Prague & Erlangen - IFR EURO TOUR (and is an IR worth doing?)

europaxs wrote:

however you have to feel comfortable rendering yourself without a “plan b” (other than BRS maybe) when flying through real IMC in a SEP with clouds on ground/hilly terrain etc., thus very little options when all goes quiet at the wrong moment. It’s just risk management and not for everyone…

If you can’t make yourself comfortable with the idea of flying above (or in) a low overcast layer because of the engine failure risk, then I would have to admit that the IR is probably not worth your time just to get easier airspace access. For me I’ve decided to accept the statistical improbability of an engine failure and not limit myself. Same goes for night flying, or flying over water or hostile terrain, all of which I also do. We also spare no expense keeping our airplane in top condition. But I do recognize some people are less tolerant of this risk.

however you have to feel comfortable rendering yourself without a “plan b” (other than BRS maybe) when flying through real IMC in a SEP with clouds on ground/hilly terrain etc., thus very little options when all goes quiet at the wrong moment. It’s just risk management and not for everyone…

Still better situation being IFR in IMC at FL80 than VFR scud run in 500ft-1000ft agl band between the same terrain & clouds, it’s called “relative risk management”

If one is talking about IFR when VFR under is not possible, we may all buy BRS aircraft but most of “BRS saves” or “possible BRS saves” are not related to IFR SEP engine failures…

Most IFR accidents are CFIT and LOC-I, while I can see how BRS can help keeping speed controlled and wing level but it may not sort out LOC-I, especially on takeoff & landing with weather under 500ft agl or CFIT in cruise

Sadly even getting TBM or PC12 won’t sort this issue

But I have frequently spent hours in IMC on a long trip and see no reason why this is a problem

Icing, at FL100 it is 0C or below most of the year, in Europe.

@dutch_flyer – agree, however you have to feel comfortable rendering yourself without a “plan b” (other than BRS maybe) when flying through real IMC in a SEP with clouds on ground/hilly terrain etc., thus very little options when all goes quiet at the wrong moment. It’s just risk management and not for everyone…

This is exactly what I was arguing against. I have loads of hours in IMC in C172s and PA28s. They are perfectly capable airplanes as long as you avoid icing and convective activity. I have 21 years of flying in IMC, and I’ve never had any of those luxuries. This is an unnecessary limitation people place on themselves.

I did 200h of IFR in C172, about 1/5 were low level IMC…sure it was not flying “FL160 on Radar/Airway over Alps” but flying was possible all year around in UK, actually, in one year, I have not cancelled one single flight but there there is no terrain and one can plan low level IMC OCAS, I was current as hell in IMC flying (even enjoying it), I may not even dare going in that today with better equipment and more hours (maybe I was lucky)

Some fly “VMC IFR” where most of IR value comes from avoiding to deal with low level mess of “European ATC”, yes TBM would be ideal

I think everyone tries to justify the value of IR based on what they fly, their flying mission and currency, what budget they have, how they were trained, so the opinions vary a lot

europaxs wrote:

I became aware, that you very much have to commit yourself for IFR to remain current.

Wholeheartedly agree with this. Flying IFR in IMC when not proficient is a bad idea, but if you live in a place with lots of cloud (like NL) getting your IMC time is not an issue.

Plus most of the SEP are not really suitable for “real weather” without Deice, Turbo, pressurization etc.. I have to confess, that I wouldn’t lounch into intensive IFR conditions with a C172, PA28, DA 40 and the like anyway. But of course that’s just me…

This is exactly what I was arguing against. I have loads of hours in IMC in C172s and PA28s. They are perfectly capable airplanes as long as you avoid icing and convective activity. I have 21 years of flying in IMC, and I’ve never had any of those luxuries. This is an unnecessary limitation people place on themselves.

Peter wrote:

For sure one spends only little time in IMC, which is the perverse thing about Europe: the biggest value of the IR is to game the ATC and airspace system which works largely against VFR traffic. This is true even though on a given day you could have done it VFR and on the same route. But the IR is extremely handy for arrivals and departures which often cannot be done as “VFR” for the most frustrating reasons e.g. a layer of cloud 1000ft thick, 1000ft AAL…

I certainly agree that it’s very useful for arrivals and departures, and that it makes flying much simpler even when the trip could be done VFR. But I have frequently spent hours in IMC on a long trip and see no reason why this is a problem. An autopilot helps a lot with workload, but I’ve also done it many times by hand flying rental Cessnas and Pipers.

The IR is a big project but brings a lot of value if you have the right aircraft and do significant distances across Europe.

For sure one spends only little time in IMC, which is the perverse thing about Europe: the biggest value of the IR is to game the ATC and airspace system which works largely against VFR traffic. This is true even though on a given day you could have done it VFR and on the same route.

But the IR is extremely handy for arrivals and departures which often cannot be done as “VFR” for the most frustrating reasons e.g. a layer of cloud 1000ft thick, 1000ft AAL…

The FAA system with its 6/6 rolling currency is great but Brussels eliminated that by demanding European papers, which AFAICT is now a requirement for all of Europe (derogations all finished?) except a few places like Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. So we have the annual IR test which costs a good few hundred.

I did the EIR (I hear you saying it’s no “real IR” and you’re correct of course when it comes to approaches and departures) and it’s lapsed in the meantime. I had not much practical use for it and found out (like I observe with a couple of pilots in our club), that pretty much of instrument flying is for just training purpose. I became aware, that you very much have to commit yourself for IFR to remain current.

Plus most of the SEP are not really suitable for “real weather” without Deice, Turbo, pressurization etc.. I have to confess, that I wouldn’t lounch into intensive IFR conditions with a C172, PA28, DA 40 and the like anyway. But of course that’s just me…

OTOH I do not regret having done the IR. It was a lot of fun and for sure didn’t reduce my flying skills.

That said, many pilots underestimate what can also be done VFR, especially with Turbo :-)