True cost of flying IFR in France (or EU) (annual revalidation, equipment check)

Chris wrote:

Does anybody know (who has done his IR theory recently) which QB comes closest to “reality” at the moment:
AE, BGS, ATPL-Q,… others?

I sat the 3 BIR modules today (I passed ). Used BGS for distance learning (content is the same as CB-IR) but I felt their QB was more focused on the syllabus content rather than true “exam prep” so I used AE (aviationexam.com) for that. I did not spend a lot of time with the BGS QB so YMMV.

For the AE QB, I’d say roughly 50% of questions is a word-for-word replica of what appears in the exam. Another 25% is some slight variation in context or wording or answer but still easily recognisable as something you practiced. The main benefit of AE for me was practice to avoid dumb mistakes (altitude vs height kind of stuff) and also to practice avoiding falling for trick questions (of which they have plenty, some really devious, but I didn’t encounter any in the real exam so I don’t know to what degree that is a real concern).

The downside is that the answer provided as “correct” is not set in stone – it tends to change based on user feedback from what people remember from their exams, and in the discussion forum there can be significant debate about some particularly ill-worded questions. So I made up my own mind about some of the more “problematic” questions. But the forum contains some true gems of mnemonics – I will never forget that Austro Control wants me to answer the FMS navigation database contains no information about obstacles because it stands for “f*ck mountains”

The reason I would have the ADL even for VFR is due to this kind of thing which low level flyers never see.

I always did long VFR flights at oxygen altitudes, especially pre-IR. It’s a much more relaxed way to fly. ATC co-operates (well, mostly) because anybody flying at 10k+ must know what he’s doing, hey?

The despatch rate varies according to what wx you are prepared to fly in, obviously. Very few GA pilots fly on truly long-ago-fixed dates. I used to know a 421C pilot who was doing 98% despatch rate, but that is exceptional; similar to a TBM. Unpressurised piston GA will not get near that unless you are reckless. Probably 80%. In reality a lot better because you avoid the really bad days.

maxbc wrote:

I read here that IR w/o de-ice brings your dispatch rate from 30% to 70% (and de-ice probably takes it to 85% or something).

I don’t have exact percentages, except to say I rarely cancel a flight, even without de-ice. Another important factor is ability (aircraft and pilot) to handle gusty crosswinds. My TB10 is demonstrated at 25kt crosswind component, and living in NL you must be proficient with wind or you’ll rarely fly. Ice isn’t actually that much of an issue most of the time in my area, because you’re usually just cutting through a low overcast, and it’s usually above freezing where there’s cloud. Except when it’s not of course.

So far this month I’ve made 7 flights, and 4 of them could not have been done safely under VFR. Total time in IMC 1,5 hrs.

Peter wrote:

I would install the Golze ADL even if I was VFR-only.

Don’t mean to disagree, and I too have it, but if single leg lengths are around or below one hour such a device is not necessary. Because when flying low (which is what you will end up in such short flighs) you even get weather in-flight on the tablet. We do that regularly at the moment this way, and you see webcams which gives a perfect weather image.

About IFR costs: I would agree. If you compare purchase price of a VFR-only aircraft to an IFR-equipped one the difference is typically quite huge. For example prior to Covid you could buy a VFR-only Comanche for as low as 20k. IFR equipped started like three times the price.

So without taking anything more into account like proficiency, annular check, whatsoever, the money that is “bound” to the airplane is a lot more. If you rent, this (beside a lot of other items) is reflected in the price.

@ermajn time will tell whether the BIR is the way to go. When I started my learning I was told that nobody knows how many hours of actual flying you’ll need to be proficient for the exam. I have plenty of “IFR hours” on simulators, even well equipped, but it’s just not the same thing sitting in a room. I was told that at least some 20 hours will still be necessary, maybe more, who knows. So the difference is not that huge. And still you don’t have the full IR.

FWIW I would install the Golze ADL even if I was VFR-only.

Tht’s unless all flight is very low e.g. below 3000ft.

Thanks guys.

Jujupilote wrote:

As a VFR pilot, I struggle to get a feeling of how much IFR stricto sensu gets you from A to B more than VFR. I think it is mainly a question of safety in marginal VFR days. Days where I cancel the flight and others would try.

IMO it is about two things:

1. Ease of flying, ease of flight preparation, far less preparation to make in terms of looking at each NOTAM in detail and each controlled air space and its associated frequency, …
2. Dispatch rate, that is one cancels far less often. Not only on “marginal VFR days” but also, right at the beginning of the IFR equipment range, when the weather is clearly strongly non-VMC:
   • BKN004 with visibility 2500, and that cloud layer is thin and not icing temperature and it is “tempête de ciel bleu” above? Under these conditions, I’d do it with “any IFR machine”, even a Robin.
   • With thicker layers, icing, convective activity, etc it starts to depend heavily on the plane and its equipment.
   • Golze is useful in another step up in dispatch rate? Yes, because you can depart with some uncertainty in weather and get real-time updates.
   • Jepp charts? The French AIP charts are quite good; if they all were like that, I would not take Jeppesen at their current price. Nonetheless some/many IFR pilots fly with AIP charts “only”; Jeppesen charts bring uniformity and thus ease of flying, but they don’t improve one’s dispatch rate per se.
   • Turbo and oxygen together improves dispatch rate even further? Yes, it allows to outclimb more stuff.

But in my opinion, each step is valuable in itself and you can “stop” there. The ease of flying is worth in itself, even if one didn’t improve one’s dispatch rate (flying, say in Spain or Cyprus); that’s essentially what the defunct Enroute IR was in large part giving access to. The capacity not to be grounded by thin layers close to the ground nor morning mist is IMO also worth in itself, and doesn’t require more than the right instruments for the SID and/or the approach.

I think it is mainly a question of safety in marginal VFR days

I disagree. Here in France at least, days when you can be sure of completing a journey in VMC are not that common. For example, for the last several days there has been a fairly thin cloud layer over Nice/Cannes. We’d planned to go to Avignon at the weekend, where it was perfect VMC, but couldn’t get out of LFMD nor be sure of getting back.

IFR it would be easy. Unfortunately I don’t yet have my EASA IR, nor am I FAA current. So VFR only for the moment, and we didn’t go.

In winter you still have to worry about the freezing level, but it still gives you a lot more scope. And for 8 months of the year, down here anyway, that’s a non problem.

Salut Max !

I used to fly at Hispano. Clubs like these are definitely the kind of place where the mention of IFR raise many eyebrows.
Here on EuroGA, you can go through the irrelevant and outdated stories.

About ATC checks, if you check on SIBA, you can see that :

• for VFR planes, it is 240€ +VAT every 5 years
• for IFR planes, it is 546€ + VAT every 2 years

Add to that the mandatory database subscriptions, it makes a IFR extra cost very reasonable.

BUT, this is only the minimum cost stricto sensu.

• IFR cost more also in terms of airplane.
  You will notice IFR capable planes are more expensive than VFR only ones. An example is DR340 vs F172M. They have about the same useful load and speed, but vary immensely in purchase price. The cessna, with its “modern” panel design, bigger tanks, unambiguous TC for IFR, carries a big upcost. Which impacts your insurance premium. Some IFR types offer intersting prices, like the dutch_flyer’s TB10.
  In terms of renting, well, you are close to the 300€/hour range. Think about it. A return trip to Dinard will cost you about 1k€.

• IFR is kind of a rabbit hole.
  Talk to any IFR pilot here and he will tell you “How glad am I to have XX” “How could I do without YY” etc… Every step you make up in the GA staircase asks for the next : Golze, Jepp charts, turbo, etc….. And all these steps add up to the cost whule improving safety and dispatch rate.

As a VFR pilot, I struggle to get a feeling of how much IFR stricto sensu gets you from A to B more than VFR. I think it is mainly a question of safety in marginal VFR days. Days where I cancel the flight and others would try.