Julian,
First I should have used 100 hours as the figure and not 75!
All this talk about taking years and such like to study for what are relatively simple exams not set at the ATPL level is either utter tosh or if it is a true statement says something about the learning abilities of people who hold other instrument qualifications.
The exams are very easy. Perhaps some of those that have passed them would like to make out they are difficult or represent some great educational experience but they do not. Or perhaps the providers would like that perception in order to justify their fees.
---------
Bpilatus and IO540,
Much of what you talk about regarding SIDS clearly show that you think it is OK for unqualified people to get more out of the system to the possible detrement of the qualified. Training flights are given a lot of sympathy by operators but even with that they must take the lowest priority. However when it is not a training flight, people are not happy that the capacity of the system is reduced by people who expect some form of special treatment.
Does anyone honestly think that an operator who pays through the nose to fly IFR is going to be happy waiting at the hold while the ATCO does what IO540 says in explaining a SID to someone who does not hold an IR and does not pay (as they see it).
IMC holders are often their own worst enemy;
Operating to minima that are not backed up by any form of training, checking or safety case.
Ducking under when not visual at minimums.
Using a one size fits all minima regardless of the procedure or environment.
Operating on the basis that holding is optional in the IFR environment!
Expecting special handling from ATC
These are all issues that can only help people who want to justify the restriction or withdrawl of the rating.
Will EASA issue IMC ratings? - Not in the plan at present. What then?
The IMC rating if used properly could be used as a shining example of the kind of things that could be acheived by establishing a Europe wide mini-IR with well defined high minima. Unfortunately I do not think that anyone in their right mind would try to use the IMC rating as a shining example of anything other than confusion, poor operating practices and placing an inappropriate extra load on the ATS system for no return in terms of safety.
As I said previously, the IMC rating needs a big image change and the place to start is by putting in place appropriate, clearly defined, easily applied and well understod minima.
Regards
DFC
Fuji,
We are not deaf. No need to daily repeat yourself. Why is it that I have simply said a long time ago that if evidence is produced to show that the CAA have changed their position then I will happily accept that and left it there while you can not stop repeating, repeating, repeating the same hearsay while being unwilling to accept that there could be another position.
Don't keep asking the CAA the same question. Ask them to let you pass on the information provided to fellow pilots. They will not object.