Instrument flying after PPL

[Odai]

Many thanks again for all the helpful advice guys, much appreciated.

In this case, I think the best option then would be to go for the IMC rating as soon as I acrue the hours etc after my PPL, and then hopefully work towards the CBM IR when that option becomes available.

So, if I've understood correctly, I would only technically need an additional 25 hours of training to gain an IR (with the CBM method) if I gain my IMC first? I appreciate it would probably take more hours to actually get to test standard.

Just a few questions:

- Why is it the EASA IR is so bloated compared to other ICAO IRs? I'm assuming there are, for example, perfectly safe American pilots with 40 hour IRs on their ATPLs flying American registered heavy jets in and out of EU airports. So why has it taken this long for the authorities to allow Europeans to do the same?

- Is there any benefit to taking the traditional route other than it being easier/more likely to be at test standard within the stated hours?

- If I do the 14 ATPL exams, I have 3 years after passing the last one to gain my CPL/IR. Would the CBM-IR suffice in this case to keep all the exams valid?

I appreciate there are answers in the document you linked Bookworm, I just haven't had time to read the whole pdf yet.

Thanks again for your time.

Odai.

[bookworm]

So, if I've understood correctly, I would only technically need an additional 25 hours of training to gain an IR (with the CBM method) if I gain my IMC first? I appreciate it would probably take more hours to actually get to test standard.

If you go out and use your IMC rating, then the combination of instrument instruction and PiC instrument time could reduce the requirement to the 10 hours in an ATO.

- Why is it the EASA IR is so bloated compared to other ICAO IRs? I'm assuming there are, for example, perfectly safe American pilots with 40 hour IRs on their ATPLs flying American registered heavy jets in and out of EU airports. So why has it taken this long for the authorities to allow Europeans to do the same?

No good reason, hence the need for change!

- Is there any benefit to taking the traditional route other than it being easier/more likely to be at test standard within the stated hours?

Well if you're going to do the ATPL TK anyway, the reduced TK wouldn't matter. I think if you read the small print, the A.1 route may have slightly more flexible simulator allowances, but I'm not sure. If you're starting from scratch (i.e. no IMCr or previous instrument training since PPL) there wouldn't be not much difference.

- If I do the 14 ATPL exams, I have 3 years after passing the last one to gain my CPL/IR. Would the CBM-IR suffice in this case to keep all the exams valid?

Yes, it would be an IR. My understanding of FCL.025 is that you need to get the IR, via either route, within 3 years, and then the ATPL within 7 years of that.

Just bear in mind that CRD 2011-16 is not yet law.

[Odai]

Awesome, thanks again man!

Fingers crossed the proposals make it through.

[Level Attitude]

So, if I've understood correctly, I would only technically need an additional 25 hours of training to gain an IR (with the CBM method) if I gain my IMC first? I appreciate it would probably take more hours to actually get to test standard.

Not quite - You had it correct in your first Post (my bold)

the basic requirement is 55 hours specifically instrument flying (so I'm guessing it's many more hours actual total flying),

IMC Course is min 15 hours training, of which a minimum of 10 hours must be "flight by sole reference to instruments" (which is another way of saying "instrument flight time").

I reckon most students who complete IMC in near minimum hours training would have about 10-11 hours Instrument Time during course, plus whatever they needed for Test.

Any adverts for, say, "55 Hour IR(A) Course" would, in my opinion, be misleading as course length is not specified - only that 55 Hours Instrument Flight must be completed - and Taxiing, Take Off and Landing are not done on instruments.

[Odai]

Many thanks for your input.

So I'm guessing the total number of hours is actually going to be closer to about 60, assuming the student gets to the required standard with the minimum amount of instrument time?