I know I’ve said this before a million times, but if EASA allowed freelance instruction and examinations, or even just being able to do the IR via the same old PPL school, we would see a big increase in the take-up.
Most people would be OK with the PPL school option.
“Higher net worth” individuals vastly prefer freelance instruction and these are the people most likely to use it afterwards, so if you want to stimulate IFR GA this is the way to do it (doing a group discount on the exams at CATS and organising 20-30 people to embark, as was done many years ago, just produces a few people who get it, and load of people who drop out). Historically most of these individuals went N-reg because of the freelance options, and that in turn supported some real cowboys in that scene (no names please) who were able to carry on because the clients would pay anything while bending over a barrel, just to avoid going to a school and sitting a load of bollox exams.
It would never be “dramatic” (in the US sense) because Europe lacks most of the utility value in GA which the US has, but it would be perhaps 10x higher than we ever saw in the pre-JAA, JAA and EASA IR days, with e.g. the UK having just a few tens a year doing it. Many years before JAA a lot of people did the IR using the old 700hr route but most of these have now stopped flying (due to age).
But this will never happen for all the various reasons already covered a million times. The elitist attachment to the IR being a primary device to filter airline pilots, the need to protect the FTO industry, etc.
At the other end, the FTO industry is not interested in GA because they have seemingly endless numbers of young people chucking 80-100k at them for the CPL/IR frozen ATPL which can be processed with great uniformity through their sausage machine, and this is why energising the freelance option would do so much good.
All the time EASA is producing an IR with some seemingly arbitrary limitations, there will be countries where it doesn’t deliver much useful value. Countries within Europe vary in topography, airport facilities, ATC attitudes, and pilot culture.
I think this rating is downright dangerous. As others have highlighted in this forum, this isn’t about xxxft minima, it’s about management of the aircraft and precision flying.
We have seen instances where people fly on IR(R)s and do it as if they have a full EASA IR (likely, but not concluded, the recent PA46 incident). They crash and kill themselves.
I had an IR(R) for years before getting an IR. The IR(R) is a joke if you’re using it beyond a “get out of jail” card as the training, particularly on Met, is not there. The BIR is no more than a very basic IR but now we will now have a load of people with zero experience flying around Class A TMZs with Saturday-style RT. Fantastic.
People crash themsleves with an IR as well, you need 5 things to survive in the long run mission, rating, currency, aircraft and luck. For the PA46 mission, I think you need two MEIR pilots, two jet engines, anti-ice, anything else is a ticket to hell and I will never fly it as pax, why you think a SEIR would have make any difference?
The BIR maybe well enough for those who use it with the right risk profile, as far as I know IR(R) safety record was beyond exceptional (you may argue that because people just don’t use it zero to zero), for those who wants more (like me) they should just invest in all the 5 elements (with some risk of getting bust one day) but I think it is good to leave the door open for those who want to keep it as it is just as rating for “marginal VMC/IMC” or “retired hardcore IMC” pilots (lot of IR holders just get it lapsed and will only fly on IRR previleges as they get tired of annual tests)
Ibra wrote:
will only fly on IRR previleges as they get tired of annual tests
The BIR is annual. So doesn’t solve that.
We have seen instances where people fly on IR(R)s and do it as if they have a full EASA IR
I’ve been hearing this since I started flying in 2000. What affects safety is just about everything else.
(likely, but not concluded, the recent PA46 incident).
Actually probably not. If the pilot had an IMCR, it is highly unlikely he was using it within its privileges.
The IR(R) is a joke if you’re using it beyond a “get out of jail” card
I’ve been hearing this since I started flying in 2000. What affects safety is just about everything else.
as the training, particularly on Met, is not there
Met training in the JAA/EASA IR is a load of obsolete crap. I did it in the PPL, in the IMCR, in the 7-exam JAA IR, in an FTO IR ground school. A load of obsolete crap. Today (21st century) the correct procedure is to get the data off the internet and know how to interpret it. Nobody is teaching how to do that.
now we will now have a load of people with zero experience flying around Class A TMZs with Saturday-style RT. Fantastic.
That is not going to happen because of all the reasons for the low IR uptake in Europe.
Also light GA doesn’t fly “around Class A TMZs”. The controllers route GA miles away from the busy areas.
Actually the IMCR / IR(R) has an excellent safety record if the Rating is actually being used. I went to a DfT presentation some years ago and it was stated the CAA could dig up only 1 fatal crash where the IMCR was used within its privileges.
Peter wrote:
I’ve been hearing this since I started flying in 2000. What affects safety is just about everything else.
You don’t deny they fly as if they have a full IR though. That’s what I mean by dangerous. Nobody regulates the DH
That is not going to happen because of all the reasons for the low IR uptake in Europe.
The BIR removes that
Met training in the JAA/EASA IR is a load of obsolete crap.
I disagree actually. I thought the same as you until I actually took the exams – I bet you did the FAA to EASA conversion? There is a lot of useful knowledge in there.
Actually the IMCR / IR(R) has an excellent safety record if the Rating is actually being used
Agree, but the problem is, they all break the minima.
If there are no accidents, and other than visibility no higher minima, the statement “the problem is, they all break the minima” is obviously nonsense.
So is the statement that “nobody regulates the DH”, because the regulation is clear that the IR DH/MDA applies.
And as far as the theory is concerned – please provide an example of what you learned in the EASA IR theory that was not included in the FAA IR theory and actually relevant.
Can Charlie give some actual examples to back up the ridiculous statements he’s making, I wonder…
The absurd European “Full IR” hurts safety a hell of a lot more than it helps it.
I hazard a guess that any kind of easily accessible IR that helps to spread skills of flying in IMC helps safety insofar as it reduces the risk of “VFR in IMC” flights. From a theoretical safety perspective alone, a basic IR should be included in the PPL, making any PPL pilot instrument capable.
Please mind that I wrote “theoretical” for a reason, the various caveats such as cost, currency and equipment do of course prevent such a situation from becoming reality.
From a theoretical safety perspective alone, a basic IR should be included in the PPL, making any PPL pilot instrument capable.
In an ideal world, yes, especially for night flying which on a proper night is 100% instrument flight. I reckon that if flying was invented today, there would be a “normal PPL” and an “aerobatics PPL”, and the normal PPL would allow what we today call VFR+IFR. Aircraft equipment would be developed accordingly, and autoflight would be an integral part of the way they are operated.
The BIR removes that
WOW I didn’t realise that the BIR includes
Apologies for the irony – I hope it is clear 
