@AfricanEagle that is an impressive beating of the bounds!
172driver wrote:
One thing I have noticed in this forum is the tendency to claim that you need an IR to do meaningful x-country trips. This is nonsense. I have done long multi-day x-country trips on four continents VFR and am here to tell the tale. Sure, it’s easier to go IFR and you need a bit more flexibility if you’re VFR only, but it’s perfectly doable and enjoyable.
I agree, I have similar impression, from my experience no issues going more than +1000nm VFR all one needs is extra care in planning, flexibility vis-as-vis weather
I fly N-reg but I don’t have an FAA IR (hoping to get an FAA CPL/IR one day while on visit to the USA), so most of my long distance trips were VFR (in the other hand, I have UK IMC rating and French IR, so in theory, I can keep wing level more than 2min in IMC, maybe takeoff/land in SVFR while cruising near VMC minima)
In the other hand, the most interesting trip reports in EuroGA happens to be in good VMC and can be flown both VFR & IFR, there is not much to see in IMC 
My view, IFR on long legs is mostly about getting smooth airspace access, less Notams junk to read (and for some having ATC to help in keeping wing level, watch for them, watch for traffic, give them vectors, etc…), while VFR on long legs is mostly about landing in various places, nice views but it’s a lot of hassle in planning and require steep learning curve to get some “local knowledge”
Others may chime in to talk about the extra IR benefit to get regular 600nm IFR trips in SEP with AP down to ILS200, 1000m RVR with tops at FL250 and OVC002 bellow but I don’t see many vacation trips reports like this, even when taking family in A320s besides, it’s hard to find those conditions and sort their logistics even when trying to do it locally for fun & training
However, this claim is closer to the truth “you need an IR to do the same long x-country trip many times”
For me, the reasons for doing the IR (which IS a lot of stuff and a lot of time involved) is, first, fun and curiosity in that way of flying and its possibilities. Second is to be able to just file a flight plan, sit up in front and arrive at a destination, having all the way from the beginning someone who will tell me what to consider and take care of. Assisted flying 
Say, to fly after a working day and not having to study weather charts in any particular detail (at least what I am hoping for). Third is, that I have some destinations which I’d like to arrive or leave and which are prone to overcast low-level clouds every now and then, but with perfect ILS approaches.
But yes, most of it could be done VFR.
Yes; one can do long VFR flights in Europe. I went as far as Crete, all VFR.
The differences are mainly
)A reasonably high performance (especially ceiling) plane is very useful. Not just to safely cross the Alps but to fly in a manner which presents ATC with a continuous “fait accompli”: it is much easier to deny a CAS transit to traffic flying at 2000ft than to traffic at FL100 (and which is quite possibly already in CAS from the previous unit ). A great part of “easy flying” is to set up the flight so that each part of it is a fait accompli for ATC, so they don’t have to tear their hair out. With IFR, this happens naturally; with VFR you need to think a bit about how to do it.
The best trip reports will always be from a flight in VMC
I have an IR and have (well, had…) a nice IFR tourer. But I did very little IFR flying in the US because in California the combination of IMC and high enough freezing levels is fairly rare. I imagine in Europe that’s even more true.
UdoR wrote:
Anyhow, it might be added that if VFR flights shall be “used” in a reasonable manner to fly to destinations that you need a lot of experience starting with short flights and keep extending.
Even that I think is not really the case and does not correspond with my experience. I have started doing long VFR trips with rented aircraft quickly after getting the PPL (probably encouraged by EuroGA and to prove people wrong who say you need to own an aircraft and fly IFR for serious touring ) – covering areas from Sweden to Morocco – and have continued to do so for almost a decade without feeling the absolute need to change that setup (well I did become an owner eventually, but for other reasons). The tale that you need loads of experience when e.g. flying into another country VFR is just not true. The plane doesn’t care and the little differences in regulations across countries a) hardly matter in real life and b) certainly need to be researched during planning, but that isn’t a big deal at all IMHO.
UdoR wrote:
But without that experience you can easily file a flightplan in FL160 or above and off you go.
What’s the correlation between flying low in the valleys or high over the top vs. VFR and IFR?
I crossed the Alps several times but always at a respectful altitude. If I were to fly down low in the valleys, I would certainly want to enjoy some education in terms of mountain flying first.
UdoR wrote:
For me, the reasons for doing the IR (which IS a lot of stuff and a lot of time involved) is, first, fun and curiosity in that way of flying and its possibilities. Second is to be able to just file a flight plan, sit up in front and arrive at a destination, having all the way from the beginning someone who will tell me what to consider and take care of. Assisted flying
Agree! Although checking the wx is still a pretty good idea, !
To be clear – I have a CPL/ME/IR (FAA) and enjoy flying airways, even if I don’t need it for wx reasons. For various reasons I got my IR rather late in my flying career, mainly due to living in Europe. My point was and is that you can do meaningful long x-country trips VFR and I certainly have done so.
Patrick wrote:
I crossed the Alps several times but always at a respectful altitude. If I were to fly down low in the valleys, I would certainly want to enjoy some education in terms of mountain flying first.
It’s not so much the mountain flying (although that of course helps) it’s more to do with learning how to navigate the low-level routes across the Alps. AFAIK this is actually part of the PPL syllabus in Austria and Switzerland (@Snoopy and @Mooney_Driver can confirm?).
It used to be part pre FCL. Usually it was one flight along a GAFOR and one flight on top. Better than nothing, but not sufficient imho.
Patrick wrote:
What’s the correlation between flying low in the valleys or high over the top vs. VFR and IFR?
It’s just that you won’t get lower flight levels flying IFR. Of course you can go up there VFR, have done so already to go over a northern accumulation of clouds..
Patrick wrote:
Even that I think is not really the case and does not correspond with my experience
Isn’t it as always said by lawyers? It depends….
There are lots of things to know, but admittedly it’s far easier nowadays to learn things via internet as it had been 20 years ago. Just to name a few: That you practically have to speak french in France, or german in Germany on many smaller airfields, that there are countries where you have to ask for a permit e.g. when flying a microlight (thus the plane does care!), rules about flight plans, that airspace structure may vary widely from one country to another. And there are traps which may come out costly, if you don’t know about them. For example the nature reserves in the alps, they are being watched and the fees have four digits if you bust one of them. And in the beginning, they had not been on VFR paper charts (don’t know the actual state, though). You see them in e.g. Skydemon.
In Germany – despite all moaning – I think it’s still quite easy to fly practically anywhere VFR if weather permits.
You won’t get in touch with these problems when flying IFR. On airways you won’t bust. So yes, it should be a lot easier.
Patrick wrote:
Even that I think is not really the case and does not correspond with my experience. I have started doing long VFR trips with rented aircraft quickly after getting the PPL (probably encouraged by EuroGA and to prove people wrong who say you need to own an aircraft and fly IFR for serious touring ) – covering areas from Sweden to Morocco – and have continued to do so for almost a decade without feeling the absolute need to change that setup (well I did become an owner eventually, but for other reasons). The tale that you need loads of experience when e.g. flying into another country VFR is just not true. The plane doesn’t care and the little differences in regulations across countries a) hardly matter in real life and b) certainly need to be researched during planning, but that isn’t a big deal at all IMHO
I had in mind that you need IR & IFR & CJ4 to fly long distance turns out the only limits long VFR x-country are money & time rather than regulation & weather & ratings, you can’t fly more than 2 weeks and more than 25h in one summer trip
On regular trips, say commute on medium trips, IR & IFR becomes important along with speed & capability, even with good sunny weather you rarely have time to do proper “VFR due diligence”, so you just look at GRAMET/Windy, TAF/METAR and NOTAMS on arrival & alternate, file and fly IFR as you have done it the last time (while in the air you may spot a change in frequencies & plates from what you know already by heart)
