The person who dreamed up this lunatic idea considers that there should be 'almost certain' VFR conditions for take-off and landing (whatever that means),
Beagle
They obviously now realise the safety aspect of the IMCR so dont know how to argue away the IMCR.
Hence my concern is a very watered down European IMCR which is no way could be classified as an instrument rating.
On previous postings I have always advocated pushing for an FAA like IR for PPLs as my concen was that pushing for a European IMCR would not get what we want.
My post in that thread feared that offering a very watered down IMCR would get them off the hook of addressing a proper PPL /IR while infact giving us nothing.
My post in that thread invisaged an enroute IMCR with approaches only on a declared emergency this doesnt seem that far away?
The problem is that nothing in flying is black or white VMC or IMC. It is easy to say assured VFR at destination but VFR at destination can easely be minimal VFR in minimal VMC which in no time can change to IMC.
Are pilots expected to be jumping from IFR to VFR just to suit regulations?
Are PPLs expected to add risk to suit regulations? IE is it safer in minimal VFR to approach an airport you dont know in terrain you dont know in minimal VFR or to stay IFR with vectors or a proper procedure.
The answer is pretty obvious. They need to stop playing politics and come up with a sensible PPL IR that is achievable for the working PPL and in the name of safety.
Pace