Which IR

Honestly, EIR should be part of the PPL. That would eliminate most of the “180 seconds to live” accidents.

I do not agree with that because it would mean adding 15 hrs of instrument training to the PPL syllabus, not speaking about the TK. That would make the PPL even less accessible. I think most prospective pilots find the license cost and workload high enough as it is.

The other reason I disagree is that, put bluntly, obtaining new ratings gives you new ways of killing yourself legally, and then someone else will chip in and suggest that we need even more ratings or more training to keep ourselves safe. That creates an ascending spiral

You need to put the bar somewhere, and I do not believe that setting the bar higher will necessary add to safety because we also deal with human factors. The more training someone receives, the more confident he may feel, and the more he may push the limits. His abilities will improve by more training, but not necessarily his judgement.

So in my opinion the only way to reduce VFR into IMC incidents and accidents is by the pilots not pushing the limits.

No, I agree the PPL is overloaded already as it is in many ways, and dot need extra req’s added to it, but I do think the instrument part of it is woefully lacking. At least here in the US. With NQ in Europe, it’s a little bit better.

Actually quite often only those who plan to move on to a CPL and/or IR do a night qualification in Europe. It is hard to find airports which are open at night and permit to fly the required approaches, and most smaller airfields have no lighting so you need to land away and bring back the plane the next day. All this hassle means you need to be very motivated to even do it.

But instrument flight basics have been part of the EASA PPL syllabus for quite some time. During my PPL it was clearly taught as a way to keep the blue side up while doing an immediate 180, with the strong emphasis to never enter any cloud as a VFR pilot.

AdamFrisch wrote:
AdamFrisch wrote:

Honestly, EIR should be part of the PPL. That would eliminate most of the “180 seconds to live” accidents.

Absolutely ! I couln’t agree more. When I brought this point up in the German puf forum, I got chastised. The argument was, if you teach VFR pilots to fly through clouds, they’d do it all the time. Well, the truth is, they (at least the more experienced, older guys) do it anyway, the only difference is they wouldn’t die anymore.

No VFR pilot coming fresh out of PPL exam ever intentionally flies into clouds. Too scared. I don’t see any danger in setting the bar higher. I would just add a rating or lets call it a safety training (similar intention like the aerobatic training) that still doesn’t allow VFR pilots to fly legally through clouds, but gives them the capability to get out of the shit if they inadvertently get into it. Which means, essential knowledge about human performance and limitations, together with basic navigation skills, and a practical training to keep the aircraft stable in IMC because the so called 180° return curve doesn’t cut it. Until today, there is this argument: you don’t get into clouds if you perform your flight planning correctly. Well, that maybe keeps the weekend coffee trip people from flying in bad weather, but we all know that if you’re regularly flying with a purpose, from A to B, more and more your own limits are being pushed, by yourself mostly. That’s where the danger comes into play.

I’m not arguing that someone who regularly wants to fly from A to B shouldn’t eventually get an IR rating anyway. I’m just saying that before he does, let’s help him save his life by this kind of safety training. It all needs a prudent behaviour, of course. Danger freaks aren’t welcome in that concept.

EuroFlyer wrote:

I would just add a rating or lets call it a safety training

Is this part of the PPL syllabus not taught in Germany?

EuroFlyer wrote:

but we all know that if you’re regularly flying with a purpose, from A to B, more and more your own limits are being pushed, by yourself mostly

I’ve never flown through clouds on a VFR flight in hundreds of hours of “serious” flying from A to B and would argue that this is a choice that you can make. So I don’t agree with your above statements. If you want to be weather capable in your flying, there is already a rating for this, and it’s called an IR.

RWY20, I don’t disagree but please remember this was about avoiding people dying when flying VFR into IMC without knowing what to do. What is your solution ?

We’ve had multiple threads on, basically, whether a PPL should be a PPL/IR. My view is

• it would kill the PPL business (due to the cost and difficulty increase)
• it is what you would do if you were training people to fly for a serious purpose (an F16 or 747 pilot is not limited to VFR )
• it would create massive political problems with GA access to airspace if every pilot had IFR rights (implied enroute clearance, etc)

Solutions are to teach basic instrument skills as per Exercise 19 of the EASA PPL syllabus and to emphasize the dangers of flying VFR in IMC if plane and pilot are not so qualified. That includes statements on internet forums to the effect that “we know all VFR pilots fly in cloud sometimes”.

Also I would strongly advise new PPL pilots to increase their risk taking very slowly so as to not run out of luck before they gain enough experience. The rest is down to personal judgment and discipline, and for that it is mostly too late to be taught at the usual age when many pilots go for a PPL.

The discussion is as old as the EIR but I stand by the point that an EIR may well be useful for someone who flies from non-ifr aerodromes all the time but wants to fly airways under ATC control in between. Particularly if there is no usable IFR airport in the vicinity or where it has priced out GA. Or where airspace makes VFR flying a low level stunt game like in parts of Italy and other places.

It clearly is a stepping stone. And the idea is not too bad integrating it into the PPL, but not as a must have but as an option? Saying that you CAN integrate the EIR into the PPL(A) and if you do the required hours will be reduced slightly, as PPL has IMC training anyhow?