DFC
You are wrong.
You have quite clearly set out your case and why you consider there to be an absolute minima.
The regulators interpretation of the legislation is contrary and clear - the minima is a recommended minima. It so happens that a number of us have always agreed with their interpretation.
As an aside it is noteworthy that with regards the departure minima the ANO uses the words “shall not fly .. .. ..”. It seems to me if the draftsmen was capable of using such clear and unambiguous English where the IMCR holder is to be restricted to certain minima he was equally capable of saying and distinguishing between an advisory statement and a mandatory requirement!
There are many areas of law in which the regulatory authority will set out their understanding of legislation where there may be doubt. Tax law is full of examples. That does not absolutely mean the courts would have reached the same view, however as others have said it does mean if you adopt the interpretation of the regulatory authority you will not be criticised or prosecuted for a breach of the regulations. I happen to believe the courts would reach precisely the same interpretation.
It is my personal view the regulatory authority has it absolutely correct and the legislation is sound. I would be very concerned should it ever change. I am personally happy applying the IR minima and will continue to do so.
As I think Bose also commented, I was very impressed how quickly and clearly the CAA replied to my correspondence (and I might add that has consistently been my experience on issues such as this). If you don’t accept that I have correctly represented their reply you should write to them yourself.
I can now also add that I have since discussed the matter with my insurers and they have confirmed they accept the minima as recommended and that there is no “breach” of the conditions of my policy where a pilot with an IMCR operates below the recommended minima. Again, in my case you are wrong.
I do not accept your contentions regarding the training industries “take” on this issue. As I posted previously my instructor took the trouble some time ago to obtain clarification from the CAA although in fact both before and after his view had always been the minima were advisory. Whether or not others have done so is wholly academic. The schools teach a syllabus, and the regulatory authority deems that syllabus appropriate to determine on test whether a candidate should be granted the rating.
Finally your arguments about the IMCR syllabus are for me bizarre and so are the conclusions you reach. Moreover this is the second time in this thread you have “trotted out” the same argument. An exam is designed to test certain prescribed abilities of the examined. It provides no guarantee that the successful candidate will be capable of doing everything the qualification permits - the only guarantee it provides is that the candidate has met a certain standard. As I mentioned earlier, and to take a very simple example, when you pass a driving test you are not tested on your ability to drive on a motorway and indeed you are unlikely to have demonstrated you can drive the car above 50 mph. The day after the test you can of course go and kill yourself and half a dozen others on the motorway (God forbid).
It is very well understood by examiners and pilots that the IMCR initially sets a less rigorous standard than an IR. That is why there are these recommended minima, and that is why the CAA has always recommended that a newly qualified IMCR holder should consider the rating as a “get you home” or “get you out of trouble” license. However, the regulators in their wisdom also (fortunately) had the sense to realise that there are some private pilots who will use the rating in earnest and will achieve a standard of flying that is better than many IR holders.
So in short you are wrong DFC. The only reason I have repeated that you are wrong is because you have raised an important issue and we have all had an good debate on this matter. Rightly I believe the matter has been clarified and I think it is important that interested pilots are aware. However much as you disagree I do not believe you should go on setting out a position that is simply wrong because some people might actually believe you!
Whilst posting I take on board the comment that were the intention of the legislator different? I don’t believe this to be the case at all. I think if you look at the history of the IMCR it is quite clear what the legislator had in mind and it is quite clear why an 1,800 departure minima should apply. In fact whilst I don’t agree with the class A restriction it is also clear why at the time this restriction should also have been applied. Whilst I know there are many examples of appallingly drafted legalisation I do think this is not one of those cases.