Utfart
I fair point but here are some comments relevant to getting your facts straight:
I do not wish to disparage the efforts of many well meaning folk over this extended period. In a time of great change they did their best to adapt but the reality was that what emerged was not a finely crafted product carefully aligned to the needs and skills of pilots. In that great British tradition we ‘made do’ and lived with the least bad compromise.
I love that statement. I do not mean to disparage.. .. .. but as is usually the case when someone says something like this – watch I, I am just about to. I think it is very disparaging to criticise something that has evolved with and stood the test of time. I know of no better test, and you can bet it is a far better test than a bunch of hypocrites inventing something which they haven’t tested at all.
Thus pilots with 15 hours training, possibly from an instructor whose own experience is quite limited
Instructors with limited instrument experience teaching an IMCr .. .. .. Now there is a brave statement made without reference to a single fact and hidden behind a “possibly”.
Often they have little chance to stay current and are subject to less frequent renewal checks than holders of the IR.
Let’s ignore the largest population if ICAO IR holders in the world which are subject to far less frequent renewals than IMCr holders.
It is not hard to see that this seems rather irrational if you live anywhere else in the world since no other country has seen a requirement for an IMC like rating.
Canada was just about the only country that saw the need for adequate liquidity control of their banking sector – what a fatuitous statement to make, in a world in which the largest population of GA pilots has solved the problem in a different and very effective way as has the third largest continental GA population and the majority of the rest of the world hardly has any GA or any GA that needs to fly in IMC.
It is argued that there is a safety benefit but I can find no credible evidence to support this. The data is pretty inadequate with no record of hours flown and often no record of the licence held by pilots involved in accidents or incidents.
Extraordinary. I can find no data, but rather than concluding I can find nothing to support the safety case one way or another, I will conclude the rating is unsafe.
On the basis of the only two surveys of IMC holders of which I am aware
Which two, conducted by who and when?
It is true that training and testing standards are far more variable in the US than the UK and while I have come across no evidence of outright corruption, it is almost certainly possible to get an ‘easy’ IR.
Why would you pass this observation? As “easy” as an IR in Poland?
It is greatly to EASA’s credit that in spite of their enormous workload they accommodated UK minority concerns even though they were often expressed in unhelpful ways. In a public meeting I attended, a well known GA figure suggested that we needed an IMC because England stood alone against the Nazi hordes in the Second World War
Oh I am so sorry you had to manage minority concerns. I am also sorry that one nuter is the only thing you can remember of a very valuable meeting. One would have hoped for a little more maturity.
I could go on, but frankly I am bored.
It is just complete dribble.