They don’t seem to understand that with an IR you can fly in VMC much more easily than without it – because access to CAS is automatic, at any level your aircraft is capable of.
As has been pointed out a few times now, this is not an issue in Norway – nor in the rest of Scandinavia — because there is no airspace where VFR is not allowed (at least not below FL200).
The only drawback with VFR from an “airspace access” point of view is that you don’t get a “route clearance”. You will be cleared sector by sector. This is a bother, certainly, but not so much that it would motivate getting an EIR rating.
Why doesn’t Norway just ban all GA on the grounds that
For the record I never stated that they would ban it. I just wrote they thought it would have very limited appeal to Norwegian PPL holders.
They don’t seem to understand that with an IR you can fly in VMC much more easily than without it – because access to CAS is automatic, at any level your aircraft is capable of.
That is a moot point in Scandinavia. There is hardly any place in Europe where ATC is more accommodating to light aviation and VFR. AFAIR getting clearance into controlled airspace was mostly a formality and was very seldom refused. There is no class A airspace except above FL 195.
It sounds like Norway is really unique in Europe. I have never seen that anywhere else, apart from Croatia on a very quiet day 
My comment on banning was a joke I just could not see why they should be so negative about it. Even if you “always” get a clearance under VFR, the fact that you have to get it means that if the next sector is busy on the radio, you have to turn back and orbit until you can call them (a frequent thing here in the UK, going Class G into a bit of Class D). There is a very big practical difference, in terms of in-flight stress-levels, between “guaranteed” and “nearly always given but you have to ask”.
Re the EIR, I remain unhappy about the lack of sids and stars under it – that causes all kinds of issues unless one simply cheats. Also approaches will have to be trained otherwise it will be a trap.
I did expect massive delaying and refusal attitudes from the local CAA’s for the EIR as it allows something some of the anti GA crowd has long tried to avoid, but honestly I did not expect the kind of resistance and negative attitude to what I consider a landmark change of policy within EASA.
From my own experience in the last several years I’d have to say the EIR would probably have made 6 out of 10 trips I cancelled due to weather problems possible, as the problem was enroute and neither at the departure or destination airport. I will go for the full IR because I had it once before and therefore can get it as easy as the EIR (need to do the full theory once that is out and a proficiency check) but otherwise I’d definitly use the EIR as a stepping stone, do it first, fly maybe 2-3 years with it and then do the full one if it makes sense.
We do see a tendency that GA is banned from more and more airports with IFR approaches, so at least in Switzerland, access to IFR airports will be available to maybe 10% of the GA population in the future, namely those who are based in Bern, Les Eplatures or Altenrhein. All other airfields are VFR, most destinations flown to are VFR as well. But the enroute part is the tricky bit, where now people regularly get burned trying to scud run or to “make their way” outside Controlled Airspace somehow. This is particularly true for the Alps, which are hardly ever open on both sides but where a 10 minute legal IFR leg would often enough make or brake a trip to the med.
Add to that, and honestly speaking this would be my even more urgent motivation, the airspace mazes in Italy, France, Belgium, Poland and elsewhere. When I was looking at the routing to Calvi the other day, I note with not small frustration that I have to spend time and fuel to climb up to FL110 or so to get over the alps, then throw away this altitude to satisfy the VFR phobia of the Milan area and then climb up again, using precious fuel and time, for the crossing to Corsica. Or, in another example I recently read, the 5000 ft VFR top for flights between the UK and Iceland? Join IFR and fly at much safer altitudes?
Personally I find it astonishing to see so much opposition to this rating, not only here but also in other flight fora. Beyond my comprehension really, particularly in a part of the world where weather precludes VFR at 60-80% of the time as a safe and legal way to travel.
Even if you “always” get a clearance under VFR, the fact that you have to get it means that if the next sector is busy on the radio, you have to turn back and orbit until you can call them (a frequent thing here in the UK, going Class G into a bit of Class D). There is a very big practical difference, in terms of in-flight stress-levels, between “guaranteed” and “nearly always given but you have to ask”.
Such things becomes very theoretical here, certainly not something that causes stress levels, unless you forget to get a clearance perhaps. What is a nuisance in my opinion, is they like to change procedures and air spaces ever so slightly every now and then. The fact remains, with VFR you can fly all over the place, and you are not bound by a flight plan. With IFR you cannot fly into fjords and valleys, except when following an instrument approach to an airfield.
Flying VFR you have access to everything. Smaller airfields situated down in the valleys with no instrument approaches are in fact completely inaccessible when flying IFR and there is a cloud cover. In those situations you will have to fly out into the sea, then come back VFR by following the fjord, a trip that could easily be 30-50 NM or more. The geography in Norway makes VFR the more practical way of flying a light aircraft.
However, for the record. The same “Flynytt” has a 12 “episode” article series about the “the road to IR”, the current issue is “episode” 2. Obviously there is a large interest in IR, even if LT does not think so, and the EIR and CB-IR has made IR much more accessible than it was before. The series is written by Michael Fröhling (translated to Norwegian), so I guess it also runs in some German GA magazine right now? To be interested and to actually do it, are two different things though.
scud run or to “make their way” outside Controlled Airspace somehow
especially as controlled airspace creeps closer to terrain all the time, and the less than accommodating attitude in ZRH and GVA, severely limits the weather avoidance options to the VFR pilot.
Add to that, and honestly speaking this would be my even more urgent motivation, the airspace mazes in Italy, France, Belgium, Poland and elsewhere.
I must honestly say I am very amazed at such completely impractical thinking. Instead of cleaning up the airspace’s, removing all the unnecessary crap that serves no purpose what so ever, EASA has to “invent” a private pilot rating that no one actually want (everybody want CB IR or nothing), for the sole purpose of making it easier to fly through those labyrinths. I guess you could say EASA is nice to us GA pilots in some strange way.
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?
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “scud running”, but – The normal way of flying along the coast of Norway in a light airplane is by flying “coast wise”. Previously this also was normal to write in the flight plan (if you filed a flight plan), but LT has since changed opinion and feels that “cost wise” is not accurate enough geographically. The method is simply to fly along the shores on the seaside preferably, so you have better view of the land. This can be done perfectly safe in VMC minima. I can’t remember a single fatal accident related to “this kind” of flying, but there are some stories of people being caught by weather or getting lost and have landed at very odd places. Flying up through the clouds if you get lost, is not a good idea though.
I think you also miss the point. It is not just a couple of miles, it will be at least 10-20 miles, maybe even 50 miles. You have to fly out into the sea, outside of islands and fjords. So you come from bright sunlight, down into dark clouds and ends up beneath the clouds in rain with a cloud base of 1000 feet with no visual references because the visibility is maybe 10-15 km or less. You see no horizon. It is all just lots of gray and water and rain, and looking at the sea gives you no clues to your altitude or position or speed or anything. Technically you are in perfectly OK VMC, but actually you have to rely on your instruments 100% and you are below 1000 feet. It is perfectly doable, but surely flying an instrument approach is a much better option, much safer and much easier (if you know how to). Flying coast wise from start to finish is also much easier and safer.
From what I hear, changing airspace design is a massive political task.
For a start, in each country, the airspace is the result of a “war” between the military and the civilian authorities. It may be obvious to everybody that much of the military airspace is almost never used, but they guard it fiercely because if they don’t use it they will lose it.
Then there is a lot of history involved. In the UK, the use of Class A is a very old historical thing. But also it “works well” with the IMC Rating which is banned from Class A (for IFR) because if it allowed IFR in Class A, it would be practically a full IR but with only 15hrs’ training! That obviously cannot be allowed So a removal of UK Class A and replacement with Class D would also require the termination of the IMC Rating. One could perhaps do it with Class B or C…
Also most of the people who designed these crazy structured have died so in many cases nobody really knows why such and such was done.
The Italian Class A is totally crazy and obviously pointless – down to 1000ft out over the sea.
Peter wrote:
It sounds like Norway is really unique in Europe. I have never seen that anywhere else, apart from Croatia on a very quiet day
My comment on banning was a joke I just could not see why they should be so negative about it. Even if you “always” get a clearance under VFR, the fact that you have to get it means that if the next sector is busy on the radio, you have to turn back and orbit until you can call them
Scandinavia is quite unique in that respect. You should go there some day rather than going down to the Mediterranean or Eastern Europe all the time and the sceneries are just breathtaking.
I trust LeSving will keep me honest here, because I have not flown in Norway for quite a while, but if you are on a VFR flight plan and have established two-way radio communication with ATS, they will assign you a single squawk code that you will keep for the duration of your flight (unlike France where each ATS unit assigns you a code and asks you to squawk VFR when leaving their airspace), and they will hand you over to the next unit.
Le Svig,
I must honestly say I am very amazed at such completely impractical thinking. Instead of cleaning up the airspace’s, removing all the unnecessary crap that serves no purpose what so ever, EASA has to “invent” a private pilot rating that no one actually want (everybody want CB IR or nothing), for the sole purpose of making it easier to fly through those labyrinths. I guess you could say EASA is nice to us GA pilots in some strange way.
No one actually wants? Speak for yourself if you wish, but I personally think what EASA has done with this is a much better thing than anyone has since I started flying in 1983…
Airspace clean ups are almost impossible to achieve as it would involve all of the airspace users to sit on one table first and secondly it would require the military and others to give up something they have. Nobody is that stupid in these days where everything is being taken away never to come back. And to wait for another 20 years if the Italians will finally get rid of their Airspaces A? Sorry, but I’ll take the EIR any time over this.
As someone who has paid every single cent of my flying education out of a small salary and took 2 years to complete my CPL/IR at the time, I would have been VERY happy to have the possibilitiy to have an EIR first, gain routine with it and then make the full IR.
And apart from this, you seem to neglect the fact that the EIR also does allow you legally to cross zones of IMC which would have stopped your otherwise totally fine VFR flight.
Again, the reasoning some folks come up with is beyond me.
I’ve seen the same thing on a Swiss forum I frequent and heard the same explanations on gatherings. Frankly, if I was one of the people who fought for this, I’d consider throwing the towel at so much ignorance and negativism.
especially as controlled airspace creeps closer to terrain all the time, and the less than accommodating attitude in ZRH and GVA, severely limits the weather avoidance options to the VFR pilot.
Well, I’ll still take the airspace structure at ZRH and GVA any time over the “A” blocks in Italy and the mazes of areas in other places. At least someone was thinking how to accomodate Class E airspace and rise the lower limits of D as much as possible in function of distance.
Incidently, I have heard from folks in Switzerland that they prefer a toally closed block of D airspace with one lower limit over the whole area, just because they are too stupid to study the map. So much the more it may well be necessary to concentrate on IFR in the future, if even the VFR folk don’t know what they want.
