Head in the clouds?
Frog, I value your contribution. A big question for us all is; what are those outside of the UK actually thinking with regard to the IMCr.
But I'm left still with a feeling that the opposition is immotive. Your posts are clear and honest and helpful and I respect that.
However if I may illustrate my earlier comments by making a comparison. A good friend and brilliant ex RAF Engineer couldn't understand how anyone could get airborne with anything less than four engines. He'd flown for some thirty years. I asked him how many engines he'd had fail. He had to think hard but could only remember shutting one down on only two occasions. So why four was neccessary for safety he couldn't answer but it was how he felt. In a single engined aeroplane he was always very nervous and couldn't bring himself therefore to do his PPL. He always forsaw doom when behind one engine. Many twin pilots are similar, illogical but understandable, albeit the safety record for twins is no better than singles.
My comments were not to offend but to make the point that for some, if all they have known is the IR, it can be inconceivable that anything less will do. But that is far from the truth. Should the IMCr syllabus be strengthened? YES. Without doubt.
Prior to the JAA UK Flying Instructors were required to hold at a minimum an IMCr. All UK PPLs had to do a minimum of 4 hours instrument training and were tested for their PPL in all aspects of actual instrument flight including Partial/Limited panel and also recovery from unusual attitudes. The 15 hours minimum IMCr training took account of that. Further, in my twenty years of instructing and examining I know that most IMCr candidates would do at least 20-25 hours of IMCr training, some more. A norm then would be in the region of 25-30 hours of instrument flight but without the additional airways training included within the IR.
The IMCr does need revision to take into account the modern world (it was previously based primarily on ADF and VDF procedures) and nowadays it should be reasonably based on a wider 30 hour syllabus.
The JAA agreement abolished minimum hours of instrument training for the PPL and I find that appalling.
Whilst the revision of the IR along the lines of the FAA IR would be progressive it is unlikely that the passion of the european beaurocracy would keep it that simple. By the time they had finished any improvement to access would be blurred and still awkward to obtain. We in the UK would go back 40 years and begin to experience the appaulling level of marginal weather safety seen in most of northern europe. The ICAO/JAA 1500m is VMC by name but in practice requires instrument skills and IFR navigation but is undertaken on mainland Europe without any training for it. The UK PPL is restricted to 3K without an IMCr. The IMCr holder requires 1nm while taking off and also to land.
Anyway keep your arguments coming and I for one would like to hear more from non UK pilots and controllers to build a better picture of what the actual european fears are amongst some.
Last edited by homeguard; 1st Feb 2008 at 18:37.