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.
This is complete nonsense. Airspace’s are abstract structures that can be created and deleted by the blink of an eye. The Air Force here have large airspaces at their disposal, airspaces that are made active or inactive when needed. We also have similar structures for air sport activities. There is a hang/para-glider “box” a few NM north of ENVA, partially within the control zone. Normally I can fly there, but the moment the para gliders/hang gliders call the tower and request the box, then as if by magic that airspace is off limit for others. No one needs to sit at one table to do this, what is needed is the Civil Aviation Authorities having the actual authority needed to organize their air space the way they see fit. This is one of the major responsibilities and duties of the CAA, and no one else. The only complaint I have is they do adjustments and changes quite often, but when being gradually aware of the alternatives, I will never complain again 
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.
A single engine piston is a single engine piston no matter how you look at it. What is legal and what is safe does not need to go hand in hand. When flying on top the cover can be 100%, but below the cover VFR minima must exist. Flying IFR with a SEP, I guess the cover can go all the way to the ground legally ? (I don’t know), but how safe is that if the engine quits?
I think everything that makes flying more accessible, more available, is a good thing. Therefore I think the EIR is a good thing. But is it useful? With the flying I do, I see no use for it, but others may have different priorities and therefore see lots of use for it.
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
FYI, the same happens in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. You get your squawk from the first unit you talk to and then get a handover, much like in the US. This, btw, is VFR.
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
This is correct, this is common practice.
This is complete nonsense. Airspace’s are abstract structures that can be created and deleted by the blink of an eye.
Maybe in Norway, but not anywhere else.
Airspace structures are a massively hot political issue.
A few years ago I was talking to a top EASA official, face to face, and asked him about exactly this. He said it is just impossible to make any progress on it, due to national sovereignity / pride.
Another factor is that airspace structures are irrelevant to IFR traffic which “just flies” on an implicit clearance. They affect only VFR traffic – basically light GA. In much of Europe there is more VFR traffic than IFR traffic (in terms of straight aircraft numbers) but the VFR traffic has almost no effective political representation. And ultimately it pays no route charges…
You will have Berlusconi running Germany before anything changes.
Another factor is that airspace structures are irrelevant to IFR traffic which “just flies” on an implicit clearance.
And VFR GA has no use for airspace structures whatsoever. Something to think about.
Maybe in Norway, but not anywhere else.
Same thing in Sweden. Since 1980 at least, there has been a single joint civil/military ATC system (in fact all ATCOs are civilians — even at air bases) and no segregated “military” airspace. There is airspace where — depending on the time of day and day of the week — the military has priority and there is airspace where civil air traffic has priority, but neither kind of traffic has exclusive use of any airspace.
As LeSving says, allocations are done tactically — by the blink of an eye.
I don’t see any “opposition” to the EIR as Mooney Driver calls it. There is some doubt that EIR serves a useful purpose in countries with little or no restrictions to VFR flight. Of course it is a good thing for pilots in countries with lots of class A airspace or other restrictions.
From my point of view primarily flying in Scandinavia, IFR is above all about being less dependent on weather. There really is no reason getting an (E)IR here for airspace access.
Today I would not advise a Swedish pilot to get an EIR except as a step on the way to the full IR. But I am very much aware that the situation is different in other parts of Europe.
(Btw. Also in Sweden VFR traffic usually get discrete squawks that they keep for the duration of the flight.)
I just recieved a mail from a club member wanting to know how soon he can get an EIR with our club ATO. It is possible now for a non-complex ATO like ours to get approval for training for EIR/IR, so the question is relevant and we are having a meeting this afternoon to discuss whether it is bureaucratically realistic to give it a try. It is probably not.
I think that so far I have had about a dousin of such requests for the new IR from club members, many of them mentioning EIR as either the goal or a stepping stone.
I believe the EIR will be a good thing. Most pilots with an IR will remember the IR training and the IR test as the hardest they have had, much harder than the CPL and even worse than the FI.
The EIR is an option to cut the IR training in halves. Either planned like that from the beginning, or as an unscheduled “stop for fuel” (money, time or experience). With an EIR a pilot will get to know the ATC, the nav instruments and the IFR planning, which will all be useful for those who wish to proceed for the full IR at a later time. For some, just being on the frequency with the heavy iron guys may be the kicker.
Operationally I do not expect the EIR to be terribly useful – more like a VFR-on-top with nice clothes. As mentioned, you will be flying marginal but safe VFR on days where EIR is impossible because the ceiling is too low to make the transitions. And in places like Norway I agree that the value of the EIR will be limited because of terrain. In Denmark (where I reside & fly) I see some utility because the country is flat and has a lot of water. In those (frequent) situations with ceilings in middle altitudes it will allow single engine pilots to find some comfort in being able to climb into/above the cloud layer to get more gliding options when crossing (cold) water.
Is there any legal requirements for it?
Best regards
To be pedantic, VFR ON top is – at least in FAAland – an IFR term, VFR should be called OVER the top. I assume that’s what you mean. In FAAland only the standard cloud clearance requirements apply. In EASAland I think it’s now the same, used to be different from country to country, e.g. the UK didn’t allow it.
