It's the proposed abolition of that paragraph from JAR–FCL 1.175 that would kill the UK IMCR.
So, is AOPA campaigning to retain a rating that (per 1.175(b)) "permit[s] pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC" (in particular in class D to G airspace, which surrounds every airport but one in the UK) or is it campaigning to retain a rating that "allows the holder to do nothing more than he can do with a PPL, although it does slightly reduce visibility minima"?
If it is in fact campaigning for the former, is it not somewhat disingenuous to write the latter? Or has it decided to support the retention of the training for the rating but not the privileges that go with it? I'm sure we'd all manage to support that.
AOPA’s Chief Executive Mar tin Robinson says: “It’s as though the British were banned from wearing seat belts because cars in another country didn’t have them, and the drivers of a third country thought they were dangerous."
It's not the wearing of the seat belt that is contentious, is it? It's the legal privilege of driving at 200 mph in fog if you're wearing one that the other states aren't very keen on.
