Whether any of this affects why so few people go for the IR, I doubt.
It does, at least for starting in club fleet, I did hear “I need G6 Cirrus or TBM900 to fly IFR”
It does not matter for owners, you are likely to be well versed on IFR equipment, anyway you put whatever you wish in the panel, even the mighty KLN94 and fly to it to Greece 
and no one call tell you otherwise !
There is a general BRNAV requirement above FL095, which can be met only with an IFR approved GPS, or INS.
Somehow, ignoring INS & DME/DME, no one in EuroGA has one:
- UK, enroute up to date IFR GPS is mandatory above FL095 in controlled airspace
- France, enroute up to date IFR GPS is mandatory above FL120 in general delta
Bellow FL80 it’s fine to fly conventional without GPS, actually “6 pack PFD without MFD” is legal to fly off-route OCAS IFR or VFR above clouds during the day (at night one need VOR or GPS)
Peter wrote:
Whether any of this affects why so few people go for the IR, I doubt.
I think it does in an indirect way, because it’s clearly creating a misconception about the level of equipment required to operate IFR, which is why I mentioned it a bazillion posts ago. Based on my daily perusal of PlaneCheck ads, it seems both a misconception and a reality compared to the US fleet. Most of what you see for sale would require five-figure sums just to get to a basic level of IFR equipment. Some of this is due to changing standards over time (mode S, 8,33, PBN, etc) that can render an older aircraft unsuitable, but a lot of aircraft seem to have very basic instrumentation with an iPad mount for SkyDemon. When I was doing my IR in 2002, every airplane in the training fleet could fly under IFR.
Malibuflyer wrote:
but rather a limited demand/utility for the actual rating in Europe. The structure of our GA is different than in other parts of the world:
Demand is lower as e.g. we have very few SME that are operating across different markets so very few business owners that fly GA airplanes between different business locations. Also much less people with a vacation home that is 800km away from their place of living. Finally our commercial licensing system is completely different so that we have almost no GA-Pilots that do their IR on the way to finally become an airline pilot one day.
Utility is lower as we have a much better rail and road system than most other parts of the world. And our Airfield density is lower. Therefore the cases where GA is really the most efficient means of transportation are much narrower.All of this together could lead to a situation where the share of “purely recreational flying” in GA is much higher than in other places of the world. Fore pure recreational flying, however, the value of IR is much lower. If I fly for fun, I don’t want to fly in clouds and ice for 3 hours.
Malibuflyer. I have a different perspective on virtually all this.
I’ve toyed with the idea of doing the CB IR, but the decision has always come out as a no for the following reasons:
The IR(R) gives me nearly all I want. Even revalidating that can become a bit of a pain – finding an examiner and sorting out the approaches once every two years – the number of airports where they can be reliably done at a time of your choosing is decreasing. Fortunately if the IR(R) expires then it’s no big deal, you just do the same test as if you’d not expired.
Most of what you see for sale would require five-figure sums just to get to a basic level of IFR equipment.
That is the misconception, because you could install a KLN94 and a GTX330 in a C150 and it would be legal for IFR all over Europe.
The problem is that nobody is going to install a KLN94 (or a similar small GPS) Why not? Because everybody wants the eye candy! They want big screens. But that’s a different argument altogether. Well, big screens are nice to have, but you can use your Ipad (together with a printout of the whole route, in case the Ipad packs up) as the “big screen”.
Could well be that the would-be IR community needs a lot of educating.
I think a lot of people have got seduced by fancy kit, and the less you fly the more you want to spend money on fancy kit I see this all over the place. It’s like couples who no longer get on with each other tend to do big moves – buy a huge house, etc.
It’s easy to get the requirements backwards. Install lots of glass, when actually the most important thing is an autopilot which works.
Graham wrote:
The TB10 not being much good above about 8,000ft
I have a TB10 and fly IFR all over Europe. No issues whatsoever.
Buckerfan wrote:
Gaining my IR 15 years ago completely transformed flying. Suddently I could do anywhere across Europe and almost always be guaranteed to be able to take off and arrive, when and where I wanted. Flying IR is also just SO EASY compared to VFR.
100% agree with this!
Peter wrote:
The problem is that nobody is going to install a KLN94 (or a similar small GPS) Why not? Because everybody wants the eye candy!
I half agree with this, in the sense that the new toys are a very expensive way to get zero additional capability in most cases. Yes a KLN94 gets you a lot of capability if you already have a NAV/COM with ILS, but there seem to be lots of AC on the market without even that, in which case you’re looking at minimum a GNS430 plus installation cost. At that point it’s hard not to justify the extra for the “W” so you can fly more approaches, especially when the install cost is basically the same. In any case it’s easy to reach 10k quickly.
dutch_flyer wrote:
I have a TB10 and fly IFR all over Europe. No issues whatsoever.
Sure, it’s possible. But a TB10 cannot just cruise over the top of the Alps, and a relatively low operating ceiling limits one’s ability to get on top of weather. In much UK winter weather, 8,000ft puts you firmly in the clag with the associated icing.
How do you find yours at higher altitudes? I have been to the service ceiling of 13,000ft once, but I was alone in the aircraft and had no more than half fuel. 6,000ft – 8,000ft appears to the sweet spot, and trying to climb much above 8-10k requires patience!
A TB10 should be the same as a PA28-180 i.e. 14000ft ceiling. One has to lean it for about 150F ROP, so yes you need a proper engine monitor. If you just go full rich, 8k will be about the max.
Graham wrote:
How do you find yours at higher altitudes?
I have taken mine to 12k ft with 2 pax + luggage in August. Service ceiling has never been a serious issue. It is challenging to cross the Alps IFR, but it’s also rarely necessary for me to do so. It’s not a TBM, but it’s a perfectly suitable IFR traveling machine, and it certainly keeps me flying at safe altitudes in Northern Europe when others either aren’t flying or are stuck scud running.
Peter wrote:
One has to lean it for about 150F ROP, so yes you need a proper engine monitor. If you just go full rich, 8k will be about the max.
Engine monitor is next up for me, but even the built-in gauges work ok enough.
Peter wrote:
A TB10 should be the same as a PA28-180 i.e. 14000ft ceiling. One has to lean it for about 150F ROP, so yes you need a proper engine monitor. If you just go full rich, 8k will be about the max.
I certainly don’t operate full rich and the standard EGT and CHT gauges are enough to work with. The published service ceiling is 13,000ft.
