Yes, IFR is intended for bad weather and that’s what it’s good for, and all it’s good for in principle. Most people don’t fly in bad weather most of the time.
There is for sure a minority of people anywhere who like to be controlled whether forced to do so or not (safety or security as appropriate being the typical justification). I should therefore have said “the majority of people in Europe and the third world” fly IFR to as the lesser of two evils in minimizing issues with chaotic airspace and government BS because it’s not 100% of them, just most of them IMO.
IFR does not dramatically improve the despatch rate unless you have full ice protection and a ceiling above FL200.
In Europe, what the IR does is a much more effective means of dealing with ATC and airspace classes. The reason is that European ATC and airspace is not well geared for VFR GA. This varies by country, of course. Going IFR gives you an implied whole-route clearance, with ATC working for you. It also enables some things like departing from an airport in Class D which has a minimum cloudbase for VFR of say 1200ft, the cloudbase is 1000ft, the tops are 2000ft, the temp is +20C, but you cannot depart VFR because ATC will not let you 
I spent a week at LFBZ learning that.
Silvaire wrote:
People in Europe and in the third world fly IFR because there is so much chaotic airspace and government BS on their route that they couldn’t fly the route without constant ATC communication and IFR. Regardless of weather being appropriate for IFR or not, they have no choice but to accept the lesser of two evils and submit to the BS to take a given route.
Almost all my American friends who are serious flyers do have an IR while in Europe the hurdles are much higher. And European IFR is also more complex due to the whole regulation mess, which basically means you need a computerized system to file flight plans and all that. Once you get the hang of it, it’s fine but a lot of people shy away. Additionally, the fact that a lot of IFR airports have by now priced out GA has further made the myth popular that the IR is unnecessary.
myself, I was never happy nor comfortable VFR, I much prefer to fly in a controlled environment, I enjoy the exchanges with ATC and in any case I am more interested in the technical side of flying than in joyriding, which I for myself never found to have much purpose. Also in terms of traffic avoidance and certainly airspace I find IFR much more interesting than VFR. But having lost my IFR homebase, I probably will no longer be looking to renew my IR also due to time constraints.
Peter wrote:
IFR does not dramatically improve the despatch rate unless you have full ice protection and a ceiling above FL200.
Again, that is highly dependent on your location. Here, with months of low stratus and great weather above 2000 ft, it is a total game changer from November to April in high pressure situations. Ice is hardly ever an issue in the 2 -3 minutes of IMC on departure or landing, but of course there is a certain risk with SEP’s when the ceiling is at 500 ft AGL.
Peter wrote:
Going IFR gives you an implied whole-route clearance, with ATC working for you. It also enables some things like departing from an airport in Class D which has a minimum cloudbase for VFR of say 1200ft, the cloudbase is 1000ft, the tops are 2000ft, the temp is +20C, but you cannot depart VFR because ATC will not let you
Correct.
Given the change, I’d always fly IFR even in CAVOK. It is just much more relaxed and safer. Also, the higher you fly, the more options you have in case of engine problems.
Yes; posts/edits crossed I think. I wrote more or less the same.
And to take this back to the thread subject, you are much less likely to have an IFR capable plane unless you own it.
It also enables some things like departing from an airport in Class D which has a minimum cloudbase for VFR of say 1200ft, the cloudbase is 1000ft, the tops are 2000ft, the temp is +20C, but you cannot depart VFR because ATC will not let you
That is true anywhere (not just Europe) and is incidentally the only attraction of IFR to me, in my environment – IFR is then cancelled after about 10 minutes airborne and you continue wherever you want go, with the radio turned off if that’s what you like. I suspect that most people commenting here about the “relaxation” of flying IFR have never flown a long distance without the necessity to talk to anybody at all, at any altitude or combination of altitudes, without any fixed man-made procedures along the way. Nor perhaps with ADS-B to more easily and effectively avoid traffic conflicts.
Obviously the root cause of this IFR discussion in relation to owning an aircraft in Europe is that the poor airspace design and bad, non-uniform localized/national regulation acts to prevent people from getting utility from simple aircraft that they can afford, which would otherwise be fine for flying anywhere they want to go. This is no fault of the aircraft, and doesn’t point to the superiority of more complex and burdensome aircraft – which notwithstanding their legal compliance to fly in the European system are often less enjoyable to fly, as well as to own IMO.
Even when considering the tax and ground infrastructure issues which are also formidable, I think this is the biggest and most problematic restriction on European GA, because it discourages ownership – which is the basis of anything that is going to widely succeed. IFR is just used as an expensive, intentionally exclusionary (in Europe) and mostly inappropriate patch to react to the core problem.
Yes that is true, but stating it just serves to wind up Europeans, especially when an American is pointing it out 
Europe is still deeply unhappy over the miserable amount paid out by the US under the Marshall Plan, and driving European obesity with MacD and KFC!
I get into enough trouble for repeatedly saying how much better N-reg is
As old boss/mentor of mine once told me “just stick to the facts and that will eliminate about 90% of the opposition”
We have three citizenships in my household, and three cultures. I’m not unaccustomed to the associated issues. In fact one might say I invited them upon myself.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The attitude you display is unfortunately one which is quite popular in GA and leads to the fact that the IR is poh-pohed by many, some of which would still be alive had they done the trouble to do it. That and the fact that outpricing and anti GA sentiments (they should fly UL’s or not at all) leads to bans a lot of airports which have IFR capability.
Again: And I do appreciate that my point of view sitting here on the edge of Europe might be different to yours.
Your problems are obviously not my problems, and you are putting words in my mouth. Most of the people who do fly IFR here do so in an RV, a homebuilt aircraft. Most of them work as commercial pilots. IFR or not has never been a “thing”. The problem for a PPL is to get the IFR rating, which is mostly due to the way EASA has organized instruction with requirements for an ATO. Running an ATO for anything but sausage factory commercial licenses is not viable anywhere but the most densely populated areas in Europe. Perhaps not even there? There are no ATOs in Norway that will do private PPL, because it cannot be done without losing money, or upping the price to unacceptable levels anyway.
The only way to get IFR rating is to go and stay abroad until it’s done. Very few have the time to do that deliberately. It’s mostly done by coincidence, with work or something. The alternative is helicopter, which more people end up doing instead.
It all boils down to one thing: is it worth it? IFR : only by coincidence. Heli : much more so than IFR.
UL and 600 kg must also be explained a bit more. There’s much more to it than meets the eye at first sight. This is from the explanation of the new regs from the CAA.
What the picture show is UL according to §1-3 a in Annex I (orange) and the opt for up to 600/650 kg (green). The bottom boxes show ULs used according to the National UL regs (orange). This is aircraft “coming from” the upper orange or green boxes. The blue box shows the aircraft from the green box, but instead of registering the aircraft as a ULs, you can chose to register it as a “normal” category national aircraft. This will be, more or less, the same category as experimental aircraft, only they are factory built and must be maintained like any other factory built national registered non-EASA aircraft. much “easier” than EASA in most ways, but stricter than UL. If it’s not experimental or UL, it’s a bit outside my sphere in that regard, but as I understand it’s all based on relevant competence, tailor made if necessary, rather than official certification and organization. It must be possible to maintain a GA aircraft at the places where you would have good use for a GA aircraft. This is not possible for most people today with EASA.
The requirement for ending up in the blue box is also that the aircraft cannot be registered as an EASA aircraft. For instance EASA VLA or EASA LSA. These aircraft can only be flown with LAPL/PPL for the simple reason they are not registered as ULs, even if they could be identical.
The relevant national regulations for the blue box has been in effect for a couple of years already. There’s no restrictions in that category whatsoever (weight, seats speed whatever). The only new thing in that regard is the inclusion of these “large” ULs, if so chosen. I cannot really imagine why you would want register it as national instead of UL, except perhaps one thing, the possibility for IFR. No concern of mine, but perhaps a concern to you? I don’t think we will see much happening there until the US MOSAIC regs starts to work. Then factory built larger RVs for instance (8, 10, 14 etc) will fit right into that category along with everything else going on there. European UL manufacturers will of course also try to get a piece of that market for “big ULs” in the US.
How the future will be? We are talking in just 1-2 years into the future. This will be interesting to see. It certainly does not look worse than it has been with EASA. Funny thing. On a webinar LT told that the main reasons they made that “national possibility” for ULs was for schools to have newer and cheaper aircraft to use for PPL training. However EASA categorically said NO to that possibility. They still went through with it though. Interesting times indeed.
