Competency based Instrument rating
 

Hi,

Happy new year to all!

I am a PPL with around 160 hours total time and a lapsed IMC-R (restricted IR). Thinking about going all out and doing the IR. Looking at what/who/where for the ground exams/school and was wondering what people's experiences are of this and what they would recommend? I am in no rush, and would do a few hours a week until they're all done. I am well used to studying independently, and want to do only the bare minimum at an actual ground school, with the rest at home. I have seen there is CATS at Luton, I don't know much about ground schools at Stapleford and Wycombe, or anywhere else in the North London (ish) vicinity.

What would you recommend?

Thanks

I would suggest to start with the theory e.g. Bristol Groundschool. Then do as much as possible on flight sims (PC and approved sims). Go flying with your friends to learn procedures, etc. Then for the practical training consider the airfield (ILS equipped) access and costs. Fields like LFAV and LFQT have cheap landing fees, good access and full RNAV, ILS.

I did my IR in 1984 by correspondence course (pre-PC) with Oxford. Then a week residential for 4 days revision and test on the Friday. Theory required circa 1 year (part-time). Practical training was at the High Wycombe sim, Piccadilly hotel sim and Stansted airport. Passed at total 203 hours (min was 200 hrs).

Good luck, Flyme

Hello Gantshill,

I can guess what the "IR" is in the thread title, but I don't know what the "CB" is (I'm guessing it's not circuit breaker). Would you please edit your post title to be a bit more specific so other posters may understand from the title what you'd like to discuss...

Thanks, Pilot DAR

Competence Based, it's an EASA course that provides a theoretically more streamlined route to obtaining the full IR, with a bit less of the traditional (in Europe) nauseating exam loading. To be fair, it's a term that most people in Europe will be familiar with, but I can see why it's alien to people outside Europe.

In essence it reduces the exam / theory load from about seven times what's required for the FAA IR, to about four times.

G

As mentioned, its the Competency-based IR. A relatively new European rating that allows en-route use of Airways and in IMC. Requires quite a lot of training. Not intended to allow approaches/ Star /Sid and that's where the problem arises. Having arrived at destination what is the CB-IR pilot intended to do? With a Garmin magic box and coupled auto-camel the route to a safe landing is obvious. Flyme.

Incorrect, it's not a new rating. It's a new route to obtain a rating that has existed for many many years.

The new rating that allows IFR/IMC en-route but not approaches is the EIR, or En-Route Instrument Rating. Same theory, but only the en-route part of the IR skill test (checkride to North Americans). Yes, I agree, a lot of work, for very little capability - a really silly idea, unsurprisingly not adopted very widely.

G

Thanks G, that wasn't so hard, now that we all know what we're talking about!

This is completely wrong. There is only one 'full' EASA IR and one EASA IR test. There are actually 8 ways to get in a position to take the EASA IR test and CB 'routes' account for 3 of them. Think modular Vs integrated - it's the same licence.
Depending on which route you follow, you can take anywhere from 0 to 14 exams - (yes, you can get an EASA IR with zero exams!) Most will still take all 14 exams if they're planning on going 'all the way'.

As it happens I'm just setting myself up with the zero exams route at the moment.

In case anybody doesn't know, if you have an EASA PPL or CPL, an ICAO (e.g. FAA) IR, and a minimum of 50hrs PiC IFR, then you can present for the EASA IR skill test without having to take any new written exams. As I'm in the happy position of an EASA CPL and an FAA IR, plus the hours, that's what I'm doing in the next few months. The only thing I lose from this is the ability to go from CPL to ATPL, but as that isn't on my personal game plan, I'm fine. If (unlikely) that ever changes, I'll be back to school for a while to do the 14 EASA ATPL writtens.

(Clearly if I present straightaway for an EASA IRT I'll fail it, so I will need instruction, I just don't need that to be within any formal framework, just by a suitably experienced grownup.)

G

Thanks, this seems like some actionable advice. Would anyone have and care to share their experiences of various distance-based learning course/materials? E.g. CATS v Bristol etc?

I did my CPL TK with CATS ten years ago. Superb material, nice people, very shambolic in terms of their organisation of anything, fair prices, near 100% pass rate.

Is it still the same? No idea.

G

You need an ATO for two reasons: To teach you the stuff and to sign you off to take the exams. I went with CATS for the sign off because they were the cheapest, but I studied using Bgsonline, Google and YouTube.

On the no exams front be prepared for an FAA style Oral that will last a number of hours. As an IRE we are briefed to THOROUGHLY test the candidates knowledge. Also remember that the no exam route restricts you to PPL privileges even if you hold a CPL.

​​​​​​ Have you got a reference for that?

That sounds extremely surprising, yes, references please.

Yes, the FAA style oral is well known, but PPL privileges is news to me, and I'd looked into this in some detail. So far as I have seen, an IR is an IR is an IR once issued, the only exception is the need for the ATPL writtens to go from CPL to ATPL, or operate mandatory multi-crew.

G

From here: https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...rument-rating/

Absolutely nothing about subsequent restriction of privileges. (Although a useful reminder of the need to ensure FAA licence validation.)

G

I have a licence sat on my desk from a CB IR candidate that has just come back with the restricted to PPL privileges printed in the restrictions column.......

A Spanish licence, perchance?

At all the EASA meetings I've attended, it's always been the Spanish representatives who seem to have the least idea about the ACTUAL privileges included in the Aircrew Regulation.

Yep. Tip of the iceberg on the problems we have with the Spanish. They are adamant that it’s correct. It’s my project next week to get to the bottom of.