Should the IMCR be ditched in the quest for a greater prize?

[Pace]

I have started this thread as an extension of another thread which has developed into a debate on the IMCR and the desire for a easely obtainable PPL IR? I have placed it here under its own thread for discussion as I feel and hope it warrants more attention.

There are a number of pilots in that thread who are dedicated to maintaining the PPL IMCR and who are frustrated by the lack of movement by EASA towards a European acceptance of the IMCR.

Sometimes it is easier to see the wood for the trees If you are not deeply and emotionally involved in a cause.

knowing the History of Europe and its Burocracy and makeup I question the present direction in achieving anything worthwhile.
I also fear that trying to "save" the IMCR might be a bullet in the foot and counterproductive to the goal that posters are trying to achieve.

Infact saving the IMCR might just give EASA the way out it desires on a plate.

I will explain why!

Europe has always been different politically to the USA.
We border Russia and there has always been a more socialist burocratic tendency within Europe.

Call it state control, big brother intervention or whatever, but the Europeans have always been uncomfortable with the lack of control and freedom that GA has.

Europeans would much rather have all flying relegated to people carriers and all pilots trained to what they see as a "professional standard".

As in any profession they would like to structure the training around a university degree in aviation related matters and that is the big difference to the USA which takes a broader more practicle view of pilot licencing.

There was a major study on JAA V FAA pilots right up to ATP level.

The conclusion? That neither was better or safer than the other and both achieved the same goal of quality of ATP but following different routes.

The big problem with the IMCR is not the IMCR which can be proved by comparison with french VFR accident rates to save lives, but with what IMCR pilots have made it to be.

It has been made to be from its initial conception of a "get out of trouble" rating into a Mini Uk IR for getting around the UK in IMC conditions. Pilots who do not have the time or work allowance to spend months or years studying and passing mainly irrelevant exams to achieve a JAA IR use the IMCR for that end although it could never be promoted as an IR. Who Blames them as they have no real realistic other choice!

I have no doubt that if the CAA push hard enough we will get an EASA IMCR and give them a way out of ever offering the real deal of a EASA PPL IR.

Safety is the only guiding force which will achieve anything either in maintaining the IMCR or in getting a new PPL IR.

The safety statistics make the IMCR benefits indisputable but not in achieving what most want here.

I could easely see a situation where EASA might use the IMCR as a way of avoiding forming any Easely obtainable new PPL IR.

This is where the shooting in the foot bit comes.

10540 begged the answer to how you would define inadvertant flight into IMC conditions? That is EASY.

Inadvertant flight into IMC conditions is any flight by a pilot where for whatever reason he can no longer maintain VMC and hence navigation by sight and is forced into IMC where he can no longer navigate by sight or control the aircraft with visual reference to the ground or a horizon.

By that defininition any instrument training and nav aid training cannot be argued against and is a positive benefit to flight safety.

EASA could with little difficulty accept the IMCR on the grounds of safety but NOT in the way people want and by doing so eliminate any safety based arguement for a new JAA PPL IR.

They could accept it in its original form as a get out of trouble rating for VFR pilots and make it more restrictive than we have at present in the UK.

ie you can only use the rating in inadvertant entry into IMC conditions whereapon after the declaration of a mayday you will be radar vectored onto an ILS. But not to be used as a mini IR as is the case in the UK and what most want.

Agreeing to this new IMCR rating EASA could happily say we have allowed what you want and keep the status quo regarding any changes to the IR.

Hence my STRONG instincts would be to ditch saving the IMCR and put all my efforts through the European Courts on the creation of a more easely achievable PPL IR for NON professional pilots.

The grounds for that would be that EASA are putting pilots and their families/friends at risk by not allowing pilots who fly for business or pleasure the ability to achieve an IR in a practical way. They are dragging their heels motivated by internal political reasons rather than safety concerns which can be proved by statistical data and JAA V FAA comparison data. By doing so they are endangering pilots forced to attempt to fly VFR.

There is Loads of evidence both through VFR accident statistics in Europe and licence quality comparisons between FAA and JAA to make a successful challenge through the courts rather than the mindless ways through EASA.
EASA would then be forced to do something rather than empty promises, buying time and endless cups of tea and biscuits in a set in rock burocracy.

The Courts in my eyes are the only way forward without out chasing a dream for years ahead which will probably never materialise

Pace

[vanHorck]

i have no views on the politics, but i would love a PPL IR which can be achieved in reasonable time for somebody in full time employment,

perhaps limited to below FL230, only precision approaches

With lower theoretical standards (cut the historical bullshot) but similar currency requirements to full IR (approaches and revalidation)

[Pace]

i have no views on the politics, but i would love a PPL IR which can be achieved in reasonable time for somebody in full time employment,

But it is the Historic politics which is the brick wall against achieving anything for GA and hence the need to go above EASA to the European courts where something can be achieved and has been in other locked situations in the past.

Pace

[vanHorck]

That would need to be done by a body such as AOPA then....

But to change their line of thought will require vision and guts

[Contacttower]

The Courts in my eyes are the only way forward without out chasing a dream for years ahead which will probably never materialise

Pace which European Court are we talking about?

[wsmempson]

I don't frankly think that we'd get anywhere in the european court; you could waste decades and millions of pounds and get precisely nowhere. As always with the law, whoever makes the case-law pays a very large bill indeed.

I do think that lobbying EASA will be the way forward, if only all the different bodies (PPL IR, AOPA, LAA etc.) could speak with one voice. At the moment we have a "Life of Brian" style situation with the Peoples Front of Judea vs. the Popular Front of Judea (splitters!!) - which suits the anti-GA lobby within EASA down to the ground. The sad truth is that all of these organisations are terrific bunches of guys, saying more or less the same thing, out of love of flying, rather than financial motivation.

I think that sacrificing the IMCR without a real world alternative (an achievable PPL/IR or a European version of the FAA PPL/IR) would be fatal and trying to get anything like an IR-lite set up post IMC abolition would be impossible. Rather akin to trying to find a job when unemployed, or trying to find a girlfriend when you're single

It would also be nice if there were some real support from the CAA on this front, but the sad truth about the CAA is three-fold;

1. The primary directive of the CAA is not to protect the interests of aviation or even regulate aviation (although it does so with varying degrees of success along the way); it's primary role is to make a sufficient margin of profit to remain in business. Change of any kind may threaten this cosy profitable world, and should be avoided.

2. There are still too many ex-military and retired commercial airline pilots populating the CAA, who dislike change intensely - just look at the complete lack of progress of GPS approaches (the underlying argument seeming to be that GPS is dangerous, but NDB's are safe) - and who continue want to do things as they have been done since the war; the "it was good enough for me, so it's good enough for them" argument. That is to say nothing about the chaotic and confused situation surrounding Part-M maintenance...

3. There is a very real paucity of political talent at the CAA is a terrific handicap to making any real progress within EASA. The state of open antipathy between EASA and the CAA is working against the interests of us pilots at the moment, and is likely to see us lose the IMCR (with no viable alternative on the horizon) and yet it is now pretty much certain that we will see a europe-wide roll out of the 'brevet de bas' because, according to EASA, the 'brevet de bas' is safe and good - but the IMCR is dangerous and bad.

Having roundly slated the CAA, I do know that there are some really good guys trying to bat our corner there, and perhaps now would be the moment for Bose-X to take a bow and let us know the latest??
:ugh::ugh::ugh::E

[LH2]

Man, that was a long post! :uhoh:

In short, what you are saying is that a "PPL IR" would be more palatable to EASA as whole, and would be more advantageous for private pilots, compared to continuation of the IMCR.

If that's your point, I think it makes sense. Good reasoning.

In the meanwhile, my personal opinion regarding the status quo is that, yes, half the exams are totally irrelevant and it's not great value for the money. However, I disagree in that the current IR is particularly difficult to achieve.

It's expensive like everything in aviation and one must go and sit some exams, but each individual exam is no more difficult than sitting a driving licence theory test. There is just more of them, that's all.

I believe the theory part is perfectly doable in six months by someone working full time. By way of example, I did the full ATPLs in four months while working 80 hour weeks for two and a half of them. Not a huge lot of fun, but life wasn't that miserable either.

It would be interesting to hear from other JAR instrument-rated private pilots, to see what their experience was like.

[englishal]

Hence my STRONG instincts would be to ditch saving the IMCR and put all my efforts through the European Courts on the creation of a more easely achievable PPL IR for NON professional pilots.
The problem is that there WON'T be any real alternative. If I thought that I could trade an IMCr for an IR then I'd be happy as larry (whoever he is).

Cutting a few ground exams out won't do jack in my opinion, with dual rates for simple SEP instrument training running at £170+ per hour.

IF a system similar to the US was introduced then significant savings could be made, and the uptake would be great - i.e. 1 written paper and reduced ground school, ad hoc training, only 15 hrs REQUIRED with an instructor, no 170A, reasonable revalidation requirement etc....

I've held an IR since 2001 and it has never lapsed. I use it too, but it is not JAR......

[IO540]

Hence my STRONG instincts would be to ditch saving the IMCR and put all my efforts through the European Courts on the creation of a more easely achievable PPL IR for NON professional pilots.

I think you should get top notch legal advice before even thinking of going down this route.

The legal route has been tried, in certain isolated cases e.g. where the CAA has not followed proper procedures and discriminated illegally against somebody. I know of a few pilots who turned up to a medical with their solicitor... but this was in effect a threat of a judicial review. That is not the same thing as forcing through a demand for some kind of instrument qualification. IMHO this would not work because of the long established precedent where you have the "we wash your hands of you" VFR, and you have IFR for everything else.

What might work is a legal challenge to the stripping of pilot privileges by killing the IMCR. There are various precedents for that e.g. you have spent £X getting it, with a reasonable expectation of being able to keep it (by a continued meeting of checkride standards, medicals etc) and now it is being taken away.

Look at the history of previous pilot paperwork under the CAA. They have always tried to grandfather everybody into something. So if you were an old PPL instructor from the goode olde days, you got a BCPL. CAA CPLs got a free IMCR too. And so on.

Now, this extensive "we never leave you to hang out to dry" grandfathering could be because the CAA really love their customers (I am not being sarcastic) or it could be because they popped down the corridor to their legal dept and were advised that if they do such and such they will get sued. My guess is that both are true.

Under EASA, there is a threat, for the first time ever, to hang people out to dry, with no compensation.

I made some enquiries about this stuff a while ago. An Act of Parliament allows privilege stripping to be done with impunity, but a lesser body making the decision (e.g. the CAA making it in-house) does not give immunity from litigation. So if e.g. the CAA had booted out FAA licensed pilots, they could have been sued. But if this was done by a change to the ANO, they would have been protected.

AIUI, EASA regs have the same authority as the UK Parliament, so I don't see any avenue for a legal challenge on that one.

I am not a lawyer, of course.

The other side of this is: who is going to do this dirty work? AOPA UK are 99% VFR, despite most impressive London premises are dramatically under-staffed and clearly unable to take on anything big. They do have a lot of corporate members (schools) but the IMCR training income has dwindled in recent years anyway (see the tables published in FTN).

The best way IMHO is to try to preserve the FAA scene or to ensure a fair grandfathering from FAA to EASA (FCL and certification) and the best way to achieve that is the same as ever before: go for maximum political damage. So, make sure that every TP and jet operator knows what is coming. Currently, I guarantee that 99% of them haven't got a clue. I am contacting the Marketing VPs of the manufacturers right now, but there are all the owners which need to be done. These people have powerful contacts.

[S-Works]

The other side of this is: who is going to do this dirty work? AOPA UK are 99% VFR, despite most impressive London premises are dramatically under-staffed and clearly unable to take on anything big.

Sometimes you are so full of crap at times I feel the urge to throttle the living **** out of you.

Stick to pontificating on stuff that you might be able to convince others that you are talking about and leave the rest alone.

Or better still wander of and do a bit more self aggrandisement on your web site.
:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[vanHorck]

Just curious....

Are you two guys of opposing associations or is it more personal?

[Pace]

I think that sacrificing the IMCR without a real world alternative (an achievable PPL/IR or a European version of the FAA PPL/IR) would be fatal and trying to get anything like an IR-lite set up post IMC abolition would be impossible. Rather akin to trying to find a job when unemployed, or trying to find a girlfriend when you're single

WSMempson

My worry here is that saving the so called IMCR in its current form or rather how it has come to be used MAY be counterproductive! Why?

The IMCR was initially created as a get out of trouble rating. For a pure VFR pilot any level of instrument training has to increase his chances of surving in cloud.

Theoretically EASA could accept the safety benefits of incorporating instrument flying into the latter part of the PPL syllabus and achieve those safety goals by increasing the costs of achieving a PPL and by doing so making the situation more safe because all PPLs would be instrument trained.

By that path they would achieve an even greater safety result than having some PPLs with negligable instrument traing and those who now get an IMCR.

The problem is not that but how the IMCR has been used by PPLs since. They can and do takeoff into a 600 cloudbase fly out of controlled airspace for 100 odd miles and fly an Ils to a landing at their destination airport.

This is the part that will be hard to sell to EASA and there is a definate dIvision between the two aims A a get out of trouble instrument capability pilot and B the quasi mini IR that it has developed into in the UK.

NO way can you sell 15 hrs of instrument training as any form of IR to EASA.

Hence why I feel it would be better to put all efforts into a more easely NON professional PPL IR than taking the risk that EASA may accept the original concept of the IMCR and regulate to that effect and in the process IMCR Holders loose all rights to knowingly takeoff into instrument conditions while at the same time seeing a possible PPL IR evaporate in front of their eyes.

The only power we have is to persuade on the safety front for either a PPL IR or an IMCR but I Doubt we would get both.

Pace

[FREDAcheck]

Should the IMCR be ditched in the quest for a greater prize?
Is there any evidence that this trade is on offer? But in the hypothetical situation that it were, just count how many IMCR pilots there are and how many PPL/IR pilots. On the basis of the number of pilots that might benefit, I reckon IMCR wins hands-down.

But as I say, I think this is hypothetical. Let's go for preserving IMCR and getting a more accessible PPL/IR. Let's not argue about which we want: we want both.

[IO540]

vanHorck

I am just a private pilot and have no involvement in GA in any organisation at organisational/executive level. I write some magazine articles for one of the more specialised groups, that's all.

Feel free to PM me if you want details but the above sums it up fairly well.

Have nothing against AOPA and have never had any dealing with them. I vaguely recall that I might have been a member some years ago. I don't think UK AOPA can fund a £1M+ legal action. US AOPA just might (but obviously won't).

I have met bose-x a few times but have never had any professional or business dealings with him, aviation related or otherwise.

Pace

The IMCR was initially created as a get out of trouble rating. For a pure VFR pilot any level of instrument training has to increase his chances of surving in cloud.

This statement is being repeated over and over. But, since it is a matter of opinion and has absolutely no legal basis, I won't argue with it. The legal privileges of the IMCR are perfectly clearly defined in the ANO and have been tested over some decades, and if the CAA was unhappy with them, or felt they were improperly drafted, they have had all those years in which to change them, but they haven't.

I think the real issue is the legacy of regulations which themselves date back many decades. These define the ICAO Instrument Rating and everybody has hung their IFR coat on that hook. That hook is pretty inflexible.

However, times have moved on, flying has changed, equipment has got a lot better (for IFR) and we now have a situation where the IFR pilot has absolutely zero need to fly a perfect CAA-IR NDB holding pattern for example. I would argue that the way forward is demonstrated competence. How you achieve that, and what you call the training package, is a separate matter.

[S-Works]

Bose-X and IO540
Just curious....

Are you two guys of opposing associations or is it more personal?

Nope, I just get fed up of the endless spouting of ill formed opinion as if it is fact from someone who has no involvement in the process. The endless tirade about how every engineer, flight school and official is corrupt wears down even the most patient.

Writing a couple of articles for PPLIR on engine overhauls does not make one an aviation expert.

AOPA do not operate from 'grandiose premises' the have a small building which in the past would have been a house on the end of a terrace on a back street off Victoria. The ground floor is leased to Transair as a small shop and the couple of floors above house a few broom cupboard offices. The premises are owned by AOPA and therefore a minimal overhead to the membership.

Making a comment about grandiose office just proves that IO has never been to the offices. So if he is prepared to spout crap about that, how are we supposed to take anything else he takes seriously?

If you hate aviation that much peter why don't you piss off and take up golf?
:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[BEagle]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

bose-x, for heavens's sake, as someone who purports to represent AOPA in certain areas, will you please moderate the intemperate and offensive tone of your posts.......

[IO540]

The really interesting thing is that bose-x's name (which I obviously know) does not feature on the list of AOPA officers here (http://www.aopa.co.uk/scripts/about.php).

[Legal Beagle]

OK so back to the thread gentlemen?

PACE, don't even think about going down some kind of legal challenge route. Trust me, I AM a lawyer!

The only way of sorting this mess out has got to be lobbying and more lobbying.

So I guess we need to support those who are working their socks off for us on this - and other issues.

And to those of you who don't seem keen on AOPA. Yes, nobody is perfect, but it seems to me that AOPA is the best chance we've got - so shouldn't we all get behind them? And even join, IMHO.

[S-Works]

bose-x, for heavens's sake, as someone who purports to represent AOPA in certain areas, will you please moderate the intemperate and offensive tone of your posts.......

You are quite right of course Beagle. Sometimes the crap makes my blood boil.

Oh and Peter, I have never claimed to be an 'officer' of AOPA. I am merely a member of the organisation who has volunteered his services in order to help preserve our rights as pilots. Something that I am passionate about and prepared to commit my time efforts and expertise to the cause. Whereas it strikes me that you just prefer to deride and under mine the efforts of those who choose to try and do something. Oh and attending one meeting at the CAA on behalf of Fuji's IMCR campaign does not count as putting anything worthwhile into the pot IMHO.

But hey because I am not an 'officer' of AOPA I perfectly entitled to express my own opinion. Be interesting to see you identify the people on here who are 'officers' of AOPA though. The results would be interesting.

So in a more conciliatory tone, why don't you try and expend some of your very significant energy on actually trying to change something rather than just enthralling us all with your expert opinion. Someone who knows as much as you do and obviously mixes with the movers and shakers in aviation would be a powerful asset to any organisation. The MWG would benefit from channelling your energy into the good cause rather than just about it. Therefore this is an open invite for you to have a seat at the table.

You know where to find me.

[David Roberts]

EASA is currently setting up a work group, FCL.008, to consider the issues of the IR, IMCR and glider cloud flying qualification. This is as heralded earlier this year. The TORs are not yet in the public domain. Nomination of experts to this group is under way, and from the GA community - across Europe, not just UK of course - nominations can only be made through either IAOPA, Europe Air Sports (EAS) or ECOGAS. Deadline for nominations is Wednesday.

I have liaised with he CEO of AOPA (UK) to try and make sure we make the best of the opportunity of nominating, through our pan EU organisations, the most appropriate people. Who must not just be experts in the subjects but also have the time available and the right attributes to influence the outcome. EAS will be nominating several leading experts who can cover all aspects of the TORs, including the IR issue.

On a related matter, EAS is very active on the political and semi-political front in Europe, with the assistance of our professional, Brussels-based, adviser (lobbyist, but we don't use that term). We have already scored several successes but do not publicise these until the game is over (i.e. the law is embedded) to avoid the risk of not winning the final points in the match.

Wearing my EAS hat, along with our President, we have a top level meeting this week in the UK with the real decision makers at the heart of Europe, and the topics in this thread are very much at the centre of the agenda.

It is interesting reading these threads but at the end of the day what matters is how the processes in Europe are influenced directly by the people who represent GA, mostly behind the scenes. Those from the UK come from a broad cross section of GA activity and are well informed. Forget legal challenges - it would be a waste of effort and money. Time spent understanding the mindsets of other EU countries (i.e. the Member States and their officials) is more productive.

[davidd]

Well, I am 14 hrs into my IMC and for what its worth:

1: Im a safer pilot than I was 14 hrs ago
2: It isn't wasted money as if they take it away from me I am still a safer pilot, but sadly poorer.
3: I did it now rather than later in the hope that grandfather rights are forthcoming if they do scrap it, and if not I am a safer pilot :-)

Cheers

[LH2]

Hmm... I see that none has replied to my earlier query.

Would anyone who has actually been there please care to comment on the difficulty or otherwise of getting a full JAR instrument rating?

Based on my own experience, as that's all I have to go on, you might very well be pissing up the wrong wall here. :)

[IO540]

Somebody has recently organised a group of people, about 30 I believe, to do the JAA PPL/IR, and got a bulk discount on a ground school package.

I don't know if any of them are posting on this forum but I do know that many of them are doing the FAA IR to JAA IR conversion option (15hrs minimum flight training).

There are some interesting strategies which should work for pilots who already fly on the FAA IR and therefore already know the necessary practical stuff. You can revise from the question banks for say 1 week, sit all the seven exams (the 14 for a CPL is something else...) all over a couple of days, and then do serious heavy revision on those which you failed. Done in this way, the study element is only maybe 2x to 3x harder than the FAA IR and its single concentrated exam.

And if you are converting from another ICAO IR, not only is the 50/55hrs (SE/ME) minimum dual training requirement reduced to 15hrs (less in some other JAA countries) but also the mandatory school attendance is at the discretion of the course manager so in principle you could just entirely self study and turn up for the exams at Gatwick.

Whether it is a sensible thing to do the JAA IR right now, ahead of likely changes in the whole area, I doubt but obviously if you desire to fly a G-reg IFR/airways now then you have to do it now. I certainly wouldn't do it out of straight fear.

Personally, I keep half an eye on this subject (because in this game one needs to stay ahead of regulatory moves) but if I was doing it I would probably prefer to do it in some other EU country where the weather is better and maybe some of the silly regs are not present (like the rigid exam timetable).

[englishal]

NO way can you sell 15 hrs of instrument training as any form of IR to EASA.
And that is the problem as far as I see it. What everyone in the UK and EASA seem to forget is that you still have a flight test which you have to pass. In fact the perfect IR would be one where you are only required to pass a written exam (it is not rocket science and most is not applicable for the new generation of glass cockpit), cover a minimum flying syllabus with an instructor, then training as required to get you to a sufficient standard to pass the test, and an oral exam (sound familiar?).

One thing that is apparent is that it [the current JAA IR] is no way as achievable as the FAA IR (which is ICAO complient and just as "hard" too).....which unless an IR is as achievable as this, no normal working PPL will bother to do apart from a very few. This is no way to encourage flight safety through training.

From a cost POV, ground exams and "ground school" alone for the JAA IR run into the thousands of pounds, even before you have set foot in an aeroplane. The 170A - the required pre test test if you like, will probably set you back another £500, the test fees another £600 or so, not to mention the rating issue fees and the landing and approach fees, all before you get into an aeroplane. Unless some of this "milking" stops then I really can't see many PPLs taking up the EASA IR.....I certainly won't bother, I'd rather spend the money on an N reg aeroplane and base it in Alderney or somewhere ;)

[S-Works]

Would anyone who has actually been there please care to comment on the difficulty or otherwise of getting a full JAR instrument rating?

It is quite simple and not the drama that many (who have never done one) make it out to be. All the comments about how hard it is if you are working in a full time job or are not a 24 year old airline wannabee are rubbish. I did the theory for both CPL and IR with CATS at Cranfield. They provided a good standard of materials and were completely flexible around ground school etc. I was the Group IT Director of a FTSE 100 company while doing the study commuting into London on the train. I used the hour in the morning and night on the commute to study and did a day of ground school on a Saturday with CATS before the exams. I passed all of the exams first time an average of mid 90% on the scores.

I did the flying trying split between 2 schools both based at Cranfield, both completely flexible to my needs. The fist was Taylor aviation with Bob Moore as my Instructor. A vastly experienced airline captain who knows his stuff inside out. Taylor sold up and so I moved next door to Bonus aviation to finish other half.

Once again, Bonus were a 1st rate organisation, they were completely flexible on training schedule and accommodate people at evenings and weekends. There is nothing difficult about the flight training and you have the option to do quite a bit in the sim. I did a multi engine IR and passed it in 5mins over the 55hr minima and did the whole thing in the aircraft. Bonus let you do a mix of sim, single and MEP to meet the hours if you are intent on keeping the price down.

Like all of these things if you sit and listen to the detractors who I bet none of them have actually done it you will believe it is the most difficult thing on earth. There are also many people who will always look to find a shortcut on a 100 mile straight road.....

Trust me it is not hard, even a monkey can do it.



In fact the perfect IR would be one where you are only required to pass a written exam (it is not rocket science and most is not applicable for the new generation of glass cockpit), cover a minimum flying syllabus with an instructor, then training as required to get you to a sufficient standard to pass the test, and an oral exam (sound familiar?).

Performance based training is the model that is being moved forward and was an inherent part of our original recommendations at the IRWG. Culturally it is a massive change for an industry slow to adopt new methods. But we are now finally starting to see a move in this direction. The new MPL is largely performance based.

[IO540]

Just wish to remind any newcomers that I have advised "bose x" that I will not be responding to any of his postings.

Obviously this enables him to post the grossly offensive material seen here e.g.

Sometimes you are so full of crap at times I feel the urge to throttle the living **** out of you.

without getting a response from me, but so be it.

I have no idea why he does this.

[S-Works]

Just wish to remind any newcomers that I have advised "bose x" that I will not be responding to any of his postings.

Obviously this enables him to post the grossly offensive material seen here e.g.

Quote:
Sometimes you are so full of crap at times I feel the urge to throttle the living **** out of you.
without getting a response from me, but so be it.

I have no idea why he does this.

Well:

A) You have replied to me by making that post...... ;)

B) For a man who publicly accused everyone from Jersey of being chid murdering pedophiles just because they did not agree with one of your opinions on the flyer forums, or for the man who thought it appropriate to use scenes from the twin towers atrocity to try and make another point on this forum I suspect you may be on thin ice when it comes to being all indignant........ Perhaps you might want a little bit of 'me time' to think about what is grossly offensive Peter.

[Pace]

Legal Beagle

I bow to your greater knowledge on the possibility of a legal challenge but regardless hold grave concerns on the attempt to persuade EASA to accept the IMCR.

I see no Reason why they would not accept such training but not in the way it is used in the UK as a mini IR.

Hence my question Should we ditch the IMCR in favour of a better PRIZE ie a more acceptable IR for working people.

But really the picture is greater than that not only in the IR but cross conversion of icao licences such as FAA ATP to JAA where the situation gets even more ridiculous amd absurd. That has no reason other than terratorialism and self protectionism.

Pace

[S-Works]

Pace, I think ultimately that it should be ditched in favour of the great prize that you seek. HOWEVER, there needs to be a clear transition period and a far more practical route to said prize. Something like the Australian modular IR or the Canadian 2 class system.

What I don't want to see is the loss of the IMC without anything practical to replace it. As I have said many times it is a huge aid to safety and aid to pilot skill.

[BEagle]

In my formal response to EASA part-FCL, I made the following comments regarding Sub Part I:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

Subpart I must include an Additional Rating termed the Class 2 Instrument Rating which would confer the following privileges:

1. Flight in single pilot aeroplanes of less than 5700 kg MTOM in non-VMC conditions without the requirement to hold a full Instrument Rating, subject to the following conditions:

(1) Flight in IMC or under IFR shall only be permitted within those classes of airspace sanctioned by the Member State in which the privileges are to be exercised;

(2) Privileges shall not be extended to multi-pilot aeroplanes or to CAT II or CAT III approach procedures;

(3) The licence holder must hold at least ICAO Level 4 English Language proficiency;

(4) Instrument approach procedure types shall be endorsed in the pilot's personal flying log book and shall be subject to an additional 200 ft allowance for precision approaches and 250 ft for non-precision approaches;

(5) Minimum weather conditions of 600 ft cloudbase and 1800 m horizontal in-flight visibilty shall apply for any take-off or landing;

2. The Class 2 IR shall be valid for a period of 2 years from the date of passing the skill test and shall be revalidated by proficiency check.

The bold text is important as it still gives individual EU Member States the national right to state where and under what conditions the Class 2 IR could be used in their national airspace.

I also included a recommended 20 hour Class 2 IR training course:

1. At least 10 hours Basic Instrument Flight Module, common to the modular IR training course.

2. At least 10 hours procedural instrument flight training, to consist of:

Module 1: 4 hours training in take-off, departure, en-route navigation and holding.

3. Any 2 of the following 4 modules:

Module 2: 3 hours training in precision approaches with pilot-interpreted guidance.

Module 3: 3 hours training in non-precision approaches with pilot-interpreted guidance in azimuth only.

Module 4: 3 hours training in precision or non-precision radar approaches, with guidance provided by an external controller.

Module 5: 3 hours training in approved RNAV/GNSS approaches.

4. All instrument approach flight training modules shall include:

4.1 Missed approach and go-around training.

4.2 Visual circuit flying under simulated conditions of low cloud and reduced visibility (600 ft cloudbase and 1800m horizontal in-flight visibility).

5. Additional training will be required if Class 2 IR privileges in multi-engine aircraft are sought:

Module 6: 4 hours training in one-engine inoperative procedures relevant to all phases of flight (take-off, departure, en-route, approach and missed approach).

6. Training to be conducted:

6.1 By either:

6.1.1 A FI authorised under EASA part -FCL whose privileges include instruction in applied instrument flying; or

6.1.2 An IRI authorised under EASA part-FCL

6.2. At an approved training organisation

6.3 In suitably equipped aeroplanes or, as specified in para 7., an FNPT2 or FFS.


7. Of the required hours procedural instrument flight training, the following synthetic training may be conducted in a FNPT 2 or FFS:

7.1. 2 of the 4 hours of Module 1; and

7.2. 2 of the 6 hours of Modules 2-5

Skill Test:

8. The Class 2 IR skill test shall be conducted by an FE or IRE authorised under EASA part-FCL to include:

8.1 Full Panel Instrument Flying.

8.2 Limited (or Partial) Panel Instrument Flying.

8.3 Use of radio navigation aids for position fixing and en-route navigation.

8.4 Let down and approach procedures, to include one precision and one non-precision approach, of which at least one shall be pilot-interpreted and of which at least one shall be concluded by a missed approach and go-around.

8.5 Bad weather circuit.

8.6 Flight with asymmetric thrust (multi-engined aircraft only).

This isn't hugely different from the current UK IMC course; I haven't included any comments about theoretical knowledge requirements or medicals, but I would envisage an IMCR exam brought up to date, including some international elements and EASA Class 2 medical as the minimum acceptable.

[englishal]

It is quite simple and not the drama that many (who have never done one) make it out to be. All the comments about how hard it is if you are working in a full time job or are not a 24 year old airline wannabee are rubbish. I did the theory for both CPL and IR with CATS at Cranfield. They provided a good standard of materials and were completely flexible around ground school etc. I was the Group IT Director of a FTSE 100 company while doing the study commuting into London on the train. I used the hour in the morning and night on the commute to study and did a day of ground school on a Saturday with CATS before the exams. I passed all of the exams first time an average of mid 90% on the scores.
Bose, and how long from when you started "studying" to completing the instrument rating and flying off on your first IR solo?

For the FAA IR, I read the Jeppesen Instrument Commercial manual over about a week in the evenings, turned up at the flight school, had ground school and flew daily - about 2-4 hrs per day as I only had 120 hrs and was short of cross country time. I sat the ground exam about 2 weeks in and passed - I also did the Instrument Instructor exam the same day and passed, 2 weeks later I had my IR. This was with a full 50 or so hours of actual flying, no sim due to the X/C. Cost was about $6500 if I remember correctly. Had I done it part time them I would have pushed for 6 hrs flying per week, so it would have taken nearer 10 weeks.

Most people I meet took nearly a year to get a JAR IR.

[LH2]

bose-x

Thanks for your comments.

It is quite simple and not the drama that many (who have never done one) make it out to be.

That was exactly my impression after I did mine.

There are also many people who will always look to find a shortcut on a 100 mile straight road.....

My impression too.

Trust me it is not hard, even a monkey can do it.

And I second that comment. You really should see some of the commercial wannabees out there :uhoh:



Englishal:

That's all very nice how it's done in FAA territory, but asking EASA to change their philosophy to fit some other country's regulatory and cultural background is an altogether different battle. Might as well ask them for $50/hr C152 hire prices.

In any event, not sure how that relates to the discussion at hand. Would you care to elaborate?



Anyway, still waiting for more comments from people who have actual experience training for the JAR IR.

[Ni Thomas]

BEagle wrote:-
"(5) Minimum weather conditions of 600 ft cloudbase and 1800 m horizontal in-flight visibilty shall apply for any take-off or landing;"

I'm sorry, but IMNSHO the 600ft cloudbase is far too restrictive. It's even above the present IMC RECOMMENDED minima (500ft for a precision approach).
If an IMCR pilot, who has maintained currency can safely achieve height the published minima NOW why shouldn't that be retained?
Personally, I'm going to be very annoyed if/when my present IMC 'allowances' get reduced/expunged. :mad:

[IO540]

The real question to ask is why the # of JAA PPL/IRs issued in the UK is around single digits annually - after adjusting for those in the commercial pipeline so looking at purely private pilots.

Of course the JAA PPL/IR (7 exams) is doable. The JAA CPL/IR (14 exams) is also perfectly doable. Everything is doable.

So why doesn't everybody who wants to fly in cloud just get on with it?

There isn't a single factor which makes or breaks the decision. It's a whole collection of things. The expression "death by a thousand cuts" is very appropriate here.

One factor, for example, is that most commercial students are young men with plenty of time on their hands, and little money. Whereas most private pilots doing the IR are older, often 50+ and with a pretty packed life. Slotting this thing into a young man's life is not the same as slotting it into the latter's life.

I know a bloke who has just spent 2 years doing the CPL/IR ground school ab initio. OK this is 14 exams whereas the PPL/IR is 7 but it took him 2 years. NO flying - just the revision and exams. He is far from stupid. He worked self employed on building sites for that time to make a living and that gave him the time for swatting. 2 years. How ridiculous, given most of the stuff is irrelevant to flying for real.

And I know one immensely bright (utterly brilliant I would say) chap who did the whole lot in a few months - but this one is in top 1% or less of the population. Not really a fair comparison.

One could sit here for an hour typing up yet another long essay on the differences and I am sure this has been done many times. After a while one loses the will to go over it yet again.

But anyway the JAA v. FAA numbers speak for themselves. These people cannot all be stupid, or the victims of misunderstanding (or worse, from schools trying to sell the ATPL syllabus only). They have weighed it up and taken the American route. They represent the vast majority of private pilots aspiring to instrument flight around Europe.

Ni Thomas - I agree 600ft is not right as a blanket figure. An ILS is a piece of cake to fly to 200ft unless one's currency is really horrid. But anyway there is no way to enforce a cloudbase (by which I mean prosecute if it is busted) which is no doubt why the IMCR has no legal limits other than the approach plate DH/MDH.

[S-Works]

They represent the vast majority of private pilots aspiring to instrument flight around Europe.

Lets see the figures for that then?

What I see is quite a few people who have done FAA IR's which they then use as an IMC in G-Reg aircraft. I do not however see large numbers of N Reg LIGHT Aircraft flying IFR. In fact apart from the die hard evangelists like your self I rarely see much in the way of light aircraft on the N reg in the airways.

So perhaps you would like to share with us where you get this from.

[englishal]

That's all very nice how it's done in FAA territory, but asking EASA to change their philosophy to fit some other country's regulatory and cultural background is an altogether different battle. Might as well ask them for $50/hr C152 hire prices.

In any event, not sure how that relates to the discussion at hand. Would you care to elaborate?
Ok then. The post was about giving up the IMCr for an achievable IR. I made the point that the JAA IR is not really achievable (in a reasonable time frame) for the average PPL who is working and doesn't have a huge Director's salary and there is no alternative. Not to mention medical requirements. This is plainly obvious, even a JAR boy should be able to see this. Looks like you need to get that arrogant chip removed from your JAR shoulder.

[S-Works]

This is plainly obvious, even a JAR boy should be able to see this. Looks like you need to get that arrogant chip removed from your JAR shoulder.

Now come on Al, that sort of response is not like you. More like me in fact.... :p

You and IO are equally FAA fan boys.

So back to the discussion at hand. The JAA IR is in my opinion as someone who holds one not difficult at all. It is just made out to be that way by the FAA 'fan boys'.

[englishal]

You and IO are equally FAA fan boys.
A) I'm a fan of an, achievable system. The Stats speak for themselves (i.e. FAA PPL IRs vs JAA PPL IRs). I don't care whether it is a JAA or FAA IR, nor I suspect does IO540.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Well as someone with a JAR IR and as someone who has taught both IMC and IR students.

The FAA system is far more achieveable for the "average" person. The simple cost of getting a JAA IR is the main problem.

Then add in the reduced costs of operating an N reg aircraft and the renewal costs etc.etc. Then I totally understand why most plump for the FAA system.

There really is no comparison and I cannot understand why people are trying to say that there is.

An FAA IR is cheaper and just as useful if you have access to an N reg machine.

As IO and EA mention. The numbers speak for themselves, unless there is a huge FAA conspiracy.................

[Johnm]

A simple practical point. I just flew my Archer 2 from Kemble to Cambridge and landed at Cambridge off a vectored ILS approach.

Even though the weather was pretty poor (sheeting rain and 20kts of gusty wind at 30 degrees to runway, cloud base below 1000 ft, but above recommended IMCR Minimum) this was accomplished without drama, with modest kit and an IMCR.

I didn't need airways and I wasn't anywhere near Class A so IMCR is all I needed and it works if you keep in practice (real and SIM). I got a RIS and zone transit from Brize, RIS from F'boro North and a routine vectored ILS approach from Cambridge. I wasn't the only little aeroplane in the sky either, though it wasn't exactly crowded.

I would like an IR and I'm signed up for CATS and will focus on the theory during the winter (I hope) but it is unquestionably more onerous on the theory front than it needs to be. I'm sure the flying will tighten up my skills a great deal more too.

[IO540]

There is no FAA conspiracy SAS :) But it's hardly worth debating this over and over. It's obvious to any pilot who flies anywhere for real that almost everywhere one goes one sees N-reg planes, and usually they are the classiest machines at the airport in question. Some weeks ago I flew down to Granada in Spain and about the only stuff that was flyable was all N-reg, with one Spanish reg AOC (pleasure flights) Partenavia being the exception. The two planes parked either side of mine had flat tyres and weeds growing around the wheels. The rest, including a couple of turboprops, was N-reg.

There isn't a great (or indeed any) cost saving on routine maintenance (I was 3 years on G and 3.5 years on N) but there is a big saving on any modifications, largely because Europe never got to grips with the whole subject of minor mods. This affects most of the slicker machinery because most owners tend to do mods, fit better avionics, etc.

[BEagle]

I'm sorry, but IMNSHO the 600ft cloudbase is far too restrictive. It's even above the present IMC RECOMMENDED minima (500ft for a precision approach).

You may well be right there. Perhaps:

(5) Minimum weather conditions:

(5.1) 600 ft cloudbase and 1800 m horizontal in-flight visibilty shall apply for any take-off;

(5.2) Cloudbase of not less than Class 2 IR minima for the available approach type and 1800m horizontal in-flight visibility shall apply for commencing an approach with the intention of landing at the planned destination aerodrome.

Or words to that effect?

[IO540]

600 ft cloudbase and 1800 m horizontal in-flight visibilty shall apply for any take-off;What is the rationale for this, Beagle?

Traditionally, the reason for frowning on departures into eg. OVC002 is the SE engine failure scenario. But one could use this IFR qualification on a twin, and anyway this is wholly an attitude to risk issue. I happily depart into OVC002 - so long as I have a reasonable idea of the terrain in the vicinity.

There is nothing technically hard about a takeoff and then climbing at Vy+ while holding the departure heading. It's brainless really and the pilot workload is low. Far easier than flying an approach. And the difference between OVC002 and OVC006 is under 30 seconds.

Enforcement would also be hard since airports rarely report the cloudbase along the departure track. They report cloud according to standard rules, within N miles radius of the aerodrome. The CB along the departure track could be very different.

[LH2]

IO

The real question to ask is why the # of JAA PPL/IRs issued in the UK is around single digits annually - after adjusting for those in the commercial pipeline so looking at purely private pilots.

Do you reckon another significant factor might be having the option of doing the IMCR as an alternative? There is no question that going for an IMCR is much easier and cheaper than an IR, in the same way that an FAA IR would appear to be (I have no experience on that camp, so I can't comment).

What I am not convinced is that the JAA IR syllabus is objectively speaking as onerous as to put it out of reach of interested private pilots. It looks to me like a nice project to further one's flying skills, and if it takes a few months to get there, so what? what's the hurry? Incidentally, I fully agree that the syllabus could do with some revamping, but that's another discussion.

Btw, I wonder what's the relative percentage of instrument rated pilots on the continent, where the only other option for flying in bad weather is VFR on top. Somehow they do not seem to be as terribly uncommon as I would have expected.

Al

I made the point that the JAA IR is not really achievable (in a reasonable time frame) for the average PPL who is working and doesn't have a huge Director's salary and there is no alternative. Not to mention medical requirements.

Thanks for the clarification. So essentially are you saying that the current system is elitist? But isn't the whole of GA in Europe like that, compared to the States for example?

In principle I would agree with an accusation of elitism if compared to certain other systems, but in the absence of supporting evidence I cannot agree with your assertion that the "JAA IR is not really achievable" for a PPL. Having actually tried, I found it reasonably straightforward.

This is plainly obvious, even a JAR boy should be able to see this.

It's sometimes difficult for us to understand how these lesser cross-pond systems work. I hear they even let the poor and the ugly fly? :uhoh:

Looks like you need to get that arrogant chip removed from your JAR shoulder.

Nah, it looks good on me :}


SAS

The simple cost of getting a JAA IR is the main problem.

Then add in the reduced costs of operating an N reg aircraft and the renewal costs etc.etc.

Good point on the overall costs comparison (which does not only apply to aviation).

On the other hand, doesn't that presuppose an owner-operator? To my knowledge, there is not a lot of N-regs available in Europe to the general flying public (or perhaps there is and I'm just not aware?). So, and especially on the face of increasing difficulty to keep foreign-registered planes in JAA-land, doesn't that tip the costs scale back towards a "local" IR? I'm thinking of the typical club member who can't afford (or doesn't want) to buy his own machine.

Even though I know of a few big and not so big clubs in Europe which have IR-certified planes, to me the biggest hurdle to flying proper IFR in Europe is still the lack of suitable planes on the club, share, or self-hire markets. That in turn probably drives down the demand for IRs even more.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Been watching this thread for a while now and to be honest a lot of you are missing the point.

This is not about flying this is about politics.....

The only person who has even remotely addressed this is Beagle with his proposed regualtions. You will have to fight for what you have already.

IO540 and Englishal I've crossed swords with you over this before, but the FAA system over here is EXACTLY what the politicians are trying to get away from. You could fly a 1000 miles in the USA and not be within 50 miles of CAS so its just not relevant, legally yes (people quoting ICAO :rolleyes:) but practically no where near.

Everybody has got a great story about using their IMC rating to good effect, its quite entertaining to see and read, heartened by some and terrified by others at how simple they see hard core IFR is (Namely IO540 you talk a good game would love to see you in a steam driven 40yr old 401 on a dark and stormy night with a 5 degree out AI and a KNS80 doing the go around of 27 at le Bourget)

All this talk of glass cockpit and how outdated the 8 year old exams are is totally irelevant like it or not you have to be able to demonstrably deal with the lowest common denominator in terms of flight conditions and aircraft servicability and equipment, unless of course you wish to burden yourself with another layer of bureacracy to have your Class 2 IR apllied to certain types or airframes.

My Vision........

You should be coming together to legitamise a cross EU IMC rating that is called a Class2 IR, personally I feel it should be limited to FL90 (pressurised aircraft should require a Class1 qualified Pilot) grandfather rights conversion course to upgrade from an IMC of say 5 hours followed by an initial test by a non CAA IRE, 3 day 25hrs groundschool seminar, no precision approaches without a GPS overlay requirement, CAT1 minima plus 200 feet, 1490RVR or greater, 12 monthly renewals with a IRI designated for the task and bi yearly with an IRE.

ICAO IR holders should be given a class 2 straight swap with an abridged course to get to a class 1 either by a training syllabus in the aircraft plus a pressurised type checkride or a recognised sim course in a pressurised type simulator to enable proper emergencys to be demonstrated and dealt with

The Class 3 IR is what used to be called a IMC rating and the last renewal for a Class 3 should be in three years time allowing five years for people to upgrade.

This gives people an achievable upgrade path with appropiate restrictions removed by a demonstration of ability, it would also have a great side effect in that a new layer of training and testing has just been put in place that people will want to achieve (A lot of bureacracy for 7 JAA PPL/IRs last year) which will inject some cash into what will soon be a crippled training industry in this country and reinvigorate the concept of a career instructor/examiner

I had a CAA PPL/Multi/IMC and a FAA PPL/Multi/IR before getting professional licenses from both sides of the pond and imbetween, I am also an JAA IRI so feel somewhat qualified to have an opinion on what the average ability level of your typical IMC holder is and what is required for that average Joe to share airspace with commercial traffic whose crew happily has to demonstrate their proficiency every 6 months.

Remember its about POLITICS pick your battles wisely, ideally they should not be with each other.

Beagle - full marks to you sir please keep up the good work

[Say again s l o w l y]

There are many, many N reg machines available for people to use, especially in the South East. Most people who fly "proper" IFR seem to at least be part of a group.

There is a lack of good IFR G reg machines from clubs and schools, mind you, there is a lack of good VFR machines too!

[IO540]

Do you reckon another significant factor might be having the option of doing the IMCR as an alternative? There is no question that going for an IMCR is much easier and cheaper than an IR, in the same way that an FAA IR would appear to be (I have no experience on that camp, so I can't comment).It is actually very true that most UK based N-reg PPL/IRs did go to the FAA IR from the UK IMC Rating, making use of their UK instrument training on the way.

Whereas had they done the JAA IR route, they would have got absolutely zero credit for any previous training and would have had to do the 50/55hrs (dual) all over.

That FAA previous-training credit is worth a lot of money, and time. It takes a fair bit of time to knock off 50/55hrs in the UK, slotting the flight training (which has to be booked via a proper JAA IR school, which itself drastically limits the geographical options) into the overlapping timetables of the school, one's own life, and UK weather which normally has to be pretty reasonable otherwise the instructor won't come along.

I suspect, but have no proof, that a much higher % of JAA IR private-owner-pilot candidates are ab initio, than FAA IR ones. However, looking at the published CAA issue figures, the absolute numbers are clearly much smaller in the former group. An IR is far harder to do ab initio, than after one has been hacking in and out of cloud in UK's Class G for a few years.

And this brings one to another little advantage (one of many little advantages, none too decisive by itself) of the FAA IR as it is delivered in the USA. You go to some school, any old Part 61 will do, do your PPL, and then do some flying, then come back to the same school, probably the same instructor, and do the IR. That rather nebulous situation amounts to a much improved accessibility than JAA. The exam can be sat anywhere anytime, for $90 (that's what my CPL one cost me).

As regards the JAA IR takeup outside the UK, firstly the GA population tends to be much smaller in most of Europe. France's GA scene is mostly VFR (mostly group flyouts) with very little serious touring going on - not sure why but that's what French pilots tell me. Germany is the biggest GA scene outside the UK but Germans are a different culture - very conformist; nevertheless Germany still has a big N-reg population as is evident on any visit there.


IO540 you talk a good game would love to see you in a steam driven 40yr old 401 on a dark and stormy night with a 5 degree out AI and a KNS80 doing the go around of 27 at le BourgetI am sorry to disappoint you, Gspots, but I wouldn't get inside a piece of wreckage like that even if you paid me for it.

Maybe you had to fly it because you had one of those "commercial" jobs where you fly else you get the boot?

A KNS80 is good as a doorstop. Completely totally useless in today's airways system where ATC treat every waypoint as RNAV and half the time the nearest VOR/DME is well out of DOC. I can look at my notes from any recent IFR flight and it confirms this.

The reason I bought a new plane, some years back, was precisely because I had no intention of flying some piece of wreckage like you describe. I trained in them - never again!

The problem is how does one legislate for "wreckage"? The present IFR training system does indeed try to prepare for flying old wreckage. Yet, such wreckage (with a KNS80) wouldn't actually be much use. I don't know how to resolve this conflict.

[englishal]

It's sometimes difficult for us to understand how these lesser cross-pond systems work. I hear they even let the poor and the ugly fly?
Sorry I get heated when I discuss this :O;) The reason I get heated is that instrument flying, is instrument flying, it is not rocket science it is as hard or easy in JAR land or FAR land. I don't think an IR should be *easy*, it was the hardest thing I ever did after PPL, but I think the system of getting one should be as a) economical as possible and b) as little hassle as possible. Today in FARLand you can do self revision ($50), some ground school from an instructor who endorses your logbook and sit the exam ($90). Conversely in JARLand you need to sign up with a school, do god knows how many hundred hours of ground school, take a residential course, and sit about 7 exams at £50 a pop. Grand total about £1250 or more. I agree flying is cheaper in the USA but forget about that, that is NOT what I'm arguing about.

Secondly, in JARLand you need to go and see your AME and get a special hearing test done - something some people may not pass, but it makes bugger all difference to their ability to fly on instruments.

Thirdly in FARLand you are only *required* to do the 15hrs or thereabouts (lets assume for a minute). The FAA say this because they know that if you are at a bad standard you will a) fail, and b) they will come after the instructor to know why you were endorsed to take the test. * Most * people will take 40-50 hrs, but just suppose you are a natural, or have prior experience then you may not need to take this long. In JARLand they make no allowance for skill and don't trust the instructor and so you are subjected to a 170A, which adds further unnecessary cost to the tune of £500 or so. Not to mention that no allowance is made for your skill.

IO540 and Englishal I've crossed swords with you over this before, but the FAA system over here is EXACTLY what the politicians are trying to get away from. You could fly a 1000 miles in the USA and not be within 50 miles of CAS so its just not relevant, legally yes (people quoting ICAO ) but practically no where near
But equally you can fly around the LA Basin which is actually busier than the LTMA....And they have loads of these areas.

Glass cockpit and modern aeroplanes are totally relevant. The examiner in the US has the freedom to make you use any and all of the kit in an aeroplane, and equally fail that kit on you. If you intent to fly a G5 how relevant is a single VOR receiver? How relevant is ADF when your cockpit has WAAS enabled precision GPS approaches and synthetic vision** - not to mention FLIR which is fitted to some of the modern Bizjets? See my points..

I think the whole system needs a makeover - the Feds do it regularly (anyone read the FARs pertaining to night vision goggles - private ops?), the UK and Europe is still stuck back in the days of Ernest K Gann.....who said it was old fashioned then :)

** Relevant to the PPL because you can buy a DA40 with this lot fitted....

Just my humble view ;)

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Quote:
IO540 you talk a good game would love to see you in a steam driven 40yr old 401 on a dark and stormy night with a 5 degree out AI and a KNS80 doing the go around of 27 at le Bourget

I am sorry to disappoint you, Gspots, but I wouldn't get inside a piece of wreckage like that even if you paid me for it.


Others may not have the high required standard of aircraft or as deep pockets, you would be licensed to do so and would therefore need to be tested to a demonstrable standard of competence or are you advocating a shiney new low hour airframe , glass cockpit, capable autopilot IR?

Glass cockpit and modern aeroplanes are totally relevant. The examiner in the US has the freedom to make you use any and all of the kit in an aeroplane, and equally fail that kit on you. If you intent to fly a G5 how relevant is a single VOR receiver? How relevant is ADF when your cockpit has WAAS enabled precision GPS approaches and synthetic vision** - not to mention FLIR which is fitted to some of the modern Bizjets? See my points..

FLIR & Synthetic vision have no relevance in a thread about IMC ratings, there are very few GPS approaches in the UK and will not be in place before the IMCR gets scrapped, lets get back to basics lets consider the lowest common denominator which is the level to which the legislation will apply and also the average IMC'er who has a warrior or a 172/182 (with a KNS80 ;) )

The single 2 1/2 inch VOR receiver/Standby RMI is all that I had on the last two types of a/c that I've flown commercially when you have a instrument failure or electrical issues, if thats all you have between you /cloud layer/runway/safety then you need to be able to use it in anger - no?

[Say again s l o w l y]

Not yet anyway!

However, there are more and more aircraft about with decent avionics kit.

Fortunately the KNS80 seems to becoming rarer and rarer!

Most IR pilots tend to fly the same machine, so whilst they obviously need the basic grounding in using steam driven instruments, appropriate training should also be given on more modern kit if that is what they are to be using most of the time.

What we are forgetting is that in reality flying under IFR is a damn sight easier than long distance touring under VFR. Especially if you can get into the airways, then frankly it's a doddle.

Commercial IR flying is very different from what a PPL IR would generally put themselves through. We don't get a choice about going. If it's legal, off you go. PPL's haven't got the same commercial pressures on them that we blue and green book holders do.

It doesn't mean that they can't find themselves in trouble or in poor conditions though and given the lower currency of PPL's then maybe higher limits are needed for non-professional IR pilots.

[IO540]

are you advocating a shiney new low hour airframe , glass cockpit, capable autopilot IR?The last one without a doubt. The others make far less difference to pilot workload.

But seriously, there is a problem which I acknowledge. Where does one draw the line on the equipment?

And are we talking about some national "Class G IFR, with D possible on a clearance which can always be denied" rating, or a generic international IFR privilege? For the former, people do indeed fly all kinds of hacks, albeit usually with a decent GPS - almost no private pilot is foolish enough to fly in IMC without a GPS these days. For the latter, all kinds of barriers come up to keep the worst hardware out of the airspace: most rental wreckage can barely make the Eurocontrol MEAs, never mind climbing to VMC on top and out of icing; most of it isn't airways legal (BRNAV, etc) and the equipment carriage requirements keep them out of the airspace. Finally, the range which makes IFR touring viable is not there at the bottom end of the market; with a range of say 300nm you cannot go anywhere useful, with reserves, and if that was all you had, you would certainly not bother doing an IR of any kind.

And, as most people who have tried renting out reasonably classy machinery have learnt, there is a strong element of selection in the pilot population: very few pilots with an IR, reasonably current, are to be found on the rental scene. The most obvious IFR-capable rental candidates - airline pilots - generally hate IFR and want to fly rag and tube types. Most IR holders are already owners; if they didn't have the budget for ongoing activity they would not, in general, have bothered doing the IR in the first place.

I know there are a lot of commercial IFR ops in very old decrepit planes with really basic avionics and often no autopilots (the Islander / Trilander type ops come to mind) but these often hack it by flying at 500ft above the sea which apart from the pilot workload is basically straightforward. Hilariously the CAA sanctions these, albeit by asking for a 6 monthly medical, while they would severely criticise a private pilot doing the same in a highly automated plane. I think most private owners with the airways paperwork are flying much better stuff today. Doesn't have to be new by any means but most of it is very well equipped.

If I had a KNS80 as the RNAV solution, I would have been lost on every airways flight I have ever done. Well, I would have had to say to ATC "sorry, unable to navigate to waypoint XXXXX due to no continuous navaid reception between here and XXXXX; request VOR-VOR routing (or vectors)". I know you can get a KNS80 BRNAV approved but that is just a useless piece of legalising a useless piece of nav kit which is a decade behind airways ATC assumptions about one's capability.

[julian_storey]

This is an absolute tangent to the thread and for that I apologise in advance :O

I fly around in the airways for a living in an aeroplane with an FMS which knows where all the waypoints are. Piece of cake.

Is there anyone on here old enough to remember how airways flying worked before RNAV? :8

[englishal]

FLIR & Synthetic vision have no relevance in a thread about IMC ratings, there are very few GPS approaches in the UK and will not be in place before the IMCR gets scrapped
But the post was about the replacement of the IMCr (if at all) and if this is the case any modern "PPL IR" should be re-written to reflect some of the kit around. ADF should be binned IMHO.

[S-Works]

If I had a KNS80 as the RNAV solution, I would have been lost on every airways flight I have ever done.

Ah well if you had a proper IR then it would not be a problem..... :p:p:p:p:p:p


Humorous dig at IO aside (which he will no doubt throw his toys out of the pram about), I did my JAA IR on tour across Europe using a KNS80........

[BEagle]

In the antique 4-jet I used to fly, 'Airways' would often clear us direct to some obscure waypoint. This used to require a hunt through documents various by the navigator, followed by entry of the lat/long into the aged INS and a heading to fly would be announced from the back.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

Which was fine, except no-one cross-checked the lat/long entry as there was no way of doing so easily.

Then we had an FMS fitted - but still controlled by the navigator. I have seen scribble 'electric spiders' on the screen after he/she has entered an incorrect waypoint - but at least we could query it! Fortunately it did at least have a waypoint database though.

One fine day 'Airways' cleared us direct to 'VENLO' on our way to Bruggen. Not in the database and not in the en-route document. Having been to Bruggen a few times, I knew that there was a nearby Belgian town called Venlo, but it wasn't on the aeronautical chart. Exasperated, we checked with 'Airways' and yes, that's where he wanted us to go to:rolleyes:!! So the lat/long had to be measured and the point entered manually....it pointed in the same direction as the Bruggen TACAN, so seemed OK to us!

Bad enough to fly something without a waypoint database - but when you're cleared to somewhere which isn't even published.....:ugh:

As for the KNS-80, it is a great piece of kit if used within its limitations. But if you try to measure the range and bearing from a VOR to a non-VOR waypoint in flight, single pilot, IMC in turbulence without an autopilot, you will probably become a statistic. Either for an airspace bust or as an accident. Pre-planned waypoints on a 'homemade' route in VMC or IMC within DOC of the appropriate VORs and it's absolutely fine though.

[IO540]

The problem, Beagle, is that a KNS80 or similar "VOR shifter" has to be in reception of the real physical navaid the whole time. Ideally (legally) it should be in its DOC but let's be practical about it...

On every airways flight I've done I have had at least one DCT of over 100nm, and on the last one I got about 3, one of which was over 200nm (I write down the GPS distances of these long DCTs, just for fun).

The only way to navigate these long legs with a VOR shifter would be to dig out the airways chart, draw the ATC-specified DCT track on it, pick out VORs along that track, and set them up one by one as they pass by, and change them as each comes in/out of reception range. And in between the VORs, fly a constant heading.

I really really fancy doing the above, IFR, single pilot, thank you very much. In most GA cockpits there isn't even room to spread out the airways chart and draw a 200nm DCT track on it. Totally nuts.

If somebody claims to have done their IR with a VOR shifter, and if that claim was true, it would only prove the JAA IR to be a bogus IFR qualification for the real world. I have never heard of anybody having to demonstrate anything so ridiculous on their checkride.

It also won't work in much of France, which for the most part doesn't have DMEs colocated with its VORs. I wonder how the DME/DME corrections in FMS systems work over France? Do they pick up the TDMEs from ILS approaches?

[S-Works]

If somebody claims to have done their IR with a VOR shifter, and if that claim was true, it would only prove the JAA IR to be a bogus IFR qualification for the real world. I have never heard of anybody having to demonstrate anything so ridiculous on their checkride.

Tell you what call Bonus Aviation at Cranfield and ask them what the standard equipment fit for the PA44 Seminoles they operate for instrument training and exams is?

Shall we have a little exam question on what we need to file on a flight plan that indicates we are not capable of 200nm directs to waypoints and what we file to indicate that we can accept them?

You might want to quit while you are ahead on this one IO, you were doing well at blagging to us all about how great an Instrument pilot you are but now we are starting to see some very revealing holes appearing in your experience.

What I am seeing here is the GPS kid with very limited practical IFR experience outside his own customised cockpit. In fact I would bet that if we put you in one of the standard IFR approved and CAA approved test machines I doubt very much that you would pass a JAA IR. It also does explain now why you are so keen on seeking a way of doing a JAA IR in your own N Reg aircraft.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

KNS80 is RNAV certified and therefore legal to go fly with, thats my point, you only need BRNAV above Fl95 I think,

There is way to much reliance on GPS perfectly demonstrated by being given a 600 mile direct in the US, only to have both GPS's go into DR mode... Unless you want to spend a lot of cash on a dme/dme vor/vor solution then VOR and NDB are here to stay and despite all their shortcomings thank god for that.

GPS has been around for 15 years or more and been mature for GA use for say 6 years, despite that in the UK we have what 5 or 6? airports with GPS approaches. How long do you think before we see then published at every airport, how long before say Shoreham gets one and dispenses with the NDB, Carlisle, Blackpool, Humberside, Cambridge, Eglington all have routinely used NDB approaches. How do you think Jet2 will feel having to upgrade all their 1980's 73's to be able to take advantage of the new approach as the requirements for transport category aircraft and big bizjets will be much more stringent than GA aircraft. They cant just stick a Garmin430 in with a blue light next to the HSI you know

Trust me whan the day comes to switch off NDB's in this country there will be a lot of resistance, until then the required training to operate these facilities is here to stay and will need to be taught and tested in the replacement for the IMCR however much you think they are outdated

Al

Certifiable EVS and FLir are $500k! still want to talk about them in the context of IMCRs? and there are no plans to install them in anything less than 12,500lbs so even in the US we are talking type ratings

IO

If I had a KNS80 as the RNAV solution, I would have been lost on every airways flight I have ever done

Just how did people manage to fly anywhere before GPS....errrr hang on never mind GPS what about before RNAV!!!!! :ugh::ugh: Common sense thing to do could be to have just asked for a heading or wind corrected DR it until back in coverage - nothing wrong in that at all, perfectly acceptable.

Some would argue its these basic IFR skills and knowledge that should be demonstrated on IR tests not how good you can program the Garmin.

[IO540]

you only need BRNAV above Fl95 I think,Yes, which is more or less the airway base in Europe.

GPS has been around for 15 years or more and been mature for GA use for say 6 years,A lot longer than that in the place which runs some 90%+ of world's GA - the USA.

Trust me whan the day comes to switch off NDB's in this country there will be a lot of resistanceI am sure you are right. I like the old navaids too, and always tune them in, when available. But the fact is that CAT no longer needs them 99% of the time when enroute - except DME/DME INS fixes - because IFR flight is now a purely RNAV exercise.

Just how did people manage to fly anywhere before GPS....errrr hang on never mind GPS what about before RNAV!!!!!Do you mean the earliest adventurers, or do you mean CAT?

The early guys were very good traditional navigators, with the sextant etc. Also, flying from say the U.S. E Coast to Ireland, you have to fly the right heading within about 10 degrees - not so hard. They didn't get busted for busting the Shannon CAS - there wasn't any. And the not so good ones just drowned.

CAT has had INS for some 30 years now, which is good enough for oceanic stuff etc, and in Europe the whole business is under radar control. They just carry on as before, except DME/DME fixes get gradually replaced by GPS fixes. But the DR solution from the INS is still what is driving the plane.

It is for GA that things are changing.

Say 20 years ago (I was not flying then) you had just NDBs and VORs. In Europe, you still had total radar control. And flight was on airways, which have VORs at the junctions, and the MEAs are set so as to guarantee navaid reception at the MEA (what the FAA calls the MRA).

So you tracked the VORs, and then joined the published STAR or whatever, then flew the approach just like at present.

What has changed, I don't know when but guess within the last 10 years, is that ATC started to treat all enroute airspace (which is almost entirely CAS, in Europe) as RNAV airspace, disregarding the physical navaids. I can see why - it opens up the whole world of shortcuts and tactical traffic management, and pilots love it because it makes for easy flying, easy comms with ATC, less fuel used, etc. But, without INS, this is navigable only with GPS and indeed GPS is an approved and certified solution for RNAV, BRNAV and PRNAV. It meets PRNAV accuracy requirements easily - unlike INS systems which won't unless they had a recent DME/DME or GPS fix.

The death of the KNS80 came with GPS (after which anybody still developing RNAV products based on navaids dropped out), and the final nail came with FM Immunity, which can be achieved only by spending a wad on antenna filters.

The emotional transition to GPS approaches should not be too hard. The USA has been banging them for over 10 years.

[julian_storey]

Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.

Mark Twain

[G-SPOTs Lost]

I am sure you are right. I like the old navaids too, and always tune them in, when available. But the fact is that CAT no longer needs them 99% of the time when enroute - except DME/DME INS fixes - because IFR flight is now a purely RNAV exercise.

No true - just done direct WAL DCT HON DCT CPT DCT SAM 200 10 before LELNA JSY DCT could have done the whole thing green needles.

IO Not having a go and dont want to get into a pi$$ing contest over then and now avionics, my point is that whatever your opinion on the future for GA Cockpits, its still the case that in the timescale that we are talking about for a IMCR replacement, traditional IFR skills, which reflect the current level of ground station capability, will still be the measure by which you will be tested ,so talk of EVS, FLir, GPS approaches, Digital autopilots are just irrelevant.

Im sorry to cause thread drift ...this about ratings not individuals or kit, I suspectyou will still have to demonstrate your ability to do things the old fashioned way to achieve a IMCR replacement or "Class 2" IR be that right or wrong its just the way it is....

[IO540]

Fair enough, for a basic IMCR privilege, they need to fly navaids. And in my FAA IR I spent two solid weeks banging navaids and nothing else (no GPS at all).

But I don't recall disputing that. Just that a lot of things which make the traditional IR hard are not applicable to real IFR flight, because of the availability of better methods.

Your example

WAL DCT HON DCT CPT DCT SAM

is not really good because you could have done that route with a kite :)

Try

EGHH SAM R8 DVR DCT KOK L607 NEKIR/N0150F120 L607 RUDUS/N0150F100 L984 ASKIK/N0150F120 Z74 KOSEK/N0150F100 L603 CHIEM/N0150F150 P995 ARNOS/N0150F110 P735 GILIN/N0150F120 P735 DOL/N0150F100 L868 GISER L862 OKLAX LDSP

930nm, and it will be RNAV the whole way. A nice GA flight. Sure you could fly it VOR-VOR (I counted eight VORs on that route, the first three would not be tracked anyway because London Control will send you elsewhere immediately) but it would be a lot of work, not to mention higher MEAs, and longer. The five remaining VORs are too far apart DOC-wise so you would be sitting there, rummaging around on the airways chart, picking out nearby VORs and asking ATC to let you go there - because they won't be on the Eurocontrol-validated route they have in their system.

I did that once when my panel mount GPS failed. No problem, got a VOR-VOR route but it was 2000ft higher (FL160, also OK but not for everybody) and longer, and every single ATC sector forgot that I had no RNAV and I had to tell them all over again.

And without RNAV you won't get nice shortcuts.

[S-Works]

And without RNAV you won't get nice shortcuts.

exactly, but that is not an excuse for learning the belt and braces stuff first. The KNS80 is still considered to be RNAV, if you are giving a direct that is not within it's range then it is up to you to refuse it. Intersections are made up of beacon way points so given a direct is easy on a KNS 80.

I have had to do hundreds of flight filed for no RNAV when delivering aircraft and the Dorniers and Finist on our fleet or only just going through the process of being GPS fitted.

Whilst you have a very nicely equipped aircraft, what we are talking about here is a replacement of the IMCR and that will require the training to encompass what is still out there and unlikely to change for quite some time to come. This means expert level competence of the classic nav aids.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

You miss the point

Yes you have a nicely equipped aircraft - almost airliner like in its complexity

Yes you know how to use all the kit to a good standard

Yes you know how to flightplan in the EU

Yes you are very good at flying IFR etc etc.

But the rating you seek is not entitled the "IO540 in his scroggs wondercraft rating" its an internationally recognised IR.

You will be licensed to fly in a basic IFR capable machine with just enough kit to get the job done and so therefore will be required to demonstrate your ability on that basis.

Your touring ability, deftness with flitestar or a Garmin have no relevance to the arguement. You should be proud of what you've achieved and your ability to actually get in and go. But if you want to convince others as well as yourself of your prowess, get in a PA44 with no autopilot and do a busy IRT profile where the situational awareness is mental instead of pictorial and let us all know how you get on......

[dublinpilot]

But the rating you seek is not entitled the "IO540 in his scroggs wondercraft rating" its an internationally recognised IR.


When I got my driving licence, I did my test on a fairly new, well equipped, low power car.

I was then licenced to drive any car, including a 5Ltr V12 Ferrari with dodgy brakes, and a seat that I couldn't get comfortable in and I couldn't see out of properly. (In theory I mean...I've never driven a Ferrari).

What stopped me driving something dodgy, was a sense of self preservation, not my driving test.

Likewise a new PPL is licenced to fly something must faster, complicated and difficult than the C150/PA28-140 that they qualified on. But I don't see lots of people killing themselves on more complicated machines that they take to without further training?

Why would you think that someone with an IR would take on something beyond their abilities, no matter their licence privlidges?

Why should someone need to prove their ability to exercise the privlidges of the IR to the most difficult degree, when they don't need to do so for any other area in life?

dp

ps. If the IMCR goes, then we will see lots of UK pilots go for an IR. There will be a real spike in the number of UK issued PPL/IR's because some people will not want to give up their IFR privlidges.

But those coming behind, who never had the chance to hold an IMCR will not get a EASA PPL/IR if things stay the same as they are now. All you have to do is look to other EU countries.

I am not aware of a single (current) PPL/IR in Ireland. I'm sure there are some, but I don't know them.

I would like to get an IR, but one of the biggest challenges I face is getting access to an IR machine.

It's a slippery slope. When the number of IFR rated (IMCR or IR) PPLs drop then the aeroplanes are not maintained to IFR standards. As a result pilots don't train for an IR, as the don't have access to an IFR machine.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

I was then licenced to drive any car, including a 5Ltr V12 Ferrari with dodgy brakes, and a seat that I couldn't get comfortable in and I couldn't see out of properly. (In theory I mean...I've never driven a Ferrari).

What stopped me driving something dodgy, was a sense of self preservation, not my driving test.

Again its not called the "sensible dublinpilot IR" it has to encompass everybody assuming the worst conditions on the worst day with the worst aircraft, they have to assume that if you can fly that you can cope in the posh new digital aircraft and protect people in the air from themselves and people on the ground from numptys in the air

Maybe we should use the arguement that just because you can pass your test in a mini and then drive a V12 Ferrari the next day should mean that we exempt pilots from proper testing.

I'm sure the EU who are trying to overregulate (Hence this thread) will go for that one.

Anyway theres nothing to say common sense has any place here, it hasn't since we became JAR in 2000. Remember think like a politician not a pilot

[Pace]

I am not aware of a single (current) PPL/IR in Ireland. I'm sure there are some, but I don't know them.

DublinP

This goes back to the nature of Europe and how they regard or would like to regard Aviation in Europe.

I can remember and know some ATPs who converted their licences to JAA by taking an FAA ATP, Changing it to an Irish licence and then hey presto a JAA ATP. That avenue was closed.

Margaret Thatcher (I did not agree with a lot of her views) believed that there should be as little interferance from the state in the dailly lives of people and that the market would work things out.

Europe has always been known for its Burocracy and a tendency towards state control and ownership.

The uk became a banking nation. Production ceased and employment revolved very much in the service and leisure industries and government departments.

Government departments employ millions and that is also reflected in Europe.
That leads to burocracy with many departments involved in legislation and those legislators legislating to justify their jobs.

I believe the UK government brought out 3000 new criminal offences in the course of one year.

That shows that far from Mrs Thatchers desire for less Government involvement in peoples daily lives we are now in a situation of massive controls and massive involvement in peoples lives.

That is the nature of Europe and that in itself is also relective in it attitude towards aviation ie more and more legislation and hence costs and restrictions.

I am afraid the PPL flying for his/her pleasure in what is regarded as a rich mans hobby probably doesnt figure much in a mindset which would really like ALL aviation to be controlled through commercial travel only for the millions. They probably look at private flight with disgust and something they wish did not exist.

That is what we are really up against.

Pace

[IO540]

I can remember and know some ATPs who converted their licences to JAA by taking an FAA ATP, Changing it to an Irish licence and then hey presto a JAA ATP. That avenue was closed.

That's interesting. Do you mean one could convert an FAA ATPL to an Irish ATPL without sitting all the ground exams? That was never AFAIK possible anywhere else in JAA-land. Any conversion route always involves sitting all the exams.

[Pace]

That's interesting. Do you mean one could convert an FAA ATPL to an Irish ATPL without sitting all the ground exams? That was never AFAIK possible anywhere else in JAA-land. Any conversion route always involves sitting all the exams.

10540

I believe that used to be the case and know a couple of JAA ATPs who took that route through that particular loophole. But dont try it now :)

Pace

[englishal]

its still the case that in the timescale that we are talking about for a IMCR replacement, traditional IFR skills, which reflect the current level of ground station capability, will still be the measure by which you will be tested ,so talk of EVS, FLir, GPS approaches, Digital autopilots are just irrelevant.

Im sorry to cause thread drift ...this about ratings not individuals or kit, I suspectyou will still have to
Just out of interest though, if I rock up in a DA40 or Mooney with G1000, (With synthetic vision just for the sake of argument) and I want my IMCr renewal flight, how will an examiner do it? If it is all so traditional then are there ANY examiners qualified to use and examine me using this kit?
Do I have to go to America to get this done?

[S-Works]

Just out of interest though, if I rock up in a DA40 or Mooney with G1000, (With synthetic vision just for the sake of argument) and I want my IMCr renewal flight, how will an examiner do it? If it is all so traditional then are there ANY examiners qualified to use and examine me using this kit?
Do I have to go to America to get this done?

You are just displaying stunning naivety here Al or are you just looking for a fight?

You know full well that the G1000 is commonly used for IR training in the UK and people are examined on it. You also know that the steam skills are tested and normally on a steam aircraft.

It is not 'so traditional' and that was not what was at the heart of what was being said. Regardless of the fandango gadgets available you still have to demonstrate the core skills and that is unlikely to change until we see the last steam equipped cockpit vanish. I am pretty sure the oil will be gone before that happens.

[englishal]

So...how do you test my "steam skills" in a G1000 equiped aeroplane then Stevo? Yep you can pull breakers, but lets be fair, now we're still not "steam" driven are we. I was making the point that will still be the measure by which you will be tested ,so talk of EVS, FLir, GPS approaches, Digital autopilots are just irrelevant. is not the case......

My mate did his JAR IR in a Duchess with a G430. He wasn't allowed to use it. Other places would have EXPECTED you to use it......

Anyway, enough, I'm off to watch Jackass.........:}

[Pace]

One of the problems we do have is who is our voice? AOPA is one which I have had a lot of help from in the past but as one poster said only a tiny proportion subscribe too.

Without one voice and a powerful voice we are all on a looser. Fragmented approaches from enthusiastic well meaning groups will not get us far.

Maybe instead of opting into an organisation like AOPA we should opt out?
Ie make it compulsory to join a represantive group but with the option to opt out?

I know in my car racing days you had to belong to one of two clubs to be able to compete on club basis.

Just a thought to chuck in the pot :)

Pace

[Johnm]

Well I renewed my IMCR today in my Archer 2 with steam driven gauges. I even proved I could recover from unusual attitudes with only half of them:eek:

I also proved I could fly straight and level and manage turns too with just a compass for headings (could have used turn co-ordinator and watch but I didn't)

Flying a procedural ILS and a simulated SRA with GPS and autopilot switched off was hard work but easily doable. So now I'm legal everywhere outside ClassA in the UK for another 25 months:ok:

[S-Works]

So...how do you test my "steam skills" in a G1000 equiped aeroplane then Stevo? Yep you can pull breakers, but lets be fair, now we're still not "steam" driven are we. I was making the point that will still be the measure by which you will be tested ,so talk of EVS, FLir, GPS approaches, Digital autopilots are just irrelevant. is not the case......


I think you will find that those who do the IR in a Glass cockpit have to go to a steam machine to demonstrate the old skills for the IR test.