Peter wrote:
I reckon that if flying was invented today, there would be a “normal PPL” and an “aerobatics PPL”, and the normal PPL would allow what we today call VFR+IFR.
I think in a perfect world everybody would learn all of the above but I’m not sure if technology “invented today” would allow it at reasonable cost – particularly if individually operated and owned aircraft is an even higher goal, not clubs and shared aircraft which would certainly repel me at light speed 
However as long as we’re going down the unified flying rules road I’d add some other things to the list: there wouldn’t be a need for flight plans or manned ATC, planes would self separate in most airspace. Routing within busy areas would be by computer, no people, and outside of those areas it would be point to point with no routing and no VFR or IFR, just flying including aerobatics if that’s where the mood of the moment takes you. That’s where technology should be a taking us, not pulling pilots into IFR as it exists now. Even with a rational, attainable non-expiring FAA instrument rating, pilots aren’t sufficiently motivated to stay current or use the system. In Europe, the irrational complexity and costs are a disaster and the average person will never have an interest.
In the real world today, where owning your own plane is satisfying and motivating, aircraft equipment is expensive and IFR is regimented and boring, my view of flying is that less is generally more. Less complexity equals less ownership hassle, less weather is less hassle (move somewhere with nicer weather), less ATC equals more fun, the best airports are paved strips of asphalt with a fuel pump and no more. The only feature of today’s IFR that attracts me is the ability to fly up and down through cloud layers and cruise on top without concern… But in the real world, today, that isn’t enough for me to tolerate the regimentation of IFR flying and tolerating the limitations of a junior instrument rating as a supposed solution would be even worse.
bookworm wrote:
… cases of a (lowest) circling MDH above 600 ft
The published VM(C) OCH values exceed 600 ft in 13 out of the 58 UK civil aerodromes/airports having published IAPs permitting visual manoeuvring.
The lowest VM(C) OCH values for these are:
EGSC Cambridge 613
EGHI Southampton 626
EGNM Leeds Bradford 639
EGHC Lands End 642
EGNR Hawarden 655
EGNL Barrow/Walney Island 656
EGLL London Heathrow 667
EGPR Barra 725
EGBJ Gloucestershire 729
EGPF Glasgow 774
EGPB Sumburgh 779
EGEC Campbeltown 848
EGAC Belfast/City 1025
I wonder whether these minima are not something which are a good idea for SEP anyway, not depending on the license. SEP IR has the inbuilt risk of the single power plant failure in which case with the normal minima your chances of survival are virtually non existent if you experience a failure near the ground. 600 ft and 1500m vis will give you some chance of seeing some ground and maybe avoid hitting the worst obstacles when you come out of cloud or rather if something happens during departure.
Why this had to be put into the BIR however is something I wonder because it is not really relevant for the IR but for the airplane flown. I think the BIR is a good thing for people who are finally going to get a proper instrument rating (restrictions non-withstanding) but clearly the better solution would have been to make the ordinary IR like this, possibly with those restrictions active during the first 100 hours IFR and then subject to a IR checkflight, doing away with them. Again, the restrictions for a IR rating do not really make a lot of sense to me but they do for SEP operation in general.
What is also not very clever is that the BIR does not count towards obtaining a “full” IR or am I getting this wrong? How do you upgrade a BIR to a IR?
Thank you Qalupalik. I think the impact of the first 7 is almost insignificant operationally (700 ft instead of 600 ft), though there is an argument that the increased complexity of including circling minima in the rule outweighs the safety benefit. A circuit at 550 ft is unlikely to kill you.
At the other end of the spectrum, from the plate, EGAC looks like one of those places where a badly flown instrument flight procedure does have a good chance of leading to Darwinian consequences. The terrain a mile or so to the east of the airfield rises to more than 600 ft. I would not regard it as a forgiving place to learn precision in instrument flying.
This is a bit tricky. The whole thing is based on the assumption that a pilot with the BIR cannot fly the last bits of an instrument approach with sufficient precision, so he should not plan to do so. Fighting this idea is fruitless, I think.
But in reality, an ILS/LPV approach is not harder to fly down to, say, 500ft above the threshold if the minimum is 200ft, 300ft, or 500ft.
So there are two arguments to make
- The relationship to the circling minimum should be dropped altogether – the obstacle clearance considerations for the circling have no relation to the intended approach and missed approach path
- There should be an absolute maximum above which the pilot is not required to increase the minimum. For example, existing rules allow any EIR holder to descend to 1,000ft and then continue VFR, the BIR should not be more restrictive
Just to clarify, the aerodrome operating minima (AOM) are separated from the planning minima (PM).
AOM (what you can actually fly)
1500 m visibility + DH/MDH + 200 ft,
PM (what the METAR/TAF must say)
1500 m visibility + ceiling at least the highest of DH/MDH + 200 ft, 600 ft, and circling minima
So a BIR holder will usually be able to fly the LPV down to 450 ft, but still requires a 600 ft ceiling in the met.
One possibility might be to allow NAAs to designate exceptions in cases where the results are perverse, as in ENVA.
How should you plan when the circling minima is different depending on runway direction, or depending on the side of the runway you are circling?
(The latter can differ a lot, but I was surprised to see substantial differences at some airports also depending on runway direction.)
In an ideal world you could have a BIR(R) with “differences training” to remove the 200’ restriction. The 1500m might also be reduced to, say 1200m.
As this is properly competence based, I wonder why not train and test to 200’ and then grant that privilege? How long can it possibly take any IRI worth their salt to train someone who can fly to 400’ to fly 200’? An extra couple of hours? I get them doing it on the sim before we ever get near an aircraft. If they do it right, the last 200’ is no more difficult than the previous 200’
mh wrote:
And for the club study: It shows just, what it is: a good bunch of pilots are doing just fine with their VFR flying and do not intend to fly more. Not all of these people are old pilots, quite a big chunk of young folks do not have any interst in travelling by GA. They want to be in the air, that’s all. Some of them just have a PPL for lifting skydivers, some for towing. Some “new” pilots fulfil their dream of flying after a life of work. They are happy to safely operate a C172 and are totally content with it.My point is, that in these discussions, many forumists are too quick to toss these pilots out of a regulatory discussion. Although they are a vital part of the GA backbone. They help maintaining airfields and aircraft, sponsor youth flying, vitalise an aeroclub. No “white paper aeronautics” could do without harvesting the pure fascination of flying itself on a very, very basic level.
Good points. The thing about travelling is that you suddenly have need to have a reason to be at point “B” rather than in the air. With gliders, cross country is what it’s all about in the end, and if you happen to land at some point “B”, then you have lost. Funny thing really.
What naturally drives GA towards travelling is that you could fly more and have some kind of “return of the investment” if the plane could be used for something “useful” as well. That drive will always be there, and the BIR is something that could make utility more accessible for more pilots. That will help GA IMO. It could be too little too late though. There are too many other things that doesn’t work any more in GA for it to become worth while perhaps. I think very few will take that BIR just for the fun of it.
