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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The issue is with the EIR.
Who thinks it is a good idea to get into IMC without a rating that lets you do an instrument approach ?
This is an argument I keep hearing over and over but it’s just assuming people are morons. The value of the EIR is flight planning and a way to split the training in two steps. Who said you had to be in IMC at any time when flying IFR. If I can read the METAR for my destination and alternate today, I can keep doing it with an EIR. The EIR/CBM is the only good news coming out of EASA in years.
Peter said it re extending the IMCR to Europe. Does not work politically.
There is one interesting twist to this however. We all agree that enroute IFR flying is very easy and takes but a few hours to “learn”. So if the IMCR takes 15 hours – or, let’s say 20 hours in reality – and you add maybe 5 hours to add the enroute skills, then why the hell does it take 50 hours or more for the IR in Europe? One could say that the UK proves that 25 hours is enough to learn it all.
As always, I think it has to do with what you define as the minimum legal hours. Call it 20 and you will have most people ready for the test at say 25hours. Call it 50 and most people will need 60 hours to be ready – for the same test!
Schools will always make you do the minimum, plus about 20% on average (just because they can).
Highly hypothetical of course, but still interesting.
The UK IMCR is a tricky one.
It was always stupid of EASA to try to kill it, which was 100% totally in the name of European standardisation.
But it would not fit into the wider European picture because it is almost only the Class A ban which distinguishes the 15hr IMCR from a full 50/55hr JAA IR. But most of Europe doesn’t have Class A (at piston-GA-relevant levels) and that makes the IMCR political dynamite, undermining the IR training business. Only UK and Italy have lots of Class A.
The CB IR brings the full IR closer to the IMCR but there is still a long way to go to match the sheer accessibility of the IMCR (e.g. being able to do it at any PPL school) which makes the FAA IR so accessible in the USA. But, yeah, all this has been said a million times 
MH
I said nothing about the CBIR, that is one of EASA’ s few better ideas.
The issue is with the EIR.
Who thinks it is a good idea to get into IMC without a rating that lets you do an instrument approach ?
The UK IMCR enabled PPL’s to do instrument approaches, it’s not about stopping European pilots from doing something, it’s about getting the best for European pilots and clearly the UK IMCR is safer than the EIR.
The aim should be about getting the best ideas working……… Not getting the EASA committee to agree on a path that arrives at the lowest common denominator decisions for reasons of national pride or a not invented here attitude.
