Scrap the IMCR

[Pace]

This subject comes up time and time again. There is no doubt that the IMCR improves safety for the VFR PPL holder and there is equally no doubt that there are many very profficient PPLs who use the rating to fly in bad weather and do so in a very safe way. Whether they could jump into an IR flight test and pass? some could some may think they could but would fail.

The fact is that the IMCR is a UK only rating which minimumally trains a pilot for flight in IMC and especially in the UK with its damp weather is a vital tool for the VFR pilot.

But we are no longer an island but part of Europe and need to look at Europe historically and politically to understand the future and that future direction.
Europe has always sat uncomfortably with GA. Europe is now made up of ex Eastern block countries as well as countries which have always historically been made up of left wing tendancies. Europe leans towards burocracy, state intervention and control.

I remember not that long ago on a commercial airliner being told not to take pictures out of the window over Italian airspace.I suppose they were scared that I might photograph some secret military instillation.

Apart from the UK and France and to a certain extent Germany GA in Europe was sparse and seen as a rich mans toy. The Europeans were uncomfortable with the idea of Joe Blogs flying his aircraft over Europe literally uncontrolled.
Many European countries were void of any meaningful GA.

In the USA it was different. A large landmass with big distances between cities meant that GA was a vital part of the transport structure and the whole system was much more geared up to the use of GA aircraft. Politically GA was welcomed with open arms.

The Europeans have legislated towards their own idea of aviation and sadly GA is not an important part of their vision.
Infact I would go further and state that GA sits uncomfortably with the Europeans.

Regarding training The Europeans would like all aviation to be confined to people carriers, controlled and their pilots trained to a professional standard.
Like any profession be it a Doctor or Lawyer the Europeans would like the pilot to go through a structured university like schooling and have leaned towards such training for professional pilots.

The PPL doesnt figure much in their minds and hence the reluctance to accomodate the PPL and his needs.

Over tea and biscuits the Europeans will lend a sympathetic ear to the needs of GA but there is no political will to bend to those needs only false promises of what may be in the distant future to keep the moaners silent.

Fighting to retain the IMCR and to broaden its acceptance and use in Europe will in my opinion be a case of shooting oneself in the foot.

That is why I am so opposed to retention of the IMCR because I feel it will not achieve what we are hoping for.

Many pilots who wanted a reasonable IR looked to the FAA, registered their aircraft on an FAA N reg and then happily flew IFR in European airspace much to the annoyance of the Europeans.

There were a number of legal challenges which were unsuccessful in stopping that practice so we MAY be in a position to argue for a limited European GA IR more along the lines of the FAA one.

The IMCR has been proved with no doubt to improve safety for the VFR PPL hence it would give EASA an easy way out to accept the IMCR.

My fear is that we would then loose the possibility of a GA IR and end up with a European IMCR which would be a far more watered down and restrictive rating than we enjoy now in the UK.

Hence my attacks on the IMCR rating which is not an IR and will never be.

Pace

[wsmempson]

An 'interesting' point of view which, unless I'm very much mistaken, you have voiced before.

Can you actually name any accidents since the inception of the IMCR that have arisen as a result of incorrect use of the rating?

[Pace]

One in Ireland a month ago and another that killed my friend a few years ago in a mooney.

But I am not arguing the safety benefits of the IMCR but its future in the larger European picture

Pace

[maxdrypower]

Can you enlighten us as to how these unfrotunate events were as a direct result of the IMCR?
As someone who has done both an IMCR and an IR as you may have done yourself I feel you seem to misunderstand the difference between the two.
No one has ever claimed that the IMCR is a professional licence and the syllabus is completely different to that of an IR. The argument as to whether an IMCR holder could take and pass an IR are null and void simply due to the lack of relevant input during the IMCR , ie airways , SIDS STARS etc .
The IMCR is reknowned as a get you home rating and nothing more . I am unsure of any schools that teach it as a licence to routinely fly IFR . Undoubtedly there are those that will , but to the same and there are still PPLS who will happily fly IFR Im sure every flying club has one .
I would be interested to hear what exactly you think your GAIR will contain ?This sounds to me to be little more than a renamed IMC. Remember if you wish you can still gain a PPL IR .
It seems to me that you are arguing that now we are unfrotnuately part of europe ,tat we bow to their whims and take the path of least resistance with regards to polies and procedures we have had successfully in place for many years .
Why dont we just give up our entire sovereignty and have done with it ?
I for one like many others have happily used an IMC rating as I was trained to do when the unexpected wx has occurred .
Support GA in this country and not back ridicluous ideas just because you feel for some strange reason that people over the water know best .
Anything that makes people safer pilots is a plus and need sot be encouraged not unjustifiably contested

[Pace]

Maxdrypower

Suggest you read the other threads currently here on the IMC rating before making assumptions on what I am saying as you appear to be way off the mark.

Pace

[maxdrypower]

Why would I wish to do that , I am basing my reply on words used by you on this thread , so unless you are saying you didnt mean what you said then my response is valid and not based on any assumption but on your opinion which is there in black and white .

[Johnm]

Nobody wants to see the IMCR as an excuse for EASA failing to come up with a sensible PPL/IR, however UNLESS EASA come up with a sensible IMCR we need to retain IMCR privileges and ideally extend them.

It is true that Europe doesn't really see light aircraft as a mode of transport, but I and many others use them like that and I'm not prepared to be have that right restricted unnecessarily.

As some one who (as yet) only has an IMCR but flies regularly with both G and N reg IR holders I have observed that flying IFR across Europe is a lot easier than VFR whether IMC or not, moreover I can do most of the operational and flying bits as well as they can, as long as I keep in practice. I have considered an FAA IR but since I own a G reg aeroplane I'm going to have to flog my way through the mad ground school requirements and then do the flying.

At least I'll have a good excuse to fit a garmin 430W:E

[Pace]

Can you enlighten us as to how these unfrotunate events were as a direct result of the IMCR?
As someone who has done both an IMCR and an IR as you may have done yourself I feel you seem to misunderstand the difference between the two.

Where do I misunderstand the differences between the two?

No one has ever claimed that the IMCR is a professional licence and the syllabus is completely different to that of an IR. The argument as to whether an IMCR holder could take and pass an IR are null and void simply due to the lack of relevant input during the IMCR , ie airways , SIDS STARS etc .
The IMCR is reknowned as a get you home rating and nothing more . I am unsure of any schools that teach it as a licence to routinely fly IFR . Undoubtedly there are those that will , but to the same and there are still PPLS who will happily fly IFR Im sure every flying club has one .
I would be interested to hear what exactly you think your GAIR will contain ?This sounds to me to be little more than a renamed IMC. Remember if you wish you can still gain a PPL IR .

This just shows why I asked you to read the other threads that instigated the post before making wild unfounded statements

It seems to me that you are arguing that now we are unfrotnuately part of europe ,tat we bow to their whims and take the path of least resistance with regards to polies and procedures we have had successfully in place for many years . Why dont we just give up our entire sovereignty and have done with it ?

I think you really need to update yourself on where we are in our abilities to direct future legislation in Europe

I for one like many others have happily used an IMC rating as I was trained to do when the unexpected wx has occurred .

Good for you I hold the same view but read the threads and many dont.

Support GA in this country and not back ridicluous ideas just because you feel for some strange reason that people over the water know best .
Anything that makes people safer pilots is a plus and need sot be encouraged not unjustifiably contested

I really wish you were right but sadly you are NOT. I dont know how to respond to you other than saying read the other current IMC posts and then respond with something that makes any sense.

[maxdrypower]

Unfortunately I do not know how to QUOTE on here , but following your last post I suggest you re-read your first post and if you come to the conclusion that you dont sound like an ill informed politician than I shall bow down to your greater knowledge .
If persons are talking gibberish in other forums then you should perhaps post in those forums rather than start new ones then direct people to them . Especially with sensationalist headlines lie SCRAP THE IMCR, or do you work for sky news? Is that what you eman by "Wild Unfounded statements"Based on your post if you are in any way connected with European negotiations then I shall wave goodbye to the IMCR right now .

[Justiciar]

I would challenge Pace's very generalised assertions concerning European GA, though I agree that there are countries which have a tendency towards bureaucracy. Interestingly, one of the most bureaucratic is France, where GA flourishes. Italy, which is a governmental nightmare, was home to the likes of the Siai Marchetti, Falco and now Alpi Pioneer and Tecnam. Some of the most dynamic innovation in light aviation is in the former eastern block countries.

GA has flourished or withered according to the state of individual government regulation and social, historic and economic factors. Our own CAA does not exactly have an unblemished record, particularly in the area of aircraft certification, but paradoxically the UK has a vibrant Permit sector where the CAA happily delegate administration to the LAA and it is of course home the the IMCR. Let us not forget that the IMCR is almost unique in the world.

Now things are changing. JAA FCL was essentially based upon ICAO standards, as were most national PPLs. The advent of the light sports licence (a name some hate) is not to my mind evidence of a Europe wholy against GA; quite the reverse. Yes, there appears to be substantial opposition to the IMCR in Europe. No doubt some of this is born from the different airspace regulation (no IFR outside of controlled airspace). Ditching the IMCR in the belief that this will secure some sort of IR (light) for PPL is folly. First, there is no evidence that there will be any weight of opinion in favour of such a move. Secondly, EASA wil not I suspect create something which is significantly non ICAO compliant, so the chances of anything taylor made for PPLs seems to me to be remote and the most that is likely will be some modification of the theoretical knowledge requirement. The practical training requirement has already been modified. It is difficult to believe that two levels of IR (PPL and commercial) will find favour at all.

Dump the IMCR and you risk loosing everything.

[vanHorck]

I would advocate allowing a EUR-GA-IR or a EUR-GA-IMCR (whats in a name) to fly:

VFR on top all over Europe (one standard for al the airspace)
low airways (up to FL245?) at VFR levels (+500) (one standard for all the airspace)
flying the procedures (GPS/VOR/NDB/ILS) with the current IMCR restrictions (one standard for all the airspace).

All the above with a speed restriction of 2oo knots (to prevent the mini jet owners to get away with this level)

Anyone wanting lower minima or flying the IFR levels in the airways to obtain the same standard as the other pilots flying there.

I tend to agree with Pace that the current reluctance to discuss the IMCR is not actually helping the case of a european wide achievable non-pro IR. Whilst i understand the fear, I think a strong COMBINED lobby of all GA representations is the way forward, but I have no idea if this is achievable.

[DB6]

Answer: Get out of Europe (perhaps not practical but we all have our dreams).

[vanHorck]

No

answer is get the GA community to work together.
No pilot can argue that the EUR-GA_IMCR is not achievable.

The French would continue to be allowed to fly VFR on top,
the UK can continue the IMCR privileges
the big birds have guaranteed 500ft separation from GA
we can all fly airways with all the benefits of hand over, one transponder code per flight
lighter workload for ATC because all gets normalised

[LH2]

Ah, well.

Since we're having the same old circular argument with everyone reposting their views, I'll repost mine too:

There is nothing fundamentally wrong or unattainable with the current JAR IR. I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to actually sign up for one and give it a go, then report back.

This is not to say I'm against re-evaluating the current system, but as it is it's perfectly doable.

['India-Mike]

Although Justiciar makes a most reasoned and sensible post, I'm with DB6:ok:

[IO540]

The basic problem, chaps, is that there is very little prospect of getting a European IR which is significantly more accessible to the typical appropriately funded aircraft owner client who is a business/professional type in his 40s or 50s, i.e.

- one exam, doable at any school, no fixed timetable
- doable in any IFR certified plane
- doable in your old PPL school
- doable with the IFR hood (no window screens)
- doable on the Class 2 PPL medical (no Class 1 audiogram)
- sensible syllabus without silly stuff like the JAA fancy NDB holding techniques

and one could throw in a few other reasons why in the USA such a large % of private pilots hold the full IR; of the order of 30x higher as a % of total.

The current (recently started) EASA committee process has a chance of chipping away around the edges of some of the above but it has a zero chance of addressing the really major accessibility issues like the # of exams and the ability of any school to teach it.

So, practically and pragmatically speaking, we are stuck with the desire for the continuation of the IMCR or some similar privilege.

Pace's very "Marxist-like" ideology will always resonate productively with the professional pilots, ATC, the national regulators, and all the other assorted self proclaimed guardians of heavenly purity and aviation safety. But most of these people haven't got a clue because if any of them have ever flown privately (most have not) they have not done so for many years.

The IMCR is wholly appropriate for the UK "user pays" way of approaching everything, the UK airspace structure which is mostly Class G in which you have a free for all because nobody has the authority to issue an IFR clearance in G, where there is no meaningful enroute ATC service (and if there was, who would pay for it?), and its huge private pilot community which often needs a way to deal with IMC but most often outside CAS where nobody is going to care about you anyway.

Finally, never forget that the State has no business in dictating individual attitude to risk. To argue the converse is to ban mountain biking, scuba diving, climbing, etc etc. Flying will always have a certain risk and the pilot should be free to decide whether he accepts this risk. Any passengers flying with him must also realise (unless they are stupid) that they must reduce their expectations of safety relative to flying in a 747.

For every IMCR holder who killed himself in IMC, one could dig out a dozen airliners which were ploughed into terrain by two highly experienced and current professional pilots with gold plated ATPLs, flying a piece of hardware with a fantastic mission capability. So, trying to pick on some IMCR holder's accident is a complete waste of time. There are very few anyway - accidents flying proper published instrument approaches are very rare and just as many of them were done by IR holders.

[wsmempson]

One in Ireland a month ago and another that killed my friend a few years ago in a mooney.

Quoted from PACE.


I don't believe anyone - even the biggest political distortionist of the truth - could stand up with a straight face and claim that the accident in Ireland was caused by the IMCR. Whilst it is inappropriate to comment on accidents that are still subject to full accident reports, suffice to say that the pilot was flying in weather that was inappropriate for the flight - regardless of rating. Please post the details of the one involving the Mooney as, given you've posted one spurious example, I think you're lying about this one as well, simply to suit your own personal point of view.:yuk:

[vanHorck]

Hohohohohohoho

Can we be a little more gentle with one another during this festive season please!?

[IO540]

The one in Ireland (which went into the peat bog) was definitely not in any way related to the IMCR.

If the pilot had an IMCR (maybe he did; I have no idea) and was actually exercising its privileges, he would have not hit the ground because he would have flown at/above the MSA, and landed on an instrument approach - just as he had been trained to do :ugh:

I am assuming the IMCR is valid in N Ireland.

What was the Mooney one?

[dont overfil]

Heh Pace are you bored today? What crap!
DO.
Apologies. I don't usually post like this but you do seem to just be stirring. We need a viable alternative before banning anything. The problem is Europe, not the IMC.
Help. Please tow the UK further west.

[mm_flynn]

The one in Ireland (which went into the peat bog) was definitely not in any way related to the IMCR.

If the pilot had an IMCR (maybe he did; I have no idea) and was actually exercising its privileges, he would have not hit the ground because he would have flown at/above the MSA, and landed on an instrument approach - just as he had been trained to do :ugh:

I am assuming the IMCR is valid in N Ireland.

What was the Mooney one?
There was a Mooney lost in IMC by a pilot with an IMCr in the departure phase. It is one of only 3 fatal accidents by an IMCr holder in IMC over the last 10 years (1998-2007). If I recall correctly there was a total engine failure and the pilot lost control handling the glide in IMC conditions.

I certainly didn't practice total engine failures in IMC for my IR! Equally, there are a number of fatal accidents over the years where pilots loss control of the aircraft following an engine failure - so putting this one down to having an IMCr vs IR is a bit over the top!

[Johnm]

I suspect Pace may be referring to

Air Accidents Investigation Branch: Mooney 500922 (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/january_2000/mooney_500922.cfm)

Which involved two IMCR pilots

Sadly it is very similar to this one

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Mooney%20Aircraft%20Corporation%20M20J,%20G-EKMW%2011-06.pdf

where the pilot was a very experienced IR holder

[vanHorck]

Johnm

The latter is a sad story, I knew the pilot. I was surprised to read that the misfitting of the component was seen as the only probable cause.

I had been led to believe the plane had stood outside during a very rainy night and was known to be sensitive to rain water being ingested in the fuel tanks.

Many people close to the accident believed the cause of the engine failure could easily have been due to water contamination.

Either way, flaws were found in maintenance procedures so this outcome should make aviation safer.

[IO540]

Just read those two reports.

The first one has zero bearing on the IMCR. It appears to have been an engine failure together with the pilot being for some reason unable to maintain stability during the descent, with the failure perhaps being masked for a while by the autopilot being in use. And the engine was knackered, with zero oil analysis being done (IMHO not even the oil filter was ever cut open to check for chips - just like in a more recent fatal accident where the camshaft was found to be knackered just like this one).

The second one has zero bearing on the IMCR or the IR specifically but the IR holding pilot had what appears to be a low currency: 3hrs in the last 28 days. It appears to have been an engine failure together with the pilot being for some reason unable to maintain stability during the descent.

The amazing thing in the 2nd one is that it identifies the maintenance (mag repair) company by name. Tempting to comment but one would need to be awfully careful....

[moonym20]

Correct

The first report had nothing to do with the IMCr nor with the conditions... they were merely a casual factor

The engine gradually lost power over a short time masked by the CSU for a short while and the AP making trim adjustments.. when the stall occured the AP tripped out with full aft trim and the engine failed at around the same time... they did also find metal in the oil however were unable at the time to pinpoint where it had come from as well as being unable to determine the exact cause of the failure itself

Those who know early moonies well will know of its tendency to drop the left wing in the stall and its eagerness to develop into a spin if not corrected at the right time.....

Needless to say if indeed this accident is being tied to the IMCr as a cause/reason it is utter tosh!

[IO540]

As an irrelevant aside, there would have been copious metal "in the oil" in these cases - I have had this confirmed by two reputable U.S. engine shops. Small particles appear in oil analysis (which almost nobody does, but everyone should) but the kind of camshaft trashing referred to would produce bigger lumps which end up in the oil filter.

Anyway, I suppose what this means is that when flying in IMC, one needs to be monitoring the systems properly. With an autopilot, this is really easy to do because there isn't much else to do. The whole route will have been preloaded into the GPS, for example, before departure. Some IFR pilots don't do this, preferring to load just the first couple of waypoints and then play it by ear. This is a recipe for getting caught out, in the early stage of a flight.

[flybymike]

Just as a completely irrelevant but irresistable aside, I have to say that philosophically I completely agree with IO's assertion that the state has no business in dictating individual attitude to risk and that if it did there would be no mountain climbing , scuba diving, climbing etc. Alas the b*stards still compel us to wear seat belts in our cars, crash helmets on our motor bikes, and have drafted anti smoking legislation which could easily have accommodated both smokers and non smokers without being unfair to either. Nanny state will out.

[S-Works]

I have always had mixed feelings about the quality of the instruction for the IMC. However one thing I am certain of is that if it is lost and viable replacement is not found it will have a noticeable impact on the UK GA scene in terms of safety and quality of airmanship.

The mini IR debate aside, the IMC provides pilots with the tools to better aid situational awareness and greater precision of control of the aircraft. It provides a control environment that aids a pilot in growing and enhancing the skills they learnt in the basic PPL. It teaches new skills that aid confidence and enhance safety.

I have seen no evidence to remove the rating, some to improve standards and update it and none that shows it is a danger.

[flybymike]

Yes, (and I don't smoke either.)

[Pace]

08/01/94 Mooney M20J The Wrekin, Shropshire Private Hit top of isolated hill in poor weather

Ok as I am accused of being a liar this was the accident that happened to a good friend of mine and one which nearly got me to give up flying. I was a pall bearer at the funeral. I know a lot about the accident and more than was published in the accident report as not only was he a good friend but I had 200 hrs in the aircraft.

Basically he was flying IMC with an IMCR, but for obvious reasons I dont really want to discuss the accident.

As to my posting I have not said that the IMCR is not a big contributor to flight safety for the VFR pilot. NO I do not consider the training for an IMCR to be an alternative for an IR although competant pilots with a lot of experience use it to get around in hard IMC SAFELY.
That is because they do not have the time to spend six months out studying for ground exams.

I have expressed my concerns over EASA ever doing anything to encourage GA or helping to make licences which add to safety more achievable for the working man in the street.

If I am wrong I for one will be delighted but no matter who posts what here I doubt I will ever be delighted about what comes out of EASA.

I do try and post with a bit of colour to encourage discussion I apologise for that.

Pace

[IO540]

What you need to be sure about, Pace, is whether a specific accident (allegedly attributed to the usage of the IMCR) was caused specifically by the IMCR i.e. was the pilot doing something which he would not have done had he had the full IR training.

The circumstances must not involve illegality, because anybody can do that. They also must not involve a pilot error other than one caused by a lack of specific theoretical knowledge which would have been rectified by the full JAA IR ground school. Being a "cowboy" doesn't count either because aviation is packed with those types, carrying all kinds of paperwork.

All in all, it is pretty damn difficult to work out what kind of circumstances would give rise to such an accident.

At a Feb 08 presentation I went to, the CAA stated they can find just one fatal accident where the pilot died while exercising his IMCR privileges. I don't know how that was arrived at but it is probably about right.

The legal privileges are very close to the full IR, and the rest is currency, currency, currency on type, money, more money, and being generally careful.

[bookworm]

What you need to be sure about, Pace, is whether a specific accident (allegedly attributed to the usage of the IMCR) was caused specifically by the IMCR i.e. was the pilot doing something which he would not have done had he had the full IR training.

The circumstances must not involve illegality, because anybody can do that. They also must not involve a pilot error other than one caused by a lack of specific theoretical knowledge which would have been rectified by the full JAA IR ground school.

That's not a reasonable standard of evidence for this debate.

Pilots are taught not to fly into hills, whether they are IMC-rated or instrument rated. But pilots occasionally make mistakes and do fly into hills. The issue is whether a pilot is able better to avoid such mistakes with full IR training compared to IMC-rating training, which is nominally less than 1/3 of the hours requirement, and if so whether the safety dividend is worth the training cost.

One could in principle shorten the PPL course to an hour so and just tell the student what they need to know to survive having demonstrated effect-of-controls. Any failure to survive can then, by your standard, be attributed to pilot-error, not lack of training. But training is not simply about what is covered in the course, it's about what the trainee takes away and puts into practice.

An accident involving an IMC-rated pilot flying into a hill is relevant to the debate about whether IMC-rating training is sufficient for operational IFR.

[homeguard]

The only justification for any mandatory course of training is to ensure that the pilot has a minimum level of certain skills. Also included should be the skill of decision making for specific predictable situations. A major purpose of the AAIB is to ensure that the knowledge required is available.

Many countries throughout Europe maintain a chauvanistic approach to all this. DO NOT allow or even educate the pilot to do anything that you do not want them to do. Much like the old victorian attitude to sex. History demonstrates the foolishness of all that.

The CAA to their credit realised the stupidity of such an attitude and introduced the IMC some 40 years ago. Later they increased the mandatory PPL course instrument training from 1 hour to 4 hours to ensure a minimum skill. All this was reversed following JAR. There remains NO minimum instrument hours training required and a simple mandatory 180 degree turn on instruments as part of the skill test.

With the appalling attitude held by some within Europe it isn't easy.

[Pace]

10540

using your arguement would mean that you could never prove that an accident was caused by insufficient training either with an IMCR or an IR.
Of course any accident is usually pilot error whether it be to an IR pilot or IMCR pilot or even a VFR pilot.

All you can look at is whether the pilot is suitably trained and competant to be flying in certain conditions and whether more training could have helped avoid the accident that occured.

I think a confusion here lies between the training standards and the experience gained to bring a pilot to a level of competancy as well as natural ability.

I am sure you would not advocate a new PPL getting an IMCR and then heading off in any weather? a low time PPL who aquires an IR would be better equipt to fly off in poor weather but in both cases it is subsequent experience built over time which makes a pilot safe to do so.
That usually involves self imposed limits by the PPL which are loosened as the PPL gains more experience and feels more comfortable and capable.

To fly IFR in controlled airspace requires that the pilot is trained to a certain standard and is able to demonstrate his ability to fly to that standard and tolerances.

The freshly IMCR trained pilot would not be able to fly to the standards and tolerances required for the IR both JAA or FAA and that should answer this arguement.

Training and experience are two different things and maybe EASA should look more at experience in issuing a more attainable PPL IR.
Ie after the issuance of an IMCR a set amount of logged P1 instrument flying out of controlled airspace before any allowances are made on the normal IR route?

But I very much doubt anything will be done other than sympathetic burps amidst tea and biscuit chats.

Pace

[Pace]

An accident involving an IMC-rated pilot flying into a hill is relevant to the debate about whether IMC-rating training is sufficient for operational IFR.

The answer has to be NO the IMCR is a minimal instrument training package.

It is only when you go into the realms of type ratings and see the level of failures and situations thrown at the pilot in a simulator that you realise how minimalistic the IMCR is.

It is only under such extreme loading on the pilot that you can find out his limits and train him to deal with every scenario in IMC.

The IMCR cannot meet what the PPL may have to face and sadly thats when the poor guy looses the plot.

The IMCR is an excellent safetey backup for the PPL faced with worse than expected weather and is used by PPLs with hard earned experience but little free study time to get around in poor weather. In itself it cannot be regarded as an IR.

Pace

[homeguard]

As whopity has already argued, it is irrelevant to compare the IMCr with the IR. Does the training and testing regimes do the job for what is required, is the real question.

Clearly the IMCr training and testing is fit for THE PURPOSE. The accident record, pilot error or not, is excellent with only one recorded fatality in 40 years. The support of the rating given by BALPA and the Guild of Air Traffic Controllers and of course the CAA are also proof that the IMCr pilot performs well when within controlled airspace.

All things can be improved and brought up to date. The IMC course is not exempt but otherwise proves its case easily. Only European chauvinism seeks to oppose it.

[bookworm]

The accident record, pilot error or not, is excellent with only one recorded fatality in 40 years.

Was that the one where the piece of paper with "IMC rating" written on it got stuck in the control cables? If it wasn't, I'm sure we can find a way of excluding it from the statistics somehow. ;)

[S-Works]

Can I just remind everyone that my IMC use survey is still run and can be accessed via the AOPA UK site. We have had close to 1000 responses so far and the results make interesting reading.

Only by gathering accurate data can we prove/disprove the potential of the IMCR.

[LH2]

It is only when you go into the realms of type ratings and see the level of failures and situations thrown at the pilot in a simulator that you realise how minimalistic the IMCR is

Good point actually. It is not about flying in a straight line in a cloud when the engines are turning--anybody can do that after half an hour under the hood.

Most of the IR training is spent dealing with abnormal situations. Even though you know it's not for real I have come out of the sim shaking like a leave more than once after a Topper-style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e45NNARw40) landing with about as many bits of aircraft missing.

Of course, in a single engine aeroplane, all the above is a bit academic. But then again, I'm not one to fly SEPs in IMC.

[Pace]

LH2

Instrument and IMC flying is about spatial awareness, multi tasking and a whole host of qualities which you either have, work hard at getting or do not have the type of brain that will ever do it well.

It is easy to do with minimal training but throw in a number of failures, missed approaches, diversions, icing, turbulence etc and IFR flying will tax the most professional pilots who are not only current but regulary put through their paces in a simulator to breaking point.

How some here can promote 15 hrs training on an IMCR course and then state that they are IFR ready bemuses me :)

It takes a lot more than that to be safe in an IFR/IMC invironment.
Used with caution and self limitation as a back up for the VFR pilot the IMCR is a useful safety tool but thats all. Its not an IR which some here seem to think it is.

Pace

[S-Works]

Pace

Next time i`m going to fly IMC,
i also going to remember all your posts before t/o and a big smile is going to be in my face ,flying IFR with 15 Hrs of training.

Lets hope they don't become famous last words....... No place for smug or arrogance in the cockpit.

[IO540]

How some here can promote 15 hrs training on an IMCR course and then state that they are IFR ready bemuses me

They rarely are. They won't pass the checkride.

The FAA IR is only 15hrs of dual training, too. But nobody passes the checkride after 15hrs of dual training. ICAO min dual training for the IR is ......... guess ......... 10hrs!!

Demonstrated competence is the key. One has to get away from a "minimum training hours", which is completely irrelevant. One may as well require the school to have ISO9000...

[Chilli Monster]

How some here can promote 15 hrs training on an IMCR course and then state that they are IFR ready bemuses me

It takes a lot more than that to be safe in an IFR/IMC invironment.
Used with caution and self limitation as a back up for the VFR pilot the IMCR is a useful safety tool but thats all. Its not an IR which some here seem to think it is.

Peter - I think the thing you're forgetting here is it comes down to personal attitude / responsibility / ability

There are some very good IMC pilots out there for whom the IMC is not a "get you out of trouble" rating but a "get you there" rating. Conversely there are some supposed IR's out there who I wouldn't trust to sit the right way up on a toilet seat. The number of 250 hour CPL/IR's with frozen ATPL's, in the right hand seat of a 737, who can't string two words together, is amazing!

You can't generalise the way you are doing. I agree - nobody is ready for complex IFR scenarios after 15 hours training, but then neither is a 40 hour IR who has done nothing but flown the same routes with the safety net of an instructor next to them. NEITHER of them will have developed the decision making / captaincy skills that come with experience.

I used my IMC as an "IR light" until I got my IR. I learned a lot, used it a lot, stayed current. The end result was when I turned up to get my IR (the same one you had until you got your ATP I suspect) my instructor was happy with "training as required" - and it wasn't a great deal that was required. Why? I'd used, I'd learned, I'd stayed current.

I think there is a place for it, but I do think the current 25 month currency is wrong and it should be brought in line with the IR - 12 months. This would hopefully weedle out the person who thinks they're ok even if it hasn't been used for a year and a half but keeping the person who, like me, was just as competent as an IR, albeit with higher minima (yes - I know it's only a recommendation before anyone says!) and uses it properly.

Until the current IR becomes more attainable, like the FAA one in terms of groundschool / exams and flight testing it is a useful addition to the UK pilots armoury and should be protected.

[Pace]

Chilli Monster

I fully appreciate that there are many competant pilots who fly hard IMC with an IMCR and do so out of controlled airspace when often it would be safer for them to climb into controlled airspace.

They do so fairly low level often with poor radar coverage in the worst weather. So my hat of to them. I have been there and done that!

But where do we go from here? Do we push for an FAA style IR or do we try and get EASA to approve the IMCR and what nature will that IMCR be.

No I do not trust our European law makers to have our interests at heart neither do I trust them to have aviations interests at heart.
So what exactly are we pushing for?

Pace

[Chilli Monster]

Do we push for an FAA style IR or do we try and get EASA to approve the IMCR and what nature will that IMCR be.

It's a no brainer - an FAA style IR to supercede the IMCR with an overlap period to allow transition (say 12-18 months).

And I don't trust them either. At the end of the day the powers that be are just politicians, who prove themselves time and time again to be the most self serving branch of society.

(Definition of a Politician? Someone who couldn't pass the real estate exams!)

[172driver]

So what exactly are we pushing for?

In an ideal world? For the FAA to take over Europe (incl the UK for the doubters on here).

Dream on, dream on.... :sad:

[IO540]

There is zero prospect of an FAA-like IR here.

The European regulators just hold up their hands and say "we are Europeans, not Americans, and we must have European solutions".

They may as well say "computer says NO".

There is some work ongoing at EASA committee level on this, as discussed here already recently. But the end result will be nowhere near the FAA IR, in the sense of a single exam, and being able to pop into your old PPL school and do it flying out of there under a hood - these factors are what make is so accessible in the USA. Due to political (protectionist) factors these bits will not happen here in Europe.

One could hope for this IR to be modular and perhaps one of the lower modules having some IFR privileges, and the IMCR then grandfathering into one of these modules, perhaps with a checkride or whatever.

The pressure for a solution will become pretty massive nearer the day ;)

[JohnHarris]

Scrap the IMCR.

It should only be available to PPL who can prove that they fly 150+ hours per year.
Makes you laugh at the idiots that try and fly 20 hours a year and state that an IR is on their list of priorities. Wake up, smell the coffee, go and do a bit of flying or give it up for a bad job.

[Johnm]

Scrap the IMCR.

It should only be available to PPL who can prove that they fly 150+ hours per year.
Makes you laugh at the idiots that try and fly 20 hours a year and state that an IR is on their list of priorities. Wake up, smell the coffee, go and do a bit of flying or give it up for a bad job.

Silly and unhelpful, many pilots enjoy the training and skills development as much as any other aspect of flying and that shouldn't be discouraged.

[Justiciar]

One could hope for this IR to be modular and perhaps one of the lower modules having some IFR privileges, and the IMCR then grandfathering into one of these modules, perhaps with a checkride or whatever.

Is this not what they do in Australia, with different qualifications for individual approaches?

[youngskywalker]

I know quite a few who fly hundreds of hours per year, and guess what? ...They are crap

[IO540]

Is this not what they do in Australia, with different qualifications for individual approaches?

Yes, here (http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/CAO40/400203.pdf).

If the above URL doesn't work,

Go to CASA.gov.au --> Current Rules --> Civil Aviation Orders --> Part 40 --> PIFR, or Current Rules --> Civil Aviation Advisory Publications for the CAAP

[JohnHarris]

Silly and unhelpful, many pilots enjoy the training and skills development as much as any other aspect of flying and that shouldn't be discouraged.
How do you figure that? How many low timers go and do IMCR that cannot keep it current? How many TRY and keep a licence by flying the minimum hours around a 1 mile circuit? How many let the PPL/IMCR lapse after 18mts because of non use? How many posts do we see here from lapsed IMCR guys? How many PPL's do 50 hrs a year for goodness sake?
The only guys it seems to me that do any sort of descent hours are the guys that CANNOT hold a IMCR/IR, the microlight lads. They make me feel downright ashamed of being a PPL(A) flying 30 to 60 hours a year when they are all over the place, flying all over the country. How many of us do that?
There is a need for PPL's do do a minimum amount of annual hours before considering wasting more money on yet another useless bit of paper when they are not making use of what they have. Makes them more of an enthusiast rather than a pilot and fit in the same barrel as a spotter.

[IO540]

Spot the troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll).

:)

Happy New Year (and relative lack of CBs and icing) to all!

[Chilli Monster]

The only guys it seems to me that do any sort of descent hours are the guys that CANNOT hold a IMCR/IR, the microlight lads. They make me feel downright ashamed of being a PPL(A) flying 30 to 60 hours a year when they are all over the place, flying all over the country. How many of us do that?

Find me a microlight that carries 4 people, at 140Kts, 900nm, day or night, VMC or IMC, and you may convince me to invest in one.

Until that time - I'll stick to staying current and doing decent hours in my SEP thank you very much, more often than not by flying all over a bit more than this country ;)

[JohnHarris]

Find me a microlight that carries 4 people, at 140Kts, 900nm, day or night, VMC or IMC, and you may convince me to invest in one.

Until that time - I'll stick to staying current and doing decent hours in my SEP thank you very much, more often than not by flying all over a bit more than this country http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Err, what part of "Microlight" are you having problems with?

[Chilli Monster]

Err, what part of "Microlight" are you having problems with?
All of it - hence the response ;)
It was your comment:
The only guys it seems to me that do any sort of descent hours are the guys that CANNOT hold a IMCR/IR, the microlight lads. They make me feel downright ashamed of being a PPL(A) flying 30 to 60 hours a year when they are all over the place, flying all over the country.
Which was a little bit all encompassing, over generalising and frankly pretty patronising.

[JohnHarris]

Quote:
Err, what part of "Microlight" are you having problems with?
All of it - hence the response http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif
It was your comment:
Quote:
The only guys it seems to me that do any sort of descent hours are the guys that CANNOT hold a IMCR/IR, the microlight lads. They make me feel downright ashamed of being a PPL(A) flying 30 to 60 hours a year when they are all over the place, flying all over the country.
Which was a little bit all encompassing, over generalising and frankly pretty patronising.

In hindsight, I tend to agree with you, especially when the ßãѕťâгđ 3 axis types are quicker than my beat up spam can, tiz us that has to give way now, O how things change Tally ho.