We are just about to get our approval to teach E-IR and CB-IR. I think that for the UK ATOs there will be little take-up of EIR as the IR, with a similar number of ‘real’ hours training is of far more use within the UK. We already get the feeling, from enquiries and bookings, that pilots with the IR will wish to progress to the IR through the CB-IR route. It will be interesting to see whether there will be any noticeable effect on the ICAO (FAA) conversion route which has traditionally been followed as a pragmatic way to achieve an IR; will pilots choose to go IR, consolidate to minimum 30hrs IFR and then CB-IR with a 10hr ‘top up’ before test?
I think Peter is right about aircraft – there are an awful lot of club aircraft which are capable (just) for the IR environment but far fewer that could handle en-route CAS.
The FAA IR route has been popular with aircraft owners (who had to be N-reg, practically speaking, otherwise they could not leave the airspace of the country of aircraft registration – ref FAR 61.3) but not AFAIK with people who just want the “Euro” IR at the end.
One advantage of the FAA IR has been that the IMCR training was wholly allowable towards it and then if you had logged 30hrs instrument time using the IMCR, you could go for the FAA IR checkride with only “as needed for the required competence” training. The FAA IR is seriously hard work but a good IMCR holder could finish the FAA IR with maybe another 20hrs. Accordingly, that very efficient route was followed by large numbers of UK pilots. But the current website of the sole European FAA examiner now throws that one out (again practically speaking for most people) so if you want that route you need to do it in the USA.
Also, the ICAO IR to CB IR conversion route requires 50hrs IFR time as PIC and that pretty well kills that option, for most people. Not many people are going to do the FAA IR and then rent a plane and just fly up and down for 50hrs. Of course the FTO industry wanted that “50hrs as PIC” otherwise it really would get wiped out by most young ATPL cadets doing the FAA CPL/IR in Arizona and then converting over here 
And now not many new owners will be going N-reg. N-reg has serious advantages but only for hands-on owners.
there are an awful lot of club aircraft which are capable (just) for the IR environment but far fewer that could handle en-route CAS.
Yes – and I think that one also has serious implications for the “coming soon” IFR capability for UK homebuilts. I don’t think most of the owners realise it is going to be a hollow victory – due to IFR-in-CAS avionics requirements. Currently you need BRNAV and a Dynon can’t be thus approved. Someday it will be PRNAV…
I was thinking of following the EIR route as I am eager to get the IR ticket but after some considerations I decided to go for the full IR – En route IR is surely nice but it’s the departures and arrivals that cause the most pain in Western Europe due to the low ceilings etc making it a no-go when the cloud tops are just 3-4000ft away. The price is almost the same (at least in the Netherlands) so why bother?
Despite the volumes written on this topic, I have still not seen a credible (to me) explanation on how ATC will handle IFR-enroute traffic cancelling IFR before the last waypoint of the enroute section, because the traffic is not allowed to fly any part of a STAR (any part of a STAR under IFR, presumably).
In nearly all Eurocontrol-IFR cases, the cancellation of IFR will take place while still in CAS. So you get a sudden change in ATC separation requirements, for example.
Also obviously the EIR won’t work if the final enroute waypoint is in Class A, or in any airspace in which VFR is banned (e.g. VFR is banned in a large chunk of French Class D, FL120-FL195).
Had there not been the ban on SIDs/STARs, the EIR would have been a straightforward full IR but with VFR minima, which would have made much more sense. The ban on SIDs/STARs does not make sense to me because any monkey who can fly straight and level and fly headings etc can fly a SID/STAR. There is no difference between enroute and SID/STAR.
You are focussing too much on that STAR restriction. As you know, they are pure theory (like IFR flightplan routes). They are almost never flown in Europe (in the way of being “cleared XY arrival”). In practice, these people will initially get a “direct destination” or similar (something that works for ATC). I can’t imagine they will force pilots to cancel IFR before reaching the TMA (maybe it will happen at Frankfurt, but even these days, they do that with full IR pilots headed to say Egelsbach).
But I agree that nobody seems to have thought too much about how these flights will work in practice.
I think they will prob just provide vectors to this traffic in lieu of the STAR.
The CB IR market seems to be more logical than the EIR – will IFR time logged exercising privileges of the IMC, now IR, qualify for the fifty hour experience requirement?
If this is the case then the market from the UK IMC holders could be several dozen, possibly a hundred? And there could be a route of gaining the IMC/IR, followed a period of IFR practice before then proceeding to the CB IR.
I suspect the CAA examiners for initial issue will be expecting that standards are maintained – and non CPL applicants may wince at the cost of re testing.
In practice I think the typical prep for the CB IR will be more in the order of minimum 20-30 hours flight/SIM training, and the full 100 hours of logged ground study with some formal progress test and final testing by the ATO.
I think they will prob just provide vectors to this traffic in lieu of the STAR.
ATC are most reluctant to vector VFR traffic, perhaps because the traffic cannot accept a vector which takes it off-VFR.
will IFR time logged exercising privileges of the IMC, now IR, qualify for the fifty hour experience requirement?
Should do; the words are IFR time as PIC, not IFR time on an IFR enroute flight plan, etc.
Admittedly there might be some gold plating in the UK, where there have been multiple ways of logging “IFR time”.
the market from the UK IMC holders could be several dozen, possibly a hundred?
There are lots of IMCR holders in the UK – a few k I am sure. The big Q is how many have access to suitable aircraft, and the funds to fly them in a way which makes the IR worth getting. These extra factors have never changed. Even if you gave an IR to everybody who can fly a kite, the takeup would still be limited by the other factors. Well… Europe would suddenly acquire about a million IR holders but 99.99% of them would not revalidate it 
If given vectors couldn’t it remain IFR for longer or are they really not supposed to be in a terminal area IFR.
If given vectors couldn’t it remain IFR for longer or are they really not supposed to be in a terminal area IFR.
Can you expand that Jason? I don’t understand it at all.
