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. One might argue polar opposites.
Here is the "missing" line. Note that Mr Thorpe says
I can find no credible evidence to support this. A statement of apparent fact. He doesnt go on to say "
I could equally argue the polar opposite" but vaguely acknowledges there might be other arguments, by the use of
"one might". I dont see on any basis that is a reasonable and unbiased account of the position, it is a clear statement by Mr Thorpe that he has considered all the evidence and he cant find anything to support the IMCr as having any credible safety benefit based on what he then acknolwedges as inadequate data. I would love him to be in Court as an alledged export witness being cross examined on the position he has adopted.
So Mr Thorpe you have considered the data, which you acknowledge is inadequate and you have concluded based on this inadequate data that there is no credible evidence to support the IMCr, rather than concluding there is no adequate data to deteremine whether the IMCr is of benefit to safety or not.
This is what I would have said.
I have considered the studies that have been conducted into whether or not the IMC rating enhances pilot safety and I have reviewed the data on the number of hours flown and the ratings held by pilots involved in accidents. In my opinion the studies and data are inadequate to reach a safe conclusion as to whether or not the rating enhances pilot safety.
I would add that I dont subscribe to that view point based on the data and evidence, but that is another matter, at least that would be a reasonable opinion to express by our self proclaimed expert.
On which point given that Mr Thorpe is just such an expert it would be interesting to know what research and studies he has personally been involved with?
On the stand I can hear the barrister asking Mr Thorpe to set out his creditials. He owuld of ocurse real off that he holds an IR, CPL and doubtless a few other qualifications. So Mr Thorpe to set yourself apart from your everyday peers doubtless you will tell the court your special areas of expertise, the studies you have conducted, the papers you have written, by who they have been peer reviewed etc. I wonder what his answer would be.
Often they have little chance to stay current and are subject to less frequent renewal checks than holders of the IR.
What do you not understand about renewal checks?
I didnt use that term Mr Thorpe did! He could have said that IMCr pilots are not subject to the same renewal checks AND currency requirements of other IRated pilots BUT he didnt.
You might think I am being picky. You would be wrong. This should be a carefully crafted "write up" by an expert either giving his personal views or representing the views of FCL008. There can be no room for a document as poorly drafted as this with such potential to mislead. If a forumite had posted the same nonesense on here it would have been torn to shreds by people like Bookworm - you know it, and I know it, and he knows it, please dont make excuses.
421C
What I dont get is other people just keep telling you, you are wrong. I could understand if they kept telling me I was wrong - I would have to review my position - but they dont.
You will find if you give it a chance the critique of Mr Thorpe's write up will come thick and fast - so even if you think it is well drafted most people have formed quite the opposite impression.
