How constant is the IFR pilot population?

Another point is that IR will be in the region of 15.000 + Euros

I guess it varies, my IR cost in the region of 10.000 Euro (PA28 181 and C172s G1000).

It really doesn't surprise me that there's not MORE IFR pilots ... In Germany you spend MINIMUM 20.000 Euros for the IFR rating, and for most pilots it's more than that. I know some who have spent € 30.000.

I did my IFR rating as an Aviation Journalist ten years ago and it was paid for by my editorial office back then (because the editor-in-chief thought it's a good idea that at least one member of the staff knows about IFR flying).

The NEXT ten years i flew IFR very little, and I really only passed the annual checkrides because a friend who is a Lufthansa pilot and professional instructor and examiner trained me a little to keep it valid. I only had access to my Piper Warrior and although it has a GNS430 and a 2-axis A/P with GPSS it was not legally IFR in Germany. (DME, Second altimeter missing and also the second radio is not IFR certified)

NOW, after ten years I finally have access to a real IFR plane, the Cirrus i bought, and I spent the last three months getting at least a LITTLE better again. Nevertheless I aware that I will not get a very professional IFR pilot anymore. I COULD if i had the opportunity to fly +100 hours IFR per year and much of that with an instructor.

But with the maintenance and fuel costs as they are I have a different strategy. I want to become a SAFE IFR pilot with high minimums and I set myself a limit of 1000 ft/cloud base. I want to be able to do do journeys with my family unrestricted by clouds and rain, but I do not care about flying in icing conditions or IFR night over mountains or at night or down to the legal 200 ft minimum.

The mindset behind this: THERE'S ENOUGH days every year within these minima. And there's no reason to take unnecessary risks when it's actually ME who is paying for the flying (vs. getting paid for it).

Sure, if I ever get better I will maybe do more ambitious flights. But I don't feel (nor accept) any pressure (not by myself nor by other people who are maybe better) to fly "more than I am able to".

I might add that I am quite an experienced VFR pilot and I see my IFR rating as a safety factor. I do not think that flying HARDCORE IFR in single engine aircraft (and even more true for Twins) can be done safely if you don't have the opportunity to practice all the time.

In Germany, among private pilots, there's only about 1800 holders of an IFR rating.

Have there really been people with IRs just renting?

Yes, I am one. The only way I was able to do it was via block hour deals with owners, and all that based on relationships instead of going to a rental outfit or school. There are simply no de-iced, turbocharged singles on the rental fleet. I usually agree 50 hour blocks, to be flown within a year.

I am now doing the same in twin - mostly because I do not have access to a good single at Biggin anymore.

50-ish hours IFR per year are not that much (my highest year was about 80), but enough to be in reasonable practice.

I don't quite understand why twins should be more difficult in normal IFR flight than comparable singles. Unless you fly rocket-ships like the Aerostar, Turbo Baron or similar, they are slower and than a Cirrus or a Columbia, and are quite stable.

The main issue is engine failures / handling with one engine out, but that is not something you do outside recurrent training and checking, and nearly as difficult visually as on instruments.

I think that's 1800 German (LBA) ratings. And if you saw the amount of theory they let you learn it's quite astonishing it's that MANY. After some months I i had the feeling they want me to build VOR receivers, not use them ... completely ridiculous.

I really have no idea anymore how i ever passed the tests. In the SImulator test (the worst part because you don't have time between the various maneuvers they want to see) I was sure I'd fail ...somehow i passed.

Then on the day of the practical test the weather was AWFUL. Winds up to 50 knots at my home base, and the examiner said that it's up to me if I wanted to go ahead. I thought it might be a good strategy to say "yes"... and so we went.

After an hour he seemed to have really enough of the turbulence and he told me to do the ILS approach into Augsburg and when ATC asked whether I wanted "Vectors" of A standard Approach ... i answereed "Vectors" before the examiner could react. Maybe he was already airsick but he let me directly intercept the final, so that one was easy (i had practiced at that airport 75 percent so i really knew it all inside out)

I had the Augsburg Approach DME dialed in the GPS and so the following NDB approach wasn't sich a big deal. I realized that he saw that, but let me use it :-) So the NDB approach was no big deal either...

Then he said that he had to get out in Augsburg... and if I was comfortable with flying home in that weather... I looked at him and smied and said ..."sure, you passed"...

I remember that I had a ground speed of 160 kts on downwind at my homebase in the C172RG ... but the landing was easy because the wind was steady and on the runway. I remember that I needed a lot of power to get to the first exit ... ;-)

Cobalt, I don't agree completely. After all many experst say that flying a piston Twin single hand (!) in IFR is about the the most challenging of all ways to fly.

Of course, as long as everythng works, it's ok. But it's also true that engine failures in twins killed more pilots than engine failures in singles. I think it can be done safely, but only if you fly a lot ...

I for one gave up my multiengine rating. I just realized that I would never become good enough to safely fly (my family), especially IFR.

But, as always, others may have different opinions.

Have there really been people with IRs just renting?

Like Cobalt, I am also one. We are 10 people or so who regularly fly together and we use rented aircraft in 2 local flying clubs to do so. It's everything from over the day trips to 7 days touring from Sweden to Croatia. A few people also fly in their work, with these aircraft.

The minimum airborne time restriction does make a few trips hard, but we usually fly 2 hours per day when we are away. Also the flying clubs are flexible, if it's not peak weeks it's ok to fly less as well as the PA32 which does not have this restriction.

Alexisvc, I completely agree with you that flying a ME aircraft requires more skill and practice to fly safely in case of engine failure, and I say that even (especially?) after ending up in a field after an engine failure in a single - the statistics are quite clear here.

The workload goes up with speed in general, and with the need for tactical weather avoidance and icing management, so I would say blazing along in a Malibu or in a Columbia is harder work than flying around in a Seminole at 150kt - until one of the donkeys stops.

Cobalt,

yes, that's the extremes. The Malibu can bite an inexperienced pilot at least as hard as a Seminole which is really a very well mannered PA-28 with 2 engines (I did a part of my multiengine in it, and it was really very easy to fly)

But, although I now have about 1200 h "experience" (i do not think that hours are the same as experience) I am absolutely sure that I'd rather have an engine failure on a single after take-off than on a light piston twin ...

But as we know ..., it's a matter of experience. Only that I will NEVER get experienced enough to be as good in a twin as in a single. That's why I let it be. I had it, it was fun, but I am not renting Senecas for € 800/h.

But I kow that is my very own (and pretty conservative) point of view.