******* alias BoseX seeks to demonstrate that many IMCr trips could equally be done with an EIR. No one appears to know how you would descend through cloud between say 3,000 and 1,500 for a VFR approach other than via a made up let down with a hope and see cloud break. When the details of the EIR are eventually revealed we might know.
In the mean time the hypocrisy of Jim Thorpe should not be lost in going public with his “personal view” of the EIR in which he hints at the promise of a simplified IR, argues the EIR is a realistic replacement for the IMCr without providing any detail of how it will actually work and espouses the EIR as a stepping stone to a new IR of which he is silent on the detail.
It will come as no surprise to me when in due course a simplified IR does not emerge, the IMCr is abolished and the EIR proves to be a solution to a problem that never existed when Mr Thorpe and others point out that these were only his personal views.
Politicians, judges and many others learnt a very long time ago that when you hold an office you cannot afford to have personal views. In answer to your question Bookworm that is why I am so critical of Mr Thorpe’s article – I don’t need to know him, and can only judge by what I read. He has crossed a line that he should not have crossed. Moreover, we have been told here and elsewhere on many occasions that members of FCL008 sign a ND; either this was never true, Mr Thorpe has breached the ND or his article is with the consent of FCL008. In which ever event, unless I have missed an alternative, he is on very dangerous ground.
******* you were very clearly in favour of the IMCr and said so publically. I can refer you to your post if you wish. For the avoidance of doubt please would you now either confirm you stand by your earlier position or you have changed your position and if so please will you set out why? This is fundamental to your credibility.
You also refer to the IMCr survey. I assume when the results are announced you will also set out how and by who the questions were planned, how the results have been independently audited, and who has been asked to determine the statistical validity of the results. I made this point many months ago so you were clearly warned. I have to tell you that without this information the results will be meaningless and pointless; in a court of law they would not even be admissible evidence. I admire you for attempting a survey but hope you have not wasted your time and more to the point don’t damage the debate with data that is dreadfully misleading to suite your own agenda – whatever that might be?
Moreover AOPA have sadly not come out of this saga smelling of roses so far – I should remind everyone that the survey was conducted on behalf of AOPA and if and when the results are published it will be AOPA publishing the results (not ******* ) if I am not mistaken. I hope AOPA think very carefully about allowing these results to be published given my earlier comments unless they are absolutely certain they will stand critical scrutiny. If they are not certain AOPA will be damned for publishing whereas given the considerable delay that has already occurred at least they will not be damned for not publishing!
Finally I still don’t understand why some of you will not listen to the message that comes over loud and clear from this thread. It seems to be on the whole it is the private IR holder who will not do the listening. Pilots with IMCrs don’t want to fly on the whole in hard IFR conditions! Do you simply not understand that if the wind is 20 gusting 30 across the runway while that has nothing to do with whether or not they can see out of the window they don’t want to land in conditions which by definition are reasonably challenging. Have you never been to a typical GA airport on days such as this with good VFR and see how many people are flying – or should I say not. They don’t want on the whole to fly to minima and they don’t want to fly with oxygen in the airways. Do you not understand that for many short sectors an airway routing all other issues aside are a right pain in the arse? Do you not understand that they don’t want to breathe oxygen for hours on end and they don’t want to fly 10 times a week to the CIs to help maintain their income as a FI – they don’t need to, they have other jobs.
I think some of you are playing a very dangerous game judging what people want by what you want. The biggest mistake EASA made was in the composition of FCL008 – in their own terms of reference they state they are briefed with considering the IMCr and yet they don’t have a single representative on the committee with an IMCr. Surely IAOPA or Jim Thorpe’s lot could have managed between them to find someone with an IMCr?
(Also posted on the darker side but I feel worth posting here as well as the debates are similiar)
[Name removed - mods]