I am support of the IMCr, however, the latest magazine (if it is really reflective of the AOPA leadership) demonstrates how catastrophically they have been managing this issue.
AOPA UK seems to have had a view that they didn't need to lobby the CAA/EASA/Dft/ et al to agree to national ratings being attached to EASA licences (and all of the other strategies to keep the current IMCr running post EASA FCL). With a very naive view that the words "Review the requirements of the IMCr and other national IFR ratings, conclude if there was a need to develop an additional European rating...." meant "find a method to retain the current IMCr unchanged" AOPA UK seems to have sat on its backside wishing for an impossible outcome.
Then to present as fact a clearly risible argument, that in no way match what their membership wants continues the simplistic, at best, campaign.
Originally Posted by AOPA Mag
Despite its 27-year success record in the UK, much of Europe does not want the IMC rating, Partly because of the mistaken belief it allows IFR flight and access to controlled airspace
Originally Posted by AOPA Mag
The idea that the privileges of the IMC rating are essentially the same as those of the IR is so wide of the mark that IMC rating holders must be aghast.
Certainly the vocal UK supports want the vast majority of the privileges of an IR, and specifically they DO want to plan IFR flights in proper IMC, they DO want to execute approaches in controlled airspace, they DO want to fly in controlled airspace (but accept they can't fly in Class A) (and would object vigourously if the air carrier airports moved from Class D to C airspace). They DO want to have the right to fly these approaches down to the same MDA and DH (but to a higher minimum vis).
Mapped into Europe, these are 'essentially the same as those of the IR' and 'allowing IFR flight in controlled airspace'.
They then go on to say
Originally Posted by AOPA Mag
The purpose of the IMC rating, to save pilots who inadvertently fly into IMC by helping them keep control of their aircraft and returning them safely to the ground, has been utterly misrepresented.
Which just perpetuates the 'its a get you out of trouble rating not something you use to plan to fly in IMC' - While there are no doubt many who use the IMCr in this way, THE OBJECTIVE of saving the IMCr is to save the ability to plan and fly in IMC and shoot approaches!
This rhetorical strategy very badly misrepresents the objectives of saving the IMCr and as negotiations unfold will be demonstrably untrue (the enroute rating with some training of approaches as an emergency procedure - would accomplish AOPA's quoted objectives - BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT PEOPLE WANT!!!)
Hopefully AOPA has woken up to the challenge and will get its act in gear to negotiate the ability to attach national differences or sub-ICAO ratings to EASA licences!!