Fuji,
I am even more mystified.
Originally Posted by
Fuji Abound
Yes
Jim Thorpe
You can't seriously imply that Jim is writing the bold for IAPOA. That piece of clap trap is virtually word for word from Pat's rant in GA.
Originally Posted by
Fuji Abound
Secondly, either the EIR has been so poorly thought out that he cannot setout in his "write up" how he believes it will work which beggars belief, or he already knows the rating will be worthless other than as a stepping stone to a full IR in which case he should be honest enough to say so.
The EIR was very clearly not proposed as a replacement for the IMCr but as a stepping stone to an IR, Jim's article makes very clear FCL.008 could not come up with a set of rules that would meet the constraints they were given, continue the mini-IR capabilities of the IMCr in the UK and make sense/be accepted in the rest of Europe. Jim has honestly said so, in print. You can agree or disagree with the outcome and his views, but attributing false statements and insinuating he has failed to be honest is ridiculous.
CGB - The clap trap comes from GA magazine, not from the people on FCL.008 - who clearly did understand the current privileges of the IMCr and how those might map into a European rating - as compared to the author of the quoted text.
tmmorris - Jim is suggesting that most IMCr holders who use their IMC in anger should with nil or modest training pass the IR flight test and therefore should be allowed to do so. He has a view (and I have no personal basis to agree or disagree) that the IMCr TK requirement is a bit light for world wide operations and there should be a verification that people have extended their knowledge to that sensibly required for IFR flight by way of the TK test. For people in your situation, this seems a fantastic opportunity, all your time counts, for very little extra work you get a full IR and can substantially expand your geographic scope.