FREDAcheck,
This is what gives the UK Independence Party growing support in Britain
I think that we can safely say that the UK Independence Party is as relevant to Europe as the Scilly Isles Independence Party is to the UK!
For something that is relevant - have a look at how the sport aviation sector organised itself, put it's case forward and acheived quite a lot.
While on that topic I must point out that the UK has the equivalent of the French Brevet and there is no evidence that it had been dangerous in the UK so why would it be a problem?
No one is saying it's essential. It's just a very good idea, and increases safety.
No, not essential but a useful aid to safety
Ok. Why is a very good idea and something which is a useful aid to safety not available for the NPPL holder?
"Fuji Abound" thinks that it could be medical related. What extra medical requirements do IMCrating holders have above the standard class 2? - None. IR holders only have the audiogram to do.
You'll have to forgive me, I don't understand the bureaucratic implications of what you are saying
I am saying that the French Mountain Airport Rating is not a national rating now so why should it be in the future. You as a UK pilot are required to obtain the rating before operating to the designated aerodromes. All EASA are going to do is enable you to have it on your licence even if that licence was obtained in the UK.
The Mountain Rating is actually a restriction of your privileges. The IMC rating is an extension of your privileges. Do you see the difference?
What people do or do not do in VFR is very interesting, but I don't see the relevance to an IMC Rating.
Sorry, can't see the relevance.
That is the whole point I am making. People pitching for an IMC rating do not understand the relevance of many factors related to how things are done.
If I might explain;
Let's say VFR conditions= Cloudbase 3000ft+ and Visibility 8Km+
Marginal VFR conditions= Cloudbase 1000ft - below 3000ft and Visibility 5K+
IFR conditions= Cloudbase 500ft - below 1000ft and Visibility 3K+
The minimum safe altitude IFR is 1000ft above the obstacles.
If the weather is VFR according to the above then when at the minimum IFR level, one should be 2000ft below the cloud. The weather is going to have to be quite a bit different from expected before we are faced with IFR conditions at 1000ft above the airport. To have that happen at both the destination, the alternate and every other airfield within range is in the remote range.
That is why when people who use that philosophy for VFR operations look at giving people something more they think that giving people the ability to fly IFR enroute will greatly assist their operation.
I have flown in the UK. There are many aerodromes on the 4 volmets. Many more have ATIS. The FIS can provide weather for many more. Making the argument that it is hard to keep abreast of the weather at destination and alternate(s) while enroute IFR does nothing for the IMC case - it is required at the moment to ensure that the IMC minima are OK. So nothing changes there.
Far too many things that are used by people as reasons why the IMC rating is good and the idea of the enroute rating is bad do nothing more than place the "cowboy operation" in the minds of the regulators who are going to decide what happens.
Finally remember that it is not the foreign pilot that needs to be convinced. It is the regulators.
Pilots think - hey great idea I can........
Regulators think - OK so how will the ATC service cope with all these pilots choosing to fly from Shoreham to Oxford IFR via the airway system because they can.
Bren