In other words, no substitute for “real” IFR in an aircraft approved for icing conditions
That’s true; there is no substitute for having a Lear 45 
There is a continuous spectrum of mission capability, etc. The EIR is very valuable in Europe.
The EIR is very valuable in Europe
Not according to the author (Norway is still part of Europe I guess ) Her main point is that the weather conditions need to be so good at start and end (much better than is required for VFR on top), that it is of no (practical) use in bad weather. According to the rules for minimum alt of 1000 feet above the highest point within 5 NM radius, it means a cloud base here at ENVA at 3800 feet AGL due to mountains and cloud clearance (when switching from VFR to IFR and back, you have to satisfy both VFR minima and IFR minima). VFR-only planning minima is 1000 feet AGL cloud base along the route from start to landing.
With VFR I can start in much worse condition than for EIR, and then pop through the clouds when there is a hole, and fly on top. With the EIR I cannot do that, because a flight plan is required, and the planning minima prevents it. Technically I could plan VFR half way, then when the cloud base increases I could go through the clouds.
For flying long distances, I guess it is of value, but only if the weather is of no concern. It is also a step towards a “full” IFR rating.
Her main point is that the weather conditions need to be so good at start and end (much better than is required for VFR on top),
I cannot see why.
According to the rules for minimum alt of 1000 feet above the highest point within 5 NM radius,
Is that a legal requirement for VFR in Norway?
On the EIR, you would file a Z flight plan (VFR to IFR to VFR) so the minima are simply VFR minima at the two ends.
With VFR I can start in much worse condition than for EIR
That’s completely wrong. The author does not understand it. The two ends are simply VFR.
and then pop through the clouds when there is a hole
99% of the time that actually means entering IMC, however 
And how do I know that?
Once you switch to IFR, there is no cloud separation requirement.
I think she knows exactly what she is talking about (This doesn’t mean I do )
The VFR planning minima are very simple. Cloud base 1000 feet AGL and 5 km visibility along the route (on top or not) for flights more than 50 NM from the departure. The operational minima are smaller however (clear of clouds and 3 km visibility when below 1000 feet AGL and less than 140 knots). When above 1000 feet AGL the operational minima is the same as planned minima + 1000 feet vertical distance from clouds.
But, in controlled airspace (C and D for Norway), the requirement is min cloud base of 1500 feet and minimum 1000 feet vertical distance from clouds, if above 1000 feet. You can be cleared a “special VFR” with much reduced visibility and no cloud base, but only if you fly entirely within the control zone of an airport, or enters from a VFR flight from G airspace (+ some heli/ambulance- rules).
Regarding IFR I don’t know, but according to the article, the IFR minima “en route” is 1000 feet above the highest point within a radius of 5 NM according to Part SERA (whatever that is). This EIR rating is always en route, you cannot fly instrument approaches or departures, and you cannot fly VFR through clouds. The operational requirement for EIR is to be in visual meteorological conditions no later than 1000 feet above the highest point within a radius of 5 NM of the destination reference point, ARP. (I guess the last requirement is if you intend to go through the clouds near the airport ?)
The ends will always be VFR, but at some point you will have to switch from VFR to IFR and from IFR to VFR. From a controlled airport the minima is 1500 feet cloud base (overcast), no problem. But the moment you switch to IFR you must be 1000 feet above the highest point within a radius of 5 NM. With some mountains nearby this clearly is not possible with 1500 feet cloud base (it will be 3800 feet at ENVA for instance). The only alternative is to fly out into the ocean in G airspace (sometimes a very far distance), switch to IFR and climb up through the clouds into C airspace again. Returning is even more problematic. Let’s say the weather has deteriorated slightly after you departed from the other place and the cloud base is 800 feet. You are left with no other option but to return. Flying VFR though, this is no problem.
So she recommend a CB IR or a standard IR, (what is the difference?) The EIR will be too restrictive and too complex for flying in Norway in anything but excellent weather conditions (basically good VFR conditions).
So she recommend a CB IR or a standard IR, (what is the difference?)
AIUI There is no difference for PPL….. It is a fully ICAO compliant Instrument Rating…A “standard” IR requires the full set of theoretical knowledge exams must be passed….this is required if you want to go on to CPL and ATPL
Only the ATPL needs the 14.
A CPL/IR does not, but a CPL/IR done by adding a CPL to an IR obtained via the CB IR route would be 11+x exams, where x is currently unknown (maybe 3?). So this is a bit pointless, unless one already had the IR and then wanted to add the CPL for a specific reason e.g.
An IR is the same IR regardless of whether it was obtained via the CB IR route or the previous JAA IR route or as part of the ATPL (CPL/IR) process at an FTO.
I agree that in the Scandinavian countries where VFR traffic have access to all airspace, the EIR is probably not going to be very useful — except as a stepping stone to the full IR. In countries with lots of class A airspace it would be a major benefit.
I think she knows exactly what she is talking about
I think she is playing with words.
I have long ago stopped trying to remember the cloud spacing rules for VFR for day and for night and for different altitudes… my take on this is that VFR means VMC i.e. clear of cloud and vis above 1500m.
Anything more complicated is just refusing to accept that practically nobody can remember that intricate pyramid-like table of VFR minima in different conditions for longer than t+1 day (where t is when they passed the air law exam) and certainly nobody is going to be applying it enroute, using a laser rangefinder to measure distance to the nearest cloud
The EIR will be valuable
To use the EIR effectively, you will need to be what I would call a “clever VFR pilot” and I think most pilots who do a fair bit of VFR touring will feel right at home with it.
It is a bit of a paradox that with the full IR, and a deiced high performance aircraft with radar, you can fly around quite stupidly. Do you think the AF447 crew worried about this sort of thing? Takeoff power, autopilot on after rotation.
Even at our light-GA level, the full IR is going to be easier to use than the EIR – apart from the fact that an EIR holder will have the option (and this is a very good option) of flying in VMC all the way because he’s got an automatic enroute CAS clearance. The EIR holder will be able to finally remain VMC enroute (assuming adequate aircraft performance, oxygen, etc) whereas under VFR he would have often flown in IMC (illegally but hey…).
If Europe didn’t have Class A and dodgy ATC policies on transits, the EIR would be pointless.
I think she is playing with words.
No, not at all. She is writing what everybody have been thinking in the back of their heads all along, but very few have the experience and the knowledge about practical flying and (at the same time) knowledge about the rules and regulations to actually get a hold on this EIR and it’s limitations. In fact she starts her article by comparing it to the old days with inaccurate approach instruments. Often, along the coast, they had to fly out over the ocean to get below the clouds in a safe manner, then VFR back to the airport and land. Although perfectly doable, this is not something anyone would like to go back to, or should go back to. It is a complicated and awkward way to fly compared to both IFR and VFR.
But this EIR does make the road to IFR more obtainable for most people, I guess.
It is a complicated and awkward way to fly compared to both IFR and VFR.
So you say scud running in VFR for 100+ miles over land is safer than 2 times scud running for a couple of miles plus 100+ miles in bright VMC above clouds?
