Ha! I knew it would come down to a my IR is better than yours, even IO in trying to stop people doing it sunk to it himself in his last post.
Neither IR is particularly good at preparing you for the Practicality of flight planning across Europe. The JAA IR not gold plated either and is common with many other IR's around the world. The different regulators have choses different areas to focus on outside of the core skills. In the US more emphasis on partial panel and non precision approaches, little in the way of NDB as they have had the good sense to get rid of them. GPS approaches are the way forward and FAA focus on those. In Europe we are still heavily reliant on the NDB and so a large focus is made on getting IR pilots flying them very accurately. Part of the reason the course is longer is the extra focus on the NDB work.
What both IR's do is teach the pilot the most fundamental part of Instrument flying, as the name suggests actually flying on the clocks and that is the same the world over. The JAA IR is not designed for the RHS wannabes it is designed just the same as the FAA IR to get the pilot into Single Pilot IFR OPs safely. Flying the same routes with the sam instrument group of approaches to polish the test is as dull as hell, but is the only way the wannabes can afford the training. Many places will quite happily allow you to choose your schedule and routing. When I did my JAA IR I went on tour across Europe with my Instructor in the Twin, visiting places like Annecy in the mountains.
As IO points out neither course teaches you the really important stuff like getting routes into the system, how to arrange fuel in way out places etc. That is all learnt after the IR. Imagine trying to cover all that on top of what has to be learnt........... Flying is about a lifetime of learning.
Finally if anyone actually bothered to look at the academics they would discover that what is ACTUALLY required as learning material sits neatly in a slim A4 binder which is thinner than the Jepp FAA Instrument Manual. I have such an example sat on the desk in front of me. The questions in the exam bank have been slimmed down considerably as well.
But back to the IMCR.
I am a great supported of the IMCR but have many reservations as well. I believe that the general standard of teaching is very low. Howls of protest will follow about how great everyones Instructor was, how do you know this when you had no prior experience to compare it against.......
The core reason for this in my opinion is that those teaching it have gained the rating from others at the same level and over the years the standards have declined without anyone noticing.
I think that many people treat it as a get out of jail free card and only practice what were poorly taught skills in the first place every couple of years for renewals.
My view is that the IMCR should only be taught by an IRI with a current IR with proven experience on the clocks. Probably around the 150hrs of sole flight by instruments plus the usual CRI/FI requirements.
I think that IMCR holders should be required to maintain a rolling currency in the same was as the FAA IR along with 25 month revalidation.
We did some work earlier this year to tweak the IMCR and if you take a look in LASORS for 2008 you will see they are pretty good enhancements to move towards improving the standards. This work was also put towards the EASA as a recommendation for retaining the IMCR. Our group was a combined industry and CAA group.
The IMCR is a rating created by the late Ron Campbell in the mid 70's for AOPA. So it has not been around the 40 and 50 years people are spouting off on here. How can you be taken seriously at representing this when you have not even done your research on the background of the rating?????
His wife still represents IAOPA at EASA on flight crew licensing.
As Fuji points out holding an IMCR does indeed qualify you to fly on instruments. HOWEVER the CAA's view is that it qualifies you for limited exposure time on instruments NOT the lengthy times that an IR holder trains for. There are some IMCR holders who will go out and continuously train after the IMCR to reach the standards required for extended IMCR flight (an IR by DIY means?) but the average IMCR holder will do not further training after the initial rating. Most IMCR holders keep them as the bragging card in the club house to be able to claim they are an 'instrument' pilot'.
Whilst we can argue that there is a great safety case for the IMCR as has been pointed out there has never been an accident involving a CURRENT IMCR holder, there have been quite a few involving EXPIRED IMCR holders though. Playing devils advocate we can turn it around and ask what all of the people who don't hold IMCR's do? Perhaps we could argue that either the IMCR allows/encourages people to go flying in more marginal conditions or that actually it is a 'badge' and is not used by as many as who actually claim?
I have flown this morning, 8000m FEW1200ft, BKN1900 170/14kts RAIN a perfect flying day for those with an IMCR yet I heard no one else airborne. This is the same pretty much on every other crappy day that I go flying(and there are rather a lot of them).
So I am curious, lets have a few postings of those flights that poster on here with an IMCR (IO540 you are banned from response!) have actually used there IMCR for in 'battle' over the last 6 months and what they have done to retain currency. I am interested only in IMCR holders not FAA pilots with an IMCR on the back of a proper IR.