IMC priveledges

[debiassi]

Hi all, I was told last year by a greek icao inspector that from next year, the uk IMC privileges will extend to the whole of europe. Can anyone either confirm, deny or shed any light?

[S-Works]

It has been discussed but is unlikely to happen. The original suggestion was to add an IMC rating to the upcoming European Pilot License but the european representatives were very much against the idea, having the view that it would become a poor mans IR. What is more likely to happen is the IMC rating will disappear under EASA but a much more achievable PPL/IR is on the way imminently. Fewer exams, much more streamlined and content relevant to the safe conduct of IFR in CAS, no CRP 1/5 no planning for JAR/OPS and jet transport etc. Modular based training. The end result will be the same in IR terms , i.e a rating that allows the provide pilot to operate in CAS with the CAT at the same high standard but the route to achieve it will be much more FAA style in terms of access and relevance.

[tmmorris]

bose-x,

I don't want you to give a hostage to fortune, but... what's the timescale for that new PPL/IR?

I can't wait! I'm going to start saving up...

Tim

[IO540]

However, the real driver behind all this (kicking out N-reg planes from Europe) won't achieve this objective until EASA offers

- a straight conversion path to FAA licenses/ratings (at each level e.g. PPL, CPL, ATPL, IR)

- acceptance of FAA certification; great many planes esp. jets and turboprops just cannot go on G-reg etc due to non-EASA equipment

- alignment of JAA medical requirements to ICAO, like removing the pointless Class 1 audiogram for each ear, currently required for the IR; airline pilots get around this using the "demonstrated ability" option on renewals but this option needs to be made available on initial as well, as the FAA does.

Until EASA does all of this, any action against N-reg will just look like a DfT-style crude eviction of US aircraft from Europe, which will go down well (not) with Airbus trying to sell planes in the USA.

Technically the above is trivial to do. Politically it is very hard. By far the hardest job EASA has is to make things like FAA without actually labelling them with the "FAA" label which the Eurocrats hate so much.

IMHO nothing will happen for 3-5 years at least.

[S-Works]

IO we generally agree on most things but on this one we are not! Your timescales are way out.

The change to the IR is imminent. Massive changes are being made to the syllabus and the requirements as we speak.

It seems the ultimate goal is for EASA to remove non AOC operating N Reg aircraft to gain oversight of them. They intend to remove the biggest reason for private operators to be on the N Reg which is the IR. But this is an aside, the real reason for the changes is to make an IR in Europe a reality, learn from the FAA by encouraging more pilots to take up the IR and enhance overall safety.

The PPL/IR will be in line with the FAA IR in terms of access but the practical standards will still be JAA rather than FAA (the FAA test standard is the same as the IMC minima aside, the JAA is slightly tighter but virtually negligable).

[dublinpilot]

Wasn't the original implimentation date for EASA licences supposed to be Sep this year?

[IO540]

bose-x

the FAA test standard is the same as the IMC minima aside

Having done both, I have to disagree most strongly, but I will leave it there. You know me and where I am coming from.

The fact is that nobody actually knows what will happen and when. After the DfT business (when nobody knew what was going to hit us, for a year or two, and even the best placed Govt sources were saying nothing, even to close friends) I believe anything. This business is full of people (I don't mean you) who say this and that is going to happen "soon" or "next year" or whatever, but in the end what actually happens is determined by the political masters at the top level, no matter what somebody lower down thinks of it. Just like happened with the DfT business: much of the CAA, much of the DfT, most UK (G-reg) flight training operations, all wanted to kick out N-reg. Did it happen? No. In retrospect it's obvious why not (massive political risk) but few people were certain of it.

I don't doubt for a moment that a proposal is being worked out right now. I happen to know that such a proposal was worked out a few years ago (in JAA of course) and was shelved under political pressure.

EASA, once they have fully taken over FCL, got up to speed on the daily bread and butter stuff, tackled all the existing projects that need to be done, only then they will be able to start on the really hot potatoes like this one.

They will do it OK, but only by offering a reasonable carrot like I outlined, and it won't be implemented next year.

[S-Works]

OK we are talking at cross purposes here. First the FAA test standards are the same as the UK IMC as far as tolerances are concerned. The JAA test standard is slightly tighter. I am not arguing the point on quality of test as we know the FAA test is very tough I am just making direct comparisons of the tolerances during test.

The N Reg debate is a seperate issue but the removing the IR barrier is on the road to EASA oversight on N Reg ops.

What I am discussing here is the JAA IR changes. Making a PPL/IR accessable in the same way as an FAA IR is now. I have a very direct involvement in this process and can assure you it is happening right now.

Taking the usual CAA bashing aside they are making a great effort to make the IR accessible to the PPL which is a fantastic safety initative. I happen to think that our regulator is being very proactive on this.

[IO540]

Interesting. The JAA committee that was working on this in 2006 managed to shave about 25% off the ground school, allow IMCR training hours (max 15) towards the 50/55hr requirement, and that was as far as it got.

EASA is not doing FCL yet. We are still in JAA. EASA has taken over certification only.

[S-Works]

The 15h IMC course still DOES NOT count towards the IR and the latest efforts have shaved a good deal more off the exams than 25%. There will be fewer exams and the those that remain will be smaller. The whole objective it for enough knowledge relating specifically to IFR flight in CAS.

EASA are just around the corner on licensing and the CAA have a desire to have he IR amended before they take over. Trust me this is VERY good news for us.

[MikeJ]

I'm not sure that I should intervene between Bose and IO, but I see this from a 3rd perspective.
All those years ago when I got my PPL, I discovered within a couple of months that whatever the forecast, it is irresponsible to use an aircraft to get about the UK without an instrument cabability. I got my IMCR soonest, and continue to have this view. This rating fulfills the need perfectly if there is no intention of airways flying. The test, repeated every 2 years, requires you to fly for more than an hour entirely on instruments, and navigate, fly holding patterns and two different approaches, and fly safely with the A/H and DI covered up, even when faced with recovery from unusual attitudes. Nearly all airports are in class D airspace, which allows the IMCR holder to use these facilities to the full when the runway RVR is more that 1800m. The safety, not accuracy, of flying on instruments is identical for IMCR and IR.

I now fly a permit very hot ship, and so never(?) fly in cloud. Last Monday I flew a lovely trip to Guernsey for lunch, without any relevent cloud for the whole trip. But in comfortably legal VFR the 'goldfish bowl' vis meant that it was impossible to fly at a sensible height for nearly all the trip both ways except entirely on instruments. Also, its a legal requirement to have an IMCR or IR to fly SVFR in the Class A Jersey zone in less that 10k vis (it was 6k on Mon, even though the last TAF and METAR I could get before departure was '9999'.

My point is that it would be dreadful if an 'easier' PPL/IR to enable airways flight lost us our invaluable IMCR.

And why, WHY, cannot an NPPL get an IMCR, even though both are solely UK facilities, if he(she) can pass the training and test? Is this yet another case of CAA b*****y mindedness? Let alone the requirement for a fully equipped permit aircraft to fly only VFR.
(Incidently, I have passed the ground exams for PPL/IR, but that was when it could be done by correspondence course)

MikeJ

[Roffa]

What real benefit is an easier to achieve IR when the vast majority of airfields have no IAP, or are we thinking self announcing GPS approaches at uncontrolled airfields are on the way as well? Little point being able to fly somewhere if you can't land at destination.

However if the number of IRs does suddenly increase and all that lovely Class A becomes available best you all get familiar with the world of CFMU, slots and flow control too :)

[mm_flynn]

The key benefit of a more accessible IR has got to be its use in European touring (legally;) ). The other big one will be not paying trust fees if you are not a US citizen!


I agree it will mean a lot of people getting familiar with CFMU :ugh: but some how doubt that the enroute space at FL100 or the approaches to typical destinations are suddenly going to be full!

[Roffa]

For anyone leaving the UK to get to Europe the heavily regulated, in terms of flow and capacity, airspace of the SE of England will be a major barrier at the lower flight levels.

Will be interesting to see how it copes if more low and slow (no offence meant!) IRs come in to the system.

[IO540]

I agree with MikeJ. The IMCR is great and very useful. if I was training somebody I care about to fly I'd make sure they can fly and navigate on instruments before letting them loose. The biggest obstacles to its utility w.r.t. weather are currency and a suitable plane.

are we thinking self announcing GPS approaches at uncontrolled airfields

This is very bold. In the USA you get a nearby controller to coordinate the approach to a non-towered field. Unfortunately, in the UK (and probably the rest of Europe) there is a billing system under which the airfield is going to get billed for that service. This would cost the likes of Wellesbourne / Stapleford / Welshpool etc 4 to 5 figures a year and they would not recover it from IFR traffic. Many of these places were happy to get rid of ATC and their ~ £70k salaries and the union rules. Biggin Hill gets a bill from NATS for Thames Radar, for example, but they have the movements.

Self announcement would work fine (after all, it's not illegal to fly a DIY IAP in Class G, non-radio!) but it is rather too imaginative for this "anally retentive safety" business.

So I haven't got a clue how this might be resolved.

However if the number of IRs does suddenly increase and all that lovely Class A becomes available best you all get familiar with the world of CFMU, slots and flow control too

IMHO the # of airways pilots will always be severely limited, by the cost of obtaining and operating a suitable plane. The entry level for a decent used IFR tourer is around £100,000. Look around your airfield; not many there... and many people with these are already flying IFR/airways.

And there aren't enough runways with IAPs in Europe to give GA sufficient utility to drive up the traffic to US densities.

As to density, you can fly airways say UK to Prague, FL150, and not hear another GA plane on the radio (I am assuming that N123XY getting a climb to FL200 is not an Arrow) . You almost certainly won't see another one. You may get visual with a few big jets, many miles away. And this is flying through some of Europe's busiest airspace: Brussels, Frankfurt. The claims of cluttered airspace just don't wash - at the FL100-180 levels where airways GA operates. That space is virtually empty.

CFMU is a pain but slots (for a low airways flight) are very rare.

The other big one will be not paying trust fees if you are not a US citizen!

Don't worry - you will spend any saving on EASA maintenance :mad: and certification. £2000 for the paperwork to install a different model of altimeter.

If Bose-X is right, the CAA (which cannot do this without JAA; I spoke to their head of licensing on this very topic last year) must have bludgeoned JAA into something pretty drastic, using the fear of what EASA are going to do, so JAA was forced to pre-empt EASA. We shall see.

[OVC002]

Trust me this is VERY good news for us.

I hope that I'm wrong, but I just cannot see it.

The IMCR works well in the UK with a relatively flat topography, a temperate maritime climate, and a NAA that doesn't mind that much if we kill ourselves.

As long as we stay out of CAS, and don't delay CAT that is.

Our Continental chums face greater vertical and climatological challenges. They didn't go for a EuroIMCR, and I can't see them going for an IR(lite).

But in any case only the naive will be sidetracked. The underlying objective of those who have paid for "the best government that money can buy" is:

No PPL's in A, B, or C.

I hope I am wrong.

[Fuji Abound]

I am not aware that the incident or accident statistics suggests the IMCR is unsafe.

Weather conditions are arguable as challenging in the UK as in Europe. We have plenty of high terrain; I am not sure that because the Alps are higher it makes a great deal of difference. In some countries in Europe there are relatively more airports with an IAP with localiser. Moreover, accurate forecasting of the weather is more challenging in the UK than for much of Europe with the uncertainties of a climate so dominated by our maritime environment.

In Europe pilots are permitted and regularly fly above an overcast and so practically are close to having some of the practical advantages conferred by our IMCR in their “vanilla” PPL.

As IO says few aircraft are properly equipped to operate airways principally because their performance is marginal at these altitudes never mind that oxygen is essential.

The UK model should demonstrate that the IMCR confers many practical benefits on the GA pilot which would not demonstrably change if he were granted the same privileges as a pilot with an IR. Namely the ability to fly sectors in less than satisfactory VMC conditions without having to attempt to scud run or to climb to a safer altitude to transition across water or inhospitable terrain.

Those that believe if a simplified PPL IR were introduced it would result in droves of pilots flying airways sectors are simply wrong, and don’t understand the needs of the average GA pilot.

Those in Europe that believe the IMCR is unsafe are also wrong and often usually don’t understand the way UK pilots use an IMCR and also don’t understand that flying above an undercast in the UK is not possible without an IMCR.

If ever a Europe wide IMCR or PPL IR were introduced it actually wont make a lot of difference to many pilots. A few more might fly airways and the majority of those that do will have made a considerable commitment to their training and their aircraft to do so safely. Of these the vast majority will also be operating in the lower airways which are largely un-congested and currently little used. The vast majority will continue to fly relatively short sectors outside the airways system spending much of their time in VMC on top or in conditions of poor VMC but at least more safely being able to cope with changes in the weather and not being as restricted in the number of days they are able to fly.

If the benefits were not as clear as they are from the UK model and from America you might be forgiven for being cautious, but given that they are, if the regulators cant see the benefit and fail to do anything about it, they are just plain dumb.

[IO540]

IMHO the reasons we have the IMCR whereas rest of Europe doesn't are these:

Many years ago, late 1960s, there were a few people in the CAA who had the balls and the foresight to propose it and carry it through. It could not happen today.

We have lots of Class G and (except a few bits in Scotland) no Class E.

The UK is now run on a "you use it, you pay for it" basis, and nobody wants to pay for proper ATS services (I mean enroute IFR, like the USA) in G. NATS won't pay, airlines won't pay, and UK GA pilots absolutely won't want to pay (especially as one doesn't need a service, really) :)

If the present free for all IFR in G was banned, somebody would have to fund a proper enroute IFR service. This is not going to happen, ever.

So, allowing pilots to fly freely in G, in/out of cloud, saves everybody money, doesn't do any harm, and sidesteps the need to face difficult issues.

It also usefully legalises the practice which is common all over the world, which is flying in IMC under VFR, and which (for > 2000kg) gains even greater impetus in Europe due to Eurocontrol IFR charges.

Currently, only about 10% of PPLs get the IMCR and the figure is falling. Yet, it isn't hard to do. IMHO, the numbers are being severely limited by (a) the entry cost to the "Class G IFR club": a decent plane and keeping current and (b) the lack of airfields with an IAP.

If the IMCR was pulled and replaced with some sort of reduced JAA/IR, the numbers of IFR capable PPLs would plummet.

The only real additional utility of an IR over an IMCR comes from being able to fly IFR abroad. (One could debate that to a degree - going from say Bournemouth to Aberdeen I would rather do it at FL150 than at 2400ft and dodging the hills etc but few pilots fly legs like that). And a tiny % of PPLs ever go abroad.

There would be extra people flying airways but as Fuji points out there will never be many of those. The entry cost to the "airways club" is even higher. You can fly in occassional IMC in G at low level in any old wreck with a GPS, but doing a 500nm airways flight at FL130 requires more performance and more kit.

If the IMCR is pulled, most people will just carry on flying VFR in IMC as required. What they won't be able to do is fly an IAP at the destination - unless they first do a DIY descent below cloud, some distance away, which is what European pilots generally do when doing this kind of thing. A very poor safety improvement!

I wonder how this "cut down IR" will be crippled. Anyone remembers the nutty FL100-max proposal from 2 years ago? That apparently came from the European flight training industry :ugh:

[S-Works]

This is not a cut down IR for gods sake. IO I am sure you see an assassin hiding in every door way!!!

There is no suggestion that the IMCR is unsafe at all. But it is a unique anomaly in that it is a UK CAA only rating and like it or not we are now all part of one big happy Europe. The Europeans will not accept it so we have to look at the big picture and make the IR accessible to all.

The IMCR came about not because a group of people had balls it was because PPL's could fly in IMC with no training and were flying into things. The IMCR was a way of reducing this and over the years gained more functionality to the point where it became treated as almost a min IR. If it helps think of the new format of the IR as being a super IMC......

The point of this exercise is making the current IR more accessible. You all whittle on about how so much easier the FAA IR is to obtain and how you would do a JAA IR if it was accessible in the same way. This is exactly what we are trying to do with it. Reduce the theory exams, remove the 200 hrs minimum self study and remove the compulsory classroom consolidation.

[S-Works]

CJBoy, I have to have confessed to having the same thought for a moment when I got involved! I did the IR the "hard way" and so why should anyone else have it easy!!!! :p But that is exactly the reason why things needed to change. The people on the working group are very balanced, very experienced and very committed to make this work. The CAA are equally committed and are very much the driving force behind this.

I realise there is a great attachment to the IMCR but this is not the basis of the working groups remit, it is to make the IR accessible.

Sadly I do think that the IMCR will vanish when EASA take over the licensing and is why I feel such an imperative to make the IR accessible.

Those who think they don't want access to CAS A are really just trying to hang onto the IMCR, the sheer ease of airways flying has to be experienced to understand the huge benefit having an accessible IR over the IMCR.

LFAT on a sunny day, straight over the top of everything and into LFAT. Navigation is a breeze and radar service all the way. Contrary to belief the lower airways are not full of jet traffic.

[IO540]

bose-x

There is no suggestion that the IMCR is unsafe at all. But it is a unique anomaly in that it is a UK CAA only rating and like it or not we are now all part of one big happy Europe. The Europeans will not accept it so we have to look at the big picture and make the IR accessible to all.

The UK has been a part of one big happy Europe since one of Britain's greatest visionary leaders, that paragon of integrity Ted Heath, :yuk: took Britain into Europe. And this didn't prevent the UK doing its own thing on many fronts, not just the IMCR. There are loads of differences like that. A French issues PPL can fly VMC on top. Will the frogs give that one up? Not likely! That's a pretty big anomaly in itself, since a non-instrument capable pilot may not be able to get back down again.

This is a very poor reason for abolishing a privilege that is limited to UK airspace anyway.

From what you say it appears that this IR project will not be tied into abolishing the IMCR as some kind of quid pro quo, throwing some meat to the dog as it were. That is good news then. Extra routes to an IR are always welcome. I bet that the IMCR will not go away - not when somebody takes a sober look at the UK GA scene.

I am not paranoid, just realistic. I also know how hard it is to get an IR, for somebody who is not partly or wholly retired. It's a truly major project to be doing at the relevant stage of one's life.

cjboy

Opposition has traditionally come from the "it was difficult for me, why should these young whippersnappers get an easy ride" brigade of ex RAF and airline types. Let's hope that attitude has died out

That attitude is what runs most of aviation regulation today. It has not died out and won't die out. This is why IFR GA is under threat.

[S-Works]

IFR GA is under threat because no one has been taking up the IR because of the difficulty in getting it. The FAA my be easier to access but the hassle of accessing an N-Reg aircraft still exists. The serious IFR tourer owns and aircraft and are prepared to put it in trust to use the rights.
If the IR was more available to the average flyer it will give more impetuous to the renters to demand IFR capable aircraft from the schools/clubs. There are many knock on benefits from increasing the numbers of IR holders.
GA is still run by the old shirts but times are a changing. It is much better to get involved and try and change from the inside rather than just bitching about it and expecting the problem to solve itself. I am sufficiently outspoken to get my opinions across and not be walked on by the old shirts!

It is quite funny to arrive in Jeans and shirt around the suits...... :p

[englishal]

You must have two browser windows open - one here and one over there ;)

Can I put forward my suggestion for a "PPL IR" please?

1) No 170A mock test required - this is an expensive waste of money.
2) Training "as required" for IMC or ICAO IR holders
3) No formal ground training required - sit the exam and if you pass that is sufficient.
4) Revalidation by experience for private privileges - similar to the FAA system
5) Revalidation annually with check flight if experience is not met or for commercial privileges
6) No silly medical requirements

I think then we may see a big uptake in the PPL IR scene.

[S-Works]

Can I put forward my suggestion for a "PPL IR" please?
1) No 170A mock test required - this is an expensive waste of money.
The 170A is the gatekeeper under the modular training regime.
2) Training "as required" for IMC or ICAO IR holders
15hrs and take the test for ICAO IR holders - IMCR holders will have to do an IR.
3) No formal ground training required - sit the exam and if you pass that is sufficient.
That is what is going to happen.
4) Revalidation by experience for private privileges - similar to the FAA system
Sorry but I dont see what wrong with an annual check. You do it on your standard SEP and costs you an hour with an examiner.
5) Revalidation annually with check flight if experience is not met or for commercial privileges
6) No silly medical requirements
Being reviewed to bring in line with ICAO standards as with the FAA
I think then we may see a big uptake in the PPL IR scene

[High Wing Drifter]

The 170A doesn't really add to the cost. Mentally it is more or less any other training flight with the proviso that the guy in the other seat doesn't have to say or do anything for the entire flight. Whether you call it a 170A or not, you need to be able to achieve this before the big day.

[Three Yellows]

I need an IR as I want to fly legally abroad in IMC, especially France. What I don't have is the time to do the full IR..... or the desire to learn how the aircon works on a 747.

Can anyone with real inside knowledge throw any light on when this is really going to happen?

[dublinpilot]

If you are involved, thanks for putting the time in, I hope it works for the sake of European flight safety.

Agreed completely! Thank you for your effort on this :D I truly hope you achieve something useful.

A French issues PPL can fly VMC on top. Will the frogs give that one up? Not likely! That's a pretty big anomaly in itself, since a non-instrument capable pilot may not be able to get back down again.


IO, I think it's actually the UK that is the anomaly in this case. I believe it's ICAO practise to allow a PPL to fly VFR on top of an overcast. It's certainly allowed on an Irish issued JAA PPL just like the French ones.

4) Revalidation by experience for private privileges - similar to the FAA system
Sorry but I don't see what wrong with an annual check. You do it on your standard SEP and costs you an hour with an examiner.

Bose, I agree with EA. When exams have to be done, there is usually exorbitant fees for the aviation authority on top of the examiner fees. There is usually delays too, between applying to the aviation authority for the exam, and eventually being appointed a particular examiner and making then actually contact with them.

If the revalidation by experience is a non-runner then perhaps it could be by experience on a rolling basis, but by the time 24 months is up, then an exam is required. Ie rolling personal currency, with an exam every 24 months.

If the exam must remain annual, then please try to make it like the current system of a 1 hour training flight with an instructor to re-validate the SEP class rating. What I mean by this, is that the IR holder should be able to approach an examiner directly, agree whatever fee is involved, go do the flight, and the examiner could make a note in the logbook/licence, and send a form off the the Aviation Authority to say that it has been completed. The aviation authority doesn't get involved and slow the process down, and make it unnecessarly expensive.

dp

[englishal]

I don't see why we can't "revalidate by experience". Although Bose, you don't see a problem with it, it ends up forcing the "wrong" people to do a check flight for no reason. For example, no doubt you and IO do many hours IFR around Europe in a year, and in the course of a year I also do around America. So we're relatively current yet we get forced to find an examiner, and do a check flight with them. In my case this means driving to Bournemouth and renting a capable aeroplane, flying the profile, paying for the examiner and possibly landing and approach fees.

My mate who does the same at Bournemouth ends up paying about £800 per revalidation every year and this in the FNPT II - which I believe is being discontinued and must be done in the aeroplane. This means that his bill will rise to near £1500 per year he estimates by the time he has paid for a "brush up" session, examiner fees and aeroplane rental (Twin).

Just looking at the CAA fees for the initial IR (£600andsomething), it is a licence to print money! It is completely wrong, did you know in the USA you have the right to be examined by the FAA FOR FREE! Yep, not a single cent. You only pay if you go to a designated pilot examiner. most people go to a DPE because it is often easier to get an apointment when you want, and there is a theory that they are a bit more "forgiving".

Having the option to revalidate by experience or check flight is a sensible move in my opinion.

[S-Works]

I need an IR as I want to fly legally abroad in IMC, especially France. What I don't have is the time to do the full IR..... or the desire to learn how the aircon works on a 747.

Can anyone with real inside knowledge throw any light on when this is really going to happen?

For gods sake read the posts. We are working on this at the moment and with any luck the results should be seen by the summer. The theory has been cut down in a massive way and the number of exams reduced. Flight planning for example is virtually gone and what is left will be in another exam. No commercial theory, A/C systems, Ohms law, Whizz wheel, MRJT point of no return etc.

[S-Works]

If the exam must remain annual, then please try to make it like the current system of a 1 hour training flight with an instructor to re-validate the SEP class rating. What I mean by this, is that the IR holder should be able to approach an examiner directly, agree whatever fee is involved, go do the flight, and the examiner could make a note in the logbook/licence, and send a form off the the Aviation Authority to say that it has been completed. The aviation authority doesn't get involved and slow the process down, and make it unnecessarly expensive.
This is how it actually happens now.

[S-Works]

Al,

The vast majority of PPL's who take up the IR will do it in an SEP. The renewal takes an hour and can be done with any examiner. There are quite a few around. My friend just renewed his and the examiner was £80, the flight took an hour and was £100. So £180 for a renewal. I really don't know where you get these figures from.

[Three Yellows]

"For gods sake read the posts"

... I have, twice, and nowhere does anyone state any kind of timetable for this.....

.... I was only asking:(

[S-Works]

The timetable is this summer. We are working on the changes now with a submission for june.

[Three Yellows]

Great, thanks

[englishal]

My friend just renewed his and the examiner was £80, the flight took an hour and was £100. So £180 for a renewal. I really don't know where you get these figures from.

Fair enough, I suppose my mates was ME where you're looking at £300 per hour + VAT for the aeroplane alone :eek:

Can it really be done in 1 hour? What is involved, just departure and approach?

Would be nice if this wa combined with the 1 hour every two years thing, then could kill two birds with one stone....so to speak ;)

Cheers

[S-Works]

Yes it can be done in an hour. ILS/NDB/HOLD no airways and no arrival or departure.

£300 quid an hour for a twin is high but at those price I can see some of the cost but even a multi engine and multi IR renewal should not take more than an hour.

And yes the renewal does count as your 2 year renewal flight.

[FREDAcheck]

Great if IR can be made more accessible to PPLs, but please can I keep my IMC rating? It does all I want.
Those who think they don't want access to CAS A are really just trying to hang onto the IMCR, the sheer ease of airways flying has to be experienced to understand the huge benefit having an accessible IR over the IMCR.
LFAT on a sunny day, straight over the top of everything and into LFAT. Navigation is a breeze and radar service all the way. Contrary to belief the lower airways are not full of jet traffic.
No, bose-x, really I don't want to be able to fly CAS A and airways. I'm prepared to do a bit more work to get an IR, I suppose, in the name of pointless European bureaucracy, but please tell me that

it will be accessible to anyone on a Class 2 medical
it won't cost grossly more to train for than the completely adequate IMC
some account will be taken of my IMC training and experience

Much more use would be an IMC rating for NPPL. Any chance of that? I fly with some that have had to downgrade to an NPPL for minor medical reasons, and have lost IMC capability.

[dublinpilot]

This is how it actually happens now.

Well...I'd still prefer to see it being rolling currency, possibly with 2 yearly exams ;)

I presume this is a JAA thing, and the benefits will be seen in all JAA countries, and not just the UK?

dp

[mark147]

This all seems fairly encouraging to me as the one thing that completely ruled out the IR for me was the classroom-based ground training.

But are we still talking 50 hours training for the SE-IR with no concession for any previous IMC/IFR experience (such as the IMCR)? That's a hell of a lot when you can do the entire PPL in 45.

[IO540]

As with all these things, the devil will be in the detail. Like whether a CAA Class 2 medical will be usable; currently it isn't.

I welcome any more achievable IR, but as I keep saying, dropping the IMCR would be a truly stupid decision. The IMCR does a different job to the full IR.

[MikeJ]

Bose,
I really am delighted if someone as experienced as you, normally flying light aircraft, is directly contributing to the debate within the CAA.
But I must agree with IO that the points you make re accessible PPL/IR, in itself a most highly desired objective, does nothing constructive re the IMCR.
You state that flying airways is simpler than Class G IFR. Within the UK this is generally wrong. I know for a fact that typical air taxis with ATPL pilots would not dream of filing airways for, say, a trip from a West London airfield to, say Exeter or Plymouth, neither end being linked with the airways system. When you think of time to file Fl.Plan (min 1 hour), your customers may arrive 25 mins late (or early) and want to go immediately, and you have excellent RAS from LARS stations all the way, and can fly direct track ....

For the PPL, wanting to get home to White Waltham from a day out at Sandown when the weather has gone more crutty than the forecast (typical UK), provided he is in current practice as emphasised by IO, an IMCR really is as good as anything he could want. Talking about airways flight for this is ***** (choose your word!).

[Fuji Abound]

Bose

Firstly, brilliant to learn of the initiative taken,

but the lack of cunsultation is a disgrace.

What is the point of developing proposals in what appears to be such a clandestine way? Why on earth would any regulator roll out proposals without consultation with the users? I have a great deal of time for the CAA, I have no view yet on EASA, but the fiasco over mode S need only remind us all of the utter pointlessness of rolling out proposals withour proper consultation.

I shall look forward to having the opportunity to comment! :)

[Islander2]

But I must agree with IO that the points you make re accessible PPL/IR, in itself a most highly desired objective, does nothing constructive re the IMCR.This appears to imply that, by attempting to achieve a more accessible PPL/IR, bose-x is helping to sound the death knell of the IMCR. With aviation at the leading edge of 'The European Project', I'm not sure anyone can foresee with any certainty how GA will look in ten years time. If the IMCR goes, however, I for one doubt it would be fair to place that on bose-x's doorstep! The reality is that we very much need to retain the UK IMCR, and we are crying out for a more accessible European PPL/IR ... they are not mutually exclusive, neither is the success or failure of one likely to impact on the success or failure of the other. The only certainty, it seems to me, is that there is zero prospect of extending the IMCR throughout Europe - so I'm not sure what you suggest needs to be done that would be 'constructive re the IMCR'. Bose-x and the others involved in working for a more-accessible PPL/IR are to be congratulated, IMHO, not presented with implied criticism.
For the PPL, wanting to get home to White Waltham from a day out at Sandown when the weather has gone more crutty than the forecast (typical UK), provided he is in current practice as emphasised by IO, an IMCR really is as good as anything he could want. I held a current IMCR for 13 years before getting my IR ten years ago, and I agree completely. I also agree that the London to South West routing is best done off airways. But potentially, those are a small section of the picture. Consider the following, which constitute a significant part of how I use my aeroplane:

a) Midlands to Scotland - in any weather, airways provide by far the most expedient and least stressful routing. If you do this journey regularly, you really will appreciate an IR.

b) Midlands to Channel Islands - for a large portion of the year, IMCR means an undesirable low-level cross-sea journey; on a good number of days the cloud base across the sea is <600 ft and it means no go for an IMCR. I've been doing this for many, many years, and journey reliability has gone up dramatically since gaining the IR.

c) Midlands to continental Europe - leaving aside the VFR on-top debate, an IMCR means you need to avoid IMC for flights outside of the UK, and this is highly restrictive. Further, notwithstanding how enjoyable VFR flying in Europe can be, it is undeniable that airways IFR flight offers massive benefits if you are trying to use your aeroplane as a serious form of transport.

Finally, and I recognise this will vary according to individual, training and currency, it wasn't until I went through the significantly more rigorous IR training regime that I actually felt comfortable with flying on serious IMC days.

All power to your elbow, bose-x, I hope you succeed.

[S-Works]

You seem to be doing just fine at commenting! We have just kicked off this initative and I am started to collect views. So I can't see how you see how there is any lack of consultation. It has long been known that the IR needs to change to make it accessible and I have listened to the comments over the years and am taking them forward. I see nothing clandestine about this at all.
However if ANYONE has any comments that they want to formally introduce then please forward them into PPL/IR and AOPA. We are representing the GA flyer. If you are not a member then it is time to join. If you don't want to join then feel free to write directly to the PLD at CAA.
Everyone please lets not get sidetracked around the IMCR in these discussions. Our remit is not to review the IMCR it is to make the IR accessible to all. But as a point, if you hold an IR then you can do everything you do on an IMC with regards to flight outside CAS.
Airways flight is easier but equally valid are the comments about a lot of destination not being worth flying airways. Having an IR does not take away the ability to fly direct it just opens up more options.
What amazes me about you lot is you complain endlessly about how you wish you could get an IR, the JAA one is to hard, blah blah blah and then one of US (or a group of US actually) goes and tries to do something about it you complain about clandestine work and unconnected stuff.
It is little wonder nothing happens because I can se how easy it is to become demoralised at the lack of support and the views that change with the wind.
If you think you can do it better then join the organisations that represent you and volunteer to join these "clandestine" working groups.
The regulator wants to deal with a representative and thats what PPL/IR and AOPA do. Imagine the size of the meeting room if every one who wants to comment turned up......
Bose
Firstly, brilliant to learn of the initiative taken,
but the lack of cunsultation is a disgrace.
What is the point of developing proposals in what appears to be such a clandestine way? Why on earth would any regulator roll out proposals without consultation with the users? I have a great deal of time for the CAA, I have no view yet on EASA, but the fiasco over mode S need only remind us all of the utter pointlessness of rolling out proposals withour proper consultation.
I shall look forward to having the opportunity to comment!

[Fuji Abound]

I support this initiative. :ok:

OK, firstly and apology to Bose.

Bose I hugely respect everything you have said on this thread (and for that matter usually others). I think this initiative is extremely important. IMHO everyone reading this thread should give you and the other proponents all the support we can. We may wish to comment on the detail of the proposal but we should start our post with "we support this intitiative."
I also agree that the IR and IMCR are entirely separate issues and should not side track the debate.

I am a PPL IR member. I don’t belong to AOPA because having been a member for a number of years I became increasingly disappointed with what appeared to me to be their complete lack of ability to campaign for issues such as this on our behalf. When I emailed them on two occasions to ask what they were doing on a couple of issues and they couldn’t even be bothered to reply to my emails I decided I couldn’t be bothered to renew my membership.

I haven’t seen a suggestion form the CAA, PPL IR or elsewhere that the development of a PPL IR is as far advanced as you suggest. I also wansnt aware that the PPL IR had canvassed its members views (but I accept I may well have missed their doing so, if this is the case, sorry).

My point remains that I still feel if proposals are about to be rolled out as early as you suggest (3 months?) then I would have thought all parties would benefit from consultation. I don’t want to go round the mode S debate again, but the CAA failed to consult on this one, and any progress is now bogged down in petitions et al. That wont happen with the PPL IR because the numbers effected and the way in which they are effected is quite different, but some form of simple consultation along the lines of "this is what we propose, we invite your views and comments" might result it some beneficial contributions and could be used to demonstrate how much support there is for the changes proposed.

So I may have misunderstood your earlier posts which gave me the impresion matters were relatively advanced. You say in your last post "we have just kicked off this initiative". If matters are not as advanced as I had inferred I would suggest that the PPL IR and AOPA should write to its members setting out the changes they propose, inviting comment as quickly as possible and get these changes before the CAA in the certain knowledge that they have the support of the whole of thier membership.

[FREDAcheck]

Everyone please lets not get sidetracked around the IMCR in these discussions. Our remit is not to review the IMCR it is to make the IR accessible to all. But as a point, if you hold an IR then you can do everything you do on an IMC with regards to flight outside CAS.
With the greatest respect for what you are doing boxe-x, one can't ignore IMCR. It is likely that, with an accessible PPL/IR (undoubtedly a good thing) that there will be pressure to drop IMCR. I believe (despite what you say about how useful airways are) that for most PPLs, IMCR provides all they need. So an accessible PPL/IR will be seen by many as a retrograde step if it means that IMCR goes.

So please be careful not to damage the interests of the many for whom a full IR is of no value in order to make IR accessible to the relatively few for whom it's useful. For most PPLs, an IR with reduced privileges would be much better if it reduces the training, currency and medical requirements.

As I said before, I'll bet an IMCR for NPPL would benefit far more pilots than an IR.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

It is little wonder nothing happens because I can se how easy it is to become demoralised at the lack of support and the views that change with the wind.

If you think you can do it better then join the organisations that represent you and volunteer to join these "clandestine" working groups.

Yup, that's how it is - welcome to public decision making.

(Actually I'm sure you are perfectly familiar with this, but there are plenty who do not understand how most public decisions in this country are made, and the frustrations that face the volunteers of one sort or another who make many of them and contribute to most of the others.)

[S-Works]

OK, let me make this clear. The CAA have been working on this for some time. This year we started working on it with them as a working group. The moves are well advanced and with any luck we will see the results this summer.

I, and the other members of the working group are representing AOPA and PPL/IR who in turn are representing YOU. We have listened to the comments and views of OUR members for a long time and we are passing these views into the process. We are representing YOU not the CAA and we are trying to make it easier not harder to gain an IR. There is going to be compromise, we have no choice, we are dealing with a regulator and an industry driven by the airlines. Out of the process there will be some things that you don't like, this is the nature of compromise. However there will be a lot more that you do like and the IR will be more obtainable to the average person.

The IMC rating IS NOT part of our remit. We CANNOT take any comments about it to the table. We are working on a European change and the IMCR is a UK only rating. I do not know what will happen to the IMCR in the future. Do not berate me about loss or change to the IMCR as it is not part of our remit. If any of you want to do something about it why not ask for a review, sit on the working groups and do something about it?

My personal view is that the IMCR will disappear under EASA licensing and there will not be a euro wide IMCR. This is the primary reason I became involved in the IRWG so that if the IMCR does go we ALL have access to a method of regaining those privileges on a European and world wide basis as well as a whole host of enhanced privileges.

[englishal]

I am a PPL IR member..........I haven’t seen a suggestion form the CAA, PPL IR or elsewhere that the development of a PPL IR is as far advanced as you suggest. I also wansnt aware that the PPL IR had canvassed its members views (but I accept I may well have missed their doing so, if this is the case, sorry).
I am also a member of PPL/IR and have been for some years. I am a member of AOPA but the US AOPA.

To be honest, this is the first I have heard about the changes to the IR as well. Maybe it was hidden on some web site somewhere and it is my fault for not seeing it, I don't know but whatever it was not well advertised. BUT if someone had come to me and said, "Hey Al, can we have your views on an achievable IR" then I would have suggested my list above.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying the "1 hr flight" thing. This certainly means that two bird could be killed with one stone as long as the IR renewal is done in the second 12 months....

[rustle]

This certainly means that two bird could be killed with one stone as long as the IR renewal is done in the second 12 months....

The IR renewal would be done every 12 months, so job done.

[Fuji Abound]

Yup, that's how it is - welcome to public decision making.

That is just about the most pointless contribution I have seen in a long time. :)

in response to:

It is little wonder nothing happens because I can se how easy it is to become demoralised at the lack of support and the views that change with the wind.

If you think you can do it better then join the organisations that represent you and volunteer to join these "clandestine" working groups.

As I hope I made clear it is not:

a) A question of thinking you can do it better,

b) or of demoralising those trying,

c) or of views changing with the wind,

d) or not volunteering to join groups seeking change

BUT

if in spite of belonging to these organisations they cant be bothered to tell their own members (never mind the wider audience) that they are developing proposals and would be interested in their members views, and would be interested in their members supporting these working groups, then it is hardly surprising their members, never mind everyone else, have no idea what is going on, cant volunteer their support and cant offer to join the working groups.

For that reason ALONE I referred to these "clandestine" groups.

To be honest, this is the first I have heard about the changes to the IR as well.

Since this topic came up I know that Englishal and I are not alone.

Frankly I get fed up with the pervading attitude that we made these changes (whatever they my be) because we know best, we know you will like them and you should be grateful we did so. Actually if you are representing me I would like to be involved and not learn about them for the first time on an anonymous forum! I REPEAT it is not that I am opposed to the changes, quite the reverese, but I am not happy with the way these changes are being developed.

Come on chaps involve your members in such an excellent initiative, get the wider audience involved, dont just roll out proposals and express surprise that people should say "well thats all come as a bit of a surprise - did you think of .. .. .."

[englishal]

The IR renewal would be done every 12 months, so job done.
Right, that's what I meant....as it would fall into the second 12 months then as you say job done :ok:. You could though in theory let it lapse for a year and then renew in the 2nd 12 month period ....until they stipulate that the Biennial flight must be VFR :eek:

[High Wing Drifter]

Every second IR revalidation can be done in an FNPT2.

[IO540]

Can I therefore clarify: is this a project between PPL/IR and AOPA UK, with an objective to make a proposal to the CAA, which will then propose it to JAA?

Even if the CAA is already involved, they will need to get JAA on board to get it ratified.

[Three Yellows]

bose-x, please forgive me as I can tell from your previous posts on many other topics that you are a 'real' aviator - not just an expert on FS2004. But, again I apologise in advance if I have missed something, but please could you explain (or PM me) who exactly the "we" are you refer to in your post? You seem to imply that you perhaps work for the CAA? How did you come to be one of the "we" working on this? Not that I doubt you. I'm just curious that you seem to speak with such authority on this long overdue idea.

regards,

TY

[S-Works]

Can I therefore clarify: is this a project between PPL/IR and AOPA UK, with an objective to make a proposal to the CAA, which will then propose it to JAA?
Even if the CAA is already involved, they will need to get JAA on board to get it ratified
NO! This is a CAA initiative, driven by the CAA and hosted by the CAA. They have enlisted the help of PPL/IR and AOPA to bring the whole thing to fruition as a collaborative effort. EASA are onboard with this. For a change our regulator is taking a proactive approach and actually consulting with the people that it effects.
There is no case of us making changes because 'we know better", we are taking the views as members of the regular flying fraternity to the regulator based on years of listening to you all bitching about how tough the IR is.
AOPA has FREQUENTLY requested for its MEMBERSHIP to become involved with various things like this. You are all quick to bitch about how crap AOPA etc are at doing anything but not very quick to step up to the mark to do something about it. AOPA is a MEMBERS organisation as is PPL/IR and is driven by the MEMBERS. If you have something to say then contact them. I am perfectly happy to discuss by mail or in person with anyone who thinks they can add something to the debate.
For gods sake quit winging and actually stand up and be counted!! ANYONE can contact PPL/IR and AOPA to volunteer to stand on these working groups, they asked for volunteers and I took it up, so don't give me you never know what is going on. I am just a member and worked out help was needed.
Three Yellows: I am a member of AOPA and a member of PPL/IR. AOPA formed a working group after criticism that it was out of touch with the people it represents. A number of us from the general membership VOLUNTEERED to stand on the working group. This includes a number of people from this forum both AOPA and PPL/IR. As a result of being involved in this the CAA asked for suitably qualified representatives of these bodies to work on the IR Working Group. I have worked my way through the JAA IR system as a private flyer with no desire for an airline job, flying 2000 hrs in the last 5 years alone. This gives me what I hope is a representative view of being a private pilot and being suitably qualified to talk about IR issues.
I don't know if I speak with any authority but I am involved with the issue and hope in someway I can contribute to the betterment of us all.

[Three Yellows]

.. thanks.

As I've said earlier, I can't wait for a more realistic IR for PPLs.

[rustle]

I am perfectly happy to discuss by mail or in person with anyone who thinks they can add something to the debate.

For gods sake quit winging and actually stand up and be counted!!

bose, those two sentences don't sit very comfortably together at all.

If this is the first anyone has heard about IR changes you should expect some robust questions to be asked and not "go off on one" every time one is posed.

I don't think anyone is trying to piss on your chips, I think (based upon my reading here and elsewhere) that people are trying to understand.

Chill, and you might get some more positive feedback.

HTH ;)

[S-Works]

Rustle, I am not going "off on one" I am however trying to prevent the usual drift and irrelevance that seems to come into every discussion on here.

All of this stuff has been in the public domain for a long time. How do you think I became involved?

[Fuji Abound]

All of this stuff has been in the public domain for a long time.

The PPL IR web site is much better than it use to be.
Infact, they have a "current issues" section which anyone can follow. It covers all this and last year.

http://www.pplir.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=106&Itemid=73

Now that would be a really good place to mention these proposals.

It might even be a bit more important than "Establishment of Offshore Safety Areas".

Unless I have missed it - it is not there.

Then there is the section about getting an IR. That would be a good place to tell people to hang up, we are working at making it easier.

No mention.

There is even latest news - its got to deserve a mention there surely?
http://www.pplir.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=197&Itemid=

Cant see it.

Any way I said my bit -

Good luck to you Bose, sincerely thank you for your work, and I shall doubtless look forward to hearing more about this through the appropriate official channels in the fullness of time.

Perhaps if you want some contribution from the wider audience around here it would be worth starting a new thread, that makes it clear in the title what it is about, sets out the proposals, and asks for comment Probably some will have plenty to say, some will be irrelevant and some might frustrate you even more, but some useful views might surface as well :) .

[rustle]

Rustle, I am not going "off on one" I am however trying to prevent the usual drift and irrelevance that seems to come into every discussion on here.

Well I wish you luck; both in your IR aims, and the thread-drift aims :}

[FREDAcheck]

bose-x, I'm prepared to help, but I don't really want to be involved in aopa and certainly not PPL IR. From my observation, they don't stand for what I want.

PPL/IR isn't useful to me. Please don't tell me I'm wrong. Just tell me what I can do, and who I can work with, to protect my IMCR, and help my friends with NPPLs to get an IMCR as well.

If you want an easier PPL/IR, then great, I'm pleased for you. Now, please tell me how I can help work for what I believe to be a greater need for a greater number of pilots?

[S-Works]

Fredacheck.

If you don't want to be part of the bodies that currently exist to represent you then you will need to go ahead and form your own. if you can gain enough members to be taken as representative then you will be able to interact with the regulator directly.

However it seems to me that both AOPA and PPL/IR are working towards your needs so perhaps by joining either or both of them and putting your comments forward your voice will be heard.

[FREDAcheck]

Thanks bose-x. Which one represents those that don't want a PPL/IR, and would like to protect the IMCR? Which one represents best my friends with NPPLs that would like to cross the channel? I'll join that one.

[IO540]

The PPL/IR group (http://www.pplir.org)welcomes pilots who are (or plan to be) IMC Rated, as well as full IR.

IFR privileges are a common objective. It isn't just about the full IR.

You can do "IFR" as

JAA IR
FAA IR (to mention the most common one)
IMCR

It's certain that one day there will be an EASA license/rating. In terms of a significant departure from JAA, this is still years away.

This privilege may be sub-ICAO i.e. good for Europe only, and the PPL-only bit of that will be the "Europe-wide NPPL" which Freda is referring to.

There will be an ICAO-compliant version of course because you need that for the ATPL route; whether this will be the only one (i.e. whether the sub-ICAO version will come about at all) nobody can tell as the whole subject is massively political.

Personally I think EASA should do a "PPL/IR" which is modelled on the FAA one exactly, because we know that works and has an excellent safety record around the world. To begin to remove foreign registered planes from Europe (the #1 objective really) they would also need to take on board FAA certification and medical procedures, which we also know work and have an excellent safety record around the world. Lots and lots of people agree with this (it's pretty self evident) but it's politically hard to swallow because of long-entrenched interests.

PPL/IR is without doubt the most effective body working on this area.

I'd join up!

[BroomstickPilot]

Bose-x,

If indeed you are invoved with the proposed PPL/IR I do hope you will remind your colleagues to include conversion/bridging provisions.

There need to be arrangements;

a) for someone with an FAA IR to obtain the new PPL/IR (if he/she wishes, not compulsorilly),
b) for someone with an IMCR to trade up to the new PPL/IR,
c) for someone with the new PPL/IR, who decides to go professional, to trade up to the full JAA/IR.

In my experience, this is the sort of thing our lack-lustre regulators always seem to forget; (the classic example being the fact that someone with a CPL has to do the whole 14 ground exams to trade up to ATPL).

Broomstick.

[Fuji Abound]

I promise I am not going to post again about the issues I raised before.

On other issues I agree particulary with BP regarding his comments about transitional arrangements. I too k advantage of the transitional arrangements that existed many years ago.

I can well imagine those with an IMCR that I guess these days has cost them several thousand pounds are going to be far from thrilled if / when this is phased out, if no credit is given torwards the IR. I guess they will be even less thrilled if they have just done their IMCR and no one told them about these discussions (promise I am not going there again). As BP says not to do so would already hall market the proposals with some of the issues which has caused the CAA and Europe so many problems over mode S.

No one (amoung those that regulate) it would seem want the wide operation of N reg in Europe (and it is growing). You can understand why! This is a perfect opportunity to get them back into the European system with doubtless some cudous which would flow from doing so. Sounds like perfect bait to me! Give them an easy transition as well.

These guys that have neen operating on an FAA IR or IMCR and using the rating regularly are better at what they do than newly minted JAA IRs - they are qualified through expereince and their log books will so testify.

[englishal]

I'm trying not to post again too :)

But........

conversion/bridging provisions.
This is the BIG BIG deal as far as I and many other's here are concerned. For example, a high hours IMCr holder would be forced to do the entire JAA IR course, despite being highly experienced. An ICAO IR holder is required to do a minimum of a 15 hour course - which has always been the case.

While we're at it - re-designing the IR for the 21st centuary -, why not completely get rid of these requirements. What is wrong with "training as required" for previous experienced IR/IMC holders.

Don't think we're bitching to be difficult :p . I just believe that if the IR is going to be re-designed, then lets do it properly first time around rather than compromise before we even start.

If we had an IR which had more realistic ground exams, and gave credit for previous instrument time, then I think we *may* see current IMCr holders flocking to get an IR. I still don't think an annual examiner flight is nescessary myself for an experienced pilot, especially as it only includes a hold / ILS etc...but I could probably live with it. I would have thought that an "instructional flight of at least one hour duration " along with logged experience or "a flight with an examiner once every 12 months"would be a more appropriate option for the PPL/IR - it seems ok to revalidate SEP privileges afterall.

If all these things were taken into account, I think that it could convince many people not to keep their planes on the N register, and we'd see far less people bothering to go and do the FAA IR.

[S-Works]

Ok here goes.

Fredacheck, PPLI/IR and AOPA will both represent your interests, but you have to join and raise it for representation. Or start your own lobby group.

I will say again, this is a European piece of work not a UK only and the IMCR was taken out of the loop for a reason. To get changes to the IR agreed we needed to have a level footing for all Europeans. The rest of the world does not have an IMCR. EASA/JAA will not accept IMC training as it is sub standard, the vast majority of IMC Instructors have never held an IMC let alone an IR. As a result of this the standard of some IMC training is quite shocking. I know you will all come back and tell me your IMC Instructor was an IR Instructor or an Airline Captain or similar, but this is not the case across the board, we can't have one rule for one and a different for others. So it is much easier to take it out of the loop rather than be bogged down. Any ICAO compliant IR will be allowed a cross over so 15 hrs and the reduced exam set. If the FAA was 50/55hrs then it would probably be just a straight exams and test but again we have to meet JAA standards gold plated as they may be.

All of these comments have been taken onboard and will be raised. But please remember all these things are about compromise. The mere fact that the CAA/JAA are prepared to make changes is a significant compromise.

Al, You have valid comments, but again it is about compromise. The airlines will not tolerate a PPL in CAS who has not met the same standard as they have met. Common rules for all. Once a year a one hour test is hardly difficult especially as it covers your SEP renewal anyway.

We are not re-designing the IR, we are making the current IR more accessible.

[FREDAcheck]

bose-x, thanks for the information. Looks like you're doing a great job to make PPL/IR more accessible.
EASA/JAA will not accept IMC training as it is sub standard
The airlines will not tolerate a PPL in CAS who has not met the same standard as they have met.
All this is completely logical and sensible, but emphasises that for what many IMCR pilots want (to fly IMC outside CAS/airways), a PPL/IR will always be a lot of cost and training that is not really relevant to us.

Any advice you can offer on who and how to lobby to keep the IMCR would be much appreciated.

[OVC002]

Any genuine effort to ease the route to IFR in CAS has to be applauded. Well done Bose x.

Just a couple of points:

There is no JAA minimum training requirement to convert an ICAO IR. Just pass the ground exams and flight test. The 15hrs is a CAA peccadillo.

Does this mean that the Man has worked out another way of keeping us out of CAT's CAS? Mode S and P-RNAV must be only the beginning.

[BEagle]

"EASA/JAA will not accept IMC training as it is sub standard, the vast majority of IMC Instructors have never held an IMC let alone an IR. As a result of this the standard of some IMC training is quite shocking."

That is complete and utter rubbish, as well you know. You may also wish to know that some airline pilots who now have to pass the IMC Rating revalidation test if they wish to have IMC privileges in SEP aeroplanes are finding it quite hard to meet the test standards.

Work is most certainly in hand towards ensuring that credit will be given for holders of the UK IMC Rating seeking to obtain a EASA IR. Please do not spread such false rumours about this very worthwhile rating.

[S-Works]

I am sorry beagle but i did not see you at the last meeting of the PPL/IR working group. Are you party to something that was not discussed last week?

Generally speaking I have great empathy for what you have to say, but acusing me of spreading false rumour to what was minuted at a meeting on Tuesday of last week is a little out of order. If you know something that has arisen since the last meeting please feel free to share it with us.

[BackPacker]

bose-x, I understand you are participating in a working group hosted by the CAA. Are you aware of any similar initiatives in any other JAA countries?

I'm a new PPL and I've been thinking about getting an IR (no IMC rating where I live... Even Night VFR is out of the question here) but the classroom requirements have seriously put me off. Doing things part-time the theory lessons alone would be a years work.

So if there's anything I can do in my area on a working group or something, I'd like to help.

[BEagle]

No, not the PPL/IR group, but rather more closely with the rule makers.....

Recognition of the UK IMC rating as the first part of the 'modular' IR was looking pretty good, the last time I heard. Maybe I'll find out more this week?

If someone at the PPL/IR group actually minuted such a libellous comment as "......the vast majority of IMC Instructors have never held an IMC let alone an IR", that displays ignorance as well as arrogance.

Perhaps these worthies should research the quailifications needed to instruct for the UK IMC Rating rather more carefully before spouting such nonsense.

[MikeJ]

Bose,
Everyone posting, including me, has strongly supported your work. There is no reason to be defensive. But the thread title is on the IMCR, and PPL/IR is an additional subject. A lot of us have been probing for more understanding, that's all.

If ANYONE with any basis whatsoever, gives an opinion that we might be going to lose our IMCR, then I would hope that there will always be howls of protest which may be heard at the Belgrano, without any criticism implied to the messenger.

The most recent posts leave me mystified.
1. I had always understood that an FI could only instruct for ratings he himself held. In all the 2 year IMCR renewal tests over the decades, with many examiners, I have never had one not requiring the full extent of the test and the accuracy limits specified.
2. At the time I passed the PPL/IR exams at Kingsway, I was able to study for them by correspondence course, and I am sure that the flight training requirement was 40hrs, and my understanding is this is the FAA PPL/IR requirement to this day. Restoration of these would do a lot to the objective of accessability. It is now alleged in a previous post that the 55hrs is solely a CAA requirement, and not a JAA one.
3. You now appear to imply that non recognition of IMCR time and qualifications towards a new EASA PPL/IR is a minuted recommendation of the PPL/IR committee. I can only fervently hope that BEagle is right that the CAA/EASA will reject this view. IMCR holders will know that whatever PPL/IR Europe say about wanting IMCR holders as members, they will never represent their interests, and always denigrate the value of the IMCR.

My own view is that throughout the requirements for flight training, there is an over emphasis on hours, when the abililty to perform the flying and ground examinations should be the absolute criteria, irrespective of the hours of training an individual student requires to achieve this. Why shouldn't an IMCR with over 40hrs instrument time simply be able to get a PPL/IR by doing just the training he personally needs to pass the flight and ground exams?

[S-Works]

MikeJ, I agree completely with you.

The IMCR was specifically taken out of the discussion on change of the IR due to the political hot potato that it would cause and clearly is.

Beagle. Unless you are working for the CAA or EASA and have some inside knowledge that you wish to share with us then I fail to understand your comments.

The PPL/IR working group is a CAA working group with representatives from PPL/IR and AOPA.

Is there something yoy wish to share with us?

As I keep saying the IMC is specifically outside the scope of the changes that we are working on with regard to the PPL/IR. Acceptance of IMC hours towards the IR is out of scope of the working group. If you read my post I state my views on the IMCR having made it clear that the IMCR is out of scope of the working group. The reason the IMCR is out of scope is the EASA view that it does not meet the standards required of the IR at this stage. If you know something more than feel free to share it. As they say put up or shut up.

[IO540]

If someone at the PPL/IR group actually minuted such a libellous comment as "......the vast majority of IMC Instructors have never held an IMC let alone an IR", that displays ignorance as well as arrogance.

Nobody from PPL/IR has said this and nobody would because it isn't correct.

There is a story going around that there are still some (old) instructors around who started instructing in the days when a plain PPL (with an FI) could teach the PPL. Later, when the CPL was made mandatory for paid instructing, these people were grandfathered in, by getting a BCPL. There were some other changes in between. As this is a sort of "CPL", and since a UK CPL carries IMC Rating privileges, these people ended up with an IMCR and were able to teach it.

I don't know if the above is actually correct (it's many years before my time) but if so any such instructors would now be approaching retirement.

It's true that many or most IMCR instructors don't hold a current IR, but that's simply a result of the UK PPL training scene, which is made up mostly of ATP candidates who are "just passin' through" and doing some hour building while thumbing through airline adverts. These people do have to get an IR eventually but many/most of those that do get it let it lapse while building hours because there is no point in spending £hundreds on renewing something that you don't actually need.

Anyway, if IMCR training was a safety hazard, we would see this in the accident data, but there is no support for this suggestion. And if there was, the way to approach it would be to do something about the training, not to abolish this very useful and accessible rating.

[Fuji Abound]

Work is most certainly in hand towards ensuring that credit will be given for holders of the UK IMC Rating seeking to obtain a EASA IR. Please do not spread such false rumours about this very worthwhile rating.

If ANYONE with any basis whatsoever, gives an opinion that we might be going to lose our IMCR, then I would hope that there will always be howls of protest which may be heard at the Belgrano, without any criticism implied to the messenger


The reason the IMCR is out of scope is the EASA view that it does not meet the standards required of the IR at this stage.

If the FAA was 50/55hrs then it would probably be just a straight exams and test but again we have to meet JAA standards gold plated as they may be.

What an absolute buggers muddle as I suspected!

It is always the same, various groups working separately and each claiming to support the interests of their own members (a claim in itself which is usually doubtful) and if they end up with anything, it usually solves half the problem but creates as many new problems.

When I last looked the PPL IR claims to represent European IR, FAA IR and IMCR holders. Clearly IMCR holders are not thrilled about being excluded. They are even less thrilled about not being represented. I could be wrong, but they might just constitute the majority of the membership.

The FAA IR holders are fed up hearing about gold plated standards.

I have to concede I do still support the initiative but only on the basis something is better than nothing. I also will support anyone who is prepared to give their time freely and for that reason alone well done Bose-X.

Frankly, I am even more appalled at the lack of consultation, having read the recent posts on this thread. Unless I am very much mistaken, the PPL/IR does not represent their members views on this issue. It may well not be politically expedient to argue the IMCR holders case, but IMCR holders are jolly well entitled to know how and why that view has been reached, and they are also jolly well entitled to know if their rating is going to be “phased out”. It may well not be expedient to address the FAA IR’s position, but again they are entitled to know why not. Moreover, I don’t agree with the position in either case. I see no reason at all why any instrument holder should not be given either a carry over allowance for their training and experience before, or direct access to the test. After all they still have to pass the test! It happens in nearly every other walk of life - why must this be different? I cant imagine for one moment why the Regulator would object to such a proposal, and if he did, that still means the proposal should be put, and we should all know why their has been an objection.

Moreover, if this is introduced, it could be seen as very good grounds for the Regulator to dispense with the IMCR and FAA IRs if for no other reason than on the pretext that an accessible alternative rating is available. As I said earlier, I suspect if this was the outcome their could be a fair few PPL / IR members wanting their subs back.

So in summary, whilst I must broadly support the proposal, I do not support the way it would seem these working groups are going about it. It is not for you to assume you represent your members’ interests unless you are able to demonstrate you have consulted with your memebers, and it is not for you to determine what is or is not politically expedient and you do not have my support if you believe this is the correct way of going about changes of this sort.

[S-Works]

I really have no idea what the future of the IMCR is. It is not a subject that is being discussed as part of the changes to the IR.

I for one would be very unhappy to see it go. I travelled many hours on the IMCR before the IR. I still however hold the view that a lot of IMCR teaching is a shocking standard and no doubt this will have to be reviewed at some stage if the rating is to survive. This is however MY OPINION and NOT part of the IR review work.

You are confusing both PPL/IR and AOPA's role in this. The CAA have made this initiative and PPL/IR and AOPA are part of the effort. The effort is only to MAKE THE IR MORE ACCESSIBLE, it is NOTHING to do with the future of the IMCR and as such the IMCR is not being discussed or considered in these changes. The comment made at the meeting was the IMCR was out of scope and the hours would not count towards the rating. At that stage it was decided to leave the IMCR well alone. If Beagle is working on something else with the CAA to get the hours counted then this is all well and good. But what we need to do as make the rating more accessible before we can even start counting hours towards it.

But for what I hope is the final time, THE IMCR IS OUT OF SCOPE for the current work we are undertaking.

[mark147]

But for what I hope is the final time, THE IMCR IS OUT OF SCOPE for the current work we are undertaking.OK, I think we've got that now :)

Here's a thought then. How about allowing a small number of the 50 hours required for the SE IR (say 10-15) to be allowable if taught by an FI with an IR, (as opposed to an IRI)? That should cover the better end of current IMCR training whilst being based on JAA qualifications only.

This seems reasonable given that there's always the IMCR->FAA IR->JAA IR route which could be legitimately used to get credit for previous instrument hours even with the rules as they stand.

Mark

[S-Works]

Or how about this for an even more cunning plan. Allow the first 15 hours of the IR to be taught by an IRI as a module. At the end of this module an IMC can be issued and the module is full credit for the IR? That way the eurocrats are kept happy about standards and the IMCR has full credit towards the IR.........

My personal OPINION is not that there is anything wrong with the IMCR, in fact I think it is a fantastic rating. I think it is the fact that in a lot of cases it is taught by Instructors on grandfather rights who have never held an IR and in a lot of cases not even an IMC having gained the rating as IO540 pointed out under a grandfather scheme. If we could prove to the Eurocrats that IMCR is being taught to an acceptable standard then maybe they would accept it as valid.

But as I said this is MY OPINION and NOTHING to do with the review.

[mark147]

That works only for new people coming through though.

I think the modular training thing is a must though, regardless: a PPL with a full time job is going to find it difficult to do the full 50/55 hours in a single block. What's the thinking on that so far? I'd suggest it would need to be three separate modules. I guess there's then the issue of how long they're valid for and how long you have to complete the entire course.

[S-Works]

It will be modular based. In fact you can currently do a module of 10hrs and then a second module to finish.

[IO540]

I think one idea that needs to be put to bed is a Europe-wide IMC Rating, either as an acceptance of the UK one, or as a very accessible IR with just one little exam and 15-20hrs of flight training.

This one keeps popping up - understandably because it would be rather good.

But there is exactly zero chance of it happening.

The rest of Europe doesn't have UK's combination of

a) widespread Class G, and

b) nobody in charge giving a damn what one does in Class G, VFR or IFR

The CAA accepted in the 1960s that people will fly in clouds under VFR and eventually the IMCR came along to provide some training so they don't end up in hills etc.

This has never been officially accepted anywhere else. People still do it in reality but everybody pretends not to. Pilots routinely fly in clouds under VFR all over Europe. With decent equipment etc it's pretty easy and safe. Even in the USA, FAR 91.175 attempts to prohibit DIY instrument approaches, and elsewhere flying below the MOCA is out, but at least they have an accessible IR so few people over there have a good reason for doing it.

Maybe one day, following some huge airspace revision under EASA, it might happen, but it's exceedingly unlikely.

As regards the current business, the present effort on making the JAA IR more accessible which (I've made some enquiries) has been going on for a few years and is still ticking along, sort of, isn't going to yield anything that will compete with the FAA IR before EASA takes over approx next year. There has not been any consultation because this is a process that's been running for ages and is still in the early stages. There may have been a recent acceleration but time is running short before it will all get turned over by EASA.

Basically, under JAA, you have a committee for everything and they have to settle for the tightest common denominator.

EASA will be a largely autocratic body which is good for getting things done, but it won't please everybody.

The politics are massively convoluted and nobody can say where it will all lead. I've stopped worrying about all these things; there is always a cloud on the horizon in aviation, and you have to enjoy what you have while you have it, while picking up every piece of paper you can when the opportunity arises because you never know what grandfather privilege it might one day give you.

[FREDAcheck]

What an absolute buggers muddle as I suspected!
That's the only believable thing I've read on this thread. Elsewhere I just read apparently well-informed and well-connected people contradicting each other. I had a phone call today from AOPA telling me that Europe-wide IMCR is very likely, and AOPA is pressing for it, now IO540 says:
I think one idea that needs to be put to bed is a Europe-wide IMC Rating, either as an acceptance of the UK one, or as a very accessible IR with just one little exam and 15-20hrs of flight training.
...But there is exactly zero chance of it happening.
From bose-x:
I really have no idea what the future of the IMCR is. It is not a subject that is being discussed as part of the changes to the IR.
I for one would be very unhappy to see it go. I travelled many hours on the IMCR before the IR.
bose also said:
The original suggestion was to add an IMC rating to the upcoming European Pilot License but the european representatives were very much against the idea, having the view that it would become a poor mans IR. What is more likely to happen is the IMC rating will disappear under EASA but a much more achievable PPL/IR is on the way imminently.
So he's working on something that will lead to the end of the IMCR, in his opinon. I gather (from bose's post on flyer) that he is representing AOPA. Does this mean he is also pushing for the AOPA position of maintaining and extending IMCR?

[S-Works]

I am not pushing either way on what happens to the IMCR. It is not in the remit of the changes to the IR. I really don't know how many times I have to say that!! SO REALLY FOR THE VERY LAST TIME <THE FUTURE OF THE IMCR IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IR REVIEW>

AOPA as an organisation DO listen to the needs of members and will be fighting to get a Europe wide IMCR whether that happens or not remains to be seen. My personal OPINION is that it will not succeed but if it does I would be happy. What we are trying to do is make the IR more achievable and I really don't want to get bogged down in the endless debate about the demise or not of the IMCR.

My OPNION of the future of the IMCR is separate from the work being undertaken to make the IR more accessible.

[dublinpilot]

So he's working on something that will lead to the end of the IMCR, in his opinion. I gather (from Bose's post on flyer) that he is representing AOPA. Does this mean he is also pushing for the AOPA position of maintaining and extending IMCR?

Why don't people READ this thread before posting.

Bose has made it VERY CLEAR that the future of the IMC is not under consideration at the working group that he is involved in.

It will be up to someone else to decide if the IMC rating continues or not. The group that Bose is involved in has no say, no input and no mandate to do anything, good or bad about the IMC rating. How many times does he have to say that, how many different ways does he have to say that before people listen?

Bose could love or hate the IMC rating....it makes no difference...he has no say in it's future.

PLEASE read the thread before posting.

dp

Sorry for being so grumpy...it's a bit out of charterer, but I'm amazed at the amount of times Bose has had to say the above.

[Fuji Abound]

Why don't people READ this thread before posting.

I am not sure who the "people" are - maybe me.

If you read the WHOLE thread the question asked was whether the IMCR might be extended to a Europe wide rating.

Bose contibuted by telling us he is involved with a working group to get the terms of the PPL IR amended.

He said "What is more likely to happen is the IMC rating will disappear under EASA .. .. .."

Then he said "There is no suggestion that the IMCR is unsafe at all."

He then said "The IMC rating IS NOT part of our remit."

The Beagle said "Work is most certainly in hand towards ensuring that credit will be given for holders of the UK IMC Rating seeking to obtain a EASA IR. Please do not spread such false rumours about this very worthwhile rating."

So lets get this straight the post as started WAS about the IMCR, Bose-X told us he was attempting to do something about the IR and he told us the IMCR will go and then it wouldnt and then it might BUT in any event was not part of his remitt and then Beagle told us he was wrong.

I think it is quite right to bash on about exactly what is happening when even Bose-X doesnt seem to be certain!

[S-Works]

Fuji, re-read my posts and separate what is my OPINION against what is happening with the IR Review.

My OPINION is that the IMCR will disappear under EASA but I am not providing any input into the future it. Cutting and pasting snippets out of context just ties us all up in knots.

The whole point of my post was to highlight the fact that an easier to access IR is coming and that there is a viable alternative to the IMCR. The original poster was not UK based so I tried to help by answering in a European context.

THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS MY OPINION AND IS NOTHING TO WITH THE IR
The fact is the IR changes are here and now, any chance of a euro wide IMCR is pie in the sky at the moment as far as I can see. The Eurocrats don't like the IMCR, it is a quaint English thing, not thought up in Europe so they are not interested in it. They want to pigeon hole the European Pilots License as a day/VFR only licence and pave the way for advanced ratings to be put onto the normal licence with clear paths to allow cross over.
END OF MY OPINION

Sometimes I really wonder why I bother trying to help. The fact is I should not need to care, after all I have a JAA IR so why should I give a toss about anyone else who wants to go and get one if this is the way I am going to be treated.

In fact - I had it hard soanyone who comes after me should have it hard.
Go and sort your own changes out as I get no benefit from this at all.

[englishal]

Even in the USA, FAR 91.175 attempts to prohibit DIY instrument approaches
Ah, but in the USA it is very easy to get an "official" GPS approach. In fact a very many little uncontrolled fields have their own GPS approaches.....you could probably get one for you back garden if you wanted (I know there are a couple of seaplane IAPs too) ;)

[Kirstey]

So Bose.. one thing I'm a little uncertain of.. is the IMCR part of the ongoing remit for the IR working group? I'm not sure you ever made it clear.

Ultimatly, PPL-IRs input is advisory.. and that's great. That's what they came into being for. IR holders (although not IMCR obviously) are having their thoughts and input into what is going to be a major overhaul with EASA.

Your work is valuable Bose.. However, other people you've been "defensive" with are involved in the "decision making" process of the regulator themselves as opposed to acting as an advisor. It's not JUST you hoping to bring positive change!

That said keep it up.. all of you.. it is appreciated

[FREDAcheck]

If you think I'm not reading the posts then I'm not making my point well; sorry about that.

My reading of what bose and others are saying is that EASA etc are looking for a harmonised PPL/IR, and that this will be justification to remove the UK IMCR.

If this is true...
...then what bose is doing may undermine the IMCR, so it is disingenuous to say that the future of IMCR is not his concern.

If this is not true...
...them please reassure me so. Please reassure me that the existence (or not) of an accessible PPL/IR will make absolutely no difference to the future of the UK IMCR.

[S-Works]

Actually Kirstey the working group is not advisory it involved in the decision making process. The report that is produced at the end with input written by each of us what will be submitted. There would not be a lot of point in being involved otherwise.

And I was defensive with Beagle after his attack on me after I expressed an opinion. So if he works for the CAA and knows something I have missed then he should share it. If he does not and is participating in working groups himself then he should share that as well not just debunk what others are saying.

Change only occurs when people are prepared to stand up and do something about it. When we are representing you as the aviation public I would expect some support. To many people are quick to complain an put down any efforts but I don't see them committing the time and effort to help.

AOPA regularly asks for help from the membership but you don't see hordes of people coming forward to put there time and effort where there mouths are.

[S-Works]

If you think I'm not reading the posts then I'm not making my point well; sorry about that.
My reading of what bose and others are saying is that EASA etc are looking for a harmonised PPL/IR, and that this will be justification to remove the UK IMCR.
I did not say it WILL BE justification, I have no idea but there is a possibility that could happen in my OPINION.
If this is true...
...then what bose is doing may undermine the IMCR, so it is disingenuous to say that the future of IMCR is not his concern.
I did not say it was not my concern, I just said it is not part of the remit of the working group - I really don't know how many more times I have to say it!!
If this is not true...
...them please reassure me so. Please reassure me that the existence (or not) of an accessible PPL/IR will make absolutely no difference to the future of the UK IMCR.
I am sorry but I can't do that. Why don't you ask Beagle to answer that question for you. He seems to know far more about the future of the IMCR than I do. I merely expressed an opinion on its future.

[FREDAcheck]

Sorry bose for criticising you. I'm grateful for the tireless efforts by you and others on behalf of the GA community. I think an accessible PPL/IR is great, and I might even go for it myself if it doesn't cost too much.

This thread is about IMCR, and IMCR is probably more important to more UK private pilots than PPL/IR. I'm unhappy about anything that might undermine it, and you've just said
My reading of what bose and others are saying is that EASA etc are looking for a harmonised PPL/IR, and that this will be justification to remove the UK IMCR.
I did not say it WILL BE justification, I have no idea but there is a possibility that could happen in my OPINION.
For me that rings alarm bells. I am reading the posts, but what you've just said suggests that what you are doing for PPL/IR may not be independent of the future of IMCR.

As this thread is about IMCR, can anyone shed light on what is being done (and can be done) to protect the future of IMCR?

[Fuji Abound]

Sometimes I really wonder why I bother trying to help. The fact is I should not need to care, after all I have a JAA IR so why should I give a toss about anyone else who wants to go and get one if this is the way I am going to be treated.

Well we are both in the same camp, but you obviously do and so do I, so it is pointless looking for sympathy from me.

You talk about remit - but whose remit - you talk about wanting peoples views, but when they are given, point out that they are not within your remit.
Look AOPA represents its members - it is a representative organisation and so is the PPL/IR. Without its members these organisations would not exist and there would be no working groups.

I could be very wrong, but I think there are more than a few that are very concerned about the IMCR issue and about the FAA IR issue and would want that included in your remit. I also think it is reasonable they ask why it is not. So far I think we are short of an explanation.

If I have taken your comments out of context I apologise, but I also think that I am not the only one reading the various posts on this thread who would conclude they are far from clear. I am no nearer understanding who is working with whom, who set the remit in the first place, who’s views are actually being represented and so on - in short that is why I said it is a buggers muddle.

If these organisations want to put forward proposals that do not have the support of their members, and more importantly if these organisations don’t give their members the opportunity to comment, then they are on very dangerous ground.

(and for what it is worth it is not personal as I am sure you didn’t decide on what the remit was).

What however you may well take as personal if you wish, is that you rightly appear to solicit views, and you seem to represent these organisations in an official capacit but yet dismiss very relevant comment as being outside a remit that would seem to have appeared out of thin air.

[S-Works]

Fuji,
My mistake, I should have started a new thread.

I do want peoples views, just not views on the IMCR, that is not what I am working on......

I have stated a number of times what the remit is an where it came from. But here goes one more time.....

The CAA decided to look into why the uptake of the IR at PPL Level was so low. The two bodies that have the most direct representation for this type of flying are PPL/IR and AOPA. These two organisations were asked to provide representatives at the working group. the working group is known as the PPL/IR working group because of the content not because it is a working group formed by the organisation known as PPL/IR. This is a CAA working group, the members of the working group have a remit:


IR Working Group - Terms of Reference
A recommendation of the General Aviation Strategic Review stated that the:
CAA, Government and GA to work better together to influence legislative changes emanating from the EU with the aim of maintaining a fair balance for all aviation interests. A current example is a need to ensure that the requirements for private pilots to gain an instrument rating are relevant and proportionate.
The Instrument Rating Working Group (IRWG) aims to improve access to the Instrument Rating for PPL holders and to encourage an increase in the numbers of PPLlIR rating holders in the UK by ensuring that the requirements for private pilots to gain an instrument rating are relevant and proportionate.
The IRWG will:
1. Review current and newly proposed requirements for JM IR (aeroplanes)
2. Determine why PPL holders are reluctant to trainltest for the JM IR
3. Determine what training and testing requirements would be acceptable to PPL holders.
4. Draw comparisons with other States and EASA proposals
5. Make proposals to the CM on IR training and testing requirements to meet the working group objectives.
The IRWG will report to the Head of Personnel Licensing Department (Hd PLD) by 5 June 2007. Interim reports shall be made to Hd PLD as and when the IRWG considers appropriate or necessary.
The Chief Flight Examiner will chair the IRWG with a Secretary and relevant representation drawn from CM SRG staff, and members drawn from industry who are considered best able to represent the interests of sectors affected by matters under review.
A quorum shall consist of the Chairman, Secretary and at least two industry representatives. To ensure continuity, members shall not be substituted nor represented by proxy, if at all possible.
The CM will host the Working Group meetings at Aviation House or at a regional test centre acceptable to the members. Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by external members of the IRWG will, as is CM practice, be borne by those members or organisations that they represent.
IRWG working methods
1. The IRWG will meet three times, in March, April and May 2007. Further meetings can be held if required by the Group.
2. Material for consideration by the Group members will be submitted to the Secretary and circulated to members bye-mail. When appropriate, the Chairman may request comments on such material to be exchanged bye-mail prior to discussion at meetings.
3. To make most efficient use of the time available, activity at meetings will, whenever possible, be limited to summary presentation of previously circulated material and discussion of that material.
4. The Group will identify topics considered to merit further investigation and record a brief summary of the potential or provisional impact or effect of each. Subsequent work packages, with clearly identified objectives and timescales for completion, will be established to conduct the detailed investigation.
5. Industry representatives should endeavour faithfully to represent the widest practicable constituency of those affected by the work of the IRWG, irrespective of the organisation with which the representative is primarily associated.

[rustle]

5. Industry representatives should endeavour faithfully to represent the widest practicable constituency of those affected by the work of the IRWG, irrespective of the organisation with which the representative is primarily associated.

Not sure this one is met.

There isn't even a thread on the AOPA forum about it. (There may be one on PPL/IR forums - I wouldn't know as I am no longer a member)

If you're only meeting in March, April and May some of the "input" should have been discussed on the AOPA forum/website in January IMHO.

Anyhoo, like you, why should I gaf ;)

[S-Works]

Good point Rustle, perhaps I should discuss it on forums and illicit opinions.......

5. Industry representatives should endeavour faithfully to represent the widest practicable constituency of those affected by the work of the IRWG, irrespective of the organisation with which the representative is primarily associated.

Oh, I did and all I got was abuse about the bloody IMC rating and changes/the future of that is nothing to do with the IR!!!!

[rustle]

I did and all I got was abuse about the bloody IMC rating and changes/the future of that is nothing to do with the IR!!!!

:}

Start your own thread. Anyone who doesn't toe the line can then be told to foxtrot oscar.

BTW, if my "new style" IR were to lapse because I didn't fly the IR renewal for 15 months would I automatically still have an IMC-R? ;)

PS, I don't expect to have to pay for any tests/exams/IRT/170A or checkflights - bloody examiners should be grateful of the opportunity to fly for free without charging for it too. :p

[FREDAcheck]

Oh, I did and all I got was abuse about the bloody IMC rating and changes/the future of that is nothing to do with the IR!!!!
Now, now! I think we've got a reason to worry about "the bloody IMC rating".

I can understand how this must be very frustrating for you. But you can hardly expect unbridled enthusiasm from IMC pilots for the IR WG when you say "...there is a possibility that [this will be justification to remove the UK IMCR] could happen in my OPINION". Repeating that it's not within the remit of the IR WG ToR doesn't make it better.

[S-Works]

I am entitled to my opinion as are you to yours. But keeping banging on about it to me is not going to do you any good!

If you are that concerned contact the CAA and ask to be involved or contact Beagle and ask him what he is working on with regards to the IMC!

After all, I don't have an IMC rating anymore..........

[FREDAcheck]

I am entitled to my opinion as are you to yours.
After all, I don't have an IMC rating anymore..........
Fair comment bose. I'm not criticising you or anyone for pursuing the interests of current or wannabe PPL/IR holders. I'm trying to find out who might be defending the interests of IMC holders, or how best to lobby. I was thinking of joining AOPA but if you are representing them on these matters then I probably need to look elsewhere. No criticism, but as you say, you are not setting out to represent IMC holders.

[S-Works]

How many times do I have to say I am not representing on the IMC.

Here is a thought...... Join AOPA and volunteer your services with the specific intent on representing IMC holders!

[BEagle]

"If we could prove to the Eurocrats that IMCR is being taught to an acceptable standard then maybe they would accept it as valid."

Perhaps the fact that it is examined every 25 months max by Flight Examiners authorised under JAR-FCL might help?

I can see little reason to bother with a PPL/IR in the UK unless you want to fly in Class A airspace. I have several thousand hours of that - you're welcome to it. The IMC Rating is of infinitely more practical use to most people.

[S-Works]

With all due respect Beagle, I don't care. The IMC is not in my remit I was trying to get feedback about the IR.

I can see plenty of reason for holding an IR. We arent all pigeon holed to flying in the UK.

You may have several thousand hours in Class A but that does not stop others wanting the same rights.

To frank your attitude amazes me, I always had you as an open minded supporter of all GA. Perhaps I was wrong.

[michaelthewannabe]

I'm a noobie and about to start my flying training, so I speak from no experience. But from what I read here - bose-x, you're a hero for taking up the PPL IR consultation gauntlet (and running the flak you've consequently come under), so thank you. As someone who might start instrument training a year or so from now on a PPL, the new PPL IR proposals sound fantastic.

You wanted feedback, and I think you got it: in a nutshell, regardless of how wonderful the PPL IR is, existing IMCR holders are going to be mighty p!ssed off if an inadvertent consequence of the PPL IR is that their instrument qualification disappears with no grandfather rights.

With the benefit of hindsight, you may consider this to be an entirely predictable response, given you posted on a thread about the IMCR!

Keep up the good work. :ok:

mtw

[dublinpilot]

existing IMCR holders are going to be mighty p!ssed off if an inadvertent consequence of the PPL IR is that their instrument qualification disappears with no grandfather rights.

Never say never, but that would seem like a very unlikely outcome. I just can't see the privlidges being taken away like that. Perhaps no new IMC ratings would be issued, but existing holders hold onto theirs....that would seem a much more likely outcome.

Of course the CAA could make existing IMC holders REALLY happy by giving them all an IR on the basis of their IMC rating, but again that would seem unlikely.

[michaelthewannabe]

regardless of how wonderful the PPL IR is, existing IMCR holders are going to be mighty p!ssed off if an inadvertent consequence of the PPL IR is that their instrument qualification disappears with no grandfather rights

But I also wonder how realistic a threat that is. Since it would be a seriously big downer for a very large number of UK GA pilots, I'd expect that some mechanism (grandfather rights, training credits, endorsements etc.) might be negotiated to ease the pain.

All you old-timers with decades of experience of CAA battles - what do you reckon?

[michaelthewannabe]

Thanks, dublinpilot. That's what I suspected. If that view is widely and reasonably held, then it seems that the rationale for some of the criticism levelled at bose-x on this thread goes away.

[BEagle]

michaelthewannabe, we have grown up since the days of 'CAA battles', nowadays we work with the regulatory authority.

There will be some who will think that the easement of PPL/IR requirements will somehow make their career goal of operating the radios and reading the checklists in the right hand seat of a people-tube suddenly cheaper and easier. WRONG!! This is NOT the goal of the teams working on the revised IR/SPA.

It is reasonably simple to align the IMC training syllabus with the proposed first module of the revised PPL/IR. The CAA were made aware of this over a year ago and had no reservations....

In basic terms:

Current IMC rating:- Current IMC rating privileges

'Procedural' module + relevant theoretical knowledge exams + IMC Rating = Current PPL/IR privileges.

Now tell me what's wrong with that?

[michaelthewannabe]

There will be some who will think that the easement of PPL/IR requirements will somehow make their career goal of operating the radios and reading the checklists in the right hand seat of a people-tube suddenly cheaper and easier. WRONG!!

Yes. That's very clear from all the information bose-x has given on this thread.

Current IMC rating:- Current IMC rating privileges

'Procedural' module + relevant theoretical knowledge exams + IMC Rating = Current PPL/IR privileges.

Seems very sensible to me. Thanks.

[Fuji Abound]

Bose

Thanks for setting out your remit. I think that is very helpful.

2. Determine why PPL holders are reluctant to trainltest for the JM IR
3. Determine what training and testing requirements would be acceptable to PPL holders.

That could be clearer, however I cant see any exclusion of the IMCR. In fact quite the opposite.

One reason for most PPL holders not pursuing an IR is that the additional benefit it brings is not relevant to them for their needs.

As this thread has illustrated for those with an IMCR, training which excludes credit for their current instrument time and IMCR training might well not be acceptable.

I see no evidence in your remit that considering the needs of IMCR holders is outside your scope.

Fuji,
My mistake, I should have started a new thread.


.. .. .. I shall look forward to seeing the thread start.

[S-Works]

Fuji,

You are just taking the piss now. The IMCR is out of scope of the review. Lets leave it at that now.

[BEagle]

bose-x, your intemperate and frankly offensive responses, together with your brusque disregard of the UK IMC rating from your 'review' is not helping very much.

The fact is, whether you like it or not, as Fuji Abound commented before you so rudely rebuffed him:

"One reason for most PPL holders not pursuing an IR is that the additional benefit it brings is not relevant to them for their needs."

Absolutely right - some years ago IMC rating privileges were extended to all UK Class D`airspace bringing a worthwhile safety improval. Instead of scud running in marginal VFR into places like Cardiff, the safer option of an instrument approach became available, albeit with higher DA/MDA limits. But I venture to suggest that there are very few aerodromes in Class A TMAs to which PPL pilots need to fly under IFR, SVFR for IMC rating holders will suffice for those few times that they wish to use Class A airspace. This means that the only real benefit for IR holders would be access to airways and the occasional need to fly to lower DA/MDA minima. Most PPL IMC rating holders simply do not feel that the additional expense of theoretical examinations, additional training and testing requirements, issue fee and rating maintenance are worth it.

"As this thread has illustrated for those with an IMCR, training which excludes credit for their current instrument time and IMCR training might well not be acceptable."

Right again. Such an exclusion would be completely unacceptable. Everyone is telling you that, so hoist it on board if you wish to maintain any credibility as a negotiator.

[S-Works]

Beagle it is you that is missing the boat here along with Fuji. I am also surprised at how you feel it appropriate to be rude and dismissive and then find my response offensive.

I have every sympathy for those with an IMCR who may want to upgrade. I am fully aware of what the IMC provides to the well trained and current pilot.

But we are not working on what on getting the Europeans to accept the IMC training as being an equivalent standard to any IR training or to preserve the rights of IMC flyers. That belongs to other groups. We are working on making the IR accessible. I have posted the terms of reference, at the initial meeting it was agreed by all those present that we would not be discussing the IMCR in any shape or form. Equivalency for those (the British) who have other ratings will have to be worked out in due course but is not part of what we are doing.

So if those who have an IMCR and do not wish to have access to Class A or be able to fly in IFR in Europe then they do not have to take up the IR. That is their prerogative. If the IMCR does vanish in due course or airspace becomes so restrictive that the IMCR is not useful then the option of moving to an IR should still be available to everyone. This is all we are trying to do.

But to keep you happy I have added to my list the reason that people do not want to do an IR is that the IMCR is such a powerful rating there is no need to do an IR.

[Fuji Abound]

Bose please dont take offense, that was never my intention.

I simply could not and cannot understand why certain issues were excluded from your and the working groups remit given what you are seeking to achieve. Moreover, if the remit is unsound it seems a worth while casue to tell the CAA so - unfortunately they dont have the best track record on such matters (the mode S debate).

I still dont see where it says in your remit you should exclude transitionary provisions for IMCR holders? Am I missing the obvious or has this exclusion come from so where else?

I also dont think the working group will feel they have served their members well if you achieve the objectives you seek (to be heaped rightly in praise) but to find six months later the regulator has dispensed with the IMCR on the back of the availability of a PPL IR - infact I think that praise may quickly turn to crticism about ill conceived legislation and lack of consultation.

In short sometimes it is well worth looking at the wider picture.

PS - I still think you should start another thread!

[S-Works]

Fuji,

We reviewed the IMCR at the start, as it is a sub ICAO UK only rating and we are working on changes that will be Europe wide we decided to out scope it.

We are not looking at transition to the IR at this stage hence why no reason to look at transition arrangements. Give us chance to make the IR accessible and then look at what can be allowable for upgrade.

I agree sometimes it is worth looking at the wider picture, but at other times by doing so you become bogged down in stuff that we can't change but detracts from the primary task...... We are also dealing with the regulator and they set the rules.

[FREDAcheck]

I can't see the reason for the fanatical rantings about this, except for those who already have an IMC and don't want to lose their privileges. There is history on this sort of situation; I'm not aware that the CAA have ever removed old privileges, just stopped new ones being issued.
I don't think that's the point people are making. It's not just my own IMC (I think that's probably safe), I'm worried that IMC might not be available to other PPLs. Frankly, in the grand scheme of things, I'm quite sure that a non-airways non-Class A/B/C IMC rating is much more important to many more GA pilots than IR. Comments on this thread suggest some people are quite happy to sacrifice IMC to make IR easier. Note: easier. You can already get one if you really want.

So when anyone says they want IR and they don't care about IMC and they're quite happy to exclude it from any discussion...

I would like ANY discussion of PPL/IR in the UK predicated on the requirement that IMCR is maintained. That SHOULD be in the Terms of Reference of any WG discussing PPL/IR. Hence the disagreement many of us have with the position of boxe-x. Great that he is working tirelessly for an accessible PPL/IR. Not so great that he doesn't think it important to protect IMCR. If he keeps telling us it's not his problem, we'll keep telling him that it damn well ought to be. So long as he's representing AOPA and the GA community and not just his own personal view.

[PPRuNe Radar]

You are just taking the piss now. The IMCR is out of scope of the review. Lets leave it at that now.

It could be argued that the IR changes being discussed are out of the scope of this thread ;)

I suggest Bose-X comes up with a new thread title and I'll split all the pure IR and IR vs IMC stuff in to that thread.

[S-Works]

And while I am at it I will ensure that teenage girls have there legs wired shut, I will close the borders to prevent illegal imigrants and I will tackle alleged global warming.....

You really have no idea of how these things work do you? You don't work on one thing and bring something else to the table.

There are lots of things that should or could be in the terms of reference but are not. They are not for a reason which is if you try and tackle to much in one go you get nothing done. The IMCR is a UK only rating, the IR and the changes are Europe wide. The selfish Brits clinging onto the IMCR are tiny minority in the global scheme. It is too complex for a small working group to try and incorpate anything to do with the IMCR into changes to the IR.

It is not my remit to protect the IMCR, I really have nothing to do with it and have no way of making it my remit. I am representing AOPA and GA on a specific project which is to make the IR more accessible. I am not working on a project to protect the IMCR. I am a member of the GA fraternity who is an UNPAID (including paying my own expenses) VOLUNTEER prepared to fight for change. The IMCR is not my focus and if I am being selfish not even of concern to me.

If you are that concerned about the future of the IMCR then you volunteer and do something about it. I don't need to be told as a volunteer that I should be "damn well" doing something about the IMCR.

If this is an example of the people that I am and the other working groups members are trying to benefit then I am really starting to ask myself why I am bothering. There is nothing in this for me after all I already have the ticks in the box.

[FREDAcheck]

OK bose. I wish you every success in the IR WG, and accept your view that it's not possible to deal with IMCR, although I'm sorry to hear it. I have worked in similar sounding WGs but not in aviation. In such cases, where we've felt strongly about an issue that is not within the ToR then we've issued a side report, a liaison statement (or whatever works) to express concerns about related but out-of-scope issues. Otherwise, side issues get lost just because they are "out of scope".

PS - just for clarity, I think our disagreement is that I reckon IMCR is a related issue in view of your comments that an accessible PPL/IR may lead to the end of the IMCR. It's not quite as unrelated as illegal immigrants or "ensure that teenage girls have there legs wired shut". I wonder why you suggested that? No, don't tell me. Anyway, if you say it isn't, you're the guy there. Good luck with the work.

[S-Works]

My comments about the loss of the IMCR were clearly noted as an OPINION, one that could perhaps have galvanised someone into taking action on it in the same way I was galavanised into action after listening for years to the comments about how hard the IR was to achieve.
In other words I did something about something I believe in off my own back at my own expense. Others could try it..............

PS: The teenage girls comment - Have you seen how many teenage mums there are? An easy way to a life on benefits and a free council house.

[englishal]

Please don't let the ill considered posts and off target opinions deflect you from the valuable work you're doing
I wouldn't say that any post on here has been ill considered?

People feel strongly about the subject and post about it. We all agree that Bose is doing this as a volunteer and is unpaid, and for that should be thanked.

However, some of us feel that while this new IR is being discussed that ALL aspects of it should be discussed. Can you imagine the backlash if they introduced a new IR, but in the process destroyed the IMCr and made no allowance to "upgrade"? You'd see some mightly pissed off people out there. If people are going to be writing reports for the CAA then these reports should include all aspects of the new IR in my view.

I'm happy it is being talked about, but just because of a change in the ground exams, won't make me rush out to do it. If however they took into account my current instrument time, then I would do it.

Anyway, I would have volunteered my time, but as with several people on here I knew nothing about these proposed changes....;)

[S-Works]

At what point did you want to be made aware of the proposed changes exactly? I personal letter to you as an FAA licence holder telling you that there might be changes to the access of the IR that would better us all and ask for your opinion. Or forming a working group and asking representatives to join it. Those representatives could then use oh I don't know maybe public forums, magazines, face to face conatct etc to illicit opinions...........

Are you a member of AOPA in the UK or PPL/IR Al? Being a member of the US AOPA might get you a nice magazine but not representation in Europe. AOPA is a franchise and if you want European representation you have to join a European organisation. Both AOPA and PPL/IR do massive amounts of work on our behalf and are always looking for volunteers. Try ACTUALLY volunteering rather than just saying you would.

It is an ASSUMPTION on everyone's part that the IMCR will go. I expressed an opinion that it could happen as it is a British minority "sport" but I don't know the future and neither does the working group. So we concentrate on the issue at hand, making the IR more accessible. After that maybe the CAA will go OK, we have made the IR easier to access what can we do to encourage IMCR holders to move over to the IR. I know we could do a review of the IMCR and what is applicable and then set a cross over path.

Cunning eh!

[Fuji Abound]

If you are that concerned about the future of the IMCR then you volunteer and do something about it.

Anyway, I would have volunteered my time, but as with several people on here I knew nothing about these proposed changes....

What confuses me about this thread is some pretty solid questions have been asked but we seem to keep coming back to "if you had volunteered" and "it is not within my remit". We really have got to grips with that part of the response.

The fact of the matter is I suspect some of us would have volunteered - IF we knew about it.

I asked a few times - but can some one from AOPA or PPL IR please explain why there is absolutely nothing at all about such an important issue on their web site?

Can some one please explain how AOPA and PPL IR are consulting with their members on this issue?

(and for the avoidance of doubt I am not JUST talking about the IMCR element)

Finally, I have really got to grips with the WG considering the IMCR issue is not within their remit - I got to grips with that about a million posts ago BUT I still dont understand how they reached that conclusion given the remit set out on here by Bose-X.

That is the question I asked.

Unless I am being really stupid it says nothing about excluding the IMCR from your review, but it does say Determine what training and testing requirements would be acceptable to PPL holders. For me if PPL holders say they want credit for IMCR training that IS part of your remit when considering the proposed trainng requirments.

[S-Works]

But to keep you happy I have added to my list the reason that people do not want to do an IR is that the IMCR is such a powerful rating there is no need to do an IR.

I have taken onboard the comments about the desire for some sort of allowance for the IMCR. I will pass that on.

The reason it wasnot on our remit was that as the IR is European and the IMCR is British trying to sort out a path for the IMCR holder would muddy the waters and take away focus for the majority of people whom an IMCR does not exist. You have to take a look at this on a European wide basis rather than just a selfish British angle. The Europeans just look at this and wonder what the fuss is all about.

So assuming for arguments sake you get a 15hr credit for the IMCR what do you want in the rest of the training and testing standards?

AOPA and PPL/IR are talking with there members through forums like these! There is a thread on both of those forums started by me soliciting opinions. There is upcoming news in the magazines, but remember magazines are put to press months in advance. I am talking to AOPA and PPL/IR members directly through email and in person. I am an IR holder and very regular GA flyer which is why I am on the group. I am therefore supposed to be representative. I am a MEMBER of AOPA and PPL/IR not management therefore I should be proof that AOPA and PPL/IR are consulting with the MEMBERS. There are few IR holders in AOPA with such current experiance of the IR system so I was asked. Not a lot of point in asking a permit DAY/VFR flyer to represent on an IR working group is there?

How much more do you want in communication, a personal invite to tea to discuss the matter?

[soay]

Unless I am being really stupid it says nothing about excluding the IMCR from your review, but it does say Determine what training and testing requirements would be acceptable to PPL holders. For me if PPL holders say they want credit for IMCR training that IS part of your remit when considering the proposed training requirments.
Probably not if, reading between Bose's lines, the only way to get anything moving at a European level is to remain tightly focussed on the issue at hand. After they have successfully established a PPL/IR, negotiations can begin as to what current experience/ratings can count towards it. Trying to do both things simultaneously will probably just end in impasse, so I think he's taking the right approach - even if he's not always very diplomatic about it!

[S-Works]

Trying to do both things simultaneously will probably just end in impasse, so I think he's taking the right approach - even if he's not always very diplomatic about it!

Hallelujah!!!!

Sometimes a cudgel is better than diplomacy....... :p

[Fuji Abound]

How much more do you want in communication, a personal invite to tea to discuss the matter?

No come on that is not fair! :)

It was you who suggested people volunteer and yet now say you were asked. I am glad you were because I dont doubt your experience.

It was me who said I would like to see some consultation. Yes, I agree after this thread the private PPL IR forum has woken up - BUT, where was the consultation before? I would have thought PPL IR and AOPA would have WANTED some feedback from the members earlier?

With respect to your remit, I am still convinced you are finding something there which is in fact not there. That is not what the words say, however much some might like, or however much that might be more expedient.

Not a lot of point in asking a permit DAY/VFR flyer to represent on an IR working group is there?

Probably every good reason - after all he is going to be the person using the new system, not us old farts who got throught the old system :) . It needs to work for him far more than it does for us.

[S-Works]

Probably every good reason - after all he is going to be the person using the new system, not us old farts who got throught the old system . It needs to work for him far more than it does for us.

Apart from the fact that a Day/VFR flyer with no IR can hardly be qualified to comment on CHANGES to an exisiting system!! You have to understand the system to change it. With no prior knowledge what do you based the requirements on?

Feedback earlier than what? The first full meeting was 2 weeks ago, the group runs until June. You are being consulted through various forums. Or did you want to know about it before it had even ben considered!!!

The remit is a paper document used as the framework for the working group. We have had the first working group and agreed the terms of reference. You are reading more into the terms of reference than is needed I am afraid not me.

[michaelthewannabe]

I'm worried that IMC might not be available to other PPLs. Frankly, in the grand scheme of things, I'm quite sure that a non-airways non-Class A/B/C IMC rating is much more important to many more GA pilots than IR. Comments on this thread suggest some people are quite happy to sacrifice IMC to make IR easier. Note: easier. You can already get one if you really want.As a noobie thinking of doing instrument training after I get my PPL in the next year or so, here's my POV: if I can get an IR for 10-15 hours extra flying training (on top of an IMCR) and a couple of relevant exams, then that (i.e. the ability to tour Europe without needing VMC all the way!) seems much more attractive than an IMCR.

Not everyone in my position will agree with me, because we all want to do different things with our licenses. Which is why this suggestion of BEagle's...

Current IMC rating:- Current IMC rating privileges

'Procedural' module + relevant theoretical knowledge exams + IMC Rating = Current PPL/IR privileges.... seems like a plausible and sensible way forwards. Now I acknowledge that this is outside bose-x's scope, because the IMCR is UK-specific and bose-x's working group can only concern itself with Europe-wide matters.

It seems that the catastrophic loss of IMCR privileges might be a rather hypothetical risk: despite the CAA's occasionally unilateral attitude on things like Mode-S, it seems that their track record on grandfather rights is generally benign, and there's a clear range of plausible solutions. But bose-x's PPL IR working group is developing a benefit that will be very real for many UK GA pilots. Provided that everyone's concerns are borne in mind, I suggest that a hypothetical risk should not automatically block a real benefit - so the current uncertainty about IMCR conversion does not look like a sensible reason to block development of PPL IR proposals.

Of course, those who have a personal interest in retaining IMCR privileges might do well to take appropriate UK-specific action (i.e. lobby the CAA), to make sure the CAA's implementation of the PPL IR doesn't cause them to lose out.

mtw

[Fuji Abound]

Well IMHO usually the worst people to be asked to change an existing system are those involved with it - they usually have all sorts of vested interests, and good reasons for doing it that way, because that is the way it has always been done - and I am NOT including you Bose in that opinion.

Of course you need people with experience of the existing system and people who are qualified to comment on the system and these should in this case be in the vast majority, however I think you may also have something to learn from a private pilot considering an IR.

Any hows I said before I had made my contribution and I really have this time.

I would like to end by thanking Bose-X for all the time and effort he has and will spend on this matter on our behalf. Bose-X please please do not be disheartened, IMHO this is a really important issue and any concessions that can be achieved will not only be a great victory for common sense but also for safety. I believe it is right that people should challenge the way these things come about, should question the remit of those that develop new proposals of this sort and should seek to understand the whys and wheres. In the same way I think it is extremelly important that as many people are involved in the debate as possible so there can be dooubt everyone has had a fair opportunity to contribute. Those that do may well not like some of the views put forward and may consider some of those views to be irrelevant but it is at least worth listening :) . Thanks for listening.

[S-Works]

I think the CAA have a long history of making sure that individuals who hold privileges do not lose them. Look at the introduction of the BCPL to make sure the PPL Instructors could carry on. I don't recall a single case of a current holder of a rating losing it when things have changed.

So I would hazard a guess that those who hold a current IMCR are not going to lose any rights should the IMCR be withdrawn in the future. If we make an IR accessible then those pilots considering IMC flight in the future would be able to migrate towards an IR in the same as happens in the USA. Over time PPL's will consider an IR as a natural extension of rights again US style.
The regulators then need to find a way of allowing the IMCR holders a natural migration path.

Hopefully the knock on effect would be for the flying clubs to move towards IR training which will bring the price down against the overinflated prices charged by the commercial schools. End result is we all benefit.

Fuji, I have no vested interest in this, I already have an IR. I am trying to make it easier for those that follow me.

[DRJAD]

I quite agree, and am grateful as a PPL/IMCR holder for Bose-X's efforts.

I have an IMCR as stated, and use it frequently. However, I would be grateful for the opportunity to gain an IR in a way which is financially viable to a hirer like myself.

If an attainable PPL/IR comes along (and I mean attainable financially - I rather enjoy examinations, so that is no hardship at all) then I will be going for it. Perhaps I will have difficulty finding a reachable FTO at which to do it, but presumably that will change in time.

[englishal]

AOPA and PPL/IR are consulting with the MEMBERS.
I'm a member of PPL/IR

Actually I am a member of US AOPA because I consider my FAA certificate as my primary ticket - I hold FAA and JAR licences and medicals. I am a member of PPL/IR because I feel they do a worthy cause and I live over 'ere.

Anyway, nuff said. Thanks for your efforts Bose, I'll buy you a pint someday. You never know, if it looks like it is financially and time-wise achievable then it is even worth considering getting our aeroplane "airways-worthy". ;)

[Three Yellows]

Bose-X - I don't think I've given you grief about this?

I've got an IMC, but as I've said before, I want to reliably be able to fly abroad in poor weather - legally. I've personally got no objection to the 55 hours flying training. My problem is all that coursework and bloody exams... I just don't have the time.

Bose, keep up the good work and please please please make it as easy as possible for me to use the ILS to get to my holiday home.

[FullyFlapped]

Bose-x,

Let's assume that when submitted this summer, your WG's report is deemed the finest thing since sliced bread, and all recommendations are accepted completely.

How long before I could hope to actually start training under the new regime ?

For what it's worth, I'm an IMC holder, but I need an IR, and would rather not go the FAA route because I don't want to take my plane to the N register. If this is all pukka, then well done you and whoever else is involved.

FF :ok:

[S-Works]

I am under the impression that the academic side will be available pretty much straight away. The next meeting is on Tuesday and I will raise it as an agenda item to find out the exact timescales.

[FullyFlapped]

Thank you.

FF :ok:

[Cessna 210 Heavy]

Bose,

Can I just say that I really appreciate yours and everyone else’s efforts in spending your time with the CAA trying to assist other pilots in the UK.

I have just got my hands on a late Piper Saratoga and I am 14hrs through my IMC but throughout the IMC I have thought that it maybe not what I am after, when you look at the kit and performance of the ‘toga. I am looking in taking the ‘toga abroad a few times a year and felt that VFR was just too risky, but obviously the IMC is not recognised outside the UK, so I had almost resided with doing the IR, but would a 40hr a year pilot get the full benefit form a full IR? (I think not)

I have been involved in many working groups, aerospace related, and it is a thankless task. I have had several moments when people have caused me to rethink my activity, just because of the flak that I was getting from people who didn’t agree with my actions. The only reason I stayed committed was a fact that I had pointed out to me, most people will agree and be grateful of the time and efforts that you are taking, others, with luck the minority, will have a few small issues. So with the majority agreeing with you, but saying nothing it’s a truly thankless task. :}

This is exactly what I have been looking for, but timing being what it is I wont stop my IMC now but continue and wait for the announcement,

Once again, thanks

[Three Yellows]

Bose-x,

Wasn't there a meeting yesterday?? What's the news, please?

[ThePirateKing]

Sorry to have followed up to a message nearly a month old, but I'm only just coming to this thread.
My personal view is that the IMCR will disappear under EASA licensing and there will not be a euro wide IMCR. This is the primary reason I became involved in the IRWG so that if the IMCR does go we ALL have access to a method of regaining those privileges on a European and world wide basis as well as a whole host of enhanced privileges.
This will only happen if the IR is open to those who the CAA deem to have colour defective vision. As a "CVD" pilot, I have access to the IMC rating. I do not have access to an IR, and don't anticipate that the discussed changes will affect this.
Does anyone have any views on this?
(Apologies if this has been covered - I haven't finished reading the whole thread yet).

[FullyFlapped]

Bose-X : I am under the impression that the academic side will be available pretty much straight away. The next meeting is on Tuesday and I will raise it as an agenda item to find out the exact timescales.

Bose-X,

Any news from the meeting last week ?

FF :ok:

[IO540]

It would be a massive mistake to believe that any IR that gives meaningful European IFR privileges could ever replace the IMC Rating.

You would need a complete airspace overhaul to go with it.

Which is not to say we won't get some easier JAA/EASA IR one day.

[Three Yellows]

Does anyone know what's happened to Bose-X since the meeting? We haven't heard back from him. Did he escape from Gatwick in one piece? Any news gratefully received.:{

[Fuji Abound]

Well I hope Bose will be along shortly to report back.

Thankfully PPLIR have finally woken up, and there is some information here:

http://www.pplir.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283

as well as in their members only section - I still think they are worth joining.

AOPA UK are their usual hopeless selves - there is still no information on their web site which doesnt appear to have changed since I last gave it a bashing.

Come on AOPA please get your act together and realise the first some will see of you is your web site - it is out of date, poorly designed and generally completely useless, other than that it is OK :) .

[FullyFlapped]

Thread back to the top just so I can ask Bose-X again, has anything yet been decided on the academic timescales as you indicated ?

Thanks,

FF :ok:

[derekf]

Steve has been working hard on the IR WG. There are AOPA and PPL/IR members on it - Steve is an AOPA representative who also happens to be a member of PPL/IR

See the following threads for more information:

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=30843
http://www.joinaopa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=174
http://www.pplir.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=281
http://www.pplir.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283

I'm sure Steve will be along with more information soon, but he is responding to a lot of people posting on the flyer and aopa forums.

Derek...

[S-Works]

Not to mention the fact that Rob saw fit to bar me from PPRUNE for being a bit free with my opinions for his tastes.

So rather than run the risk of incurring the wrath again perhaps a visit to the flyer or AOPA forums.

[Three Yellows]

I really can't be bovvered to wade through another 75,000 pages of you telling people that "this is nothing to do with the IMC" on the other threads which DF mentions.

Perhaps you could just help me out, cut to the chase and PM me with the bottom line.

Thanks

3Y

[S-Works]

Three Yellows, I cant be bothered to trawl back through 75,000 pages to find your question. So what was it you wanted to know?

[Three Yellows]

When am I going to be able to start on an IR course which is relevant and achievable for a private flyer that has a full time job?

[S-Works]

When am I going to be able to start on an IR course which is relevant and achievable for a private flyer that has a full time job?

I don't know. The review is still ongoing. Finally meeting of the IRWG is the 24th May. After that we write the report, submit it to the Head of PLD and make it available for peer review.

After that it is down to the CAA to agree the proposals and then put what gets agreed into force.

The CAA are very committed to this process and want to see it happen quickly.

[stickandrudderman]

I've only just discovered this thread, but from what I can see, someone who's got off his arse and actually started taking some positive action to improve the current IMC/IR divide deserves a huge amount of support and thanks.
Some of the "debates" on here are more like marital arguements, where couples start arguing about who's turn it is to change the nappy, but end up arguing about the way they are arguing.

It does occur to me however that there are probably an awful lot of licence holders who do not visit any of these forums, and whose views are unknown.

Would it be so difficult for the CAA to have a central emailing list to keep ALL licence holders informed, rather than relying on us to go seeking information?
Or am I missing something?

Thanks again Bose.:D

[IO540]

The CAA are very committed to this process and want to see it happen quickly.

What are the timescales for the subsequent JAA ratification, and is it likely to happen before EASA takes over FCL in 2008?

Does the CAA have the authority to chop down the IR ground school and still deliver a JAA IR?

[S-Works]

The CAA want this to happen before EASA. They have the power to change a considerable number of things and they are prepared to do so.

[IO540]

I am not sure you have answered either of my questions, bose-x.

I don't doubt the CAA want to pre-empt EASA's controversial "recreational PPL" proposal. I just don't understand the mechanics of the likely process.

[S-Works]

I did answer your question. The CAA want to implement this before they hand over to EASA. The CAA do have the power to make most of the changes we have proposed.

Exact time-scales for implementation will come from the final report after the last WG meeting this month.

[Three Yellows]

Thanks... please keep us informed as people like me are desperate to hear good news about an achievable IR.

[ppharv]

Hi,

Does somebody mind giving me the latest on this?

Is it still just IMC or the full IR - and the IMC doesn't count towards anything once its retired?

[IO540]

The current situation is that the IMCR is good till 2012. There may be an extension after that - the CAA has made it clear that they will apply to EASA for an extension (some info here (http://www.ukimc.org/news.html)).

The JAA IR is still where it was, no change. A slight reduction to the ground school of (I believe) about 20% was worked out in 2005 and the CAA has stated that it should be activated in late 2009.

There is no published "EASA IR" plan at present but IMHO it will be just the full JAA IR as is it at the time.

Currently there is no credit on the IR from the IMCR training. The only IR which gives you credit for previous instrument training is the FAA IR. But the instrument skills are priceless, so I would definitely do the IMCR now if in doubt.

[S-Works]

The JAA IR is still where it was, no change. A slight reduction to the ground school of (I believe) about 20% was worked out in 2005 and the CAA has stated that it should be activated in late 2009.

20% is hardly slight, in fact just under one quarter. Slight would be one or two percent.

There is no credit from the IMCR because the training is sub ICAO training and the CAA and EASA have concerns over the consistency of the quality of training.

There is no published "EASA IR" plan at present but IMHO it will be just the full JAA IR as is it at the time.

Your humble opinion accounts for nothing, you are not involved in the IR process and in fact EASA do have plans for it and are forming the working groups at the moment. You really are king of disseminating opinion as fact....


But back to the subject, I would recommend anyone do the IMCR now as it hones pilot skills and improves safety. Even if the hours do not credit anywhere else you will have improved as a pilot by doing the rating.

It never ceases to amaze me hoe people who involve themselves in flying are always looking to cut corners and get 'credit'. Think of the IMCR as a stepping stone if your desire is to have an Instrument rating and while the hours will not count, so what? They will be valuable learning time.

[OVC002]

Bose, your increasingly strident replies are invariably entertaining, but:


20% is hardly slight, in fact just under one quarter. Slight would be one or two percent.

doesn't seem to be quite in line with (from another place):


The changes we are talking about are massive changes in terms of exams, and self study, one of the biggest hurdles in getting a JAA IR. The change effectively puts the JAA theory into the same realms as the FAA theory.

IMHO it is not in the same realm as the FAA theory.


There is no credit from the IMCR because the training is sub ICAO training and the CAA and EASA have concerns over the consistency of the quality of training.

Surely, after passing the IMCR skills test, it is not unreasonable to expect some credit with respect to a plain vanilla PPL? After all, irrespective of the standard of instruction, a certain level of competence has been demonstrated. To an examiner. Perhaps the CAA and EASA have their doubts about the consistency of their duly appointed examiners.



Your humble opinion accounts for nothing ....

IMHO, IO540's HO is as valid as your, Not Very HO, and IMHO you should not present that O as fact.



You really are king of disseminating opinion as fact...

Which bit of IO540's
but IMHO it will be just the full JAA IR as is it at the time.

did you miss?

Clue: look for the "IMHO"

[englishal]

20% is hardly slight, in fact just under one quarter. Slight would be one or two percent
Now who is exagerating ;)

There is no credit from the IMCR because the training is sub ICAO training and the CAA and EASA have concerns over the consistency of the quality of training.
Thats boll*x though. Do IR candidates NOT take a flight test these days....excuses more like.

Blimey was this thread originally well over a year ago :eek:

[S-Works]

Quote:
20% is hardly slight, in fact just under one quarter. Slight would be one or two percent
Now who is exagerating

Dunno mate but 20% is 1/5th that is not 'slight'.

[IO540]

Blimey was this thread originally well over a year agoYeah, time goes by fast and very little happens! However, I think there were several threads of very similar name - this one has a particular spelling mistake in the title :)

I think this (http://www.pplir.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=381) is the latest news on the slightly reduced IR theory, due late 2009.

Due to EASA timescales, any "EASA IR" is well further out than 2009, IMHO. 2012 seems an likely date because that is the "convergence" year for a lot of the current proposals.

However, the whole matter is mostly political, and any look at the politics surrounding the IR, together with the much smaller likelihood of a major pan-European airspace structure revision, makes it highly unlikely that any "full privilege EASA IR" will be substantially different to the existing one.

The next few years are going to carry a lot of uncertainty.

If I wanted the IR now and was willing to buy a plane (a virtual pre-requisite for airways flight) I would do the FAA IR and then optionally (or if necessary later) follow the ICAO to JAA IR conversion options which are currently very reasonable (well, reasonable in terms of flying; you still have to sit ALL the writtens).

I got the IR over 2 years ago and have had an enormous value out of it. Foreign trips in particular are a piece of cake, relatively to the stunts I was occassionally pulling when limited to "official VFR". I could have just sat on my bum and waited for the new Euro IR which was absolutely "just around the corner" even back then.

Even if EASA does somehow manage to kill off the N-reg scene in 2012 (which is possible but not without very substantial grandfather options for all the bizjet crews etc) that is FOUR more years of great flying for me.

And one day we will all be dead. Nothing in this game is assured.

[Fuji Abound]

It never ceases to amaze me hoe people who involve themselves in flying are always looking to cut corners and get 'credit'. Think of the IMCR as a stepping stone if your desire is to have an Instrument rating and while the hours will not count, so what? They will be valuable learning time.

Bose, I am intrigued why you think that not a single hour of the whole time spent on the IMC rating is relevant to the IR rating?

Does the six pack work in some subetly different way when the driver facing it has an IR?

Given the privileges the IMC rating imparts on the holder how do you thnk the CAA might fair in the event they were to admit after an accident that they considered not only the training but the examination procedure was suspect?

[S-Works]

Fuji, I am not rising to this one with you.

[Fuji Abound]

Bose - you dont mean to tell me for once I have got the better of you?

:)

[S-Works]

Take it as you wish.

[Fuji Abound]

No, I am going to take it as you wish.

:)

[englishal]

Dunno mate but 20% is 1/5th that is not 'slight'.
Ok then, exagerated ever so slightly slightly slightly slightly slightly ;)

[Suzy the Floozy]

in fact EASA do have plans for it and are forming the working groups at the moment.


Bose, tell me please how can I get to be on these working groups? How do you get to hear about them all the time, but nobody else seems to. You are always banging on on here and the other place about how hard you work on these groups - I'd like to lighten that load for you by helping out too and to make sure that the opinions of the more humble aviator are heard as to be honest, I don't really like the way you behave on here and it worries me that at these alleged Working Groups you are misrepresenting me. IMHO.

Also, I feel (IMHO) that you owe IO540 an apology for your outburst. In my experience he (I know his real identity by the way, as do you from this place and PPL IR) is always here offering useful hints and tips to less experienced pilots without the need to ram his qualifications/ 1000's of hours flown per week down our throats.

Rant over.

Suuzzee

[KeyPilot]

Chill out, brothers (and sisters)

[S-Works]

Suuuzzeeeee

IO is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself.

Suggest you meet me before you slag off my ability to represent anyone.

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".

Sometimes it's fun just to meddle with the gullible....... ;)

[Fuji Abound]

Suuuzzeeeee

To be fair to Bose although he loves banging on about his golded plated qualifications (and why shouldnt he, he has worked hard to achieve them, unlike some of us) I think he has the interests of GA generally at heart whether you are from farm strip flying or an airways oxygen head.

Of course there is a danger that because your passion is airways flying your outlook is biased, but this is often unintentional. I suspect were that the case their are others on these committees that add more than a modicum of balance.

I have been lucky to have a go at a range of different elements of GA from aeros and taildraggers to mutli engine and instrument flying. My crusade for the IMC rating was inspired by my background because I realised what a valuable skill the rating provided the abolition of which would have resulted in the death knell of instrument flying in the UK.

I know nothing of your background but you should be encouraged to get involved with these committees. Bose would normally encourage you to do so, but I think he is a bit out of sorts at the moment :).

There is a gang of us that have every intention of revisiting our IMC campaign now that the dust has settled on round 1. Its good fun, gets emotions running high, but ultimately a satisfying quest. I would love to have you on the team - if you are interested please send me an email.

In short, Bose is a good enough egg - I have never flown with him, but am looking forward to doing so. Please dont read too much into my comments in reply to the odd one of his, I suspect IO and I are old sparring partners of Bose.

:) :)

[youngskywalker]

And often it's fun to wind each other up on here!:ok:

[OVC002]

Sometimes it's fun just to meddle with the gullible.......

Bose-x, you have a great deal of credibility on this forum. It ill behoves you to use it irresponsibly.

Real people have made real decisions (important to them, if not to you), based upon information promulgated here. A significant amount of that information has been posted by your goodself.

Are you saying that your categorical statements to the effect that a more accessible IR was imminent was meddling "with the gullible....... "?

Whatever, given the outcome, it is apparent that "meddling with the gullible" has been the strategy of the "Authority", in order to deal with those who are so naive as to presuppose that the "Authority" deals in good faith.

Through your own experience, you will, by now, have worked out that it does not.

[S-Works]

Sorry mate, but I am completely failing to understand your post.

If it is an attack on me, Goody. If it is chiding me. Goody.

If it is a way of you venting your spleen at the common enemy and using me as a conduit. Goody.

I just did not want to get into another endless debate over the IMCR. It is pointless and there are far dumber questions that deserve my attention.

The work on the IR is ongoing as simple as that. You are not going to see instant results as that is not the way the wheels of politics turn no matter how much mud slinging goes on here.

As far joining various working groups the routes to this are publicly known and anyone who feels they can do a better job than me is welcome to take up the mantle. Just bear in mind those without the wit or the stamina for the task are viewed very grimly and do our cause more harm than good. It takes resilient thick skinned people to volunteer for these jobs and people who are going to turn up to the meetings wherever they may be regardless of whether the dog died or the kids are sick.

If you can make that commitment Suuzy et al then GA needs you......

As far as IO and Fuji are concerned they are capable of giving as good as they get and I would not have it any other way.




Quote:
Originally Posted by bose-x
Sometimes it's fun just to meddle with the gullible.......
Bose-x, you have a great deal of credibility on this forum. It ill behoves you to use it irresponsibly.

Real people have made real decisions (important to them, if not to you), based upon information promulgated here. A significant amount of that information has been posted by your goodself.

Are you saying that your categorical statements to the effect that a more accessible IR was imminent was meddling "with the gullible....... "?

Whatever, given the outcome, it is apparent that "meddling with the gullible" has been the strategy of the "Authority", in order to deal with those who are so naive as to presuppose that the "Authority" deals in good faith.

Through your own experience, you will, by now, have worked out that it does not.

[Fuji Abound]

As far as IO and Fuji are concerned they are capable of giving as good as they get and I would not have it any other way.

Thanks mate.

:ok:

[IO540]

I have already advised the relevant parties by email that I will no longer be responding to any personal attacks, so "giving as good as I get" is not really applicable to me.

[S-Works]

Awwwwwwww, hang on I will whizz around the cot and pick up your toys.