Enroute Instrument Rating update?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enroute Instrument Rating update?
Hello,
Does anyone know what the latest is on the possible implementation of the EASA EIR?
I've had a look myself, and as far as I can tell EASA have now drafted an 'opinion' and this needs to go to the EC to make it law. If I've understood correctly, the latest should be in one of these documents, but there's an absurd amount to go through.
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/reg....result&page=1
Any chance there's been an update published by the GA community at all?
Thanks
Odai.
Does anyone know what the latest is on the possible implementation of the EASA EIR?
I've had a look myself, and as far as I can tell EASA have now drafted an 'opinion' and this needs to go to the EC to make it law. If I've understood correctly, the latest should be in one of these documents, but there's an absurd amount to go through.
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/reg....result&page=1
Any chance there's been an update published by the GA community at all?
Thanks
Odai.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EASA Opinion on the IR and EIR was discussed at the EASA Committee (comitology process, all member states, political process, not EASA management) in July and there were no objections as far as we can tell from the limited-content minutes and from feedback from certain attendees. The next and hopefully final stage will be a vote in that committee during the next meeting on 16 to 18 October 2013. If passed, the rules will then be published in the Official Journal of the EU and the likely implementation date will run from sometime in Q1/2014.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to bump this thread, but I can't find any update regarding this since the set date for the scheduled vote.
I'm aware of the decision that came out with regards to allowing the UK CAA to retain the IMC rating until at least 2019, but nothing on the proposed EIR or CBM IR. Does anyone else know what has been decided at all?
I'm aware of the decision that came out with regards to allowing the UK CAA to retain the IMC rating until at least 2019, but nothing on the proposed EIR or CBM IR. Does anyone else know what has been decided at all?
The EIR and CBM IR were part of the same package that the UK CAA wrote about regarding the IMCR. It all passed in the EASA Committee a couple of weeks ago. It now goes off for translation and for scrutiny in EU parliament, and should get published as law early next year.
(my message is apparently too short - I thought brevity was the essence of effective communication?)
Do the IMC rating, get some practical instrument time as PIC with it, and then do the CBM IR. It's pointless to mess around maintaining two ratings to offer limited privileges when you have the skills to get the IR.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BookWorm
Surely he only needs the IMCR and EIR and Bingo he effectively has the IR in UK airspace why bother with the IR?
He automatically gets the EIR on the back of his IMCR so quids in by just getting the IMCR and having almost all the privileges of a full IR in the UK.
Pace
Surely he only needs the IMCR and EIR and Bingo he effectively has the IR in UK airspace why bother with the IR?
He automatically gets the EIR on the back of his IMCR so quids in by just getting the IMCR and having almost all the privileges of a full IR in the UK.
Pace
Pace wrote:
He most certainly does not!
As bookworm stated, for a UK pilot with an IR(R), it would be rather pointless to include the EIR in the licence when, with little extra effort, the IR(R) may be converted to a C-bM IR. The pilot simply needs to gain additional instrument flight time as PIC of aeroplanes, to take the 'ATO assessment' (for which purpose any sensible ATO will merely use an IR(R) revalidation proficiency check), to pass the theory exam(s) - which will be the same for the EIR as for the C-bM IR - to take a minimum of another 10 hrs instrument flight training and to pass the C-bM IR Skill Test.
He automatically gets the EIR on the back of his IMCR....
As bookworm stated, for a UK pilot with an IR(R), it would be rather pointless to include the EIR in the licence when, with little extra effort, the IR(R) may be converted to a C-bM IR. The pilot simply needs to gain additional instrument flight time as PIC of aeroplanes, to take the 'ATO assessment' (for which purpose any sensible ATO will merely use an IR(R) revalidation proficiency check), to pass the theory exam(s) - which will be the same for the EIR as for the C-bM IR - to take a minimum of another 10 hrs instrument flight training and to pass the C-bM IR Skill Test.
VORTIME asked:
Absolutely not. The IR(R) and EIR are completely different and have no connection with each other.
Who has originated this stupid, 100% incorrect rumour?
Guys, do EASA PPL holders with IR(R) really get a free europe wide EIR?
Who has originated this stupid, 100% incorrect rumour?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know where to find the (now reduced) syllabus for the IR TK?
In the original proposal, there was an exhaustive list of all learning objectives for the old IR, compared with a proposal for a new and reduced one for CB-IR and EIR. But where is this list in the EASA rules?
In the original proposal, there was an exhaustive list of all learning objectives for the old IR, compared with a proposal for a new and reduced one for CB-IR and EIR. But where is this list in the EASA rules?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bedford
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pace - that's a strange comment, I thought we clarified all this last week in our discussion?
The EIR has NOTHING to do with the IMC which is now known as an IR(R). It is an entirely SEPARATE rating covering different things (mainly airways).
The EIR is Europe wide.
The CBM/IR is Europe wide.
The IR/R (was IMC) is UK only.
They are 3 different things and the only automatic right is that your IMC has a new name - that's it.
Cheers.
The EIR has NOTHING to do with the IMC which is now known as an IR(R). It is an entirely SEPARATE rating covering different things (mainly airways).
The EIR is Europe wide.
The CBM/IR is Europe wide.
The IR/R (was IMC) is UK only.
They are 3 different things and the only automatic right is that your IMC has a new name - that's it.
Cheers.
Does anyone know where to find the (now reduced) syllabus for the IR TK?
In the original proposal, there was an exhaustive list of all learning objectives for the old IR, compared with a proposal for a new and reduced one for CB-IR and EIR. But where is this list in the EASA rules?
In the original proposal, there was an exhaustive list of all learning objectives for the old IR, compared with a proposal for a new and reduced one for CB-IR and EIR. But where is this list in the EASA rules?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the AMC really where the TK syllabus is posted? I never understood this.
The problem is that AMC is not a law, and many discrepancies exists between FCL and AMC .
As an example, if you look at the current valid AMC, it lists that both AGK and VRF-COM is a subject required for the IR. But in the FCL those are not listed as required subjects. Also the AMC states that the syllabus for those subjects that are the same for ATPL and IR (like MET,HPL,INS etc) are exactly a match, and that is definitely not the case in the "real" world, and was never the case under JAR.
The FCL also clearly states that if there is a difference between the AMC and the FCL, the FCL has precedence. So how can we ever trust what is in AMC.
In total I'm quite confused :/
The problem is that AMC is not a law, and many discrepancies exists between FCL and AMC .
As an example, if you look at the current valid AMC, it lists that both AGK and VRF-COM is a subject required for the IR. But in the FCL those are not listed as required subjects. Also the AMC states that the syllabus for those subjects that are the same for ATPL and IR (like MET,HPL,INS etc) are exactly a match, and that is definitely not the case in the "real" world, and was never the case under JAR.
The FCL also clearly states that if there is a difference between the AMC and the FCL, the FCL has precedence. So how can we ever trust what is in AMC.
In total I'm quite confused :/