THIS IS VITAL TO EVERYONE NOT JUST THOSE WHO MIGHT AT SOME TIME CONSIDER AN INSTRUMENT RATING.
PLEASE AT THE VERY LEAST TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS THREAD AND THE OTHER ASSOCIATED THREADS AND GIVE YOUR SUPPORT.
EVEN IF YOU DONT HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO MAKE HAVING READ THE THREAD PLEASE AT LEAST RECORD YOUR SUPPORT.
IT REALLY DOES EFFECT EVERYONE.
A report in Flight Training News suggests UK pilots will no longer have the benefit of an IMC rating when, or shortly after, EASA takes over FCL.
http://www.*****************/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=81&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=283&wpa ge=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reopt ion=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=& sc=2209&hn=ftnonline&he=.co.uk
There is little if any news to suggest that the IR will be made any more accessible for the average private pilot.
It is possible the UK s unique arrangements for night flying could be under threat.
For those with a CAA life time license these licenses will be effectively revoked. The new EASA license will have to be renewed every five years - a purely cash generating exercise.
HISTORY
The IMC rating was introduced during the 1960s. Before then a private pilot was entitled to fly outside of controlled airspace in IMC without a instrument rating. It was felt this was dangerous. The regulators accepted an IRing was beyond the means of most private pilots. The IMC rating was therefore made available to UK pilots as a national rating. Since the rating was introduced some 50 years ago there has been no evidence produced to suggest the IMC rating is unsafe. Many pilots over the years have found the IMC rating provides an excellent way of developing their instrument skills beyond the basic elements taught during the PPL.
PURPOSE
The IMC rating is often promoted as a “get you out of trouble rating”.
It has always been restricted to UK airspace and to flights outside of class A airspace. In addition to enabling the pilot to fly in IMC it also permits flights in VMC when the in flight visibility is less than ideal for a pilot with more limited instrument skills.
Practically there are many pilots who use the rating to enable them to legally transition from flying beneath to on top of a layer of cloud. There are others who will fly part of a sector in IMC and a few, with experience, who will use the full privileges the rating confers.
Our climate offers relatively few days when there is not some cloud in the sky. Whilst metrology has improved, our climate is significantly influenced by the close proximity of the Atlantic ocean and the prevailing south westerly winds. Consequently forecasts are not always accurate.
It would seem patently obvious that UK pilots should be entitled to undertake further training which at the very least would enable them to cope with un-forecast changes in the weather. They should also be able to plan their flight to take advantage of the safest conditions - for example flying at higher altitudes in good visibility rather than scud running beneath the base.
Controlled flight into terrain remains one of the greatest causes of aircraft accidents and almost always results in the pilot and passengers being killed. There is ample evidence to suggest that these accidents are far less likely to occur if pilots are trained and licensed to fly in IMCs.
For these reasons there are many pilots who consider the loss of these privileges to be disastrous. There are those who believe so far as UK pilots are concerned it will be the single most dangerous development in licensing that has ever taken place.
If this is allowed to occur there will be many pilots who have held an IMCR for many years who are no longer able to fly through cloud. They will often find they will have to decide whether to continue the flight in conditions that they consider unsafe or break the law. There will be many new pilots who through their own mistakes, or as a result of inaccuracies in the forecast, find themselves in conditions with which they are unable to cope. For these pilots the outcome is usually fatal, whereas with accessible instrument training beyond that provide by the basic PPL, this need not be so.
Who does this effect?
In summary, whether you are training towards your PPL, you have a PPL but are not considering an instrument rating at this time, you are considering an instrument rating, you have an IMCR or IR or are considering or have a night rating this effects you now because of the wide ranging impact it will have on GA in this country in more general terms.
It effects you if you own an aircraft that is equipped to operate in IMC, even if you don’t currently use it in this way. The market for these aircraft in the UK if these changes are adopted will suffer because very few pilots will be able to use them for their intended purpose.
It effects you if you are a member of a flying school or run a flying school. IMC training provides a valuable source of income and contributes towards the running costs of the school, the instructors and the infra structure. In exactly the same way so does night training.
It effects you if you are involved in the operation of an airfield. How many days are too poor for pilots to fly unless they have an IMCR or IR. On these days almost no flying will take place.
It effects you if you are involved with the manufacturer or maintenance of aircraft or the aircraft industry in general. The demand for aircraft equipped to operate in IMC will all but vanish.
In fact it effects everyone.
Many of us feel very strongly we need to do something about it before it is too late.
What you should do?
I have suggested that the following is a list of some of the actions we could take.
1. Write to Diamond and the other GA manufacturers in Europe - there are a few. I would point out that they shouldn’t bother making any IFR equipped aircraft because other than the few schools teaching the IR and the even fewer PP with an IR the market will die. They charge a lot more for an IFR fit, and guess what, that translates into profit downstream. They are very influential.
2. I would write to the flying schools and I would ensure there were flyers with every letter. I would have a web site from which these flyers could be printed so students and members could lobby their flying schools. I would point out the significant loss of income that will ensue because there will be no IMCR to teach. (You can forget the average flying school teaching the IR if you have any idea what is involved).
3. I would write to every single one of my members if I was AOPA, PPL IR, PFA etc. I would encourage them to write to their MP, Euro MP, EASA members and the CAA and raise the matter with their flying schools, groups, clubs etc. I would make sure they knew exactly how to do so, what they should consider saying and where they should write.
4. I would write to my MP, my Euro MP and whoever I could at EASA and make a complete and utter nuisance of myself. I know a fair amount about planning. People will tell you the planners ignore all the emotional and unsubstantiated objections they receive. Well they don’t. If they come from enough people and people of influence at the very least it causes the entire application to be carefully reviewed, as much as they might like to ignore them. I am not suggesting the complaints should be emotive, avoid it if you can, but it doesn’t matter if you cant. I would do it now. Make a complete nuisance of yourself now.
5. I would prepare a well researched document about the IMCR which would deal with why it was introduced, the benefits it has brought, its safety record etc and I would ensure this is in front of every member of EASA that was relevant, and every flying school I could get hold of in Europe.
6. I would launch a wide ranging complaint about commercial operators activities in open FIR and the way in which this was encroaching on GA. My purpose would be to make it quite clear to the commercial operators that if they want our help with widening their access to airspace we had better see some reciprocation.
7. Whilst I was about it I would may sure that the risk to the night rating, life time licenses and maintenance organisations where all spelled out.
8. I would ask everyone to sign a petition - and sign they should not because they were intending to do and IMCR or had one, but because of the impact of the wider reaching changes on GA that EASA will have. On the basis of what I read be I am in no doubt whether intended or not this represents a sustained attack on the way we do GA in the UK and it should be ignored at our peril.
9. I would make sure I had the support of all the GA mags, that they really understood what we were about and why the campaign was so imprortant.
10. I would ask everyone for a tenner or whatever amount was appropriate so I was properly funded and I would be prepared to mount a legal challenge.
Where do we go from here?
The purpose of this thread is to gather support, exchange views and to take the message to EASA that we object to the loss of these privileges in the strongest way.
There is already a lot of discussion here.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=302466&page=5