nothing to stop the UK filing differences with EASA
Yes there is. I thought it was that you can't just "file differences" with European law the way you do with ICAO. Otherwise, why don't AOPA just write to the CAA saying "please file a difference to retain the IMCr in the UK" and the CAA can write back "OK, wilco" and then we can stop worrying. I'm not saying it can't happen - in fact there seems to be increasing hope that it can, but if it's easy, then I must have missed the explanation and look forward to hearing it.
I'll rise to your bait
It's not a bait. What is it that is baiting, apart from not agreeing with some of the views that sounded a bit extermist to me? I don't feel strongly in favour of the EIR, I am most in favour of the ICAO system and it's proportionate, US-style implementation. I think the fact that Europe has needed to invent all sorts of intermediate and sub-ICAO qualifications (NPPL, RPL/LPL) is a travesty. EASA should just have made the PPL and IR accessible and ICAO compliant, without the various European overlays and gold-plating that don't really add anything to safety.
However, given we are where we are, EASA at least have a working group trying to find an intermediate qualification, and I think it's worth more consideration than the experts in this thread have given it.
I can't remember ever being flying in a spamcan over the sort of distances they fly when the weather has been VFR for departure, down to less than 2000' enroute and "virtually certain" VFR at destination (or alternate).
I don't know what everyone means by "virtually certain". It certainly doesn't have to be more certain than the certainty to fly VFR on a plain PPL. Are you seriously saying that you can't conceive of being at a departure airport in VMC, with VMC forecast at destination but IMC enroute making VFR unlikely or inconvenient. I've turned back on many trips when the enroute murk was such I couldn't continue, where my destination was forecast VFR.
The "virtual certainty" of VFR weather at destination will (possibly) occur on a maximum of two days per annum in the UK. The rest of the time, "virtual certainty" in the accuracy of TAFs and their timing is a falsehood that will sucker in far too many people. I can just hear the barristers discussing "virtual certainty" and the likelihood of weather forecasters getting it right to that extent in the courtroom wherein is held the Subsequent Inquiry.
So how does anyone fly VFR in the UK, given how hopeless the chance of being able to expect VFR at your destination is and all the legal pitfalls it involves? You're just making up an interpretation of weather planning minima that is absurd, and then pointing out is is absurd.
And with no approach privileges, how are people supposed to let down? Just descend through the murk and hope?
Exactly the way that people everywhere else in the world fly VFR-on-top and then descend VFR to land, or exactly in the same way that people (including IMCr holders) fly enroute IFR in and out of VFR airports.
a thoroughly dangerous one
Your willingness to use your experience and qualifications to judge an unfamiliar qualification, that no-one has actually published any syllabus, standards or other details for, as "thoroghly dangerous" will at least help you understand why people outside the UK, as experienced and qualified as you, judge the IMCr as "thoroghly dangerous". People make judgements like that.
You think people can be safely taught to fly instrument approaches to IR minima in a 15hr IMCr course and to fly enroute IMC OCAS safely and yet an unspecified course, which might well have as much approach training as the IMCr (not difficult, I remember doing a few ILSs and a few SRAs on mine) but only enroute privileges is bound to be "thoroughly dangerous".
brgds
421C
Fuji
Yes it is. See the EASA FCL NPA document. It's in there as an EASA rating IIRC. This means no-one in Europe objected to it.
Unfortunately, they do object to the IMCr.
The CAA say they support the IMCr and so does AOPA UK so I wonder who is not telling the truth
My "none of them" meant EASA countries, not FCL008 members. I understood that in FCL001 the IMCr was rejected by all the participants except the UK ones.
I wonder why we should be suspcious of committee behind closed doors - open govenrment, hmm.
Perhaps we should be less quick to jump to the conspiracy theory....re my prior answer