PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - IMC rating recommended minima?
View Single Post
Old 17th Oct 2008, 18:46
  #42 (permalink)  
Fuji Abound
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pace

I really wish you wouldnt put words into my mouth.

This discussion was not about using an IMC as a back door IR. More importantly I did not imply it was a back door IR. I said that a pilot who was CURRENT and had the required experience with an IMCr was legally entitled to fly an IAP to below the recommended minima in the ANO - end of, nothing more, nothing less. A debate does not make good progress if we invent what we think the other said. I stand by my comment.

In so far as light aircraft are concerned I am not sure how many people fly and travel in serious IMC conditions as you put it.

Firstly, what do you mean. I dont choose to ever travel in serious IMC. My objective is to climb on top as soon as I can. I might hump through it in an Aztec if I have to (and have done so) but at my level I most certainly dont choose to. I think that is what most people do with an IR.

Secondly, I suspect that 4% of the sample, if that is statistically sound, is more than the number of IR SEP GA pilots. I therefore find that population of pilots has no greater inherent risk of an accident, and perhaps the risk level is less because they are more conservative.

Thirdly, I have absolutely no idea where you got the idea from of IMC rated pilots flying to 200 feet. I have repeatedly said they should fly to their personal minima. That may be more or less that the CAA's recommended minima - strangely that is why, for what it is worth, the CAA use this word.

Fourthly, I would not be happy flying hard IFR in most of the GA fleet - a point on which we do agree. By definition that limits the amount of hard IFR flying pilots undertake whether or not they have an IR.

Finally the CAA were not referring to the accident rate in one year, but since the rating was introduced. Either your earlier allegations about the accident rate is wrong or the CAA are wrong.

I am happy to debate the issues, but please can we avoid read things that were not said, and not being prepared to support our own contentions whilst challenging others in the debate to support theirs.
Fuji Abound is offline