I thought, since I started it here I should post here to keep the IMC rating in the headlights and make it clear that we need everyones continuing support with our campaign.
It is very easy to think the battle has been won, when so far there has only been a minor skirmish.
On the positive side, it would seem EASA will protect the IMC rating during a transition period of up to four years, from 2008.
On the negative side, the survival of the IMC rating will ultimately depend on the degree of support for the rating here and in the rest of Europe.
Unfortunately, it is far from clear what position each of the UK representative organisations take on this matter. Sadly, their web sites contain very little information on which we might form a view. They have represented us during the early committee stages but a veil of secrecy has been drawn over those meetings. Many people have asked for copies of the minutes, or at least a summary, but nothing has been forthcoming.
You might expect to a man they would support the European wide retention of the IMC rating, given the view of the vast majority of British pilots. However, if they do, they certainly have not been very quick to nail their colours to the mast. This, in my opinion, is a great shame. We would all be better served if we could co-operate on such a key matter.
Whatever happened to open representation?
There is a growing suspicion that some of the representative organisations are selling out the IMC rating in the belief that a more acceptable IR is achievable.
Unfortunately this presupposes that most pilots want to commit time and money to an IR, when the IMC rating already provides everything they need.
Moreover, the evidence is that any “concessions” in the IR syllabus will comprise little more than tinkering with the theory content, and would in any event presumably result in a two tier system divided between the "commercial IR" and the “private IR”.
There is a growing suspicion that the representative organisations think they know what is good for us, but forgot to ask us along the way.
Now I fully appreciate it will appear that I am running them down and ignoring all the work they do for us.
That would be wrong.
I am concerned that in this process none of us make any assumptions. It would be a great shame to believe our representative bodies support our own view on this issue when they hold another.
It seems not unreasonable that we should know how we are being represented, so that we can make intelligent choices about whether we agree with the way we are being represented.
My concern extends to the rest of Europe as well.
It is widely reported the French are opposed to the IMC rating.
It is widely reported the European Commercial Pilots Association is opposed to the IMC rating.
Why is the average French pilot opposed? I don’t know the answer. I am not even certain anyone has asked them. Are they opposed because no one has bothered to explain the rating to them?
The CAA say that there is no evidence what so ever of problems associated with IMC rating pilots mixing with commercial traffic. Does the European Commercial Pilots Association know better? In fact I have written to their secretary on three occasions to ask them to set out their position. I have yet to receive the courtesy of an acknowledgment of my correspondence, never mind an informative reply. Does this mean that they are above the democratic process? Does this mean if their own members write to them they will also not be given the privilege of a reply? Perhaps some one on here who is a serving commercial pilots might like to try? Who in fact do they actually represent?
Why would you pay good money for someone to represent you and not have a clue whether they are representing your views or their own? BALPA say they support the IMC rating - good news indeed. Are they really a lone voice in the rest of Europe's commercial world? Is the commercial world so blinkered as to not examine over forty years of evidence gathered in the UK or has no one bothered to provide them with the evidence?
Lots of questions unanswered.
So far as our campaign is concerned, we are going to try an get some answers. We are going to try and honestly engage anyone and everyone.
Very shortly we will be “rolling out” our new web site, which will be carried in a number of other languages. We are going to work hard on continuing to drum up support here and in Europe. We have one or two other initiatives that we think will be helpful.
For the time being please continue to register with the campaign at
www.ukimc.org
I apologise for the long post.
However, there is a very real danger we each and everyone don’t support the campaign through lack of time or because we fell we can leave it to others. If you believe in preserving the IMC rating which is all that we stand for, we need your support. If you are clear on the position of any of the representative organisations to which you may belong by all means give them your support as well and ask how you may demonstrate your support.
You can support our campaign by simply registering on our web site. We will suggest to you when it is a good time to contibute further as matters progress through the consultation phase.
For the avoidance of any doubt our campaign is solely concerned with preserving the IMC rating in the UK and for its wider adoption by EASA. We are not in the business of compromise - and the loss of the IMC to be replaced with some other form of IR is not on our agenda.
Finally, I am aware there has been some criticism of “our” No 10 petition. The petition has demonstrated the extent of the support. I believe this was needed. I accept there is a danger that those who have signed don’t now support the campaign. That is one further reason for my asking now for you to register to with us.