Dublinpilot : there is no contradiction in what I say. I flew JAA IR as well as FAA IR, and you know what ?
The airplane flies the same !
Same lift, same air, same clearances, you see no difference once you are rated. And in both cases, you are responsible for maintaining your skills by recurrent training.
I'm sure an IMC rated and trainned pilot would say the same thing
The airplane flys the same when an IMCr pilot is flying it, as when an FAA or JAR IR rated pilot is flying it
Don't you want a real IR, more accessible, instead of this half-IMC thing ?
That's what you should fight for, with us, not for an IMC rating !
In many ways I agree with you here. But I'm afraid that I don't believe EASA will sort that one out. I think getting an Euro wide IMCr is the closes that we can get.
intentional IMC flight implies Instrument Rating
I don't understand your hang up with Instrument ratings. "Instrument Rating" is nothing more than the name given to some training and an exam. By your own admission, EASA have made a mess of their IR. Why can't you argue for some training and exam, that is appropriate to private instrument flight? There is no reason why it has to be an IR if that training (and exam as proof) is sufficient, no matter what it's called. Call it an IMC rating....call it a IFR rating, or perhaps a non-VFR flight rating....what does it matter if it's called IR or not? The name should matter not one little bit. Now if you can agree with me on that, then surely it's only a matter of deciding what you don't like about the IMCr training, and how it could be improved so that it would be acceptable in France? (or Ireland for that matter
)
That would be a much more reasonable argument than IR=Ok, no IR=not ok
dp