Charlie wrote:
The BIR is no more than a very basic IR but now we will now have a load of people with zero experience flying around Class A TMZs with Saturday-style RT.
The UK is the only country in Europe who thinks that “airways” and major TMAs are magical and need class A protection from the populace.
And Italy 
Actually Italy has a lot more Class A which contains no traffic.
FWIW, I think the Class A is a necessary political quid pro quo for the existence of the IMCR which has been a brilliant safety enhancement since 1969 and which nobody else in Europe has. The IMCR is limited to Class D-G and that “keeps amateurs out of the professional pilots’ airspace”
If all UK CAS was Class D then the IMCR would have to be terminated immediately, or somehow redefined to exclude these airspaces.
In life, you can’t have it all…
The BIR it doing its best to straddle the two competing camps. It is an impossible political challenge to allow “private GA” into “airline airspace”. The key to achieving some progress is an appreciation among the regulators that private GA will never be big in Europe so the “airways filling up with weekend pilots in Cessna 150s” will never happen even if the IR came for free in a cereal packet. But that is also an admission that any new IR will never achieve very much.
Peter wrote:
In an ideal world, yes, especially for night flying which on a proper night is 100% instrument flight. I reckon that if flying was invented today, there would be a “normal PPL” and an “aerobatics PPL”, and the normal PPL would allow what we today call VFR+IFR. Aircraft equipment would be developed accordingly, and autoflight would be an integral part of the way they are operated.
Well said Peter, a good description of what aviation today would look like if the past didn’t hold us back as much as it does.
I think the BIR is definitely am improvement over the current situation.
I don’t think raising the bar for obtaining a PPL would do any good for aviation. Already, cost does play a role (albeit a limited one) and I know plenty happy and safe pilots who no not need and do not went to train for an IR rating, no mater how easy you make it. Plenty of them are very happy with their occasional bimble around the neighborhood in a C172 with their mates and others want nothing but fly their Stampe in good weather from time to time.
No, making the IR mandatory would exclude a LOT of aviators and effectively kill off GA. Of all the pilots I have trained in the past 6 years, only The modular licensing system is very good: You have common basic requirements, and on top of that you can develop according to your desire or goals.
The BIR already allows for a seamless transition to a PPL/IR and if you gained some experience, you can lower your limits. Just as almost any IR pilot claims, would be a sensible thing to do in the first place (don’t overestimate your abilities, even if you’re licensed to do stuff).
Our aeroclub has 87 active aeroplane pilots (not counting the gliderpilots here). Some fly private aircraft, some are pure club renters. About a year ago, I have made an extensive survey on the interest in IR flying (we were thinking of expanding the clubs ATO and getting an IFR-capable clubplane), accounting for their aims in aviation and their necessities. Only 22 pilots would consider training for the IR. 2 already have an IR, two are training towards an ATPL, so the IR is mandatory, there are an additional 9 pilots who did not show interest in an IR, but whose flying would suggest an IR. For the rest, 52 pilots, training towards an IR rating would be money down the drain. If it were mandatory, I guess a good bunch of them wouldn’t consider flying, if the bar was even higher than it is now with the PPL. 90% of the IR interested / potential pilots do own or co-own an aircraft, or said they will consider in future. Some pilots are safe with what they are doing, but would saturate in instrument flying.
MH; I agree with you, which is why I said “if aviation was invented today”. It would be totally no good to make a “ppl/ir” as the entry level, within today’s aviation structures.
However I would suggest that a survey in an aeroclub is of less value than might appear, for the reasons here. Basically you are dealing with a population sample which is already largely pre-selected for a lack of interest in progressing. And the management which supports that. I think that in an entirely different flying environment we would have a much bigger take-up. Look at the US… between 20% and 40% of PPLs there have (or have held) an IR.
Well, I disagree with what aviation would look like. Even aviation, recraftted on a white paper would be basically the same: Have a mandatory basic skill set and develop it from there, according to the necessities.
I mean: What do you expect from “would aviation be invented today”. You don’t think we’d had avionics before we’d had a plane, would you?
And for the club study: It shows just, what it is: a good bunch of pilots are doing just fine with their VFR flying and do not intend to fly more. Not all of these people are old pilots, quite a big chunk of young folks do not have any interst in travelling by GA. They want to be in the air, that’s all. Some of them just have a PPL for lifting skydivers, some for towing. Some “new” pilots fulfil their dream of flying after a life of work. They are happy to safely operate a C172 and are totally content with it.
My point is, that in these discussions, many forumists are too quick to toss these pilots out of a regulatory discussion. Although they are a vital part of the GA backbone. They help maintaining airfields and aircraft, sponsor youth flying, vitalise an aeroclub. No “white paper aeronautics” could do without harvesting the pure fascination of flying itself on a very, very basic level.
mh wrote:
And for the club study: It shows just, what it is: a good bunch of pilots are doing just fine with their VFR flying and do not intend to fly more. Not all of these people are old pilots, quite a big chunk of young folks do not have any interst in travelling by GA. They want to be in the air, that’s all. Some of them just have a PPL for lifting skydivers, some for towing. Some “new” pilots fulfil their dream of flying after a life of work. They are happy to safely operate a C172 and are totally content with it.My point is, that in these discussions, many forumists are too quick to toss these pilots out of a regulatory discussion. Although they are a vital part of the GA backbone. They help maintaining airfields and aircraft, sponsor youth flying, vitalise an aeroclub. No “white paper aeronautics” could do without harvesting the pure fascination of flying itself on a very, very basic level.
Hear, hear! (Sorry for the oneliner….)
From all of the above there is a simple conclusion:
So is there any chance to provide comments / lobby on that point only?
Cobalt wrote:
So is there any chance to provide comments / lobby on that point only?
It was already mentioned in the NPA 2016-14 that was open for comment from 11/2016 to 02/2017.
Cobalt wrote:
From all of the above there is a simple conclusion:The BIR is a huge step forward towards an easier to achieve, “basic” instrument qualification
The difference to the “full” IR is only the higher minima
The drafters didn’t get these higher minima quite right, making them unnecessarily restrictive in some situations
Nicely put. I would prefer “may not have got these higher minima quite right”.
So is there any chance to provide comments / lobby on that point only?
I can make no promises on results, but feedback might find its way to the relevant people. It would need to be based on specific examples, of which ENVA is one. Examples from other member states would be welcome. In the UK, for example, which is the only state in which a “light instrument qualification” has a track record, I can find few cases of a (lowest) circling MDH above 600 ft. EGBJ springs to mind — 729 ft.
