AOPA and IAOPA clarrify their position on the IR and IMCr

[Fuji Abound]

421C

I have heard more than a few times that petitions to No 10 are a waste of time. This was our Government’s response.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has been successful in ensuring that the UK IMC rating will remain in place during the four-year transition period, from the national regulations on flight crew licensing to the regulatory system governed by European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). EASA has agreed to establish a rulemaking group to consider proposals for a similar rating at the European level. The Department for Transport will be working closely with the CAA and EASA to identify a solution, prior to the end of the transition period, to ensure that the privileges of IMC rating holders are protected.

Please note the very clear statement at the end of the communiqué.

Now imagine someone embarking on the IMC rating during the transition period as many are and spending £4K or more on securing an IMC rating. The CAA, EASA and the Dti have stated they will be working together “to ensure that the privileges of the IMC rating holders are protected”. Please note they haven’t said they are working together to “try and ensure”, which they could well have done.

If you were the average UK pilot who really isn’t that interested in politics but was about to invest £4K would you have taken comfort from this assurance given by our Government with the full support of the CAA, EASA and the Dti?

Please note that as matters stand a pilot might well send off his rating application to the CAA at the end of the transition period – a rating that will legislative changes aside remain valid for 25 months. If an acceptable solution is not found it will be interesting to see exactly how legislation is adopted which will enable his rating to be revoked within its life.

This is what Timothy Kirkhope said almost exactly two years ago:

“Scrapping the IMCR would be disastrous.”

Jacques Barrot responded that he shared Mr Kirkhope’s concern and would be at his disposal to ensure UK pilots were not prejudiced.

http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&url=http%3A%2F%2Flesrapports.ladocumentationfr ancaise.fr%2FBRP%2F074000415%2F0000.pdf

You should read this report.

It shows that GA in France has twice the number of fatalities than either the UK, or the US (4.2 fatalities per 100,000 hours, versus 2.0 in the UK, and a similar level in the US)

Do you not realise what will happen if the UK does not find an acceptable solution?

This is what EASA said in their terms of reference document in 2008:

During the transfer of the JAR-FCL requirements into the proposal for EASA Implementing Rules, the FCL.001 group and the MDM.032 group (dealing with better regulations for General Aviation) came to the conclusion that the existing requirements for the Instrument Rating seemed to be too demanding for the PPL holder. Additionally some of the group experts were in favor to develop a similar rating as the UK national IMC rating with lesser requirements than the current requirements for the Instrument Rating (IR) which allows the pilot to fly in circumstances that require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) but in certain airspace categories only.

From which it would seem clear that in 2008 the position was no where near as clear cut as some would suggest unless of course we are expected to ignore EASA’s own terms of reference.

We must forget the emotion connected with the IMC rating. It matters not what the son of the IMC rating is called, what matters is that its privileges are proportionate to the needs of pilots who already hold an IMC rating and proportionate to the needs of pilots in Europe who aspire to fly safely on instruments.

I would implore anyone who reads this thread not to give up on the IMC rating. It is vital that if we are asked to accept a rating that is unacceptable we do not simply cow tail to the political process but are prepared to argue our case. Some would simply have us give up, but then that is always the simplest solution to any problem. I think EASA has already said enough to make it very uncomfortable for them, the CAA, the Dti and a few other organisations if they don’t find an “acceptable solution”.