Revisiting this almost 5 years later, here is some data, referenced here. This is April to March for each year.
I think the rise after 2012 or so is the CB IR, which has done a bit although without any of the “FAA-type transformation” which many hoped for
That’s an interesting chart. The UK CAA only recently published these stats for the past 3 years – until recently the latest data was only up to 2016.
What I believe you have charted is the number of Instrument Ratings issued to PPLs annually in the UK. This is regardless of whether Single Engine, Multi-Engine, original 50 hour IR course, ab-initio Compentency Based IR, or conversions from existing FAA IR holders through the CB-IR route. There’s no breakdown for any of those.
The numbers are indeed low – it still takes quite a lot of training hours in a decently equipped aircraft, some self-sustained effort and exam technique to pass the theory exams (although much reduced from before), and passing the demanding initial IR skill test.
Even so, the numbers are probably still somewhat inflated from those who are purely private pilots. I know of at least one club pilot who recently took the modular CPL/IR route to the airlines and applied for his IR before his CPL licence because he didn’t know it’s normally done at the same time as the ME/IR. So with 838 CPLs issued last year, there may be a few that may also do it this way. It’s arguable whether existing FAA IRs converting to an EASA IR should be included in the total – what we’d want to track is new PPL/IRs.
A related statistic is the number of ATOs who now are approved to provide the CB-IR which has mushroomed lately. The CAA Standards Document 31 lists 24 CB-IR courses (versus 19 for the original IR) for fixed wing aeroplanes. Of those 24, 10 don’t also offer the CPL course. It takes some effort to get that approval because unlike the PPL there is no pre-approved course. I’d guess the majority of approved ATOs don’t actually complete any ab-initio CB-IR training courses. Perhaps some of the commercial ATOs use their approval for some CPL cases, but I had understood their students quite like logging the hours in the sim towards their total time so happy to do the full IR course.
I agree; hard to get good numbers. However I think the “modular effect” has always been there, so IR issues have always over-stated the “PPL IR” scene. The UK IR community has always been really small.
I think Germany has more people doing it, than the UK. France, I don’t know, but you now need ELP to do the IR so I suspect not many there, based on this and other posts.
What we really need is data on active pilots, but there isn’t much of that around. Some data is here.
FWIW, AFAIK, the CAA released the extra 3 years data only on an FOIA application. I just don’t understand why. It isn’t revealing some dramatic collapse in GA activity.
The FAA publish extensive data on crew licences – perhaps other European regulators do also, but I have not yet figured out where to look. The CAA data is quite limited and inaccurate due to various errors. For example, the number of active pilots is based only on licences with current LAPL or higher medicals, not on those with current ratings. Those flying on LAPL Licences with Personal Medical Declarations need have no interaction with the CAA until they are 70, so will be impossible to track. This may be good for those who don’t want that interaction, but I would have said the FAA Basic Med which requires a three yearly online redeclaration seems a proportionate solution.
I feel that a lot of regulatory effort goes into changing the rules but without clear knowledge of current usage/takeup and without any planned targets, and published review of the impact after a time. You wouldn’t run a business that way.
This may be good for those who don’t want that interaction, but I would have said the FAA Basic Med which requires a three yearly online redeclaration seems a proportionate solution.
The evidence from the US is that aviation medicals have zero value from the POV of pilot incapacitation statistics (because pilots who don’t feel well don’t fly – something which no regulator can emotionally accept) but the NPPL (with self dec medical) is a bit like the French UL license (which needs no medical) in that nobody knows how many pilots are actually active.
The big thing is, as I always predicted, that the CB IR has not done much to improve the private IR scene. The regulators made the route just hard enough to make sure it didn’t achieve very much. The usual political quid pro quo, to keep “amateurs” out of “professionals’ airspace”. Also the take-up of the IR in Europe is constrained by other factors e.g. airport facilities.
Worth noting too that the IR issue numbers in recent years are mostly the CB IR route (rather than the EASA IR route which has the slightly bigger exams which give you some HPA credit) and these numbers will include FAA IR holders who did the ICAO IR to CB IR conversion with a flight test only.
So the number of actual new IR holders – pilots newly capable of flying in the European IFR system – is less than shown; possibly much less, and very possibly only the ~30/year historical average in which case the CB IR has done nothing at all other than legalising FAA IR holders into the Brussels-driven regulatory requirement which itself is 100% political.
I don’t quite understand your argument. I know of 2 large ATO’s here, where there is a 6 month waiting list to start either the CBIR or the IR part which leads towards the ATPL and the also the CPL.
The clubs doing the non ATO allowed part of the CBIR also seem to be booked well in advance. The main hold ups seem to be lack of instructors and a shortage of suitable aircraft.
Much of the aircraft problem in the CBIR route could be solved by a more sensible route to equipping aircraft with modern avionics. The problem is rather like that of much IT in that it becomes obsolete in a much shorter time frame these days. Just look at the G1000. LRU’s were supposed to be the answer to easy maintenance and the future when the G1000 was introduced, but if you read both Diamond and Cirrus forums I think you’ll find a great many people now wish they had never had it.
This forum regularly points to the difficulty of installing modern IFR certified and capable avionics into the ubiquitous (in France) Robin.
I wholly agree with you about the Class2 medical, it now resembles more the Class 1 medical of 25 years ago, but I think this leads more to the overall decline in PPL starts than to the CBIR, although one could argue that without the PPL you cannot do the CBIR.
Flight schools at my home airport are seeing an increasing number of PPL students, and also IR students, over the past years, and that is both ATPL ab initio as well as GA pilots. Many of those who start with an E-IR end up doing the CB-IR.
Currently many are waiting for the final rules on B-IR as there is this lingering promise of simpler theory exams
In my part on the world there has been effectively zero CBIR take up. The local ATO that offers IR training still doesn’t over the CBIR and they have no intention of doing so. Simply because by the time they have paid for their approvals they say they need the student to do the full 55 hour course to get the money back. They also have a multi month wait to start the course again largely due lack of instructors.
The nearest place that does is a 140 mile round trip. So it’s no real surprise the take up has been so poor in my area.
A typical example of “UK can’t do attitude” I guess.
Saying that the approvals will cost them loads of money which they will never recover is probably a cheap excuse. They simply don’t want to lose any flight hours, and probably think that if students have no other choice, they will go for the full course anyway.
Of course, if every school in the UK does this, then it might even work (becomes a kind of a cartel of denial), but in reality, many people just won’t go for it. Or possibly (where feasible), go abroad.
I think it’s more a case of they can’t afford to lose any flight hours. At best they servive hand to mouth which I would say is typical for the majority of UK schools.
