IR(R) then CBIR vs IR(A) Direct

[Okavango]

Does anyone have experience of having taken the IMC (or IR(R)) then after some further time taken the new CBIR. Is there any benefit or drawback to this over the IR(A) direct?

[rudestuff]

The CBIR allows you to get an IR with fewer hours, and more flexibility, I can't think of a downside.

[gerpols]

In The Netherlands you must sit 3 theoretical exams for the CBIR.
Airlaw, Flight-planning, and meteorology !
Is this the same in the UK ?
Does anyone know an EASA country member where these exams are not required before you can take the skill test ?
Thanks.

[Okavango]

Thanks rudestuff - the IR(R) is more practical for my immediate needs in the UK though I'd go straight to the IR(A) if the IR(R) would effectively be repeated and wasted effort (or in fact cost more by doing both rather than just straight to IR(A)).


Having done some more research my understanding is that the CBIR requires a minimum 40hrs instrument flight time, so with 10 from my CPL and 15 from an IR(R), on paper I'd then only need to do a further 15hrs instruction after an IR(R) (and at least 10 of which should be conducted by an ATO). In practise I'd assume I'm still going to need around 40hrs instruction though it does seem advantageous to progress to ability rather than the rigid min 45hrs required for the IR(A) (with prior CPL, 55 without).


I can't help feeling the IR(R) plus some experience must make the CBIR subsequently more straightforward and certainly seems to make the early training away from an ATO more convenient but would appreciate people's general experience and any confirmation of my understanding above. Many thanks.

[lasseb]

forget all about the IR(A). It is replaced completely by CBIR. I suspect it is only kept in the regulation for administrative purposes.

CBIR is reduced theory and reduced hours compared to the old IR(A), without any practical limitations.

If you want an IR you should therfore take the CBIR theory and then either CBIR or EIR practical (full IR or just enroute IR).
(for UK there is also the IR(R) though)

According to EASA you need to pass 9 subjects in the theoretical knowledge part to get a CBIR. How you manage with just 3 in the Nederlands is beyond my understanding?? Do you not follow EASA rules??

[gerpols]

Having gotten the EIR, the CBIR is a more flexible method of training for the full IR(A). It places the emphasis on competence rather than a set number of hours, so a busy person can obtain creditable hours with less formal alternative methods. Thus, previous experience, aptitude and pace of learning have a part to play.

You need:
For the single-engined course, at least 40 hours of flight time is required, of which 10 hours must be dual on an approved course at an ATO
A further 15 dual hours, which could be an EIR course
Up to 15 hours as PIC under IFR, using a qualification that allows you to fly in IMC under IFR, such as an ICAO IR, a UK IMCR or an EASA EIR.

People already holding an ICAO IR can convert to the EASA version by:
completing the skill test
demonstrating to the examiner (during the skill test) an adequate knowledge of air law, meteorology and flight planning
having at least 50 hours of flight time under IFR as PIC on aeroplanes, in actual or simulated IMC

[BillieBob]

According to EASA you need to pass 9 subjects in the theoretical knowledge part to get a CBIR.

Not true. To obtain an IR, by whichever route, the requirement is to demonstrate adequate knowledge in 7 subjects (FCL.615 IR(b)). Nowhere does EASA mandate how these subjects are arranged into examination papers and it would be possible (although perhaps not practicable) to set a single examination covering all seven. The fact that The Netherlands does it in three papers is easily understandable and wholly in compliance with EASA requirements.

The minimum theoretical knowledge training required on the CB-IR course (80hrs) is a little over half that required for the IR(A) (150hrs) but the same knowledge level is required. In some cases, this may not be achievable in the minimum CB-IR instructional hours.

[lasseb]

You are right. It is 7 subjects (I just remembered it wrong).

Yes you can do the 7 subjects anyhow you want it, but it is still 7 subjects.
Airlaw, Instrumentation, Flightplanning, Human performance, Meteorology, Radio navigation and IFR communication.
EASA has written quite specific the amount of questions needed in each subject, amount of time available for each exam, and required score to pass. So I still do not see how this can be tweaked into less than this ???
Adding all subjects into one (or 3) exams is not really less, but just a different way of doing the same

Converting an already obtained ICAO IR is a different matter though

[Okavango]

Thanks all. Common sense suggests the CBIR will take precedence now though looking at ATO's the IR(A) and associated course still seems to be what most deliver. That said - if anyone is on here that has experience of gaining a frozen ATPL via the CBIR route (ie no interest in number or structure of exams for the PPL CBIR or theoretical exam procedures in Holland to avoid any thread creep) in any info would be great - eg what experience base did you start from and how many hours did it take to qualify?

[felixflyer]

I am doing this also. Have my IR(R) and currently doing my ATPL's. I have spoken to a few schools and some definitely seem more clued up about it than others.

Some are very into the CBIR but focused more on PPL/IR. Out of the commercial schools Wycombe seemed the most knowledgeable and enthused about it. They gave me a go in the excellent DA42 sim and spoken highly of this more flexible route.This was 6 months ago though so others may be catching on to it now.

Some schools I got the feeling that the CBIR students would be playing second fiddle to the full time full IR guys. Others told me info that I knew was just wrong.

[rudestuff]

...because they make more money if you fly more hours

[lasseb]

Originally Posted by Okavango

Thanks all. Common sense suggests the CBIR will take precedence now though looking at ATO's the IR(A) and associated course still seems to be what most deliver. That said - if anyone is on here that has experience of gaining a frozen ATPL via the CBIR route

Just to clarify.
There is NO difference between taking the old IR(A) and the "new" CBIR(A) route as regards to the end result. You will end up with exactly the same rating, and exactly the same text line in your license stating you have an IR rating.
So it is a perfectly valid route to obtain a frozen ATPL.
The only difference is if you have "only" done the CBIR theory, as opposed to the ATPL theory. Then there will be a difference and some minor limits. It goes with out saying that you cannot get a frozen ATPL if you have only done the CBIR thery

[Okavango]

Thanks FF - exactly the kind of info I was after.

lasseb - I was inferring I have no interest in theoretical knowledge discussions - I'm just interested in the CBIR flight training and how people have found it from varying pre-start experience levels.

Any other relevant experience gratefully received.