I think there is misconception among everyone IR and non-IR that 600ft and 1.5km are easy as they are “only VFR” minima, flying in those conditions “the old way” is an eye opener…
Personally, I would prefer a more generous airways/airspace acess and easy license to obtain/maintain than attempting to lower those numbers,
For take-offs, anyone does check that their AI and TxB are working before getting into IMC after takeoff? What are the plans to pull a succesful landing after an EFATO in less than those condition?
For landings, most who fly privately will only have access to airports that are restricted to those minima or will shoot Cat3 ILS in a nearby airport and then fly VFR to their close base…
Timothy wrote:
MedEwok wrote: Most of the detractors of the BIR on this thread seem to be Full IR holders.I have held a full IR for 33 years and I am an IRI and I think it’s brilliant.
A lot of private IFR pilots cancel if the weather is poor anyway, not because they are incapable, but because their children don’t want to play on the beach in the wind and the rain.
There are things about the UK system which people think are worse than the rest of Europe, but I think that there is fairly universal agreement that the IMCR is a great privilege. The main things wrong with the IMCR are the limitations to the UK and to Class D.
To have (effectively) the IMCR across the whole of Europe, with access to all airspace is brilliant!
If you want to land in 550m and 200’, the CB-IR is still there, but you now have the choice.
I sometime wonder if some forumites (not just here, everywhere) will object to anything on principal. If you don’t want a BIR, don’t get one; but don’t try to prevent others from having it.
Well said gentlemen.
So, would I be able to easily and cost-effectively covert my IR(R) into a BIR?
Or would I need a number of hours of expensive training at an ATO, because the air on the continent and in Class A airspace is different and I need to be taught to fly in it? I bet I need some expensive ground training and multiple choice exams too, because I’ve gaps in my knowledge around monsoon winds, Loran-C, etc.
In 2014 from here:
geekyflyer wrote:
Crazy idea…
Let say if instead of coming up with EIR, EASA came up with IMC (the uk rating) but valid across all Europe. This would allow you to fly [inside] controlled airspace in IMC and land using instruments. How many people and authors would have said it’s useless, probably giving theoretical scenarios like the one in the article? Even though it works pretty well in the UK.
heh…
BIR is surely a step in the right direction, no?
Ibra wrote:
I think there is misconception among everyone IR and non-IR that 600ft and 1.5km are easy as they are “only VFR” minima, flying in those conditions “the old way” is an eye opener…
The issue with these restrictions is not if it is easy or difficult to make an approach with lower minima. The issue is that the motivation for the restrictions has very little, if anything, to do with the actual training. With exactly the same reasoning that EASA applies, a PPL/IR holder should be restricted to the same minima.
And frankly, departures in low visibility are not that difficult. I have once made a take-off in fog with 600 m visibility (daylight) at an uncontrolled airport without any ground facilities except runway edge markings. 600 m is less than most light GA aircraft need to get airborne.
For take-offs, anyone does check that their AI and TxB are working before getting into IMC after takeoff?
Yes! Don’t everyone? (Serious question.)
I’m not sure it will fill the requirements of the burger run hobby pilot. Which represents the majority movements at the majority of airfields that I visit.
Most of these people just want to punch through a little bit of cloud using their six pack plus a vor and skydemon. And do so In class G or class D airspace.
I think it’s a shame EASA haven’t adopted the cloud rating for fixed wing. I also think that having to use an ATO is a retrograde step.
I for instance would have a 104 mile round trip. Yet my local registered facility has an IRR/IRE in staff.
Ibra wrote:
For take-offs, anyone does check that their AI and TxB are working before getting into IMC after takeoff?
It is part of my taxi checklist, IMC or no IMC. Was taught to me for PPL (not IR), VFR. I recognise that some (many?) VFR pilots don’t check that. I sat as pax in a flight where the PIC didn’t synchronise the (unslaved) heading indicator for the whole flight. Not even once after startup before takeoff.
For AI and TxB, turn or flat ground do give an indication, but how does one check for AI pitch before takeoff? Or just go for TxB & ASI after takeoff in zero vis?
For the recreational pilots at which its aimed I think the minima are fine. As Timothy wrote as a recreational pilot, if northern France is forecast at 400ft OVC 2km visibility, then I’m not going to bemoan that I can’t legally get in to spend a miserable weekend in the hotel. It provides a way to get up and down through through the murk with the rest VFR on top at a decent altitude for sea crossings and does away with enroute CAS access requests then it’s going to be perfect for a lot of people.
I did always think the IMCR training was quite short relative to the full IR though. I’ve done 22/50 hours done of the full IR and would still feel like I need an instructor at times when the workload gets high.
Ibra wrote:
Or just go for TxB & ASI after takeoff in zero vis?
There is never a good time to lose the AI in IMC, but in this situation at least you will notice instantly if the AI fails in pitch.
