The future of EASA Instrument Qualifications
Originally Posted by Pace
The enroute restricted IR is a halfway house which is asking for trouble
I can see one use for it which has nothing to do with weather but with the horrible airspace restrictions all around us for VFR.
Northern Italy and the Rome Area are gigantic "A" airspaces which make VFR there unsafe and dangerous. With an EIR one could fly quietly and legally on airways through this airspace and not at 1500 ft AGL or worse, over the sea. The same goes for the airspace mess in France, Belgium and elsewhere. Take off VFR, join up and fly airways until close to destination and then descend and land at the airport of your choice.
A LOT of small planes hardly ever use IFR equipped aerodromes. They are based on non IFR strips and they fly to non IFR strips. In all those cases, the EIR will allow them to do exactly what they need to and not even make a difference if they had the full IR.
The "interesting" thing is that as usual in Europe, people will immediately suspect any rating holder to misuse it and to abuse the rights they are given. Well, if we pilots think like that, then what are we bitching about EASA's stance?
Apart, looking at the newly proposed ideas on what an airplane needs to be IFR certified (WAAS, dual 8.33 coms, no more "on conditon" e.t.c.) even if the new EIR will make it past the anti aircraft lobbies they just now again have won a decisive victory. Nobody will care for an IR if the airplanes involved are too expensive, or rather if the cost to upgrade them exceeds the airframe value.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN2
We have the ability with the IMCR to make an instrument approach and in an emergency have the skills to be vectored onto an ILS anywhere and to fly it with reasonable accuracy to a landing.
What I feel uncomfortable with is the lack of a plan B in the EASA enroute IR I have been in this game long enough to know that with all the best intentions things do not work out as we envisage.
some poor sod dumping himself off the airway into Barcelona before the STAR over high ground trying to get visual doesn't bare thinking of even if Barcelona is giving CAVOK. i have seen totally different weather in the course of 25 miles on many occasions.
i have also see CAVOK at Barcelona and CAVOK on departure and en route airfields giving 700 meters cloud base 200 feet!
So any enroute part IR should involve the ability to fly an ILS and take vectors.
not to use in normal situations but like with the old tyro military call. There should be a call which identifies the en route IR pilot as being in difficulty and instigates an immediate vectoring to an airport with reasonable minima for an ILS.
Pace
We have the ability with the IMCR to make an instrument approach and in an emergency have the skills to be vectored onto an ILS anywhere and to fly it with reasonable accuracy to a landing.
What I feel uncomfortable with is the lack of a plan B in the EASA enroute IR I have been in this game long enough to know that with all the best intentions things do not work out as we envisage.
some poor sod dumping himself off the airway into Barcelona before the STAR over high ground trying to get visual doesn't bare thinking of even if Barcelona is giving CAVOK. i have seen totally different weather in the course of 25 miles on many occasions.
i have also see CAVOK at Barcelona and CAVOK on departure and en route airfields giving 700 meters cloud base 200 feet!
So any enroute part IR should involve the ability to fly an ILS and take vectors.
not to use in normal situations but like with the old tyro military call. There should be a call which identifies the en route IR pilot as being in difficulty and instigates an immediate vectoring to an airport with reasonable minima for an ILS.
Pace
