It has been said – for longer than the 14 years I have been flying – that a more accessible IR would have that potential.
The fear of this much increased traffic has been a key feature of CAA, EASA and ATC presentations I have been to, and without a doubt has been largely responsible for the “more accessible IR is just around the corner” remaining “just around the corner” for at least 20 years.
However I would assert that it won’t happen – because other factors are limiting the activity, with the main one being the availability (i.e. cost) of aircraft with adequate performance.
It won’t happen in a noticeable way.
I think that sums it up nicely.
The fear of this much increased traffic has been a key feature of CAA, EASA and ATC presentations I have been to, and without a doubt has been largely responsible for the “more accessible IR is just around the corner” remaining “just around the corner” for at least 20 years.
I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories. The fear you are talking about, isn’t that simply the average no brain bureaucrat “pointing” to some “potential problem” for no other reason than to show his/her boss that he/her is “responsible” ? Just curious.
Besides, from what I have been gathered from this site the real problem is airspace. Countries that are (for whatever reason) incapable of redesigning their airspaces to be practical tools for air operations, are not likely to welcome any other changes either. When not a single person is result oriented, when everyone are pointing at “problems”, there will be no results. More IFR or less IFR is also equally irrelevant as a “problem”. By organizing the airspace, the result will be that VFR will be much simpler, and the “need” for IFR will be reduced. But, the effect will also be that it will be irrelevant whether a flight is done VFR or IFR from an operational point of view, thus any “problems” with IFR will be gone.
My answer was short but to expand I just think that even if the number of PPL IR pilots doubles in Europe which is I guess possible, most still don’t fly that much and will not be flooding controlled airspace. Even at low altitude IFR levels for my aircraft (FL080 to FL120). I never hear other GA aircraft talking to London Control for example.
I see quite a lot of interest in E-IR and CBM IR among the VFR pilot population. The usual decline of the pilot population will continue but it is slow so that means that we will see more people have an IR ticket than before.
I would expect an increase in G-type IFR flight plans but will it be 5% or 20%, I have no idea.
EIR will increase IR holders population. EIR will attract more people to start thinking about flying instruments and after they are engaged, they will make full IFR….
True Michal. That is indeed the good part about the EIR.
It’s just a pity that in Germany, there are still zero flight schools that have the approval for EIR courses. The LBA is not interested…
The fear of this much increased traffic has been a key feature of CAA, EASA and ATC presentations I have been to, and without a doubt has been largely responsible for the “more accessible IR is just around the corner” remaining “just around the corner” for at least 20 years.
There has been and still is a significant opposition to GA in those circles and there are people in those organisations (certainly ATC and EASA) who will do their utmost to delay, drag their feet or otherwise hinder the actual implementation of the new IR. For some it is genuine concern about “blocking airspace” and "slow moving IFR traffic blocking SID´s and STAR´s, for some it is a question of ideology (regulators). Personally I still can´t really believe this has become law and I expect it will be a while before some of the more renitent regulators will finally get it done. And once they do, it may well be that some regulators will try to gold plate the rating so it becomes unaccessible again. The way bureaucrats handle problems in short.
The other possible road block is the criteria under which planes are allowed to fly IFR, that is what new investments will be thrown at owners to keep their planes IFR airworthy. That is specifically a problem for Germany and Switzerland but I can imagine also other states may go this way. At the moment, the 8.33 (single? Dual?) issue is still on the table, what other ideas will certain regulators develop to put higher hurdles and therefore increase prices for IFR capable planes. I have indications that Switzerland will demand dual 8.33 installations by 2016, in Germany this bullet has been dodged for now but it may well come back and what is next is anyone´s guess. Bureaucrats can be very inventive to block things they don´t like.
One way around both issues might be if EASA were to put their foot down and stop the gold plating of their regulations.
Another factor will be how many IFR airports will be available to GA. Some airports are trying hard to get rid of GA and particularly slow moving IFR traffic. The rating itself won´t help if there are no airports to fly to and from, which might however get people interested in the EIR rather.Pilots who fly only from VFR to VFR airports have a much more limited outlook onto the full IR.
We will not really know if there will be a noticable increase until these facts are known, until there are schools who offer the rating on a broad base and throughout Europe and until people will really think and see how others profit from the new ratings. I would estimate that once the whole rulework is in place and runs as advertized, there will be a shift from pure VFR pilots for whom the IR has been an impossible dream to people with EIR and full IR, how many that will depend on how the regulations are finally implemented. It will take time as well as distrust and in some cases disbelief will still demotivate a lot of prospective takers.
In the long run, I expect an increase in the share of IR rated pilots in the GA population. I do not think that it will have an impact on the total numbers of GA pilots which I still expect to decrease. So what the impact on the route network is, will remain to be seen.
I think there are two useful comparisons:
One is the UK IMC Rating.
This has been around since 1969. It is crippled to be usable only in (effectively) Class D and G which forms practically all of UK’s GA-accessible non-Eurocontrol-IFR airspace, and this works perfectly given the UK’s tight airspace services partitioning, with London Control and Scottish Control doing the Class A (“big boys’ airspace”) stuff. About 20,000 IMC Ratings have been issued since its inception. Coincidentally that is about the same number as the number of UK PPL holders with valid medicals, and whichever way you look at it it has been amazingly successful.
The safety record is absolutely outstanding, with almost zero accidents happening in IMC to pilots who hold the IMCR. Naturally, the detractors (who are usually JAA IR holders who sweated blood to get their CPL/IRs etc) say that this is because very few people actually fly in IMC with the IMCR, but that is self evidently untrue among pilots who I know who have access to suitably equipped aircraft. And such access has always been a prerequisite to getting a lot out of any kind of flying, anyway.
I would guess about 20-30% of UK PPLs who fly actively and have access to suitable aircraft do have the IMCR.
I have done the UK IMCR and it was a tough course which in theory equips you to fly any instrument approach in UK airspace, non Class A.
The other is the FAA IR.
This has an amazing penetration in the US pilot population, with estimates up to 40%. However, since these include professional pilots, I would say the PPL figure is probably nearer to 20%. I have the FAA IR and it was tougher than the JAA IR which I did years later.
One reasonable question is whether the CB IR is ever going to achieve the above % penetrations of the pilot population.
I think the key thing with the IMCR is that you could get a PPL and then go back to the same PPL school and get the IMCR. Just one exam for the IMCR, too. This is just like the FAA IR.
