difference in IR and IMC rating

[Fuji Abound]

I would like to clarrify my position one final time.

The reason I have decided to do so is that I agree with BRL - this thread has degraded into personal snipes - I think that is to be regretted.

There has been some very interesting and constructive debate on this thread about whether or not the recommended landing minima for an IMCR are the same as an IR holder with a recommendation that higher minima are used, or whether the higher minima are compulsory.

I admit that I had also understood it was the former. Others disagreed.

It seemed to me this was an important issue that we could all benefit from being clarified and so I telephoned the CAA.

In my view the response from the CAA was first class. Firstly they consulted internally and I believe at a very senior level. They then wrote to me officially setting out precisely and clearly the question I had asked and informed me that the whole sentence - before and after the “but” dealing with IMCR minima were advisory. I then asked my insurance company whether cover would be endangered by operating to IR landing minima where the pilot has an IMCR and not an IR as is the case for some of my group members - they confirmed that cover would not be endangered.

I have been asked to publish the letter I received form the CAA. I am not prepared to do so. Firstly, the correspondence between us was personal. I feel it would be an abuse of that understanding to publish their reply. Secondly, the correspondence from them asks that the reply is not copied to any other person - a tag I had not noticed in the first instance. Some have suggested “publish and be dammed” others have said I am quite entitled to publish not with standing the views I have expressed. I respect but do not agree with your views, please respect mine.

Some have suggested that IMCR holders should not rely on my post. I would agree. Given these are anonymous forums I could be making the whole thing up or I may have misinterpreted what the CAA have to say. Some also say the final test is the courts.

In the first instance you will have to make your own minds up. You may wish to take into account that a number of other contributors on this thread have reported they have received the same interpretation from the CAA. You may also wish to take into account that I have set out clearly the basis of the exchange of correspondence and the reasons why I am not prepared to publish their reply. Most importantly, I and a number of others have made it clear that you only need to write to the CAA yourself and doubtless you will receive the same reply. Should you decide to do so and feel it would also be inappropriate to publish their reply you might like to report your conclusions here.

For those who say whatever the CAA’s interpretation the Courts are the final arbiter, I would also agree - of course they must be. However, I think the Courts would find a letter from the CAA setting out their interpretation of the legislation pretty persuasive.

Finally, and this is not intended as a snipe, just a statement of my opinion, I think it is sad that some contributors feel it appropriate to call into doubt the integrity of others. You are of course quite entitled to doubt their integrity but I believe before expressing those doubts here it would be as well for them to write to the regulator themselves to establish whether their doubts are justified or if they cant be bothered to do so, keep their doubts to themselves!