You can't seriously imply that Jim is writing the bold for IAPOA.
No, I was referring to his write up on PPL/IR.
The EIR was very clearly not proposed as a replacement for the IMCr
In which case he should have made that bald statement rather that produce a totally confused write up which hops from IR lite to IMCr to EIR and leaves most people (as has become apparent form these threads) with absolutely no idea what is going on, and even worse, no confidence in FCL008, Mr Thorpe or EASA.
that the IMCr TK requirement is a bit light for world wide operations
Which is particularly worrying because to me it indicates he is completely out of touch with the needs of the "average" pilot.
Which leads me in to a post I wanted to make directed at Bookworm and others.
I have said it before, but it is perhaps worth repeating.
Please don’t take exception, because it may well be me that is out of touch, but I think you and some others may have little understanding of what the vast majority of pilots want.
Let’s start with what they don’t want.
They don’t want to fly half way across Europe. They don’t want to fly high performance twins. They don’t want to fly hard IFR in the extremes of weather. They don’t want to breathe oxygen for hours on end. Most of the time they don’t want to climb into the higher airways operating on the edge of the performance of most light singles. What they don’t want most of all is weeks at Oxford which they can ill afford.
I could tell you why they don’t want it, but we will leave that for another day.
So what do they want?
They want to undertake short sectors – a couple of hours perhaps to see their mates, meeting up for a coffee, that sort of thing. They want to go from Lydd to somewhere in the Midlands in the knowledge that when they go they can get above a pesky 1,000 foot overcast and cruise safely in better weather at 3,000 feet. They want to feel that when they come back if the base is 1,000 foot at Lyd they can potter down the G/S rather than scud run into their home field.
I think pilots in France and Germany and Holland largely want the same.
The EIR will not result in hoards of pilots routing airways to the south of France at FL100. Most are far happier going sleazy jet, many cant afford it in light singles and if they can they don’t have access to an aircraft they can take away for a week. Many have family and the family don’t want a weeks flying holiday wondering if they can get back to Blighty even with an EIR.
In short the EIR is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
Some do want a more accessible IR and if it is sufficiently accessible it may even be a solution to the debate we are having.
Please don’t loose site of what I believe most want and, indeed need, just because you want something else.