It was much easier for me years ago when I decided to become a civil FI. First I had to regain my PPL, apply for IMC and Night Ratings, then pass ATPL Air Law for my R/BCPL. Then fly with the CFS trapper who was visiting the other UAS at the time, to meet both 1179 and FI test requirements. Then send off for my FI Rating and R/BCPL at the same time....with a significant cheque after first arranging the civil medical. Later I added a BX examiner authorisation and eventually converted to ATPL (after flying 1 trip with a CAA IRE observing an MCT trip in the VC10), with SEP Class Rating, IMC Rating, Night Rating, FI Rating and FE authorisation.
The cost of keeping all this valid, coupled with a downturn in student demand and my availability, eventually forced me to pack it all in. JAR-FCL had forced me out of the market.
The instructing and examining I did in the PA28, plus the odd aeros session in other aircraft, was nothing like as demanding as UAS Bulldog instructing - and my A2 on the Bulldog was vastly harder than any civil FI test.
BEagle - so why are you are arguing so vociferously on this thread (and elsewhereon Pprune) in support of all this EASA euro-bollocks nonsense?
There is a very simple solution - get an FI rating to prove that you can instruct (let's say it is equivalent to PGCE - which it is in France). That should allow an instructor to teach any advanced subject that he has demonstrable competence in - whether as a CRI, IRI, aerobatics, night
It would allow instructors with genuine experience (whether civilian or military) to work in FTOs - without having to pay a small fortune for silly add-on "advanced" courses taught by novices in the subject.
It would also stop all this nonsense whereby FTOs are filled with hours-building instructors who only have a hundred hours or so more experience than their students.