Peter wrote:
It is everywhere
Just declaring yourself IFR does not count.
Does France now allow IFR in its Class G
Yes, always did.
non-radio?
No. Requiring radio contact for IFR in Golf is actually more ICAO-standard, and the UK is ICAO-divergent here.
Does radio contact imply a clearance?
If ATC don’t ask about your flight conditions (and thus you are not telling any lies) what is exactly illegal about an IR holder flying in French Class G, within a flight for which no flight plan was filed?
Does radio contact imply a clearance?
No, nothing to do with clearances.
what is exactly illegal about an IR holder flying in French Class G, within a flight for which no flight plan was filed?
Not having filed a flightplan would.
Actually, all this has now been regulated (for overs two years…) by SERA. And: I have never seen the official SERA exemption of the UK CAA saying that a flightplan and and radio contact are not required for IFR in class Golf.
Peter wrote:
Does radio contact imply a clearance?
) Peter wrote:
If ATC don’t ask about your flight conditions (and thus you are not telling any lies) what is exactly illegal about an IR holder flying in French Class G, within a flight for which no flight plan was filed?
If only flying around 30 hours per year wouldn’t you prefer to spend money on just touring? Or are you on a slow modular route towards a CPL/IR?
The EIR has had very little take up, but in theory would allow you to continue towards a Competency Based IR in due course. The fact you are not allowed to fly a SID/STAR/Approach always struck me that the rating was a bit of a chocolate tea pot, and weather planning would probably require you to fly in relatively good VFR conditions in any case.
Guillaume wrote:
It [IFR flight in Class G without a flight plan] is illegal per SERA.FRA.4001 b)3).
Only if that airspace or the routes flown are “designated by the competent authority, to facilitate the provision of flight information, alerting and search and rescue services”
Where would one find the fact that France has designated their entire Class G airspace in this way?
It looks like BIR (Basic IR) might replace EIR. With BIR you will be allowed to perform approaches but with higher minima. I think you can comment on it until Jan. 31
jfw wrote:
Hello,As ~130h PPLer, I am currently doing my NVFR. I am still uncertain on which next step to take.
Obviously I am heading to IR but still unsure if I should do EIR or full IR or …
The boundary condition are cost/time investment vs. usage (I am only flying in my free time and for fun – ~30h/y).At this stage I am more incline to go for a EIR first and see afterwards if an “upgrade” is needed.
Any comments and views on this are more than welcome.
Thx in advance !
I had the very same question – before starting to go for CBIR. E-IR is a useless rating in Europe, IMO. You need the full ability to take off and land in IR conditions to really make use of an IR rating. Compared to a simple VFR rating, an E-IR gives you mayby 2% more opportunities to fly.
It’s the same amount of theory. Weather in Europe, if it’s bad, it’s mostly bad down the bottom.
What you can do, is go for a CBIR, do the theory, and after 15hrs you just get yourself rated for EIR.
The problem with the BIR is the fact that it has to be undertaken at an ATO. Straight away this makes it unexcessable to the majority of people it’s supposed to serve.
In my case for instance there are two ATO that offer IR training and are close to where I live but neither of them offer single engine IR training.
The closest ATO that has a suitable single engined aircraft is a 138 mile round trip.
So I would have to time off work (which I’ll never get past the wife) commute such a distance each day that it’s impractical or stay in a hotel. Of course I could do it all at the weekend but the ATO doesn’t open weekends.
Equally annoying the closest RTF has two instructors that teach for the IR (one is also an IRR and IRE).
So if RTF are not allowed to teach for the BIR I can’t see it being anything but a dead duck.
If only EASA would approve the individual rather than the organisation.
