EASA proposal to simplify private IR
Thread Starter
EASA proposal to simplify private IR
EASA proposal to simplify path to private IR:
https://www.EASA.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Opinion%20No%2001-2019%20%28A%29.pdf
https://www.EASA.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Opinion%20No%2001-2019%20%28A%29.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That said, that initiative is probably one of the last ones originating in the UK, it is largely driven by UK experiences and demand for a more lightweight approach to GA IFR training.
I particularly like the sound of
nothing like a bacon buttie at the start of the procedure 
Module 2:it introduces2D and 3D instrument approach procedures such as non-directional radio bacon (NDB)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of tosh, when they could have adopted the proven FAA route.
We started the Basic IR concept over 3 years ago. NAA and industry associations supplied the majority of the unpaid RMT.0677 task force to achieve the final FCL.835.A draft documents. We had several occasionally robust meetings before agreeing our draft NPA!
The only 2 issues which remain to be resolved are the rather disproportionate audiometry requirement for initial issue and the reluctance of EASA to accept BIR training at DTOs.
The BIR will also offer an update route for EIR and IR(R) holders.
The only 2 issues which remain to be resolved are the rather disproportionate audiometry requirement for initial issue and the reluctance of EASA to accept BIR training at DTOs.
The BIR will also offer an update route for EIR and IR(R) holders.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only see this as a positive step, for years the UK took the view that he safest thing to do with a PPL holder that got into marginal weather was to have them climb above the MSA, get a bit of time to think and plan and then fly a published approach into a sutable airfield. So the UK CAA introduced the IMC rating to enable formal training for an instrument qualification that was accessible to PPL holders.
Of course this mini IR was an affront to the sky gods at EASA and they tried to kill it but finally faced with the indisputable facts that an instrument qualification for PPL holders is a vital safety tool they are forced to make an IR accessible to the average PPL holder....................... just a pity that it’s twenty years and many deaths too late that the European Aviation SAFTEY Authority makes the decision.
Of course this mini IR was an affront to the sky gods at EASA and they tried to kill it but finally faced with the indisputable facts that an instrument qualification for PPL holders is a vital safety tool they are forced to make an IR accessible to the average PPL holder....................... just a pity that it’s twenty years and many deaths too late that the European Aviation SAFTEY Authority makes the decision.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Midlands
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C, the IR was always a PPL rating add on. Did you mean that EASA allowed the IMC rating? I had left GA by then, so I don’t know except that I heard there was some difficulty with the IMC rating being accepted.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IMC rating was a UK only rating dating back to before the UK joined EASA. It was very effective in reducing fatalities caused by the unpredictable British weather. It was intended to get private pilots safely on the ground when trapped by weather.
EASA wanted to scrap it in the name of unification but after much argument with member states all having different agendas they came up with the idea of the Basic Instument Rating.
As usual they gold plated a simple idea and added more training hoops to jump through to qualify. When fully implemented the derogation which allowed the UK to retain the IMC rating will end and the same rating will apply throughout EASA.
EASA wanted to scrap it in the name of unification but after much argument with member states all having different agendas they came up with the idea of the Basic Instument Rating.
As usual they gold plated a simple idea and added more training hoops to jump through to qualify. When fully implemented the derogation which allowed the UK to retain the IMC rating will end and the same rating will apply throughout EASA.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Live near Cardiff (from Scotland)
Age: 47
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will be interested to hear what the requirements are for upgrading an IR r to a BIR.
The proposed BIR sounds like a real positive step for GA, with all the progression in technology now available in the light aircraft level rolling out an IR aimed at the GA level within Europe is quite exciting.
Obviously I am aware of the CBIR route already established.
The proposed BIR sounds like a real positive step for GA, with all the progression in technology now available in the light aircraft level rolling out an IR aimed at the GA level within Europe is quite exciting.
Obviously I am aware of the CBIR route already established.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IMC rating was a UK only rating dating back to before the UK joined EASA. It was very effective in reducing fatalities caused by the unpredictable British weather. It was intended to get private pilots safely on the ground when trapped by weather.
EASA wanted to scrap it in the name of unification but after much argument with member states all having different agendas they came up with the idea of the Basic Instument Rating.
As usual they gold plated a simple idea and added more training hoops to jump through to qualify. When fully implemented the derogation which allowed the UK to retain the IMC rating will end and the same rating will apply throughout EASA.
EASA wanted to scrap it in the name of unification but after much argument with member states all having different agendas they came up with the idea of the Basic Instument Rating.
As usual they gold plated a simple idea and added more training hoops to jump through to qualify. When fully implemented the derogation which allowed the UK to retain the IMC rating will end and the same rating will apply throughout EASA.
I have long thought that given the vagaries of the UK (and northern European generally) weather which almost guarantee a VFR bust at some stage, basic instrument training should be included in the PPL syllabus. 10 hours under the hood could make a huge difference and add greatly to pilot competence in an area of GA which may neither need nor want more advanced training.
