Bosey
Let me set out the position for you.
This is an internet forum. It is full of people a) with nothing better to do with their time, b) who think they know it all, c) want to keep up to date and learn from others, d) enjoy a bit of banter.
You and I have had a bit of banter over the IMCr. To the extent it is taken seriously there are some issues on which you and I clearly disagree. There is however a danger that the tone of the debate detracts from the forum. I don’t want to go down that road any further. It is you who dont want to be my friend and think I am totally mad which is fine by me.
However, the subject matter I believe is really important for two reasons:
a) I don’t think enough exposure has been given to the impact of the loss of the IMCr and for that matter other changes that will come from EASA,
b) and judging by all the emails I have received already and from the number of people that have already signed the petition I think there is widespread support for retaining the IMCr.
Stirring the pot in the way we have has produced a deal of interest. The threads, unlike in the past, have not been quick to die. There have been some excellent contributions. I think this is a significant step forward.
Now I know you want to goad me by the use of some well chosen terms - “plagiarism” comes to mind as but one example. However let me explain this:
I do not have the answers to all or even some of the questions - I am not an expert. I am not on any of the representative bodies. I certainly do not have the head start doubtless you and some others have.
What I do have is a belief that the abolition of the IMCr is a retrograde step. I also believe is that the vast majority of pilots share my view. I intend to ensure as many as possible are aware of what is taking place.
I believe that changes in legislation are not readily introduced if the regulators meet with significant resistance. I also believe that the IMCr is fundamentally a safe rating for a pilot to add to their license. I intend to gather as much evidence as I can to ensure that conclusion is sound. Inevitably, and as anyone would expect, that will rely on the work of others.
So, to conclude, I am glad we have raised the profile of the issue at least on PPRuNe anyway.
I know you don’t agree with me, or with my approach. I understand you think the battle is already lost. I know you think AOPA have done / are doing all they should. It so happens I think you are wrong. Fall out with me over that, tell me I am mad, or whatever, it doesn’t matter. Persuade me that all the people that have signed the petition are wrong or that the IMCr is fundamentally unsafe based on the evidence over the last forty years and I will sit up and take note.
DFC
Where is the evidence that all these pilots are doing what you suggest? I have started to go through every reported accident and incident and I have yet to find one involving an IMCr pilot in the circumstances or anything like the circumstances you outline.
There are many things a pilot is not specifically prevented form doing by law. In that respect the legislation can never be totally prescriptive. It recognises that a degree of responsibility comes with the license. More importantly there are clear recommendations regarding the limitations of the IMCr imparted both by the instructors and the CAA.
In answer to Bosey’s question about SEP flights personally I don’t think a pilot should depart with the cloud on the deck in a single piston whereas I do in a turbine. Clearly there are many IR pilots who would disagree but at least there aren’t any IMCr pilots who could disagree. Bosey exercises his judgement which he is entitled to do - some would argue he should not have that entitlement in these circumstances.
In exactly the same way there has been a lively discussion about whether a VFR pilot should depart if the forecast suggests he cannot maintain a given seperation from the ground. Yet another example is whether an IRated pilot should fly if there is a risk of icing (and the aircraft does not have certified de-icing). The law recognises for the private pilot these are calls of judgment. My own opinion is that it is best left that way.
If you are so bothered about all these IMCr pilots setting out in aircraft that are not certified for flight in IMC / IFR and departing with the destination at minima and no alternate apply the same standards to both IR and IMCr pilots in this regard so far as the legislation currently stands and enforce those standards for both. I suspect you might well end up prosecuting more IR holders than IMCr holders.