Mooney_Driver wrote:
This stems from the former certification requirements we had in most countries, which demanded high end equipped airplanes. While this is different today where, like in the US, it is up to the PIC to decide if he is sufficiently equipped to fly a particular leg IFR or not, the mentality is still there
In nearly impossible to get this understood. In a club I am member of the PA28 Archer 3 which was IFR equipped (and so technically and administratively still fit for IFR) is advertised as VFR only. And when you say “but we can do IFR with it, it has all equipment needed” the answer is NO we no longer do the IFR certification as it is still too expensive. Unless I missed something in the regulation I understand that this point of view is totally wrong…
jfw wrote:
And when you say “but we can do IFR with it, it has all equipment needed” the answer is NO we no longer do the IFR certification as it is still to expensive. Unless I missed something in the regulation I understand that this point of view is totally wrong…
My understanding of this is that the airplane must not be limited to VFR via AFM or placards (someone else will have to confirm), but otherwise it’s simply a matter of having the necessary equipment for the procedures to be flown. I fly IFR in my TB-10 with a single GNS530W and one altimeter, which previously would not have been allowed.
dutch_flyer wrote:
My understanding of this is that the airplane must not be limited to VFR via AFM or placards (someone else will have to confirm), but otherwise it’s simply a matter of having the necessary equipment for the procedures to be flown. I fly IFR in my TB-10 with a single GNS530W and one altimeter, which previously would not have been allowed.
@dutch_flyer, some equipment needs to be tested and calibrated more frequently and some schools don’t do that.
Another reason could be that they don’t update the GNS nav DB and think that the aircraft could not be flown IFR as a result – it could be, but outside the airways system.
arj1 wrote:
@dutch_flyer, some equipment needs to be tested and calibrated more frequently and some schools don’t do that.
True, although this is a very small barrier in practice.
arj1 wrote:
Another reason could be that they don’t update the GNS nav DB and think that the aircraft could not be flown IFR as a result – it could be, but outside the airways system.
If I were in a club and this was the only barrier I would offer to update it myself. At a few hundred € per year it’s worth it.
Usually GPS is out of date and Pitot-Static was not signed-off for IFR every 2 years (strictly speaking it’s not required for EASA reg but mandatory for N-reg)
There is also undocumented installs or things not done properly (e.g. AFM Supplement, STC paperwork, FM immunity…you name it), I have seen an aircraft that has everything to be IFR except the right documents: things were simply bolted on it’s panel by carpenters making cheese, the club did not want it to fly IFR for obvious reasons and it was placarded “VFR only”
dutch_flyer wrote:
Another reason could be that they don’t update the GNS nav DB and think that the aircraft could not be flown IFR as a result – it could be, but outside the airways system.
I do not get that one…Can’t you fly airways with VORs ? There is no need to have a GPS or am I wrong ?
I do not get that one…Can’t you fly airways with VORs ? There is no need to have a GPS or am I wrong ?
Yes you need equipment for the route (but some “VOR-VOR” routes are on higher PBN specs)
In VMC, you need nothing if you claim that you can navigate VOR-VOR visually 
dutch_flyer wrote:
arj1 wrote:
@dutch_flyer, some equipment needs to be tested and calibrated more frequently and some schools don’t do that.
True, although this is a very small barrier in practice.
Yes, but they don’t need this normally, so not paying it. :)
dutch_flyer wrote:
arj1 wrote:
Another reason could be that they don’t update the GNS nav DB and think that the aircraft could not be flown IFR as a result – it could be, but outside the airways system.
If I were in a club and this was the only barrier I would offer to update it myself. At a few hundred € per year it’s worth it.
It would normally work, except sometimes (when the nav data is way out of date) update cannot completed without the software upgrade, and that requires extra cost
Plus see the message Ibra re: unapproved install – that could also be a reason. Another one is if GNS-W model was installed early in the days, AML STC did not exist and so the install is unapproved. Again, could easily be approved, just a paper excercise and a few interference tests, but it is a hassle and a small cost.
There is a general BRNAV requirement above FL095, which can be met only with an IFR approved GPS, or INS.
Apparently not everywhere though.
“Airways” is a UK PPL term designed to scare PPLs to death if they bust the LTMA What matters is the airspace class and what the national AIP says.
Whether any of this affects why so few people go for the IR, I doubt.
arj1 wrote:
@Ibra, what upsets me a lot is the fact any IR theory expires in 3 years. I know quite a few IR (R ) instructors that allowed their IR to lapse (they did not need it at the time) and now they cannot get it back unless they do a full theory and 7 exams. If it was the same things as ICAO IR conversion – no problem, many would do it, but going the full cycle again…
Absolutely. I have had the IR theory, together with CPL and frozen ATPL at some stage. I can get my CPL back easy enough (just need a class 1 medical) but I have to redo the IR from scratch (Theory). Makes no sense. The only legal reason for this is that the IR is a rating while the others are licenses.
