IR comparison

Emir wrote:

EIR looks completely useless to me. Usual situation people are facing with is that DEP and/or ARR are not VFR while enroute segment is mostly in VMC aiming on top.

I have very limited experience (basically half a season with my VFR only plane and ticket), but I would have found EIR immensely useful on two of my last trips, with approach or departure procedures being of very little use to me. This is probably helped by the fact I operate from a small VFR only airfield which has not 200 ft+ obstacle or terrain in a ca. 35 km radius.

Weatherwise it is limited maybe, but I’m not a fan of hard IMC flying with a SEP anyway.

Nobody is. But what is “hard IMC flying”? For me, it is exactly that; flying IMC enroute, at cruise speed, with turbelence and that constant threat of ice.

Flying an approach or departure through a thin, low layer of stratus is not hard IFR.

@U-Genius Nice comparison. Some comments:

• FAA IR and night: AFAIK, US PPL gives you night privileges by default. You can get a certificate without them IIRC, but I have no idea how IR works then.
• EASA IR and night: Night is always optional (well, there was (is?) some dodgy wording in FCL.610; I know I saw a fix for it but I’m not sure if it’s in force or whether it was just in some NPA). That goes for E-IR too. If you have a night rating, you can fly IFR at night. If you don’t, you can’t.
• EASA IR and hours: Just like the FAA, EASA requires at least 10 hours out of those 50 hours XC to be on aeroplanes.
• HPA: No IR contains full HPA. To get HPA, you either need full ATPL theory or take HPA theory separately. The difference is that the traditional IR contains a portion of HPA theory which you’re supposed to be credited for (that’s what makes CB-IR/ E-IR theory shorter AIUI).
• FAA and ELP + R/T: FAA doesn’t require English Language Proficiency within the US, but you need it for flight outside the US AFAIK (it’s an ICAO requirement). The same goes for the R/T licence. I don’t think FCC makes a difference between IFR and VFR and why would they when you don’t even have to take a test. You still have to pay for it. This is bit of a joke.
• EASA and simulator time: For the traditional IR, it’s up to 35 hours in an FFS or FNPT II (of which up to 10 can be in FNPT I) or up to 20 hours in an FNPT I. For the CB-IR, up to 5 hours of the 25 can be in an FNPT I (and the 25 is in an FFS or FNPT II; the rest you have in there).
• There are distance courses for the traditional IR theory. The same goes for the ATPL theory. Law requires at least 10 % of the hours to be in a classroom, the rest can be done at home. You can also combine traditional IR/ ATPL theory and CB-IR flight training (which gives you 40 hours of flight training instead of 40+10). Don’t forget that those extra 10 hours of training are the Basic Instrument Flight Module which is also part of the CPL flight training (you only do it once, obviously).
• Looking at the calculation, how did you split simulator time and flight training for the EASA IR?

boscomantico wrote:

Weatherwise it is limited maybe, but I’m not a fan of hard IMC flying with a SEP anyway.

Nobody is. But what is “hard IMC flying”? For me, it is exactly that; flying IMC enroute, at cruise speed, with turbelence and that constant threat of ice.
Flying an approach or departure through a thin, low layer of stratus is not hard IFR.

I guess that would be any weather that does not allow for a landing under proper VMC when the engine quits.

Emir wrote:

EIR looks completely useless to me.

It allows you to take advantage of flying under IFR. That doesn’t necessarily mean flying in IMC, but taking full advantage of the services ATC units provide. I also consider approaches to be more important, but I see some value in it.

Cobalt wrote:

So the theory course for your first HPA aircraft will cover slightly more if you went the CB-IR route instead of the eASA-IR route.

HPA should be a prerequisite. Your training provider might combine it for you if you need it. And it’s not just for types with type rating, you need HPA even for some class ratings – like for a TBM or a Meridian.

Peter wrote:

Interesting also that the EIR is no use where there is no [useful] night VFR. Nobody has thought of that before!

Well, if the airports are not open at night, no IR will help you. Or how do they prohibit night VFR? How often do you fly at night?

Peter wrote:

That’s unless you have a TB20 or similar with a ferry tank so you can do the enroute during legal night but the two ends during legal day

Or simply choose one end of the flight so it’s somewhere where this isn’t a problem.

Martin wrote:

[EIR] allows you to take advantage of flying under IFR. That doesn’t necessarily mean flying in IMC, but taking full advantage of the services ATC units provide.

So the usefulness depends very much on the airspace structure and ATC attitude. I can imagine that it is useful in countries with lots of class A or “defacto” class A. I see very little use for it in Scandinavia — except as a stepping stone to a full IR.

Peter wrote:

The more usual method is to descend out over the sea

There’s no sea in Bosnian mountains

Airborne_Again wrote:

except as a stepping stone to a full IR

Since the exams are the same, I don’t really see EIR as a stepping stone if it’s not useful to you. CB-IR allows you to get 30 hours of instruction independently. EIR would allow you to fly by yourself but only instrument flight time counts for CB-IR, not IFR. This provision is useful if you have quite a bit of experience and can pull some hours together (up to 15), it’s not that useful for shaving costs (you would have to intentionally fly in IMC to quickly rack up the hours). Otherwise, it would be more cost-effective to just pay an instructor.

Even when it’s very easy to fly VFR in your area, I see some value for longer distances, visiting other countries, not necessarily neighboring yours.

Does anyone know who is driving the B-IR?

Historically, GA organisations involved with this sort of stuff didn’t want a separate “private IR” because it could lead to discrimination on the basis of airspace, airspace classes, airports, etc. Especially if the said IR is sub-ICAO.

Hence the CB-IR is a full ICAO IR when you finally get it. It is just the process of getting there which has changed, and even that is ICAO compliant in the total number of hours etc. Actually I vaguely recall ICAO requires some quite small number of hours of mandatory dual training for an IR (10?).

So what has brought about this change?

Peter wrote:

Does anyone know who is driving the B-IR?

I can only speak as an outsider, but apparently EASA and GA community, whoever that exactly is, from what I remember reading. The community identified easier IR as something that would improve safety and EASA agreed pursuing it under their safety strategy. This is how they plan on delivering it.

ICAO requires at least 10 hours of instrument flight time (dual). But you need 40 hours of instrument time. Meaning, if you do only 10 hours of instrument flight time, you need the remaining 30 hours as instrument ground time (and that is only possible with the use of a simulator, otherwise you’re limited to 20 hours of instrument ground time). All 40 hours have to be under the supervision of an instructor. At least as much says the copy of Annex 1 I have here.

How exactly would you limit airspace access? Even the EIR isn’t limited in this regard. You obviously can’t do approaches and departures, it says it on the tin, and it’s not ICAO compliant so it’s useless outside EASA-land (well, airspace). It’s too early to debate this since it’s still just a concept. But part of that concept is a conversion path to ICAO compliant IR. And the CB route is, I think, even as it is now quite usable for this.

PS: Easier IR isn’t really the goal here, it’s to increase uptake, penetration. So the concept touches other aspects of IFR flying than just introducing yet another rating. Things that would make European IFR less odd, let’s say, less geared towards professionals and more agreeable for private pilots. As I wrote before, I consider this even more important than another rating.