Originally Posted by
2high2fastagain
Code:
(2) The En-Route Instrument Rating
...has got to be the dumbest thing that a faceless bureaucrat could dream up IMHO. I mean you wouldn't teach someone to fly the cruise and then send them solo without teaching them how to land would you. That would be criminally negligent in my book. I just can't square the concept of cruising 'on-top' in IMC and 'hoping' to find a hole to in VMC as 'good airmanship' either.
Funnily enough, one member state has a solution for this problem which has apparently been working with spectacular success for 40 years . The country authority says that it has saved many lives and backs this up with enviably low accident rates.. All we need is for EASA to say 'hey guys, look at this. Wow! It works. Let's get this implemented across the community asap so we can get everyone up to the high water mark in the UK".
I agree with everything you say. But, if EASA is with us and refusing to listen to experience and logic, as I said, let's find and use the positives.
For me, my IMC, which I already use routinely within UK airspace for long trips and approaches, will keep me current on approaches if I need to fly one, whilst the EIR will give me IFR internationally and use of airways. If I am flying to Liege or Waterford and the conditions prove worse than the TAF when I left - well sod it, I'll declare an emergency and fly the instrument approach procedure I'm trained to use and that I conveniently brought the plate for with me. If that's what EASA want me to do, and refuse to create a much more sensible system that allows the rest of Europe the abilities I have, fine, I'll play by their rules and thanks very much for it.
ALSO, the new proposed EASA IR will have simplified exams, only 10 hours flight time (+30 sim, but that's a hell of a lot cheaper), and be do-able in 2 stages. So the IR may become accessible to far more people than at present. I am quite happy to add the EIR and then in turn the full IR to my IMC if that's the way ahead.
G