PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - IMC: 'Hung out to dry by our own side'
View Single Post
Old 6th December 2009 | 08:22
  #110 (permalink)  
IO540
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
SS

Perhaps my choice of the word "easy" was irreverent but that is just my writing style

IFR is a highly structured discipline which has enabled tens of thousands or more pilots from all over the world, with all kinds of education backgrounds, to fly worldwide. And lots of them are landing at LHR as I write this Sitting there, twiddling the heading bug according to ATC directions, until getting LOC intercept...

IFR facilitates very easy flight across Europe and its diverse airspaces and its sometimes "diverse-attitude" ATC.

If IFR was hard, few private pilots would aspire to it. Most I know agree with me that the greatest secret of IFR is that once you have passed the checkrides and collected the papers, the actual flying is nothing like as hard.

There are other major differences between commercial IFR and private IFR:

- few private IR pilots would choose to fly the Trilander type ops, occassionally scud running at 400ft above the sea because of hugely limited capability to get above weather

- most private IR pilots have substantially capable planes, in both navigation and altitude

- most private IR pilots don't have to fly; even on a business flight visiting a customer (the hardest kind of "business flying") one can choose alternative transport

- private IFR is done in an empty airspace void; FL100-FL200 in which there is close to zero commercial traffic, and one doesn't get routings through terminal areas where the two might be closer

I can see where you are coming from but I think it illustrates why for years there has been close to zero progress on making the private PPL/IR more meaningful in Europe - while the Americans are laughing all the way to the ILS (or I should say the precision GPS approach.........)

For avoidance of doubt: I think an IFR pilot should be trained to fly every type of instrument approach, and holds, and should be examined on these. It is the theory and the mandatory nonsense (industry protectionism like having to do stuff via a professional FTO, and 50/55hrs min dual which is not relevant to demonstrated competence) which needs overhauling.

Last edited by IO540; 6th December 2009 at 08:42.
IO540 is offline  
Reply