Bose
If you look at the American statistics then VFR into worsening weather figures highly and the numbers are in the hundreds.
I have NOT questioned the validity of the IMCR but am STUNNED that the claims to being only one fatality in ten years. If that is the case then something has to be wrong because the IR fatal accident statistics dont come anywhere near that.
The IMCR is a good safety tool in the fact that it is an insurance policy against a VFR pilot flying into cloud or bad weather.
The french VFR accident statistics where there is no IMCR backs up the benefits of the IMCR as there VFR into weather crashes far exceed ours.
But one crash in ten years either indicates that Pilots with IMCR do only use it as a insurance policy ie hardly at all or those statistics are amazing and maybe we should scrap the IR so we can all benefit from flying with the safety of an IMCR.
The Gist of this thread appeared to me to be promoting the IMCR as means of travel rather than an insurance policy. We had discussions on whether pilots should go down to 200 feet on an ILS OK Yes if pilot X flying VFR inadvertantly charges into weather and there is no where else with higher bases for him to land. That is almost an emergency and what the rating was designed for.
But to promote it as a mini IR is encouraging minimally trained pilots to use it as a daily tool and that is my point.
As a safety tool there is an arguement to incorporate it into the PPL syllabus as that would improve safety for those that dont get the IMCR but the extra cost and time would make that deter would be pilots from getting their licences.
The problem with Europe is how the IMCR is regarded. It falls short of the IR and is not being promoted as a safety insurance tool but as one for pilots to fly IFR and even IFR in controlled airspace.
This is way off its original conception.
If it is being promoted for IFR use then it has to be regarded as an IR ? That then brings up the question of building a new European IR which is reasonably achievable by the working man who cannot spend months or years passing a mass of unneeded exams.
That is how I see the way the Europeans regard it as a mini IR unique to the uk which does not meet the standards they require rather than a safety tool for inadvertant flight into adverse weather.
So we have two options to promote it to the Europeans in its original concept as purely a safety tool which I find it hard to see them arguing against or push for a new IR with restrictions for PPLs.
My inclination would be to scrap the IMCR, build more instrument training into the PPL and go for a European PPL IR with certain restrictions which is easy to achieve and acknowledged Europe wise
Pace