EASA Basic IFR

[DRGT]

EASA issue a proposal for Basic IFR this week. I don't understand all of the ins and outs of their system, but it appears to be an IFR "lite" proposal. Their goal is to get more pilots filing and flying in the IFR system. They suggest this will improve the overall safety of GA. I agree if more competent IFR rated pilots leveraged the system on every cross country flight, safety would be enhanced. However, that's a big IF. I belong to the EAA IMC club. My observation in those meetings is that most pilots are not IFR current/competent. Also, I am still baffled by the NTSB reports that indicate the IFR rated pilot continued VFR flight into IMC. Huh?
I am not sure rule changes that make earning an IFR rating easier fixes these problems. But as suggested on another thread, perhaps I am getting old and set in my ways. (yes - I remember the good old days when a NDB approach was all that was available at a lot of airports).
Anyway - do we need a Basic IFR rating here in America?

[lnuss]

Anyway - do we need a Basic IFR rating here in America?

That's what we have now. "IFR Lite" sounds as if they're contemplating reduced capabilities. Given how often weather isn't as predicted, and people encounter unexpected conditions, it doesn't sound good to me.

Perhaps someone can find a good reason for it, but it sounds dangerous to me.

[martymayes]

This was discussed on here not too long ago, someone proposing we create a basic IFR type rating in the US. I'd be interested in seeing someone collect data to see how viable it would be.

On the other hand, If I ran a private ATC company, I'd want EVERY plane flying IFR if that would trigger more fees.


edit: here's the previous discussion: http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?...light=IFR+lite

[WLIU]

One aspect that is easy to miss is that EASA's IFR is closer to US ATP and the newer rating is much closer to the US instrument rating. It does not appear to be less than the US instrument rating.

Best of luck,

Wes

[BES]

[QUOTE=WLIU;74695]One aspect that is easy to miss is that EASA's IFR is closer to US ATP and the newer rating is much closer to the US instrument rating. It does not appear to be less than the US instrument rating.

Exactly. An IR has been - an still is, mind - a very time consuming and expensive thing to acquire in Europe. Even though our weather is pretty dismal and fast changing due to most of it being a marine climate, very few PPLs have IRs. If one wished to acquire an IR, one would have to pass an ATPL written and fly 45 hours of training. Cost being what it was and is, you would be looking at a year of ground school and approx. $25,000 in today's money.
In Great Britain you could have an IMC-Rating, which gave you the skills and priviledges to fly IFR on top and to shoot approaches - in the UK, that is. This was a well-proven system, which saved a lot of lives. Obviously, the French and German bureaocrats couldn't stomach the thought of accepting something invented in Britain, so the IMC-Rating was killed off. EASA then came up with an "Enroute IFR" which allowed you to fly into a situation you couldn't fly out of (no approaches allowed). Now, after about 10 years, EASA is attempting to reinvent the wheel by designing a "Basic IFR". Guess what it is going to be a clone of?
The problem here in Europe is that EASA is a mix of every nationality in the EU. Everybody has to agree and then the legal department of EASA kicks everything into a corner, where it stays, lest somebody might be blamed for allowing anything.

The result of this over-regulation is that less than 2% of PPL holders in Europe holds a valid IR.

Sometimes, you have no idea how well the US system works :-)

[Tralika]

I'm a CFII so maybe I'm not the most objective guy on this thread. That said, I have a question for the proponents of Basic IFR/IFR Lite idea. What instrument skills, knowledge and proficiency currently required would you like not to have when your flying in IMC? At the risk of sounding like even more of a jerk, if your not instrument rated and have at least some actual IMC experience, you really shouldn't try to answer that question because you just don't have the frame of reference to know what is needed.