What about a modular IR?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what I wrote in the other thread...
The real argument is whether the [training] requirements of the IR can be set much lower than they are.
There is no doubt they can be...
Unfortunately that line is a total loser for private IFR because any competency differentiation between the 'professional IR' and a 'private IR' would most likely lead to a ban on private IFR in a lot of places. The greatest weapon private IFR has against the gold plating elitists is "we passed the same IR checkride as the ATPL flying your 737".
Never forget that much of Europe has virtually zero GA (not counting people with lawn mowers strapped to their back, and the microlight scene) and its regulators couldn't care less for GA. They are, almost to a man, ex military (remember that most of the world is run by military dictators, actually or de facto), or ex ATC and these are highly elitist and rule-based professions.
Yet we want to be able to fly there, and overfly it.
So the only options for making the IR more accessible (like the FAA one is in the USA) are
- reduce the theory content (this is reportedly happening in the EASA IR)
- reduce the minimum dual training time i.e. go for demonstrated competence; ICAO is a friend here with its 10hrs min requirement (this is also reportedly happening in the EASA IR)
- take the IR flight training out of the professional school arena which is currently mandatory (I am not sure any progress has been made on this, due to FTO industry protectionism)
- take the IR theory training out of the professional school arena which is currently mandatory-attendance (this I believe will be in the EASA IR i.e. self study permitted)
- take out the Class 1 audiogram and go for Demonstrated Ability which is what you get anyway on all medicals after the Initial one
(this is not going to happen because medical departments in the CAAs rule more or less absolutely)
Give it a few years and then see.
In the meantime, get the FAA PPL/IR, buy an N-reg plane and enjoy at least a number of years of freedom
That's what I have been doing, along with a few thousand European pilots.
I don't know the politics of why the originally proposed modular IR did not come to being (in a proposal form, at least) but I suspect it was due to the desire to avoid introducing any lower-standard-checkride IR, for the reasons given above (GA exclusion from airspace) which I have heard from a number of the "committee players".
But then I fail to see where the EIR comes in, because it has a lower standard (no approaches) yet gives access to the same airspace.
The key to understanding this is to understand the specific committee politics... and I have no idea how this panned out. I dont have any inside track.
The real argument is whether the [training] requirements of the IR can be set much lower than they are.
There is no doubt they can be...
Unfortunately that line is a total loser for private IFR because any competency differentiation between the 'professional IR' and a 'private IR' would most likely lead to a ban on private IFR in a lot of places. The greatest weapon private IFR has against the gold plating elitists is "we passed the same IR checkride as the ATPL flying your 737".
Never forget that much of Europe has virtually zero GA (not counting people with lawn mowers strapped to their back, and the microlight scene) and its regulators couldn't care less for GA. They are, almost to a man, ex military (remember that most of the world is run by military dictators, actually or de facto), or ex ATC and these are highly elitist and rule-based professions.
Yet we want to be able to fly there, and overfly it.
So the only options for making the IR more accessible (like the FAA one is in the USA) are
- reduce the theory content (this is reportedly happening in the EASA IR)
- reduce the minimum dual training time i.e. go for demonstrated competence; ICAO is a friend here with its 10hrs min requirement (this is also reportedly happening in the EASA IR)
- take the IR flight training out of the professional school arena which is currently mandatory (I am not sure any progress has been made on this, due to FTO industry protectionism)
- take the IR theory training out of the professional school arena which is currently mandatory-attendance (this I believe will be in the EASA IR i.e. self study permitted)
- take out the Class 1 audiogram and go for Demonstrated Ability which is what you get anyway on all medicals after the Initial one
(this is not going to happen because medical departments in the CAAs rule more or less absolutely)Give it a few years and then see.
In the meantime, get the FAA PPL/IR, buy an N-reg plane and enjoy at least a number of years of freedom
That's what I have been doing, along with a few thousand European pilots. I don't know the politics of why the originally proposed modular IR did not come to being (in a proposal form, at least) but I suspect it was due to the desire to avoid introducing any lower-standard-checkride IR, for the reasons given above (GA exclusion from airspace) which I have heard from a number of the "committee players".
But then I fail to see where the EIR comes in, because it has a lower standard (no approaches) yet gives access to the same airspace.
The key to understanding this is to understand the specific committee politics... and I have no idea how this panned out. I dont have any inside track.
sternone
Totally agree. In my opnion the UK IMCR should only be for getting yourself to safety in an inadvertant IMC event. It should not be a way to plan IMC/IFR flight in any airspace. Ideal qalification for future upgrade to IR and a life saver.
The only route to IFR in controlled airspace for the PPL holder should be a 'new' IR with a much reduced technical content to the written exams. Self study allowed and not tied in to an FTO. (European type FAA IR?) A modular approach with reduced flight experience would be unsafe.
I come from an airline background, and find my present single crew IFR flying, much more demanding especially in actual IMC.(Could be my age though!) Although much safer and easier than grubbing around at low level trying to avoid the ground and controlled airspace etc.
I believe the UK proposed EIR is a nonsense and unworkable in the real world of weather forecasting and ATC
The only route to IFR in controlled airspace for the PPL holder should be a 'new' IR with a much reduced technical content to the written exams. Self study allowed and not tied in to an FTO. (European type FAA IR?) A modular approach with reduced flight experience would be unsafe.
I come from an airline background, and find my present single crew IFR flying, much more demanding especially in actual IMC.(Could be my age though!) Although much safer and easier than grubbing around at low level trying to avoid the ground and controlled airspace etc.
I believe the UK proposed EIR is a nonsense and unworkable in the real world of weather forecasting and ATC
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree. In my opnion the UK IMCR should only be for getting yourself to safety in an inadvertant IMC event. It should not be a way to plan IMC/IFR flight in any airspace. Ideal qalification for future upgrade to IR and a life saver.
I come from an airline background, and find my present single crew IFR flying, much more demanding especially in actual IMC.(Could be my age though!)
Tim
