You still don't seem to have grasped the point that IMCR holders neither expect to fly to 'IR minima', nor wish to. The training for the IMCR to fly to IMCR minima is entirely proportionate, as 40 years of practical experience has conclusively proved
No Beagle, you quoted me out of context and missed my point. My point was that if Approaches can be taught to the IMCr standard so satisfactorily in the relatively short IMCr course, who is to say that they couldn't be taught to a "emergency use only" standard in an EIR course. I was replying to the convinction that the EIR must be "thoroughly dangerous" because it doesn't permit Approaches. But no-one has said it couldn't include training for Approaches as an emergency. Perhaps it could include the SRA training IO540 mentions. I don't know. I only know I disagreed with the reaction at the start of this thread that the EIR was fantasy/chocolate teapot/dangerous etc.
Fuji,
In another thread in another place I gave an example of a flight of less than an hour
Your example proves what point? Pilots can get caught out by weather worse than forecast. Well, that can happen to VFR pilots and IR holders. So we tell a story about an IFR flight whose destination and alternate were forecast above minima, but both got fogged in. Or about a VFR flight with good weather forecast but where the pilot got caught out by bad weather. Does this mean VFR PPLs and IRs are thoroghly dangerous?
The EIR as proposed by you is not based on a sound safety case (if it is please set out the case for us all)
I'm not proposing it. I joined this discussion to reply to Beagle's comment:
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), so the EIR holder can then go and play airliners without being concerned about going IMC in the cruise.
AOPA does not consider this Chocolate Teapot Rating to be in any way a suitable alternative to the UK IMCR and has asked IAOPA to tell the FCL.008 group that the UK advocate of this EIR does not have the support of the UK GA fraternity - he speaks for himself and for no-one else.
I didn't detect any great depth of analysis here which required me to have written a safety case before I could post my comments. Tell me if the forum etiquitte is otherwise.
When and if the EIR is proposed by EASA I guess we'll all have a basis to judge whether its safe or dangerous or useful or useless. Of course, apart from those who've already made their minds up before anything detailed or final has been published.
Would you also like to set out your credentials. You appear to be soliciting opinion and formulating a defence of the EIR - what is your interest?
I wouldn't. I'm not. I'm replying to Beagle's point I quoted above, and then the follow-on points that ensued. But probably time to give it a rest.
brgds
421C