Which Instrument Rating?

If you need to be there…..certified Part 25 or CS-25 will probably get you there in 99,9 % unless there is an ATC strike or something else happened:-) all the rest is balancing ADM VFR or IFR.

A couple of years ago the Brussels ACC went down completely for four hours or more, I was on an IFR flight plan around Munich when it happend (informed by the Munich ATCO that they lost all comms with Brussels ACC), I cancelled IFR just before the Belgian FIR, (had to go through a cloud layer but I was VMC at around 4000FT AGL) and went over the Ardennes with VFR comms with the Belgian Military and made it back CAT were diverting :-). Best of both VFR and IFR…

I agree with @Peter that IFR is way easier in Europe if only to avoid airspace issues and simplify planning. I file IFR on most trips, and try to make sure I choose a field with instrument approaches whenever I really care about getting there. However I don’t agree that SEP in IMC is somehow a bad idea, any more than night VFR is a bad idea, or that an SEP cannot be used for reasonably reliable transport.

The US GA mentality is so different on this point, and I first noticed it in NL when everyone referred to flying as a “sport”. To me it’s not about punching holes in the sky for fun. I have been using GA for travel for two decades. Yes it requires greater flexibility, but that cuts both ways. One reason to choose GA is to be able to enjoy greater flexibility! In return you accept that sometimes things don’t go as planned. But most often they do go as planned with an IFR capable pilot and aircraft, and that’s the point. VFR is extremely limiting, and day VFR even more so. I like a good weather sightseeing flight as much as anyone, but for serious, reliable travel in northern Europe an IR is an absolute must.

@dutch_flyer IMO you have hit on a very valid point in that many European pilots look on GA (I should say, light GA as opposed to TBMs, Pilatus etc) as a sport or hobby ( in France we would say it is our passion).
That doesn’t mean we wont fly a few thousand kilometres just for the sake of it. It just means that flying is something we enjoy doing, rather than playing golf or some other pastime that might take up a day or a weekend.
To that extent Dan is correct about VFR and many get a huge amount of enjoyment out of that and it doesn’t stop anyone travelling across the whole of Europe and beyond, as the many trip reports on here demonstrate.
But others are right also. If the destination and the return is your aim, and perhaps taking the family with you, then the IR is very useful and makes that sort of journey much less tiring.

Amateurish wrote:

I’m currently working towards my PPL in the UK and planning to get my instrument rating soon after. My aim is to be able to travel around Europe in a SEP with family.

Shields are still on
My post was only intended to tell @Amateurish that there is more to it than just getting the IR ticket and then being assured to be able to fly everyday in any kind of weather. It sure ain’t a golden egg.

@gallois, thanks for a sensible post

Amateurish wrote:

Thanks Dan I appreciate the advice. This winter we seem to have weeks and weeks of extensive low lying stratus which sits there and prevents any sort of XC VFR.

@Amateurish, if you also check the freezing levels via MetOffice or Autorouter GRAMET, you will see that they were quite high – FL50-FL60 (inversion? ground temp was 3-5C), which means you could climb above MSA and the low-level clouds and fly VMC on top.

arj1 wrote:

In short – get some IR and fly some plane! :)

Brilliant! After the very first year of touring neighboring countries VFR and crossing the Alps occasionally it became clear IFR is the way to go. Did the seven EASA theory exams and flew two more VFR years before getting serious enough to proceed. CBIR came along but couldn´t find anybody around providing it so went the full EASA IR route. Having the first IFR touring year under my belt I can attest to all positives already mentioned. It has literally transformed my flying.

@Amateurish The 40/50 hours of training is barely enough to learn the basics and pass the skill test so having a possibility to get IRR and more IFR experience is the way to go.

Peter_G wrote:

I may sound like an Old Record but I still maintain that, even given the current climate, getting the FAA IR, flying 50 hours, and then, if they want to, doing the ‘Conversion’ to a U.K. IR may still be of advantage (and more convenient) for some.
For someone, though, flying ‘N’, mainly in Europe, the equation is more convincing.
I think both routes – FAA IR & European IR – are far from easy and both test pilots in slightly different ways.
As accident statistics show – both produce good, safe, IR pilots (which at the end of the day is surely what the qualification should be about).
The Oral for an FAA IR is no ‘ walk in the park ’: Mine I recall, although many years ago, was over 1 hour.

Totally agree with @Peter_G here. Only thing I’d add is that today the FAA IR oral is generally more like 3-4 hours.

172driver wrote:

Peter_G wrote: I may sound like an Old Record but I still maintain that, even given the current climate, getting the FAA IR, flying 50 hours, and then, if they want to, doing the ‘Conversion’ to a U.K. IR may still be of advantage (and more convenient) for some.

For some – yes, for many it is not going to work as you MUST go to the US for the theory exam. So if a pilot has to got to the US a few times, then yes, it might be an easier option.