421C
You either know something the rest of us dont or you are very out of step - as is Dave Roberts who now seems to have disappeared from the debate I might add. (I wonder why?)
AN official from the European Aviation Safety Agency has said the UK IMC Rating "is as important to the UK as the Mountain Rating is to Switzerland" leading to hopes that it will be saved. However, support for a 'lite' Instrument Rating for GA pilots appears to be ebbing away.
The admissions came from EASA's Deputy Head of Rulemaking, Eric Sivel, during a meeting with the International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (IAOPA), and are contained in IAOPA Europe's latest newsletter.
M Sivel agreed that given British weather, the UK IMC Rating was as important to the UK as the Mountain Rating is to Switzerland, and some way had to be found to maintain current safety levels under EASA.
The EASA Working Group FCL008 had been set up to look at the IMC Rating, he said, and if it did not produce an acceptable solution to the problem, then it had failed in its task.
FCL008 is also looking at the long-running saga of the Instrument Rating that was achievable for the average GA pilot. Asked whether the simplified IR was a realistic possibility this time, M Sivel said he did not know. "There is a lot of opposition to it. The pilots unions and the airlines say don't touch it - if anything, make it more difficult."
This is what was said only this month. That seems completely out of step with some of the views expressed here. Either we should believe and rely on what emanates from EASA officials or if EASA is allowing officials to mislead us then clearly EASA is not fit for purpose. At the moment I am prepared to give EASA the benefit of the the doubt -
there have just been too many people in too many officials position saying "a way must be found" for a way not to be found.
Not surprisingly I have much less hope of an IR lite - and this would appear to support my lack of hope. It has been talked about for all the years I have been flying (too long) and before that. It has never really come to pass. I recall Bose telling us of the sweeping changes that were going to take place - of course nothing happened of consequence. They may tinker with the requirements, but tinkering I suspect is all it will be.
With regards the IMC as a well informed journalist has jsut commented:
But if the Agency is now instructed by the EC to leave sub-ICAO/JAR licences to the national authorities, then its future in the UK appears to be secure.
That may well end up being a very convenient way out for all concerned particularly as EASA are struggling with the work they have in hand anyway and moreover it rather conveniently would encapsulate the French mountain rating, the Brevet de Bas and the gliding community that fully intend to carry on flying in cloud despite the fact that they are not required to hold any additional rating to do so, and nor do they conform to IFRs or the move towards compulsory use of transponders.
Finally I am pretty fed up of those who promulgate the usual nonesense about the rating being unsafe. Why pander to the detractors and ignore the evidence. I wouldnt mind your doing so if you (or they) had any factual basis for doing so.
This is what our own CAA has to say about the risks in TMA:
The authority has issued around 25,000 IMC ratings to holders of air transport, commercial and private pilots licences, of which 2,300 are still current. "The IMC rating has been a safety boon," says the CAA. "There have been eight air proxes in seven years involving commercial aircraft in IMC conditions, but none of these involves a GA pilot with an IMC rating."
No suggestion there then that pilots with their IMC rating are causing chaos in class D airspace (effectively the appraoch segement for nearly every airport in the UK from which CAT operates).
Anyway it is still more than two years away IF they meet their deadline. I will worry about it nearer the time.