CBIR or IR ?

[alex90]

Hello Everyone...

I think I am a little confused with regards to the differences between the full IR and the CB-IR. I have heard people (perhaps incorrectly?) stating that there is a fundamental difference between the two courses. I have heard and read contradictory statements about each of them and cannot makes heads/tails with it all.

So far what I gather is:

CBIR requires 10 hours less than "normal" IR (on paper).

What I am not sure about is:

Does the CBIR take into account IR(r) / IMC course and PIC time logged?
Does the holder of a CBIR have identical privileges to those who sat the "normal" IR course?
Other than the time taken (and hence cost difference) are there any other differences between the two syllabi?
Are there any differences at all to the paper bit? (or in the background?)
Would the learning outcomes really be better from doing the full IR course? (taking into account that I have an IR(r) and plenty of instrument time logged)


I have read a lot of about "difference in privileges" depending on the ground exams sat. I am currently studying for the 14 ATPL exams which I intend to sit - so please keep the responses with regards to this set of ground exams.

Please please please don't post without having the assurance of being 100% right (or at least 99% right?) as there are too many threads everywhere which have a myriad of answers which contradict one another (even some PDFs on the CAA website!).

Thanks Again!
Alex

[Cows getting bigger]

a. Yes.
b. Mostly. The only thing you don't have is the ability to jump into a SPHA without a bit of additional TK (see answer below regarding ATPLs)
c. No.
d. No.
e. No.

I note you are continuing with etc 14 ATPL TK exams. There's a bit of a question over the privileges of a CB-IR graduate who holds valid ATPL TK; does the SPHA limitation still apply? I have sought guidance from the CAA regarding this and they say (not in writing) that a CB-IR with ATPL TK credits is exactly the same as a standalone IR. That makes sense as the CB-IR is best described as an alternative mechanism for gaining an IR and the flight test, pass standards etc are all exactly the same. Furthermore, anyone undergoing SPHA training will have to undertake a type rating course (approved course at an ATO etc) so the SPHA TK limitation could easily be swept-up in the ATO course.

[alex90]

Hello Cows getting bigger!

Thank you very much for your super fast response, I really appreciate it. I see that this is still not quite clear cut - but - I guess you make complete sense with regards to if you have the same TK, and the same practical IR exam, then surely it should be identical in privileges.

Thanks again!
Alex

[ChickenHouse]

You should approach "your" CAA with that question.

Each country does interpret the EASA rules a bit different. Yes, I know, this is not what was meant by uniform approach, but there are enough buttheads and some few just defending their local chairs. Some countries will treat CBIR als a fully fledged alternate route to IR, but there are some countries trying to push the CB approach to "PPL only", in which case your ATPL'ish path would be no option. Reality usually is somewhere in between.

Yes, there are fundamental differences. One is, if I recall correct, that CBIR is not applicable for (H) licenses, so no competency based IR for helicopters. From CH, I know CBIR only for PPL(A) and CPL(A) but not ATPL, others - see above, call your CAA.

[BillieBob]

As I have explained previously (and been shouted down), the term 'CB-IR' refers to a course of training and not to a qualification. There is only one EASA aeroplane instrument rating, which has the same privileges whichever course was used to obtain it. There is no limitation to the privileges of the IR in the case of SPHPCA.

[Genghis the Engineer]

As I have explained previously (and been shouted down), the term 'CB-IR' refers to a course of training and not to a qualification. There is only one EASA aeroplane instrument rating, which has the same privileges whichever course was used to obtain it. There is no limitation to the privileges of the IR in the case of SPHPCA.

I certainly listened, and am spending this winter going through one of the CBIR TK packages.

G

[BEagle]

Although it's the same Skill Test, I gather that the UK CAA is entering 'CB IR' as the licence endorsement....

Thus far, the UK CAA has issued 47 CB IRs....and just the one EIR.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Although it's the same Skill Test, I gather that the UK CAA is entering 'CB IR' as the licence endorsement....

Any idea why - some "snob value" thing?

G

[BillieBob]

I gather that the UK CAA is entering 'CB IR' as the licence endorsement....If that is the case then it is just another example of the inability of the CAA to understand the regulations, like adding class ratings to an LAPL (or a B737 rating to a CPL(H)!). It is symptomatic of the current , inept management and their drive to cut costs. If you pay peanuts, guess what happens.

[Mach Jump]

Although it's the same Skill Test, I gather that the UK CAA is entering 'CB IR' as the licence endorsement....

The people issued with IRs in this form need to all immediately send them back to the CAA with a polite demand that they be re-issued correctly.

The longer they get away with this, the harder it will be to get it put right.


MJ:ok:

Ps. It's just 'gold plating' sneaking in the back door!:ugh:

[alex90]

I guess I spoke too soon.... I am once again baffled and confused by the myriad of responses. Some say yes some day no, some say there is a paper difference and some don't... So again I have no idea what to think.

I would love to call the CAA to "enlighten" perhaps us all, about this but unfortunately i work very long hours every week day which leaves little time to talk to them, although besides the fact that ideally we'd have this in writing!

So should the CAA issue CB-IR - the question that would need to be answered would be: what do they consider the difference to be? As they clearly view the skill level (although identical if taken the ATPL exams & IR skills test) to be different?

This is interesting to still be confusing!

Thanks
Alex

[Whopity]

The CBM IR is simply another way of obtaining an ICAO IR not unlike the unapproved IR of yesteryear. Why would you want to spend more money doing 55 hours when you can get it at 40 hours? I would love to call the CAA to "enlighten" perhaps us all,Considering a number of us spend a lot of time pointing out their errors, I doubt they are in a position to enlighten any of us!
They do indeed incorrectly annotate licences "CB-IR" but that is only one example of the many curious entries I have seen.

[rudestuff]

A well trodden path to an Easa IR (for those with an FAA PPL for example ) would be to do an FAA IR then convert it with a 15 hour course.

I myself was considering this route. One of the complications is the need to learn FARs and pass the written and oral exams and flight test. But then it hit me: I don't need to pass the tests. I don't even need to take them. As long as I log the 40 hours I can still convert in 15 hours via CBIR. Almost sounds too good to be true?

[BEagle]

Not quite that simple....The method of attaining an IR(A) following this modular course is competency-based. However, the minimum requirements below shall be completed by the applicant. Additional training may be required to reach required competencies.

(a) A single-engine competency-based modular IR(A) course shall include at least 40 hours of instrument time under instruction, of which up to 10 hours may be instrument ground time in an FNPT I, or up to 25 hours in an FFS or FNPT II. A maximum of 5 hours of FNPT II or FFS instrument ground time may be conducted in an FNPT I.

(i) When the applicant has:

(A) completed instrument flight instruction provided by an IRI(A) or an FI(A) holding the privilege to provide training for the IR; or

(B) prior flight time under IFR as PIC on aeroplanes, under a rating providing the privileges to fly under IFR and in IMC

these hours may be credited towards the 40 hours above up to maximum of 30 hours,

(ii) When the applicant has prior instrument flight time under instruction other than specified in point (a)(i), these hours may be credited towards the required 40 hours up to a maximum of 15 hours.

(iii) In any case, the flying training shall include at least 10 hours of instrument flight time under instruction in an aeroplane at an ATO.

(iv) The total amount of dual instrument instruction shall not be less than 25 hours.


rudestuff, under your plan, if you didn't complete you FAA IR, you would only be credited with up to 15 hours of dual instrument flight time under instruction. If you didn't have any other instrument qualification enabling you to record PIC flight time under IFR (note - this doesn't include VFR PPL holders claiming 'IFR' as the requirement means that such time may only be logged by pilots with a qualification to fly in IMC....), then you couldn't claim PIC IFR flight time credit.

Which leaves you needing another 25 hours of instrument instruction time to complete, not 15!

Simplest way at the moment:

1. Obtain a UK IR(R) - for which you will receive credit for all instrument flight time.
2. Use it to gain 15 hrs PIC under IFR.
3. Top up with whatever else you need to complete the CB IR.

If you later want to go into commercial flying, your CB IR exams wouldn't be credited. However, if you took the ATPL exams, they would cover the CB IR theoretical knowledge requirements.

[rudestuff]

I didn't realise that, thanks! Presumably I could do 15 hours IFR training in an plane in the States, then come home and do 15 hours SIM and 10 in a Plane?

[JRFD]

The CAA are only putting CBIR onto the licences of those people that have taken the IR exams and not the ATPL exams. This is so the CAA can identify those people who will need the HPA course.

The privileges of the CBIR and IR are identical.

JRFD

[Whopity]

This is so the CAA can identify those people who will need the HPA course.For many years the CAA kept records of all licence holders so they knew what they had; now they Google it out of an Electronic Pit which obviously isn't very reliable!

[alex90]

So I emailed the CAA to seek further clarity on the matter. And this is what I have in writing from them. Seems to concur with the general consensus on this thread.

----

Thank you for your email regarding the difference between and modular IR and a CB-IR. I confirm both are an instrument rating gained through a different training route. Please refer to CAP 804, section 4, Part L page 34 -38. In some instances a CB remark will be annotated against the Instrument rating as a remark. This is in instances such as where the pilot has elected to only take CB IR theoretical knowledge examinations or elected to be orally assessed as part of the IR skills test.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP804%20April%202015%20searchable.pdf

All information provided is based on the requirements and regulation as at the date of this email (11.01.2016)

----

Just in case anyone here is interested! :-)

Also... Did anyone know about electing to be "orally assessed" as an alternative to presumably the CB-IR theoretical examination?

Sounds interesting....!

[Whopity]

Also... Did anyone know about electing to be "orally assessed" as an alternative to presumably the CB-IR theoretical examination?That is the process for an ICAO IR conversion. If you don't hold an ICAO IR, its not an option.

[alex90]

Thanks Whopity, I thought it was a little weird!

Perhaps it was the wording from the CAA.... One could "elect" to have an oral assessment.

[Whopity]

Ther person answering the question is unlikely to have any technical expertise, they are only clerks reading FAQs!

[alex90]

Ther person answering the question is unlikely to have any technical expertise, they are only clerks reading FAQs!


This was actually sent by a "Licensing Support & Examiners Technical Officer" and took over 2 months to get back to me - so I hope it is more than a standard "FAQ" being regurgitated!