

What about the employees of an American company currently based and living in Europe flying N-reg jet aircraft. Do they have to obtain an EASA ATPL?

[Contacttower]

What about the employees of an American company currently based and living in Europe flying N-reg jet aircraft. Do they have to obtain an EASA ATPL?

That's an interesting one...

Where would the 'operator' consider itself to be based?

Gold plating, I would venture to suggest....

The whole issue of whether an FAA to EASA IR holder needs an ATO to recommend them for test seems to have got muddled by the CAA, there shouldn't in theory be a need for one but once again in their infinite wisdom the CAA seem unable to reconcile the new rules with their old way of doing things...:E

In practice I suspect most FAA IR holders will go to an ATO because it is the ATOs that know all about the EASA IR test and will be best placed to prepare the candidate for it.

[Whopity]

What about the employees of an American company currently based and living in Europe flying N-reg jet aircraft. Do they have to obtain an EASA ATPL?No, because their company is the "Operator"

An organisation has now set up the facility for private "N Reg" pilots to set up an "Operator" outside the EU Papa Charly Aviation (http://www.papacharlyaviation.com/) with a view to continue operating on FAA licences and ratings.

[cessnapete]

Why would a current IFR candidate need to go to an ATO to "prepare" for the EASA IR test?Surely a bit of tracking a hold or two and a couple of approaches is the same if you hold an FAA IR or another bit of paper.
As an NDB is no longer a legal requirement for IFR presumably another suitable non precision has replaced this on an EASA IR test?

[Contacttower]

cessnapete I hold both FAA and EASA IRs and I fly IFR a reasonable amount for a private pilot. For a revalidation flight I wouldn't normally bother doing any practice with an ATO or independent instructor if I'm feeling reasonably current. Although a reval is theoretically to the same standard as the initial I know that in the unlikely event of messing something up the examiner will probably just ask me to do it again so long as it wasn't anything too catastrophic.

If I had to do my initial EASA IR again I probably would go and do some practice with an instructor because the pass standard is quite high and if one hasn't done any holding recently you might be rusty at it - just better safe than sorry.

The approach requirement on the test is one precision and one non-precision. That could mean you get ILS and a GPS without vertical guidance or you could get ILS and NDB, it is entirely dependent on what the examiner feels like on the day and what is in the aircraft. Obviously if the aircraft has no ADF then you can't do one...:cool:

[cessnapete]

Hi,
Yes a bit of practice would be common sense before another Initial EASA test.

The biggest problem I can see for this new FAA to EASA IR route,is getting the test done in UK before the April deadline. I have now contacted 4 of the largest UK ATOs and asked for a test,with varying negative results.
1 We haven't got the training manuals back from the CAA. ?
2 We only test our own school candidates.
3 We only do test in conjunction with a Type Rating.
4 Would have to do the test in their aircraft, after some hours for checkout and test preparation. After pointing out that EASA don't require further training if suitable experience has been obtained, said you don't need an ATO then, just call CAA to allocate an Examiner.
I'll try the CAA next.

[S-Works]

This is a really sticky one. No ATO is going to put you forward for test unless they are happy you are going to pass as it reflects on them with the CAA. This means you are going to have to do some training with them. I now have approval to do this and send you for test but again I would not sign you off unless we had verified you were ready.

I have yet to fly with a single ICAO IR holder wanting to convert to an EASA IR that would pass the test without training regardless of how current you think you are. The EASA IR test standard is not like anything you have experienced before and the CAA take no prisoners when it comes to testing. This means that if you book with the CAA and fail it is going to be a very expensive exercise. The current test fee is about £935 and the CAA will only test in your aircraft if the Head of Training of an ATO has signed it of as suitable. Suitable means that it has to meet EASA requirements for IFR which includes the carriage of an ADF as substituting GPS for ADF is not currently permitted.

Anyone thinking they can just pitch up in their aircraft knock of a quick test and walk away with an EASA IR is seriously deluding themselves.

I hold an FAA CPL IR and UK EASA CPL IR and have trained hundreds of candidates for both initial and conversion IR and have yet to see any who could convert with out training.

I look forward to hearing the bragging rights of the first person to do so....... :cool::cool:

[BEagle]

No ATO is going to put you forward for test unless they are happy you are going to pass as it reflects on them with the CAA.

But there is no such requirement in the AMC & GM for FAA-to-C-bM IR conversion.

[cessnapete]

This excellent,simple, long negotiated EASA requirement now seems to be turning once again into a gold plating money making exercise by UK training /CAA. Smacks of UK ATOs trying to prevent the FAA then EASA route to an IR.

How can the CAA insist on an ADF fit when it is not a legal requirement for IFR flight??

[S-Works]

How can the CAA insist on an ADF fit when it is not a legal requirement for IFR flight??

Thats a subject many times done to death and the same requirement always come out of it, while the majority of IAPS have an NDB an no alternate for the missed approach procedure you will need an ADF. There is little to no chance that the CAA are going to allow you to use a GPS to replace an NDB when it is not approved on the plate.

You do not need an NDB for enroute navigation but you need one for an approach or missed approach. catch 22....

But there is no such requirement in the AMC & GM for FAA-to-C-bM IR conversion.

Something else for you add to your list and tell the CAA that they are wrong about Beagle.

[Level Attitude]

Anyone thinking they can just pitch up in their aircraft knock of a quick test and walk away with an EASA IR is seriously deluding themselves.Absolutely agree - But, according to the Regs, it is totally up to the candidate to decide when they are ready for test.

No ATO is going to put you forward for test unless they are happy you are going to pass as it reflects on them with the CAA. This means you are going to have to do some training with them. I now have approval to do this and send you for test but again I would not sign you off unless we had verified you were ready.This is a totally unnecessary Catch 22 argument: Test failures only reflect badly on an ATO if the candidate(s) is(are) their student(s). They are only the ATO's student if the ATO HoT recommends them for test, which the HoT will only do if the candidate has trained with them. Training only being required in order to satisfy the HoT in order for them to confirm ready for test.

I now have approval to do this and send you for test.Do you mean your ATO has an approved course for foreign SP ICAO IR Holders to convert to an EASA SP IR via the Competency Based Route?

bose-x,
That was quick! The Rules only came out about four weeks ago. Did you have a course ready to submit? As long as any course you want to offer meets the minimum required by EASA (in this case zero training) why wouldn't the CAA approve it?

Did you, perhaps, 'Gold Plate' the requirements yourself?

- - - - -
C-bM IR must be conducted by an allocated CAA Staff ExaminerI Genuinely don't understand how this works:

I didn't think Staff Examiners existed any more - just Examiners and Senior Examiners.

I understand that the CAA can (will?) allocate the Senior Examiner who a candidate must use for an initial IR Test?

Does the candidate not apply direct to the CAA for this Examiner allocation?

Where does an ATO fit in/why are they involved at all?

[Contacttower]

Well there are such things as VOR approaches...

But yes bose-x is generally correct, in many areas of the UK one will struggle to find a NPA within reasonable distance that does not require an NDB.

If one however goes to other EU states in which adoption of proper GPS approaches, which do not involve the use of ADFs...

[Cows getting bigger]

An IR is an international rating - not UK, not EU. I've personally flown to a number of (big) places around the world where the only approach available is an NDB. Of course, the sensible observation is that an NDB approach can be flown, with some significant accuracy, by GPS.

PS. Shhhh, don't tell anyone but I know of one ATO that has CB-IR approval. :eek:

[Contacttower]

The CAA guidance on the conversion process has disappeared. :E

There is clearly no requirement to use a "staff examiner", you can ask to have designated a foreign examiner if you like, assuming they do the briefing. The CAA can always object and designate another one but I don't think they usually do that.

There is a generic requirement in Part FCL for skills tests to be preceded by a recommendation by the organisation that conducted the training but that was written long before the latest amendment to the Aircrew Reg was passed. If no training has taken place does that render that requirement irrelevant? I'm not sure.

To settle this in the short term I suggest someone rings up Flight Test Bookings and simply asks them what their current understanding of the situation is, it may not reflect what EASA eventually decides is the correct interpretation but it will decide whether the CAA will currently designate/agree to a designation of an examiner without an ATO. :cool:

[cessnapete]

I rang the CAA for guidance yesterday, having failed to get a test arranged for one of our pilots. The guy on the telephone could not get the answer and asked me to EMail the Policy Dept.?
So far, an automated reply apologising that a reply to EMails may not be available for up to 30 days.

PS I still find it perverse that a test can be mandated on a piece of equipment not legally required in the aircraft. (ADF)

[belowradar]

I have a written reply from CAA that advises GPS can be substituted for ADF as long as the test profile does not require ADF so you definitely do not require an ADF if your aircraft does not have one, but you will need to find a pilot interpreted non precision approach that does not include NDB ( eg pure GPS) You will however require a proper DME for test and VHF radio with 8.33 channel spacing.

Less hope the examiners know this !!!

[pumpkinpilot]

If the test aircraft had a full ILS instrument, and also a VOR display without glideslope, would this allow a localiser-only approach to meet the requirement of non-precision? It would make life so simple.

[S-Works]

As a rule a CAA examiner will want to see the NDB hold and approach. The issue is not that carriage of a transponder is no longer mandatory providing you can meet the enroute and approach requirements it's that there are very few places that have an approach that does not involve an NDB. Even the GPS approaches have an NDB in them. This means if an NDB is part of the approach it must be fitted and used and if its fitted the examiner will want to see the NDB holds and approaches.

You also have to remember that the CAA only test from specific airfields and I don't know any of those or the test route airfields that do not have an NDB alternate.

As has been said many times, you are required to meet the current EASA test standards in terms of flying and knowledge (which will now be orally tested) and that means following the established process.

[pumpkinpilot]

But you are only talking about the CAA - even then, "in general". The strict requirements are - one precision, one non-precision.

[S-Works]

Hey, I clearly not the barrack room lawyer. Feel free to inform them they are doing it wrong.... :)

[Contacttower]

I know two people, and myself, who did a VOR approach on the JAR/EASA initial.

[RVR800]

IMHO many will bi-pass the CAA test route and go abroad to do this test - less hassle and so the money will go abroad - some wealthy individuals involved in this and wont let the CAA stand in their way of an expeditious outcome

This will set the scene for the others downstream

:)

[S-Works]

Its likely to largely be a moot point and small market I suspects once the initial flurry of converters go through. After next April you will need to be dual qualified to fly IFR in Europe which means if you want to go the ICAO IR route it will mean another 50hrs of hour building which takes away any advantage of going outside EASA doing an ICAO IR and then converting.

The whole thing was devised as a way of getting the existing people across and they may just be better biting the bullet, doing as expected and getting on with it.

[belowradar]

CAA advised that if aircraft not equipped with ADF then ADF holds etc will need to be completed during training in the SIM and if you can find a non precision approach that does not require NDB then that is ok for test

Remember this is a newEASA IR and as such what has gone before is now open to change

[S-Works]

CAA advised that if aircraft not equipped with ADF then ADF holds etc will need to be completed during training in the SIM and if you can find a non precision approach that does not require NDB then that is ok for test

You mean the training that is not required with an ATO that requires an approval for a simulator that is also not required........

My head is spinning...... ;)

[belowradar]

BOSEX

Sorry I was talking CBM/IR not just FAA Converters and yes no Sim required as you rightly state, so CAA not quite as accommodating as it might first appear.

[Whopity]

I was talking CBM/IR CBM is just another route to an EASA IR, the end product is the same!

[sunside]

I am interested to do an Enroute IR as soon as possible. I've tried to call some flight schools, they all seem not to be ready. Does anyone know of a school/club/ATO in England where I could start today working towards my EIR?

[Level Attitude]

CBM is just another route to an EASA IR, the end product is the same! Actually it is three routes, depending on prior experience:
1) Part-FCL Aa 6 (a): Ab Initio Min 40 hours IF Instruction at an ATO, will require HoT Sign Off before Test.
2) Part-FCL Aa 6 (a) (i): Required Instruction dependent on prior experience, but with a Min 10 hours IF Instruction at an ATO, will require HoT Sign Off before Test.
3) Part-FCL Aa 8: Holds an ICAO IR and has min 50 hours IFR as PIC. No Instruction required. Hence no HoT Sign Off Required.

This is why I am so curious as to what approval bose-x has. Was it a 'Catch All' approval for the CB IR?

[Contacttower]

I am interested to do an Enroute IR as soon as possible. I've tried to call some flight schools, they all seem not to be ready. Does anyone know of a school/club/ATO in England where I could start today working towards my EIR?

Rate One Aviation at Gloucester will likely be one of the first schools to get approval.

[Aware]

Good Morning,

I was an instructor with Marshalls and Cabair freelance and have a:

CPL(EASA)
FI(IRI (R) )
IR (R)

60hrs IFR 1300 hrs exams expired long ago. I have returned to my former profession in the financial services sector due to the downturn, however now my income is back to a normal levels, I am of amind to get a share in an IFR ac and go touring and want therefore an EIR initially and then full IR. In my logbook I have 30hrs or so IR training but never completed the course, due money and having to go through level 4 exams to retain my authorisation in financial services. Although my experienced helped me on the IR course I found that as I hadnt flown much I was struggling a bit and found all rather difficult and not particularly pleasurable. I found the courses difficult all through the training but once operational I had no issues and enjoyed day to day flying.

So my idea is go for the EIR and then upgrade to full IR later, which in mind would make it more managable. I have no intention to be flying around in crappy weather but just want IFR rating to able to flew high on high pressure days, no flying through fronts or anything like that for me, although when I was an IMC instructor I did a fair bit of cloud work in class G.

1. Can my previous IR training be counted.

2. I understand as I have a CPL I only need to do 5 exams under the new system which having taken loads of exams in the past although not really appealing shouldn't cause too many problems. Have been a ATPL ground instructor.

3. Can one of my previous students do any brush up training who himself is an IRI outside the ATO, EIR is I believe 15hrs ?


Trying to make sense of the whole system but a bit out of the loop now, as now back tax planning and organising peoples investments, but I would like to get back to aviation in some form.

[Whopity]

Your best and most efficient way is to do the CBM IR not the EIR and upgrade. Your experience will credit towards the CBM IR but only 5 hours of it towards the EIR. Under the new system there is only ONE exam, so no need to retake 5. Details in COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 245/2014 of 13 March 2014 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2014:074:0033:0057:EN:PDF)