dublinpilot, if you take a look at the NPA, you'll find a good description of the destination and alternate aerodrome forecast requirements for the EIR. There are also much clearer statements concerning acceptance of IFR clearances than hitherto.
Ok, then I have misread your initial post. I thought some change had been agreed at the workshop, but now understand that no change has been made.
How are you going to make sure you are going to be VFR at the enroute sector terminating waypoint, say FL100, and with say 30nm to run to the airport for which you can get tafs and metars (and anyway cloud above 5000ft/MSA is not reported)?
IO,
This was why I started the other thread about how the arrivals would work in practice. My own interpertitation is that EASA want an EIR pilot to desent to a lower altitude which will almost certainly be outside the airway system and quite probably outside controlled airspace, but no lower than 1000ft above the highest obstacle within 5nm. Presumably they'll use VFR charts for this. They'll need VFR charts anyway because they need to depart and arrive under VFR. My understanding is that the departure and arrival is VFR, not just VMC.
As Pace says, and yourself, it's not so easy to determine that the weather 50nm away from the airport will be VFR, as there might be no metar/taf there.
It's obvious to me that in all likelyhood using the EIR will require better weather conditions that VFR flight would. If you can't be sure of completing it under VFR, then you can't be sure of breaking out above 1000ft above any obstacles within 5nm.
It will of course allow you to build instrument time towards a full IR by flying under IFR when you would otherwise still have made the trip but under VFR, and it will allow you to fly on top of some local low cloud, but I don't really see it as providing a great deal towards safety, other than allowing an easier staged progression towards the full IR.
dp