The IR in Europe is used more as a “no hassle airspace access tool” than a “can fly in IMC tool”. In fact one uses it mostly to reach VMC on top.
A lot of IFR is done illegally (and undetectably) but much of Europe has airspace+ATC where you cannot go as VFR, so you would have to outright-lie on the flight plan. An IR legalises this, so while you are flying exactly the same routes, you are legit 
In the US, you need the IR for this purpose only above 18000ft.
What impact the above has on the IR takeup here, is interesting. It certainly isn’t advertised that way.
Peter wrote:
The IR in Europe is used more as a “no hassle airspace access tool” than a “can fly in IMC tool”. In fact one uses it mostly to reach VMC on top.
Given our airspace structures that is quite true. It is also my main motivation apart from doing the odd cloud break and low stratus escapes.
dutch_flyer wrote:
3) the lack of a standard way to air file an IFR flight plan.
… so perhaps it’s simply a case of “ask and you shall receive”.
Fully in line with my experience!
I have the impression that the actual challenge with air filing is much smaller than the perceived one as the “public” perception is driven by very few cases of pilots very loudly complaining – and at least some of those cases involved pilots who consciously wanted to bypass (slot-, etc.) requirements and thought they are clever by commencing the flight without a Flightplan and then trying to airfile – and becoming even more mad on ATC as they called their bluff.
jfw wrote:
So I should contact you if I want to upgrade my EIR to CBIR
I will keep this in mind…
👍
3) the lack of a standard way to air file an IFR flight plan.
It depends on airspace, country and sectors? in theory, you can have an AFIL (“pop-up IFR in SERA land”) but it’s not as per ATC/ATM playbooks (just like IFR in Golf )
There is zero issues for one ATC guy to give you DCT to IAF+IAP or DCT to some VOR under IFR otherwise it needs lot of ATC effort in terms of coordinations (there is no route validation and you are likely to mess up on exit), it’s not to dodge slots or get route directs but it works better for weather encounters that require airspace access or landing…
The difficulty of “popup IFR clearances” is one of many issues with IFR in Europe, but it was destined to never really work properly, because we have the rigid Eurocontrol system (why that is there, and why so rigid and soooo complicated, is another debate; the US doesn’t have it so obviously it isn’t necessary), and popup IFR can be used to break that. Similarly “air filing” will never work; somebody (the EU?) legislated for it but the “system” doesn’t want it, so it will never be supported. A large % of routing issues are caused by ATC staff shortage (often a shorthand for industrial action) which you can get around with this method so it is not in the interest of the “system” to make that easy.
But I think there are much bigger reasons for the extremely low IR takeup in Europe.
Peter wrote:
But I think there are much bigger reasons for the extremely low IR takeup in Europe.
Fully agree. My top 3 reasons are:
- Less need for mid distance air travel due to various reasons like different structure of the economy (we are no United States of Europe but independent nations with different languages, etc.), better railway system, higher speed limits on highways, etc.
- Very different structure of flight training driven by completely different rules for professional pilots: We neither have the time building ATPL candidate as flight instructor nor the 20.000hr ex military pilot. Significant share of PPL training in many European countries is done in flight clubs by FIs that do not have an IR themselves.
- Worse airport infrastructure then e.g. in US with less available instrument approaches that reduces the utility of IR (partly as function of population density, partly as consequence from point 1).
That’s all true – utility value is less – but the barriers start with the FTO/ATO system. In the US, you can
Then if you want some paid work:
Compare that with the running around we get here in Europe. European job protection / elitism politics ensured that very little will change. The IR remains the hallmark of a “professional pilot” and retains that heavy emotional attachment. In the US, it is the ATP, and the stuff below that is nothing really special. I have the CPL/IR… nothing special
Europe has no ATP. What you actually study for is a CPL/IR, and then you are awarded an ATPL when you have sat for 500hrs RHS in a multi pilot aircraft. So the ATP has been de-based in Europe to nothing of value. In turn, the training system calls it “frozen ATPL” to make the clients feel they are getting something big for their 100k. So the IR carries the whole emotional loading.
My original prediction is that the CBIR will make little or no difference. Well, it has made a “little” improvement. The biggest step forward is the ICAO IR to Euro IR conversion route, but hilariously that is usable only by those who went the above FAA route beforehand
Following @johnh comment re number of instrument approach airfields in his area, I just did an top of the head calculation for the number of fields with at least one IAP within a 30 to 45 minute flying time in a DA40D, cruise speed 115kts at 70% power, of LFFK.
It is somewhere between 9 and 11, I consider Nantes and St Nazaire possibly on the border line of the 45min range.
Since the removal of some NDBs most are now RNP only, and I think there are 3 ILS, but I would need to double check that.
The highest landing fee (leaving out Nantes LFRS which is AIUI more expensive if you do not go through the club there) is around €16, although some charge more for use of the lights.
1 LFFK the IAP is restricted to based aircraft or PPR with the mayors office.
So really lack of facilities is no drag on the CBIR in this area. Neither is lack of instructors, now. It was up to a couple of years ago. The good ATOs are extremely busy, so are happy for the private pilot to just do the 10 hours necessary with them and many have links with both clubs and Mermoz. The biggest drawback is, as I mentioned before, lack of capable aircraft. And much of that is because IFR nowadays, really needs modern GNSS and other avionics, plus an A/P is very useful. To put such equipment in most club aircraft (which have normally only been equipped for day and night VFR) is extremely expensive if it can be done at all.
Most of this expense is down to STCs or lack of. And the fact that certified IFR equipment seems to carry a price premium. We have just had a G5 fitted in place of our old dodgy direction finder in the club’s DA40D at a total cost of €3850.
The other problem, I see for IR in Europe is that the class 2 medical. Many private pilots don’t get round to doing the CBIR either because of time or money until later in life eg 50+. Its a time when the class2 medical becomes an annual thing and a time when the odd problem, especially heart related crops up. Most specialists have moved with the times and recognise the fact that many medical problems are curable these days and are monitored by specialists when and if required. The problem is IMO the medical departments at the NAAs for the most part have not moved with the times and give the impression that they know more than the specialists. Hence, following an operation a pilot might be restricted for 2 years to having a safety pilot (just one eg I know of) or having invasive scans far more frequently than a specialist would recommend (again I have an eg). With such restrictions plus lack of suitable aircraft it does not surprise me that some drop the IR and take to the self medical declaration ULM or even drop out of flying altogether.
