Which means Dublin considers an IMC rated pilot as qualified as an IR one.
That's exactly the problem, thanks Dublin to show us that : those IMC rated do think they have the skills, even without the same training...
Frog,
It does not mean that I think an IMC rated pilot is as qualified as an IR rated one. It means that I think an IMC rated pilot is trained and examined, and suitably qualified for the additional privlidges that are granted to them. (Privlidges that are less than those of an IR qualified pilot).
What I am struggling to understand is this.
You say
So now I believe the FAA IR is the key solution for JAR pilots, until they do something for us with a JAA IR.
Just listen to frequencies : more and more N-reg.
This is the proof that EASA has completely failed.
I agree with you on this...the JAA IR is broken.
You haven't said why it's broken, but I think that we would probably be able to agree that it's because the training isn't suited to private IFR flight, and contains too much stuff only needed at commerical level.
So if we can agree that that JAA IR is broken, why can't we agree to introduce something more suited to private IFR flight?
What if we forgot about the IMCr and decided to leave the Instrument Rating alone, and instead brought in a second type of IR, called a "Private-IR"? Would that be more acceptable? This would be much more achievable I think than trying to change the current IR.
Then of course the question arrises what should be in a "Private IR" sylabus? I would suggest that we'd have a more suitable sylabus if we started with the IMCr and tried to agree what was necessary to be added on to the sylabus (or privlidges curtailed), than if we started with the current IR and tried to take out what wasn't necessary
dp