Beagle, apologies in advance that I'm in a rush and don't have time to phrase my reply as politely as I should. You and others take the subject seriously, so perhaps some facts might be useful, although I know they are always a nuisance when they get in the way of a good rant.
Firstly, you refer to individual, personal stances taken on FCL008. I can only conjecture a reply, because, as I understand it, the workings of this group, like any such group during its working phase, are confidential except for agreed releases of information into other domains. Therefore your are either
a) making this up
b) posting details in the public domain that are a breach of confidence by you or someone along the chain of chinese whisperers who gave you this "information"
I will use your method of typing 'wrong' spelt in capitals.
FCL.008 includes UK representation, so you'd think that we could be reasonably assured that the future of the IMCR was being well protected....
WRONG!
I agree. You'd be totally wrong to think that. One thing that is in the public domain is FCL008's terms of reference, which I am sure someone who feels strongly about its inner workings would have read. The scope of FCL008 was not to "save the UK IMCr". It was to review the IMCr and other national IFR ratings to see if there was
an EASA-wide analogous qualification that could be agreed. The EIR was the best such structure that could be agreed. The proposal that the UK IMCr should be adopted across Europe is not acceptable to the rest of Europe. It simply isn't. And FCL008's job was to find a proposal that was. The individual who worked on that succeeded in a difficult task
This requires the same theoretical knowledge requirements as the proposed PPL/IR
WRONG!
dreamed up this lunatic idea
You should write to Australia's NAA and tell them an enroute instrument qualification is 'lunatic'/'chocolate tea pot' etc etc. They have been labouring under a delusion that it's a safe and effective stepping stone to a full instrument qualification.
'almost certain' VFR conditions for take-off and landing (whatever that means)
I'll tell you what it means. You take-off VFR. You plan to land somewhere and the forecast has to give you reasonable confidence you can do that VFR. You make this sound bizarre and unfathomable, but hold on.....it's what you do
flying VFR. That's why it's an Enroute qualification.
AOPA does not consider this Chocolate Teapot Rating to be in any way a suitable alternative to the UK IMCR
No-one has claimed it is. The only rationale for the EIR is that it is the best EASA-wide sub-IR qualification that could be agreed.
Saving the UK IMCr is a different matter. A while back, it seemed there was no scope for countries keeping national qualifications. EASA made it clear that they were taking over sole jurisdiction for all pilot licensing and if something wasn't in EASA-FCL, it couldn't exist. It now seems to have back-pedalled on this, and there may be a prospect of the UK hanging on to the IMCr. If this happens, great. If not, and the ranting of the UK IMCr militants kills off the EIR, then the IMCr community will be left with nothing except the full IR.
The best reason to keep the IMCr in the UK is that it is a good qualification which works and is proven. The worst reason is the IMCr-militant-ranters position that the rest of the aviating universe are dangerous lunatics for not supporting the IMCr everywhere in Europe. It's just laughable to Europeans to hear a UK minority proclaiming the rest of the world is wrong and out of step with the UK.
does not have the support of the UK GA fraternity - he speaks for himself and for no-one else.
And who do you speak for? At least the people on FCL008 know what they are speaking about. FCL008 is not a save-the-IMCr-crusade. It's a group to develop EASA-wide IFR amendments to EU-FCL. The IMCr is not acceptable to Europe as an EASA wide qualification. So what should that group have been doing? If what you report about FCL008 is true, I am glad this "individual" is there. It sounds like he is able to grasp the basics of terms of reference and purpose of a specific regulatory body.
Instead of lambasting FCL008 people for something they are not empowered to do (save the IMCr) and criticising them for doing their best on what they are empowered to do (find acceptable EU-wide amendments to FCL) why don't you just go and save the IMCr yourself.
brgds
421C