Originally Posted by Mike Cross
I have no idea why people should feel that campaigning to save the IMC will have any detrimental effect at all on a more readily achievable EASA compliant IR.
The problem potentially arises only, I believe, if the great uninformed on this subject lobby their MPs without making the vital distinction urged by derekf (post #10 above) and, in so doing, cause a shift in focus of the IMCR campaign to one of trying to get it accepted as an EASA Europe-wide rating. It is perhaps regrettable that the 'lobby your MP' briefing note makes this distinction rather inadequately and in a way that's likely to be overlooked by many.
In most European countries where, unlike the UK, Class-A airways are not the norm, there would be little practical distinction in the privileges of a UK-style IMCR (with its 15 hours minimum instrument time) and an ICAO-compliant IR (requiring 40 hours minimum instrument time): just the higher absolute minimum visibility criterion of 1800m for take-off/landing (cf 800m landing and 150m take-off for ICAO IR in a SPA, unless using a suitably low-height-certified autopilot). It is, therefore, in my opinion (and in the opinion of many others who have thought about this seriously), impossible for the two ratings to coexist across Europe. Any attempt to get them to coexist on a pan-European scale will
inevitably result in a significant reduction in priviliges for the IMCR holder.
And the potentially detrimental effect of that, Mike, is EASA viewing a downgraded IMCR as a possible substitute for the more accessible ICAO-compliant IR that FCL.008 has proposed.
Which is not the same as claiming that retention of the IMCR as a UK-only rating is an unworthy objective ... indeed, IMHO it is worthy of the very best fight AOPA UK can muster. Nobody with an interest in achieving this objective should take on trust from my_ business and Pace that this is a fait accompli.