I’m not sure I fully agree that the training happens only at ATO, I know some IRIs that could teach you on your plane (or on a sim and then on a plance) to the right level and then recommend an ATO for the final assesment and test.
I’m one of them ;)
Yes, a handful of people train with a freelance instructor, especially if they own a plane.
Many more however inquire at an ATO and then do the training „outside ATO“ on paper, and inside ATO concerning instructor and airplane. Hence the ATO strangulation keeps going and there isn’t a healthy scene of practical IR training developing. In turn the number of PPL IR holders is remaining low, too low!
From the perspective of competence, the system is broken on all ends. It’s ineffective, inefficient, ridiculously expensive and facilitates the reduction of any personal flying down to a hobby (as @MalibuFlyer mentioned).
It goes on to actual flying as well. There are no low level IR routes, many countries have restrictions for airways such as „FL195 or above“ etc… as if it weren’t possible to facilitate low level IFR routings (almost no traffic between 5-12000 ft anyway).
There is no lobby in Europe.
Americans have a different take on this. They do not even think about providing justification for something they simply like to do. „I like to fly IFR“ is all it takes and then levers are moved to provide for it.
In Europe, we moan a little and then stick our heads into some terrible computer program, memorizing 5000+ questions. How many of our bureaucrats have ever done an actual IFR flight around Europe?
Malibuflyer wrote:
Utility is lower as we have a much better rail and road system than most other parts of the world. And our Airfield density is lower. Therefore the cases where GA is really the most efficient means of transportation are much narrower.
I totally disagree with this TBH. In the US the road network, cheap fuel prices, and extensive airline network make GA mostly practical for longish flights to rural areas with less access to CAT. Mostly the math doesn’t work, and we do it because we want to. It gets better with faster airplanes for sure. What is a big difference is the availability of IAPs at more fields in the US.
On the other hand, my experience is driving or taking a train in Europe takes much longer to cover similar distances, and that GA is a fast and convenient way to travel. I can fly to southern Germany in a third of the time it takes to drive and a quarter of the time it takes on a train. This makes day or weekend trips reasonable that otherwise would not be. Add in all the water in northern Europe and the utility of GA gets even better.
Specifically to the IR in Europe, I find having an IR in northern Europe is very often the difference between flying or not—or at the very least flying safely vs scud running. And a third of NL sits under a low class A, pushing all VFR traffic into a very narrow altitude window (which is also often a turbulent place to be).
Snoopy wrote:
I’m one of them ;)
I know! :))
Snoopy wrote:
It goes on to actual flying as well. There are no low level IR routes, many countries have restrictions for airways such as „FL195 or above“ etc… as if it weren’t possible to facilitate low level IFR routings (almost no traffic between 5-12000 ft anyway).
That is true. As a person that still flies a flight sim from time to time I’ve discovered some many and so weird limitations… Like for SEPs – why can’t you cross the channel between Dover and Calais if you go to Western France? Why you cannot file directs there anymore?
Snoopy wrote:
How many of our bureaucrats have ever done an actual IFR flight around Europe?
You know what, how many of those been successful in finding a route in Europe between A and B that is not truly ridiculous?
Snoopy wrote:
stick our heads into some terrible computer program, memorizing 5000+ questions.
Bz! Wrong answer! :) It is only 4300!
Snoopy wrote:
ATOs naturally aren’t very fond of the „outside ATO“ part, and while most now offer it, all the flying is done at the ATO, but only on paper officially the 30 hours are done „outside ATO“. This is facilitated by telling interested candidates that „only coming for 10 hours“ isn’t appreciated and unless they have been trained up to the ATO‘s „high standards“ they will need much more than 10 hours at the ATO to finish.
It goes further than that often. Some ATOs flatly reject people who have not done the theory with them (e.g. with another distance learning course) or will charge massive amounts to apply for the exam for them. Most ATO’s really do not like the idea that the cash cow IR has become easier and I expect that some won’t offer BIR at all or if so will try to figure out ways to milk applicants for similar amounts as the CBIR or normal IR takes.
So i fully agree, for the BIR or CBIR to really attract more people it would be really useful to do as @Snoopy wrote:
- the ATO requirement needs to be done away with
- no requirement for any theory course
- theory exams reduced to what is really necessary for flying IFR instead of knowing the orbital trajectory of individual GNSS satellites or the limitations of a Boeing FMS
- a sign off from an instructor for theory and practical exam should be all that’s necessary
which I understand is basically what the FAA IR entrails.
The other thing is that still IFR is limited often to large commercial airports and therefore is of no use to GA pilots who need it to get in and out of their homebase, which does not have IFR. The same goes for many destinations which don’t have IFR approaches or those who do are commercial hubs with PPR, Slots, Parking restrictions and expensive handling. This imho makes IR for many people of much less use than it could be.
I used to have the IR and CPL, had all the theory but now need to redo it from scratch, as other than licenses, the IR expires totally after 7 years. So I am looking at the BIR simply for the fact that I need to minimize theory in order to have a chance to actually find the time to learn it. Something like the 10 day intensive course in the US (even though I think you need to do a theory exam there as well?) would be really interesting for this purpose, even though my main concern is the theory, not the actual flying, as I won’t have to do the prescribed hours if I am ready for the check earlier, or at least so I was told.
Just to pick up one small point: I was fairly close to the “private IR” movement for some years (starting with being involved in the “Save the IMCR” campaign when EASA was going to kill it) and while European GA organisations mostly – at best – ignore each other or – at worst – hate each other, the one common thread was that any “private IR” should be a full ICAO IR otherwise there is a real risk of airline pilot unions, ATC unions, airspace owners, and even airports, pushing to exclude these “substandard IR” holders.
The price of adopting that position has been accordingly high – as we can see. Not much change from the old JAA IR. But maybe not as high as trying to adopt a usable “IMCR”-type alternative which is accepted across Europe. We already knew from early attempts to push the IMCR across Europe, that it would never be accepted, not least because in most of Europe it would be a full IR in most respects.
Also one cannot expect ATC to handle a “reduced IR” differently. In the UK, many years ago, some IMCR holders got into trouble when vectored into Class A and having to refuse. The UK ATC system has addressed this by treating “IMCR IR” flights as VFR and with no clearance 
While I completely agree that the process of obtaining the IR is unnecessarily complex in Europe mostly as a result of the theory and to a lesser extent the requirement to work with an ATO, actually flying IFR (outside the UK I guess) is not much different from the US with a few notable exceptions: 1) the lower availability of approaches; 2) the use of autorouter to negotiate an acceptable flight plan; 3) the lack of a standard way to air file an IFR flight plan.
In practice I find the above three limitations almost never impede my ability to complete a flight, because as an IFR pilot I have chosen a home base with IAPs, and when planning a flight that’s important to complete I make sure to either plan to a field with IAPs or have an alternate with them. I have never had an issue finding a suitable route, even if it takes a bit of finagling, and I’ve always been able to negotiate something more reasonable in the air if the filed route isn’t so reasonable.
Air filing is normally used on a cross country where the weather deteriorates below VFR and you want to continue. My practice even in the US is to always file IFR for a cross country trip unless it’s “severe clear”, so I don’t really need the air filing ability. But I have requested it a few times in Europe, and ATC was happy to comply, so perhaps it’s simply a case of “ask and you shall receive”.
In my in class IR time at Mermoz, about 2015 there were 15 students. A few less than were on my full IR course some years earlier.
I still keep in touch with most. 13 of the 15 went on to get the CBIR. 7 went on to get the CPL and are now either flying parachute jumping aircraft or are instructors etc.
In my earlier full IR course the majority went on to do the ATPL .
Of the 6 others that did the CBIR most being in the older age group, 3 of us still fly IFR , 1 decided that the ownership of a certified aircraft was too expensive and bought a ULM , Alpi Pioneer and is very happy and 1 stopped flying altogether following a medical problem, which although fully recovered couldn’t be bothered to start flying again. The other has stopped due to the lack of IFR aircraft available in his area to rent. 2 out of the 3 of us who are still flying IFR are also seriously considering changing horses due to lack of available aircraft which we want to fly, locally and at present neither of us are enthused by the IFR equipped aircraft that are currently on sale.
I haven’t done any of this yet, but it’s on the list of things to do. Hopefully with BASA it will be simpler. I did my FAA IR straight after my PPL because it was the obvious thing to do. I’m glad I did, and I kept it current until I left the US, but in all honesty I didn’t use it much. Serious IMC in California invariably means ice for most of the year, at the altitudes you need to fly. So it’s handy for escaping the cloud layer in the morning, but that’s about it.
It’s only reluctance to give up on anything that really makes me want to persevere here. I’m totally out of currency now and will need an IPC to get back, which means finding an FAA CFII – or maybe waiting until I go back to the US. Finding approaches to practise here is a big problem – at Palo Alto I had dozens within 30 minutes flying time. Here, apart from LFMN (Nice), which isn’t accessible to small planes, the nearest ILS is Marseille. My airport, Cannes LFMD, has an RNAV, but with minimums of 2000 feet it’s pretty useless.
Ice is as much of a problem here as anywhere else. I have to go to Basel next week. It would have been nice to fly myself, but even if my IR was current I can’t count on ice-free conditions in March. And I certainly can’t bet on VMC. So Easyjet it is.
So not really sure what use an IR is here. Shame, because my plane is a perfect IFR cruiser.
The lack of available IFR aircraft IS a big problem in Europe and what caused me to take on a major refurb project instead of being able to find the aircraft I wanted already properly fitted. This is much less of an issue in the US.
I guess I am an outlier in being based at a field with IAPs, but for me VFR-only is a nonstarter.
johnh wrote:
My airport, Cannes LFMD, has an RNAV, but with minimums of 2000 feet it’s pretty useless.
I did one IR re-validation in Cannes, I joked if on RNAV with flat 2kft MDH needs to be CDFA or Dive-n-Drive? and if I need to add +50 to MDA for CDFA?
johnh wrote:
It’s only reluctance to give up on anything that really makes me want to persevere here. I’m totally out of currency now and will need an IPC to get back, which means finding an FAA CFII – or maybe waiting until I go back to the US. Finding approaches to practise here is a big problem – at Palo Alto I had dozens within 30 minutes flying time. Here, apart from LFMN (Nice), which isn’t accessible to small planes, the nearest ILS is Marseille. My airport, Cannes LFMD, has an RNAV, but with minimums of 2000 feet it’s pretty useless.
Have you tried Corsica? honestly if you struggle to keep and convert an FAA IR in Cannes you will have tough time anywhere else in Europe 
PS: obviously, it’s nice weather flying in that corner, I had some weather stats for French airports, in Cannes & Marseille, you can fly 95% of METAR on PPL in Cannes, 98% on BIR, 99.5% on IR…IMC does not exist
