Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA Basic Regulation conference

Kerwin

I wish I had your confidence that if I launched on a a flight using the privalges of an EIR I could garentee not to go into cloud or my destination would allow a VFR decent. The dispatch reliability would be so near zero I don’t thing I would get past the Isle of Wight.

The only thing I know for sure about flying is that it is unpredictable, from overhead Paris one night Gatwick was giving the forecast CAVOK, 25 min later it had FEWat 200ft…….. The trouble is all the FEW located themselfs on the 08 threshold 10 min later the RVR was 300 M ( it was then at 100ft the autopilot quit ) resulting in us having to run to a well known airport in Essex.

Any one who uses the EIR is sticking their neck on the block, at least the IMCR pilot can shoot an approach when the weather fails to conform to the wishes of the weather forecasters.

I wish I had your confidence that if I launched on a a flight using the privalges of an EIR I could garentee not to go into cloud or my destination would allow a VFR decent.

You can say the same about VFR privileges. How many VFR pilots have been caught in IMC? You would not argue that they should have an IR, would you? What about VFR on top?

EIR is pretty much as VFR except that you can go through a layer and get on top – or stay inside – and then break out again.

LFPT, LFPN

Aviathor.

A VFR pilot knows the name of the game, he stays VFR, if the weather gets bad he just turns around, the EIR is setting the pilot up for problems.

The UK IMCR trained the pilot to fly instrument aproaches, the the lack accident statistics seems to prove that IMCR was a good move on the part of the UK authorities especially considering the fast changing maritime weather the UK has.

So why did Europe so vigously oppose EASA taking up the UK IMCR ? My veiw is this was entirely political, part not invented here, part committee lowest common denominator think, part airspace allocation, part European love of big government and state control and a bit of training industry pressure.

The only thing that did not seem to have much influence on the situation was flight safety but that is no suprize as EASA has little interest in any subject apart from flooding this industry with lots of pointless paperwork.

It has finally become clear to EASA that there stance on most issues is indefensible because almost all of the regulation of GA that it has introduced is not prepotonate to risk, the CBIR is a welcome change in this attitude probably driven not driven by flight safety issues but by the slow realisation that if the minions of EASA continue to over regulate they will regulate GA out of business………. And find themselfs out of a Job.

Last Edited by A_and_C at 30 Jan 09:15

A and C,

your insistence that the EIR is a bad idea won’t make this more true.

With the European airspace system the EIR opens up a LOT of airspace to people who before either had to scud run below huge blocks of airspace or simply decided not to fly in these areas at all. Primarily these are the “A” Airspaces in Italy (and possibly the UK) and the mazes of airspace mess in France, Belgium and some other places, where VFR is a total bore to plan. It stops guessworking and will reduce the risk of airspace infringements massively.

It will allow a holder to join IFR if he is on a VFR trip but finds weather conditions on the enroute segment to deteriorate. A way better variant of doing things than what happens a lot: Either scud running below or illegally enter IMC and hope for the best. These two things have killed lots of people in the past. Better join IFR and fly under ATC control through a patch of IMC or be guided out of IMC so the flight can be concluded in VMC safely.

The EIR is a great stepping stone for people who wish to do their training in steps, as well as a very powerful rating for those planning to travel from non-ifr to non-ifr airports.

The concern expressed that it will lead to people trapping themselfs in IMC near their destination needs to be addressed by training and by clear planning limits. In the end, it is not much different to full IFR, where you have your minimas that need to be observed, they are just higher. Instead of IR approach limits, you need VMC before and after the IFR portion of your flight. So what is the big deal?

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 30 Jan 10:09
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

There is another angle to the EIR.

A lot of people assume flying under IFR is flying in IMC.

This is not the case, many IFR trips are done in lovely weather, and the EIR opens up all sorts of options of taking the easy IFR routing.

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

A VFR pilot knows the name of the game, he stays VFR, if the weather gets bad he just turns around, the EIR is setting the pilot up for problems.

I don’t buy that. That is giving future EIR pilot’s too little credit. I have seen plenty of VFR only pilot’s launch into very marginal conditions. I have even seen IR pilots launch in VFR into IMC and auger in.

The concern expressed that it will lead to people trapping themselfs in IMC near their destination

I understand your concern but that is valid also for VFR pilots. The risk that a EIR pilot gets trapped is no greater than that of a VFR pilot getting trapped. It is about flight planning and risk avoidance.

Last Edited by Aviathor at 30 Jan 15:56
LFPT, LFPN
56 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top