No more IMC rating

[Fitter2]

Or so it seems

http://tinyurl.com/2k38qa

[maxdrypower]

Bugger!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gcolyer]

I can't see this happening without alternatatives being put in place, like the "IR lite"/PPL friendly IR.

Maybe Bose-X has more informed info than me or some website.

[Slopey]

What equivalents to the IMCR are there in other European states? Are there any, or is it IR or nothing in Euroland?

[IO540]

If this happens it would be very bad news.

There is no sub-IR instrument privilege anywhere else in Europe. Australia has one, I believe.

As the EASA process currently appears, there will not be any "reduced IR". Well, not for years and years.

So, the options will be VFR, or the full EASA IR and that is likely to be much the same as the current JAA IR.

But all this is years away anyway (c. 2010) so anything could still happen.

I like the FTN commentary

And according to those present at the recent JAA FCL 001 group meeting in Cologne, the same negative reaction by professional pilot unions would appear to have occurred again, albeit this time by unions outside of the UK.

Pilots' unions :yuk:

[S-Works]

I did make it clear quite some time ago that this was going to happen and I was battered to death over how it would never happen and given a thousand reasons why I was wrong.......

However the jury is still out and both PPLIR and AOPA are fighting very hard to save the rating, this has included a working group with the CAA to attempt to update the standards of training to make them more palatable.

I am not going to despair just yet.

[Slopey]

I don't suppose that anyone with a reasonably decent crystal ball would be able to fore tell what the likely effect on the IMCR holder would be in the 2 years time introduction scenario.

I ask because I was planning to doing the IMCR next year possibly Feb/March time. The full IR is definately not an option - I can't rationalise the time/exams/expense.

When this eventually happens, will it happen with a dead stop or will there be a couple of years leeway from the introduction to the CAA scrapping it? (I'm thinking along the lines of mode S - need it after Q2 2008 but you have X years to install one).

Spending the time and money to do the IMCR is going to be a little galling if it's voided 2 years later. I might as well not bother and just resign myself to the fact that I'll never manage to get anywhere most of the year (hell, the way things are going at ABZ we'll be back to a grass strip and waterlogged most of the year anyway - so I won't be able to used an instrument approach to get home anyway!).


Either way, this is a loose-loose for GA in the UK isn't it.

How many collisions/accidents have been caused by an IMCR holder in the last 10 years?

And does anyone actually have a tangible benefit of the UK being part of Europe? I'm struggling to think of one. :uhoh:

[IO540]

I don't suppose that anyone with a reasonably decent crystal ball would be able to fore tell what the likely effect on the IMCR holder would be in the 2 years time introduction scenario

None.

Nothing will happen for several more years than that, at least.

[S-Works]

I think you are likely to be wrong on that front IO. I think that the timescales we have been given are a lot shorter than you think.

But it has been a long day and I don't want to get into a debate as to why I am wrong again........

[IO540]

Bose X

There is indeed little point about arguing (was I arguing??) about something which may happen at the end of a long process.

We are at the beginning of this process. Let's not lose sight of this FACT.

To make an even more general comment, the way to lose a huge amount of opportunity in one's life, not to mention a huge amount of money, is to allow every piece of potential bad news to alter one's actions.

In GA, there is such a constant stream of bad news (the pilot forums live on bad news, and the printed media do too because good news doesn't make such good copy) that if one was to actually act on it, one would chuck it all in and take up fishing.

Take the absolute worst case scenario: a pilot who has got the IMCR and uses it for real (like I did before I got the IR, and like I believe you used to). If the IMCR is abolished, what does he actually lose?

- he can still fly in cloud (illegal but who can tell?)
- he can still fly above a solid overcast (may be illegal depending on the detail but who can prove there wasn't a hole)
- he can fly in cloud or poor vis safely
- the 3000m min VFR vis on a JAA PPL is IMC for most purposes, but he can fly in it safely while the rest of Engoland's VFR GA is firmly grounded
- he cannot fly a published instrument approach (short of declaring an emergency)
- he can still fly any unpublished approach (like loads of pilots do right now)

So he has actually lost very little.

[Fright Level]

What will happen to the automatic IMCR you get with an ATPL? Will there be a new type of concession? I'd used that "privilege" a couple of times until I was able to renew my SPA IR.

[Shunter]

Minimum Descent Heights (MDHs) allowed for instrument approaches as well as minimum horizontal visibility distances are much more restricted than they are for IR qualified pilots.

Always nice to read a factually correct article.

[OpenCirrus619]

What will happen to the automatic IMCR you get with an ATPL?

You wouldn't be talking about a UK CAA CPL/ATPL would you? If so then this is a "bonus" no-one has got for a while - since they have been issuing JAA CPL/ATPLs.

OC619

[S-Works]

What will happen to the automatic IMCR you get with an ATPL? Will there be a new type of concession? I'd used that "privilege" a couple of times until I was able to renew my SPA IR.

Erm, well for a start you don't get an IMC with a JAA ATPL for a start and for those old timers with a CAA ATPL they will also lose the IMCR that they got as a freebie. The rating is going full stop not limited to the type of licence it is attached to.

IO. This is near the end of a long process not something that just popped up. I warned about this more than a year ago and you were one of the people that debunked what I said and told us it would never happen.

We continue to fight the IMC corner as you will see from my posting on PPLIR. The battle is not over yet, but don't bury your head!!

[KeyPilot]

This really is bad news. They say the only thing the average person ever gained from the space race, was the non-stick frying pan. What did we ever get from Europe?

[dublinpilot]

Anyone know where I could find out who sits on this committee? I'd like to make my views known to the Irish Representative (if there is one). I'd at least like to let him/her know that this is something that Irish pilots would like to see adopted across the EU, rather than stamped out.

dp

[DFC]

If you want to try, call Kevin Swords at the IAA.

I can tell you now that you are wasting your time because the first thing he will tell you is that you can not use it is an EI registered aircraft and consequently it is of no use to Irish pilots. Irish pilots can already fly VFR out of sight of the surface with a basic PPL and don't have the 10Km special VFR limitation because they are UK only licence restrictions. So all you want is to be able to fly IFR.......which requires an IR according to ICAO.

The fact that the FAA does not also is quite a big factor since the long long long term aim is to integrate the two systems.

The opinion of professional pilots has not changed since the introduction of the rating and is one of the reasons for Class A at lower levels in the UK.............to keep these pilot not trained for extended IMC, not able to complete a series of holds and not familiar with SIDS, STARS and unable to fly them in Class A which loads the system.

The SE IR is quite cheap for a 50 odd hour course in a well equipped aircraft.

If you want to fly IFR then you will put the work in.

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

IO. This is near the end of a long process not something that just popped up. I warned about this more than a year ago and you were one of the people that debunked what I said and told us it would never happen.

You are wrong wrong wrong Bose X. You write this "the end of the world is near" stuff all over the internet. You should know better, from your AOPA and PPL/IR contacts. Why do you keep writing this stuff?

Everybody is entitled to their opinion as to the likely future but they should not write it as fact. It isn't fact it is opinion. EASA's takeover of FCL is scheduled for 2010. That is 3 years (at best, if there is NO resistance to anything whatsoever).

This continual negativity is clearly causing distress to many pilots, especially new pilots who are looking at spending £2000 or so on the IMCR and wonder if it will be clobbered as soon as they get it.

That is as polite as I am going to write this.

But even if you were right - what is Joe Average Pilot supposed to do????

Is he supposed to jump off Beachy Head?
Is he supposed to chuck in flying and take up bird watching?

(let's be frank, there are so few birds in GA that it takes a helluva incentive to hang on in there, among all the anoraks scratching their grey beards while they debate the latest landing fee increases at some remote grass strip)

Let me make a constructive suggestion.

(Hey, what a great new idea for a pilot forum - a constructive suggestion. Whatever next? It's never been done before, maybe I should apply for a patent on the concept.)

What should people do to progress their flying?

p.s. ignore the "professional pilot" drivel from DFC. Actually I am suprised he is still typing; the velcro on his epaulettes must be so worn now that they must be forever falling onto his keyboard

[Shunter]

If you want to fly IFR then you will put the work in

Quite happy to do so, just so long as it doesn't involve learning the finer points of jet engines and airliner technicalities.

This has all been covered, but as a GA pilot with no wish to fly for a living I feel that failure to replace the IMC rating (which I consider a highly valuable addition to my license) with anything accessible to private pilots to be asking for seriously large amounts of trouble.

There are good IMC pilots and bad IMC pilots, just as their are good IRs and bad IRs. Sure, the standard required to get there in the first place is so much higher that the lamers get more easily weeded out in IR-land, but there are many IMC holders who can quite happily fly SIDs, STARs and holds as well as any IR.

[Fuji Abound]

Have any of you been in L2K when the weather closes in a bit on a previously nice summers day.

I have.

20 pilots all standing fidgeting in front of the resteraunt.

I was the only one with an instrument rating. A whole lot of them had a lapsed IMCR - couldnt be bothered to renew it last time around they said.

Ten minutes later, and after finishing off the coffee a quick look around reveals half of them have gone. One after another climbs away into the overcast or scuds out over the sea.

I can assure you it is a true story.

Releaving pilots who have or have had an IMCR will be a disaster. More than a few will carry on using it as if nothing has changed.

Some will scud run and yet other new pilots who are no longer able to do an IMCR but who fly regularly will lose their lives.

If and when it happens and if you are part of AOPA, PPLIR, a career pilot or anything to do with EASA you are culpable - know it and believe it, because you will be responsible for one of the greatest debacles in aviation safety in this country.

That is all I have to say.

[dublinpilot]

DFC,

I'm well aware that a UK IMC rating can't be used in an EI Reg aircraft. But as I understand this, EASA is not deciding whether to keep the UK IMC rating or not, in the UK. They are decideing to adopt it across Europe, or wipe it out totally. I would love to see it retained, and adopted across Europe. Then I could fly IFR in my EI reg, with my EASA IMC rating ;)

Kevin, is the obvious default choice. But I would much prefer to address my comments directly to the person sitting at the table. Having a friend at the table would no doubt help the CAA's position.

dp

[Fuji Abound]

Actually one other thing .. .. ..

GA pilots are a community - through out Europe I might add

.. .. we pay for EASA, we pay for AOPA, we pay the regulator and those that are meant to represent us, but they dont.

Where is the petition from AOPA to every pilot in Europe asking whether they support these changes? Where is the petition from AOPA standing up for the rights to keep our life time licenses? Where is the consultation? Where is the regulatory impact assessment. Where are the pilots prepared to stand up?

Bose (aka the Princess) warned us, months ago, and yet (and I did rejoin AOPA) I have received no petitions from them - in fact I have had nothing asking for by views.

Petitions, the voice of the people change policy.

These organisations are utterly useless.

I have to say it would not happen in America - I am a memebr of AOPA US as well and I can tell you how hard they campaign for their members.

IO540 - well said, I am glad some one else has a bit of passion about what is taking place.

[S-Works]

I just wish IO would take his passion and do something useful with it rather than arguing with those who are actually involved and dealing with the issues directly.

I know first hand what is being said by the rule makers as I am involved in fighting it, he is just surmising. Just because he tuoes in bold and exerts his opinion does not make him well informed.

However I do agree that the loss of the IMC will be one of the greatest disasters to BRITISH aviation and I am determined to fight to the last for it.

I am also pragmatic enough to express realistic views on the subject. Just as I did last year when I said it was under threat and you all told me I was wrong.....

So feel free to tell me I am wrong now. Someone will be able to say I told you so won't they........

As for AOPA, they do ilicit opinions from the membership, it is done through the AOPA MWG and EVERY AOPA member is free to contact any member of the MWG or MArtin directly and tell him/them what they think.

[Fuji Abound]

However I do agree that the loss of the IMC will be one of the greatest disasters to BRITISH aviation and I am determined to fight to the last for it.

I have the greatest of respect for you for that comment.


As for AOPA, they do ilicit opinions from the membership, it is done through the AOPA MWG and EVERY AOPA member is free to contact any member of the MWG or MArtin directly and tell him/them what they think.

I suspect you know as well as I that people are on the whole apathetic - unTIL it is too late. That is why organisations like AOPA exist - their job is to remind us why we should not be apathetic and encourage - nay provoke comment and support. Expecting members to contact them is not good enough.

IN FACT I THINK EVERYONE ON PPRUNE SHOULD START A PETITION - WHAT ABOUT IT - THERE MUST BE A FAIR FEW HERE THAT WOULD SIGN?

[englishal]

IN FACT I THINK EVERYONE ON PPRUNE SHOULD START A PETITION
Actually you know what, Pprune and Flyer probably have a bigger audience and more clout than any of the "GA" organisations. And rumour has it that the CAA browse these pages ;)

Join The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association UK (AOPA UK) today along with over 400,000 members in 50 countries, it is the largest association for pilots in the world
Seems I am already affiliated with AOPA UK then ;)

[Slopey]

Granted I'm not up on the intended changes to the structure in 2010 or whenever, but why do they need to scrap the rating?

It's a UK only rating, so presumably it's not going to impact on any other member states at all - and possibly pilots in those states might welcome such a rating.

The question should surely be "does anyone want a UK style IMCR in their country - if so, fine, if not, fine" rather than "the UK have something we don't - BAN IT!"

I don't see the rationale behind scrapping something useful which no other country currently implements - what's wrong with us continuing to do it?

[David Roberts]

The time to 'protest' is when the EASA draft Implementing Rules for EU licences are published for formal public consultation, probably towards the end of Q1/08. This is a requirement of the EU process of law making. And having worked inside EASA as an 'industry' expert (representing Europe Air Sports) for the last three years I know that the response process culminating in a Comment Response Document, is taken seriously. Responses have to be rational and constructive to be 'registered' and have impact. Emotional stuff is ignored. Just as petitions are by and large.
Being on EASA MDM.032 group I am trying to get the UK views over but I am not on the FCL group where the professional pilots unions seem to have some sway.
DGR

[BEagle]

I too have been having 'robust discussions' with the so-called UK reps who are just bringing back Uriah Heap style hand-wringing tales of woe from their cosy Cologne sessions.....

If you want to keep:

The UK IMCR

Lifetime PPLs (old style) for those who still have them

Lifetime NPPLs

BCPLs and R/BCPLs for those who still have them

Embedded IMC privileges for (old stle) CAA CPLs and ATPLs

Then you must speak up and protest!

I also happen to think that the MDM032 is a complete waste of time now, after a promising begining.

[Whirlybird]

BEagle,

What is the best way in which to "speak up and protest"?

[S-Works]

Beagle is absolutely right although a bit unfair on the hand wringing. More like a balance of pragmatism. EASA is run by bureaucrats who take guidance from the airlines, GA is the unwanted cousin.

The MDM 032 has been a waste of time and the new draft of the FCL001 that I reviewing is average.

As Beagle points out we need to rise up in numbers and make noise and a lot off it. My personal view is that PPLIR and AOPA are the vehicles for this, a mass joining of both organisations will secure funding to ensure that we all get a voice with the power of two organisations that are working in unison towards common goals on the instrument issue.

[ThePirateKing]

I wonder if part of the problem here is one of perception.

As somebody said earlier, has any AOPA member (I'm not one, BTW) been canvassed for their views?

I've just been to the AOPA UK web site to see about joining and my immediate opinions are:

1) What do I get for my £71 per year + £15 joining fee? I mean really? How many of the listed benefits are actually useful? The free legal stuff might be if you get yourself in to hot water, I guess.
2) How relevant is this organisation? I notice their front page has a "poll" asking people if they think a London LARS service is a good idea. Hello?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If this stuff goes ahead, I'm taking Earsea to the European Court of Human Rights for discrimitation against me as a person suffering from colour blindness. It'd probably be cheaper to get an IR... if I were allowed to.

Ah well... the wheel keeps on turning, I suppose.

TPK:(

[172driver]

Bose, on a related matter - any news re the promised IR 'light" (or whatever they call it) ?

[Justiciar]

The fact that the FAA does not also is quite a big factor since the long long long term aim is to integrate the two systems.



Which two systems are we talking about? Are we looking at the demise of a national IMCR in favour of some sort of PPLIR (light)? The impression I get from reading this is that the airlines are listened to and the others are not. What the airlines want they get, which presumably is no amateur pilots flying IFR anywhere near them! So which direction is this going? Are we going to get a general reduction in knowledge and skills requirements across the board for the IR so that it more closely resembles the FAA/IR? The need then for a separate IMCR would disappear as the rating would be much more in reach of the average PPL, as it is in the US.

[172driver]

Are we going to get a general reduction in knowledge and skills requirements across the board for the IR so that it more closely resembles the FAA/IR?

I let IO540 reply to this one :p

[bigbloke]

Well

How about drafting a short petition (looks like a single paragraph is the going rate).

Once it looks about right set up a petition on the Downing St E-Petitions site

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/

Then we all sign it and get everybody we know to do likewise.

Then we all Lobby MP's with snail mail.

Generally raise the profile of the issue and create merry hell until somebody pays attention.

I suspect that the various representative bodies are doing everything they can within their consultative frameworks (straight jackets) which will have been defined by the teams of beaurcrats that have been tasked with pushing the measures through.

Some grass roots activity should if nothing else support the GA lobbying community with some definite indications that their communities are ready to take a more active part than just paying their subscriptions and awaiting further developments.

BB

Probably about to be barbequeued in PP fashion.

[englishal]

Lets get one thing straight....

There is no skills reduction between the FAA IR and the JAA IR. Sure there are differences (both ways), but anyone who is mislead into thinking the FAA IR is an *easy* option should really try and do it. The FAA IR is Nothing like an IMCr, it is a full, ICAO IR - the equivalent of JAR.

The reason an FAA IR is more achievable is:

a) You don't have to wade through 6 months of irrelevant ground school
b) You can train with freelance instructors if you want
c) You can train at your own pace - not just the 1 hour per day some UK FTOs like to do
d) You don't have to have a speceal hearing test from some throw back from before the second world war
e) The requirements to keep it are less onerous - it is easy to maintain at minima cost. Anyone who actually uses it gets to keep it.

Oh and if you do train in the USA, with £ to $ at the moment, it costs very little ($150 per hour inc instructor in a brand new DA40 for example).

In the UK as soon as you mention IR instruction in the UK, the instructor costs jump to £75 per hour - they still get their £15 per hour I suppose......

AOPA UK is not run anything like the US AOPA - if it were I'd join. Their website is rubbish, it has very little useful info on there, other than listing the board of directors (an extensive list I might add), and the cost is high for what you get...Oh but you do get a funky optional Aircrew card to wave at people to show how good you are......:eek:

PPLIR on the other hand is a completely different kettle of fish and I am a member....

[IO540]

What the airlines want they get, which presumably is no amateur pilots flying IFR anywhere near them

That view, apparently held by many committee members, shows their narrow knowledge of how flying works.

You can fly IFR/airways, from the UK to say Poland, Italy, etc i.e. a ~ 800nm flight, at say FL100-FL200, and there is very little chance you will get visual with another aircraft. Not counting contrails at FL350 of course, or some 747 so far away the type can barely be made out (10-20nm?). The chances of seeing another GA aircraft are close to nil. I've done IFR trips as far as Crete and not seen anything whatsoever enroute, once having left the UK Class G free-for-all airspace.

There are 3 reasons for this: piston/turboprop GA flies in the great void below FL250 in which jets don't operate except in terminal phases; you cannot get a route out of the Eurocontrol computer which takes you close or through a busy terminal area (e.g. overhead Frankfurt at 4000ft....); ATC separate everybody with most generous distances anyway.

I would happily take anybody for such a flight, provided they buy the beer at the far end, and give them a tenner for every plane they can identify the type of, and £50 for every GA plane they spot at all :)

The "crowded airspace" is a myth perpetuated by the same old crowd who have never flown GA from A to B for real. Airline pilots are particularly bad at knowing anything about this because most of them are sick of IFR and if they do fly GA they fly basic rag and tube / aero types.

Are we going to get a general reduction in knowledge and skills requirements across the board for the IR so that it more closely resembles the FAA/IR?

Not in the foreseable future. EASA is taking over JAR/FCL whole, with minimal changes. They have stated that for political reasons they cannot play with stuff like the IR requirements until EASA FCL is in place and then they can do another review.

It's even possible that private IFR (i.e. a JAA/EASA PPL/IR) in CAS is in danger in the long term. Should this happen (unlikely, IMHO) then the only future-proof thing for the private pilot is a JAA/EASA CPL/IR. The JAA/EASA ATPL is the ultimate ticket but will never be achievable because of the MCC requirement.

Obviously, the above para is meaningful only if the FAA/N-reg option and the achievable FAA IR are killed off for European based pilots, and a discussion of how exactly that might be achieved (if it happens at all) is something else... I cannot see a workable enforcement method for it, within the bounds of ICAO and international politics.

"FAA" is a bit of a dirty word in EASA at present. Not because of John Wayne cowboy movies, Macdonalds, or the usual left wing European intellectuals disliking U.S. foreign policy :) but because of the FAA playing hardball on the big stuff e.g. airline route negotiations. The private GA stuff is unfortunately wrapped up in all the big stuff. We are just one little bit of the big picture.

[Justiciar]

anyone who is mislead into thinking the FAA IR is an *easy* option should really try and do it


Apologies if I gave that impression. One very experienced pilot I know described the FAA/IR flight test the most difficult bit of flying he had ever done. The oral alone made him sweat. Seems to me that the principle differences of note are as Englishal says, and go to make the FAA/IR achievable for the many who cannot take four weeks at a time off to do the training. I believe that the flying requirement is less at 40 hours and that previous instrument time counts. That is not to say that you will be ready for the test in 40 hours. Coming back to my point, will we see the EASA version tending toward the FAA requirements for training and theoretical knowledge? If so then the demise of the IMCR may not be the catastrophy we think - if it happens.


I would happily take anybody for such a flight, provided they buy the beer at the far end, and give them a tenner for every plane they can identify the type of, and £50 for every GA plane they spot at all


Will happily take you up on that :ok:

[hobbit1983]

BEagle,

What is the best way in which to "speak up and protest"?

Seconded - is there a contact we can write/email to? Or would a petition be the best way forward?

[dublinpilot]

I would happily take anybody for such a flight, provided they buy the beer at the far end, and give them a tenner for every plane they can identify the type of, and £50 for every GA plane they spot at all


How much beer can you drink??? :}

[soay]

AOPA UK is not run anything like the US AOPA - if it were I'd join. Their website is rubbish, it has very little useful info on there, other than listing the board of directors
I've been wondering what exactly is the point of AOPA - the acronym, rather than the organisation. I'm a member of both AOPA US and AOPA UK, and the differences are more striking than the similarities, so why do they share that acronym? AOPA US is clearly better funded, so can afford to have a much better web site, and employ professional lobbyists, but I don't understand why they can't share their expertise, or even their web site software.

As battle lines are being drawn against EASA, the obvious thing to do is pool the resources of the other European organisations that use the AOPA acronym. However, if it's that obvious, there must be a fundamental reason why it's not happening. Could someone please explain this to me?

[Fuji Abound]

As battle lines are being drawn against EASA, the obvious thing to do is pool the resources of the other European organisations that use the AOPA acronym. However, if it's that obvious, there must be a fundamental reason why it's not happening. Could someone please explain this to me?

I wish I could.

It is not that I have "bashed" AOPA UK in the past for the sake of it, but because this is vital.

AOPA US tell us how many members they have quite openly on their web site. Why dont AOPA UK?

AOPA US have a complete tab telling us about the important regulatory issues at any point in time and what they are doing about it. Just try and find any of these issues mentioned on AOPA UKs web site.

The trouble with AOPA is good people like Bose tell us they are trying BUT why dont AOPA tell us - people need to know someone is fighting their corner and then they will sign up and support them. As the old fashion evangalists new only to well unless you deliver the message to the people they sure aint going to give up cannibalism.

So to come full cirlce I wish I knew the answer.

I dont believe it can be as simple as funding.

A decent web site being your shop front these days is hardly costly - I could do something a great deal better sitting on my throne than AOPA UK manage.

I mentioned it previously on here some months ago and they tinkered with it a bit.

That picture on the lead page now just scares me to death every time I look at it!

Come on chaps you must do better.

Bose what is going on at AOPA towers?

[S-Works]

I quite agree the website is not good enough, it has been a constant source of discussion within the MWG and will be raised again at tomorrows meeting.

The problem with a lot of the issues is that they are contained within the various working groups surrounded by non disclosure. A lot of the stuff that appears for discussion in these forums is often not quite in the public domain and therefore offered as conjecture. A lot of the time people see it for the heads up that it represents but a lot of the time they just shoot it down and then when it goes public as fact later are outraged that they knew nothing about it......

At lot of other things are more dynamic and difficult to keep updated.

It also comes down to funding, AOPA do not have a full time web team, they have a guy based in Australia (AFAIK) that does the website amongst many clients. AOPA do not want to divert essential funding from fighting the GA cause to having a spangly website.

I personally would like to see that nasty picture from the front page replaced with something more neutral and a hot list of current issues. Something I will push again at the meeting.

AOPA does not have the membership of its licensee in the US for the obvious reason that we are a much smaller country, with a smaller pilot base and the vast majority of that base wants to complain endlessly about the poor job being done but not actually support the cause....

As for the comments about the directors of the company, these are unpaid positions and the people are vastly experienced in aviation giving freely of there time to represent GA. Just like the MWG does.

AOPA is not perfect and trust me I have had more than one disagreement about how things are handled and how internal communication often does not communicate. But it is improving.

[Fuji Abound]

It also comes down to funding, AOPA do not have a full time web team, they have a guy based in Australia (AFAIK) that does the website amongst many clients. AOPA do not want to divert essential funding from fighting the GA cause to having a spangly website.

Firstly that is a real chicken and egg. If you dont promote yourself dont be surprised if you dont get the funding.

Secondly, it doesnt take a web team to produce something better. Moreover it doesnt need to be flashy - I think most pilots are a bit more mature than that - just solid content that makes it clear we arent a bunch of amateurs that should be treated as such. Unfortunately image is all important.

Thank you for raising it.

[BEagle]

What is going on at 'AOPA Towers'?

Quite a lot, actually. But some activity is 'delicate' in nature at this stage.

In any case, there are meetings of both the AOPA Instructor Committee and the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators' Education and Training Committees in a week or so which will focus on these issues.

At the latter, an EASA person will be present. He should expect very forthright and robust debate.....

I have very little confidence in the 'negotiating power' of our 'UK representatives' in these matters.

How can you voice your outrage?

1. Join AOPA and lobby the CEO. Or rather, add your voice to his existing concern!
2. Join the PFA and do the same.
3. E-mail the CAA and do the same.
4. E-mail your MP and do the same.
5. E-mail the DfT and do the same

It probably isn't the done thing on PPRuNe to reveal private e-mail addresses - but if the UK EASA-apologist doesn't wake his ideas up pretty soon, I shall have no qualms in telling you to whom to write!

[Fuji Abound]

Bigbloke

BTW

I THINK WE SHOULD - roll out a petition that is.

It is a start, it cant do any harm (as far as I can see), and it starts to demonstrate we are interested and more imporantly we are united!

:) :) :) :)

Lets come up with some background and some wording between us?

I would be happy to run up a web site also linked to the petition.

We should get coverage in all the GA mags and some flyers to as many of the flying clubs as can be covered woudl be a start.

Pilots in Europe know nothing about the IMCR - when they find out they are amazed that what many of them do illegally all the time they could do legally!!

They love it and we need to target them.

[soay]

It also comes down to funding, AOPA do not have a full time web team, they have a guy based in Australia (AFAIK) that does the website amongst many clients. AOPA do not want to divert essential funding from fighting the GA cause to having a spangly website.
Still begs the question as to why they don't get a copy of the AOPA US web site software, and supply their own content.
Pilots in Europe know nothing about the IMCR - when they find out they are amazed that what many of them do illegally all the time they could do legally!!
They love it and we need to target them.
If all the European AOPAs could be involved, there's a ready made conduit for that information.

[tmmorris]

How about:

We the undersigned petition the PM to...

Save the Instrument Meteorological Conditions rating which improves the safety of UK private pilots by allowing them to train and qualify to fly in poor weather outside controlled airspace, without the cost of obtaining an Instrument Rating as required for commercial operations.

Tim

[S-Works]

soay, with all due respect do you have any idea how a website is produced? There is no such thing as a 'software package' to do this.

At the entry level you are looking at a home developed front page or iWeb type page non interactive and requiring nothing but a bit of space. As you move up a league the platform requirements become more intense and the support requirements behind it. AOPA US are well funded and have significant investment in technology, these includes the heavyweight hardware and development skills to keep it all running. AOPA UK do not have the type of funding to be able to operate the US style infrastructure to run such a site and neither do they have the size of user base to provide the scale of content that comes from having 600,000 members compared to around 4,000.

AOPA Uk have a budget of a few thousand AOPA US have a budget of hundreds of thousands for the web. If AOPA UK had a super spangly site the next discussion we would have would be around how much they were spending on that instead of representation where it's needed.

Either way they can't win!! So have to work inside the constraints that are out there. We do take input from members about content and the MWG constantly providing feedback on what we want to see. We really can't start changing things to suit people who are not even members on the promise they might join if the website was better. Lets face it, representation is about what gets done not about how spangly the website is. AOPA also have the GA magazine.

[ThePirateKing]

Point taken.

But can't they at least update the front page to have something more relevant than a poll on people's options about a London LARS service? Perhaps... something IMC related?

TPK:ok:

[IO540]

My reading of AOPA UK is this:

They are run by a couple of out of touch characters who go about things with the finnesse of a bull in a china shop and who as a result (I am very reliably advised by insiders) are nowadays held in very poor regard by the regulatory bodies with whom they have to regularly interact.

They do have an impossible problem representing UK GA as a whole, which is a movement with its fair share of back stabbers. Anybody who is an aircraft owner and is based at a proper airfield (not some remote farm strip) will have had an introduction to airfield politics, and that is just a microcosm of the larger picture where you have different organisations each doing their own thing and screw everybody else. To give just one little example, UK's PFA pilots would happily trash all IFR GA privileges just to get a more favourable regulatory scene for themselves for flying VFR. However I don't think this is particularly British or anything like that; it is a symptom of most of UK GA scraping out the bottom of the barrel financially and this puts the whole scene under pressure, in which everybody looks after "number one". US AOPA has many times more members and many of them are well funded people who use GA for utility. In Europe, the utility value of GA is relatively poor. So.... I guess UK AOPA concentrate on the issues which are sure to unite most people, e.g. airfield closures.

Historically, and I am not sure to what degree this is true today, UK AOPA has been dominated by corporate members; basically flying schools. These have their own interests: licenses/ratings which are of limited use for revitalising GA but generate training revenue (the NPPL); the abolition of the FAA option especially if it includes UK based training, etc.

Anybody who looks after the interests of pilots (rather than flying schools) will be supporting the FAA option, or any move towards that in Europe. It seems to me that UK AOPA has moved in this direction only recently and only reluctantly.

UK AOPA has massively valuable London premises, which don't give it any benefit other than appreciation in value but as with any property this is not realised until you sell up. They don't need to be based there at all.

A website is a minor issue. With motivation, a nice website can be knocked up in days.

[soay]

soay, with all due respect do you have any idea how a website is produced? There is no such thing as a 'software package' to do this.
As it happens, yes I do. If you look at aopa.org, you'll see that they have implemented a fairly straightforward xhtml publishing system. At a guess, the back end is probably fed from an SQL database which is maintained by simple authoring tools. Their framework looks perfectly suitable for use by AOPA UK, and a dedicated server costing £40/month should be more than adequate for the current low level of traffic. If they talk nicely to their US counterparts, they may even find the Americans are willing to host the site for them.
A website is a minor issue.
Not when it's the public face of an organisation that's supposed to represent its members.

[Fuji Abound]

They are run by a couple of out of touch characters who go about things with the finnesse of a bull in a china shop and who as a result (I am very reliably advised by insiders) are nowadays held in very poor regard by the regulatory bodies with whom they have to regularly interact.

Unfortunately I really dont know much about the workings of AOPA UK. Who really does run it? How is it really funded and what funding do they have. I will dig out a copy of their FS when I have a moment. Is this the general perception?


A website is a minor issue. With motivation, a nice website can be knocked up in days.

I dont think you mean to give the impression that having a good web site is a minor issue - rather producing one is. I hope so because as I said earlier I believe this is one of their most important shop fronts - it needs to be really good and tell people what they are about.

I am involved both with large companies that administer their own web sites and web site designers as well as tinkering myself. With such a small user base I can assure you it is not a difficult or an expensive job to come up with something a great deal better - and clearly at the moment not much bandwidth is required.

Sorry to shout but in all of this we must not be side tracked from the issue in hand. Personally, and I can only judge this on the history, I am not convinced this can be entirely left in the hands of AOPA, or any of the other organisations. We need to do something about it ourselves. Any advance on the petition so far?

[DaveW]

UK AOPA has massively valuable London premises, which don't give it any benefit other than appreciation in value but as with any property this is not realised until you sell up. They don't need to be based there at all.

IO, I made that point myself in one of the recurring "Why AOPA?" threads a few months ago - this one on the AOPA website itself (http://www.joinaopa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0):

Premises in Cambridge Street. Why? It is clearly not a cheap site, so a significant proportion of the AOPA UK income will inevitably be going on its upkeep. I could almost understand a central London location when the CAA were at Kingsway, but now?

This was the response:

The upkeep of the premises is dwarfed by the appreciation of the asset.


Which didn't really answer the point!

[soay]

I am not convinced this can be entirely left in the hands of AOPA, or any of the other organisations. We need to do something about it ourselves. Any advance on the petition so far?
Judging by what David Roberts said earlier in this thread, a petition would be a waste of time:
The time to 'protest' is when the EASA draft Implementing Rules for EU licences are published for formal public consultation, probably towards the end of Q1/08. This is a requirement of the EU process of law making. And having worked inside EASA as an 'industry' expert (representing Europe Air Sports) for the last three years I know that the response process culminating in a Comment Response Document, is taken seriously. Responses have to be rational and constructive to be 'registered' and have impact. Emotional stuff is ignored. Just as petitions are by and large.

[S-Works]

I give up.....:ugh:

The reason GA is in such a mess is that it tears itself apart from the inside out, spending more time bringing down those that are doing something than actually doing anything else.

IO, your last post has to be the worst piece of ill informed and probably even libelous rubbish I have ever seen you write.

I have spent significant time around the regulator and can assure you that the AOPA staff are taken seriously. They work very hard to represent and should be given support.

If you think you can do it better than please step up. But equally I could point out that many could and have posted unfavorable comments about your own interaction with authority. To be fair and about me as well....

[dublinpilot]

Aopa UK doesn't represent me, nor do they seek to, given that I'm based outside their remit. So I'm neither supporting nor critising them. I'll leave that to those in the UK.

But I must comment on this.
The upkeep of the premises is dwarfed by the appreciation of the asset.

I understand their determination to hang onto an appreciating asset, and I think that's a good decision. However they might consider, renting out their asset, and using the proceeds to rent or even purchase, somewhere else more suitable to their needs. That way they reduce cash out flow, and hold onto their appreciating asset.

dp

[IO540]

As any homeowner with a financial brain must realise, there is no meaning to property appreciation unless one is planning to sell downmarket.

All the time one is planning to stay put, the property value has no meaning (unless one is borrowing money against it, which I doubt applies to UK AOPA).

All the time one is planning to keep moving up, one will benefit from a falling property market.

Glad to hear things have improved, bose x. Not sure what you refer to re my "interaction with authority"... I can't remember the last time I had any "interaction with authority".

[DFC]

Before trying some "Save the IMCR" campaign, it would be useful to look at the IMCR from the perspective of people in other European Authorities and other pilot groups such as pilot unions.

All the above have safety high on their agenda.

Now from the outside, the IMC Rating.......

10 or 15 Hours Training often by pilots who don't homd more than an IMC themselves.

Training almost totally completed at a single aerodrome with very limited enroute training.

The CAA who are the authority who issue the rating segregate IMCR holders from the commercial enroute traffic system and from the more heavily used airspace areas in the UK.

Three of the privileges of the IMCR - able to fly out of sight of the surface on a VFR flight, teh removal of the 3Km lower visibility limit when VMC is defined as a visibility less than 3Km eg 1500m in class G below 3000ft and the removal of the 10Km restriction on SVFR flights are not applied under ICAO or elsewhere in JAR-FCL. So the only issue if the ability to fly IFR in IMC and fly instrument approaches at aerodromes and depart IFR etc etc where under ICAO an IR is required.

The UK CAA reminds IMCR holders that it is not designed for prolonged flight in IMC and in many CAA documents it is a "get you out of trouble (without having to tell the CAA you got into trouble) rating".

Do I as a commercial pilot want to be in the hold and be delayed by a pilot who can not be put in the hold above me but get's put ahead of everyone because they can not hold as it is in class A, B or C airspace?

Do I as a commercial pilot want to be in a hold with an IMCR pilot in an adjacent hold who has not been tested on their ability to complete a hold safely?

Do you as a member of the public want to trust your nice Grandmother's life to a pilot with only 15 hours training of which only a percentage was in IMC or even simulated IMC and not had their proficiency checked for over 2 years when the European basic standard is 50 odd hours with annual proficiency check?

Do you want pilots who do not know their limits regarding minima for approaches?

Finally.......do you want the class F and G airspace of your country occupied by flights claiming to be VFR but for a large part of the time are IFR?

The Le Touquet bad weather situation described earlier does not go unnoticed.

From the above you can see that even sections of the UK aviation establishment put out information that makes the IMCR undesirable for many countries.

Thus with the option for a single European Licence to either give everyone the rating or no-one the rating.....the majority view is prbably that there should be no such rating and UK pilots need to remember that they are a small part of the total European pilot pool and as such will need much support from outside the UK to succeed

That is Democracy for you.

Regards,

DFC

PS Removing the IMCR can not infringe your rights since it was not in accordance with international standards or European ones in the first place.

The only case would be for you paying a lot of money for a new rating without being informed of the probable limited validity it will have and that would not be a human rights issue either.

[Fuji Abound]

The reason GA is in such a mess is that it tears itself apart from the inside out, spending more time bringing down those that are doing something than actually doing anything else.


STEADY ON CHAPS

Bose is right.

AOPA and how they conduct themselves may be an issue, but the issue so far as this thread is concerned is the erosion of our rights in consequence of what is or will take place in Europe. We need to protect these rights.

[Slopey]

So the only issue if the ability to fly IFR in IMC and fly instrument approaches at aerodromes and depart IFR etc etc where under ICAO an IR is required.

Well, that's exactly what I'd use it for. To get in and out of Aberdeen in less than VFR conditions.

So in my case, it's not a case of 'you'd only loose this' and unless a IR Lite was forthcoming, as I have no desire to go commercial, I'd have to do all the meaningless content in the IR exam syllabus - which would mean I would'nt do it (certainly not when they need to be done at Gatwick over 2 days at £60 quid a pop :{).

And this chestnut seems to come up every time:

10 or 15 Hours Training often by pilots who don't homd more than an IMC themselves.

Training almost totally completed at a single aerodrome with very limited enroute training.

But these people have been examined by an examiner and have met the required standard haven't they? If you're going to argue the training is substandard, then these pilots shouldn't be passing the exams and should recieve further training before they can pass.

So what's wrong here? Is the exam itself not testing IMCR candidates to the proficiency needed?


In a country with wx as poor most of the year as the UK, where the IMCR has been in place and operating without interference to commercial traffic (or at least there's hardly ever been any threads about such interference on here - with the exception of busting zones, but that's probably in VMC anyway!), why should there not be the continuance of a very useful rating which keeps pilots away from class A but gives them a chance of getting in and out of larger airports without the need for them to be trained in airline pilot theory?

Perhaps the only way out of this is to get the FAA IR - not easier to attain by any standards, but 1 exam instead of the many, and world wide IR privaladges (or so I believe from other threads) in an N reg.

(But of course the CAA want to ban N reg's from the UK also don't they).

EASA might as well issue a free copy of FlightSim with every new PPL, because if this continues, it's about as close as you're going to get! :hmm:

[englishal]

And what DFC fails to take into account is that the "low time" IMCr holders don't typically do trans-UK flights in IFR conditions until they have built up their experience. The sort of people who do are the ones who probably had several hundred hours "actual" under their belt despite (previously) "only" having an IMCr.

[Shunter]

Exactly right englishal. After I gained my IMCR I spent somewhere in the region of 20 hours gradually building up my skills before I started doing long XC trips, IMC at night, over water, rough terrain etc... I practice holds, SIDs and IAP's at my home base to keep myself current and flew a perfect approach recently in 2000/BKN030. I am quite capable of flying in IMC with a high level of accuracy and find it quite sad that DFC thinks IMCR holders cannot be capable instrument pilots. Maybe some aren't as good as others, but please don't tar us all with the same brush.

[JDCP]

If you already have an IMCr...will it be 'withdrawn / cancelled' by the authorities, or will pre-existing holders be allowed to keep them ?

Thanks.

JDCP.

[DaveW]

Did you read the link provided by Fitter2 at the very first post in this thread? :confused:

The first two paragraphs of that answer your question:

It would appear from a recent JAA FCL 001 core group meeting held at EASA’s headquarters in Cologne, that with the exception of the UK, Europe doesn’t want the Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) rating.

So what? UK pilots may ask. It doesn’t bother us; we’ll just carry on exercising our IMC privileges in the UK and leave the rest of Europe to do their own thing. Actually, no. They won’t. When EASA takes over Flight Crew Licensing in the near future, all National flying licences and ratings will cease, either to be replaced with Europe-wide equivalents, or removed entirely. And without the endorsement of other Member States within the JAA community a licence or rating cannot be adopted by EASA.

[rustle]

WTF are you writing in absurd sized fonts?

Your opinion doesn't mean more just because it is writ so large. :ugh:

[DFC]

I am not in any way critising the pilots who hold the rating, teach the rating or exammine the rating. What everyone in Europe outside the UK PPL group see is a standard that is set far too low and a rating that relies more on people being sensible and self training post rating issue than a realistic standard of knowledge and skill that befits a pilot entering IMC IFR flight and who (Mystic Meg aside) can not tell when they will exit if at all before making an approach to land.

All this "I don't want to be a commercial pilot I don't need an IR" is UK establishment propoganda and those that believe it are bigger fools than those that spread the stuff in the first place.

The Instrument Rating is the rating that according to ICAO entitles you to fly IMC IFR. That is it. Please refer to the ICAO learning objectives before complaining about the JAR learning objectives.

The biggest part of the aviation world says - you want to fly IFR then you need an IR........even the FAA have this simple ICAO compliant requirement.

Again I say - All this "I don't want to be a commercial pilot I don't need an IR" is utter tosh. The standard that CPL pilots are tested to in order to gain the IR is the PPL level of instrument flying.

Regards,

DFC

[Fuji Abound]

Who Rustled your keyboard then?

Anyway, back to a serious subject for some that for once doesnt warrant the usual PPRuNe fun and games. Please can we not get sidetracked in this silly way.

I apologised if you bothered to read the posts for using larger characters in the first place but I thought this was really an issue worthy of catching peoples attention. If you dont like my style that is tough.

We shouldnt get too involved in DFCs points because whilst as always they have merit, the world of GA will change over the next ten if not twenty years.

For one thing many airprots throughout Europe will have GA style airports. The percentage of aircraft that are adequately fitted out to fly in IMC will increase. Also, if you believe global warming is takingh place conditions that warrant flying at least part of the time on instruments will become more common at the same time as the forecasts contain a greater element of variability.

It is a fallacy that most GA pilots either want or are capable of operating in upper airspace. This is neither the place for aircraft that are not pressurised or lacking in performance. The lower airways throughout Europe are a grave yard - hardly anyone is their and certainly none of the commercial traffic wants to use this airspace.

It is also a fallacy that GA pilots want to be held in the holding stacks (twit these hardly ever occur these days in conditions when GA aircraft are likely to be flying anyway). GA pilots dont want to as a whole operate out of the larger regional airports if for no other reason than the charges are so steep and the convenience is so poor. (In Frankfurt recently I waited half a lifetime for fuel and the other half dealing with security).

No, GA pilots have a very different agenda.

The IMCR, and for that matter the old CAA route to an IR, were introduced by very wise men against great opposition at the time. In both cases they stood the test of time. Their record as significant contributors to safety and their effectiveness in meeting the goals setout I dont beleive can be disputed.

To change something that works well and has a long proven record is very dangerous, a principle again enshrined in Governments recognising the need for regulatory impact assessments.

With anything of this nature the earlier people make their views known the better. We need to get our views noticed.

For all of these reasons these are matters crucial to the future of GA and very worth while fighting for.

[Fuji Abound]

Again I say - All this "I don't want to be a commercial pilot I don't need an IR" is utter tosh. The standard that CPL pilots are tested to in order to gain the IR is the PPL level of instrument flying.

As I just said we must not get side tracted.

We should only be concerned with the evidence.

As I just also said the IMCR and improver route to the IR were introduced by men far wiser than us for very good reason.

If the evidence can be produced that the rating is unsafe or does not achieve what it sets out then let it be produced. I tell you it does not exist.

It is not an IR and it was never intended to be. It is what it is. It has existed in parallel with the IR and it has stood the test of time.

[DFC]

There is also - and this will be a big factor;

If EASA bring in an IMC Rating and thus not ICAO compliant, how will countries react to having to file differences with ICAO that they do not agree with themselves?

Microlights, Permit to fly aircraft etc etc are to a large extent similar across Europe and more in need of fine tuning than anything seriously dramatic.
However, asking a fully ICAO compliant country to file a difference and force it to allow something that it has never agreed with is going to be very hard to acheive.

The whole argument with the French regarding upper age limits under JAR-FCL went on because the French were more restrictive than ICAO.

While we may have EASA, it is ICAO that is still setting the benchmarks and going sub-ICAO is something that while the UK are happy to do on a regular basis and then critise certain African countries for having airlines that are not keeping ICAO standards, other European countries are not as inclined to do.

More restrictive - yes, less restrictive - very hard to get.

Regards,

DFC

[rustle]

People also need to understand that the world extends outside the UK, and that now the UK have joined with the rest of Europe in EASA, not everything is going to remain the way it was "in the good old days".

Last time bose-x or I wrote this stuff (a few months ago) here or on FLYER we were laughed out of town.

Is that an "Oops" I can hear? ;):p

This isn't about being sidetracked: It's about getting real, waking up, and smelling the coffee (rather than English Tea :8)

[Fuji Abound]

This isn't about being sidetracked: It's about getting real, waking up, and smelling the coffee (rather than English Tea )

No, it is about recognising that we are world leaders.

It is about recognising that we have a mechanism that every pilot I have spoken to in Europe is envious of.

It is about recognising that in the UK GA pilots fly in poor weather safely and legally whereas in Europe they either dont fly at all, kill themselves trying or survive breaking the law.

Every country in Europe recognises the FAA IR - it is not ICAO compliant. Change as change might they cant fail to recognise the FAA IR.

What you fail to realise is GA pilots want the IMCR or they want an accessible IR. I reckon there is hardly a single pilot who would not agree with that simple statement. The reason they have not got it is they have no satisfactory mechanism for influencing the regulator who has become dominated by the commercial operators.

Moreover it goes far beyond the IMCR.

The commercial operators dont want GA in the sky at all. In Europe they are seen as a nuisance. They have been difficult over the mode S issue, they have been difficult over the fee charging structure, they are even a thorn in the side over duty on Avtur. We are unpopular - face it.

When EASA takes over Flight Crew Licensing in the near future, all National flying licences and ratings will cease, either to be replaced with Europe-wide equivalents, or removed entirely.

Just done your night rating. You can forget that as well unless you have an IR (in which case you didnt need to do it anyway). Oh yes, and you have just paid the CAA for your "national" ratings - one valid for life the other 25 months. Piad the instructor a great deal of money as well have you. They took the fee did they? I wonder if they, or EASA, happened to mention that what you thought you had paid for is not what you might get. They are on very dangerous ground if only we realised it or are they going to stop accepting IMCR students 24 months before all this comes to pass and cancel night training. There are going to be a lot of very quite airports around the country at this time of year when it gets dark.

An EASA dominated by commercial operators will see their rights eroded beyond recognition and their costs rise out of all proportion.

In America it is very different. Guess why!

I will have another cup of tea please - thank you.

Is that an "Oops" I can hear?

I know, I know but as I said earlier please try and resist the clever remarks.
If you are happy to see the demise of these priviliges I am equally happy to respect your opinion - I dont agree with it, but I wouldnt boast about how clever I had been either.

[FREDAcheck]

BEagle said:
3. E-mail the CAA and do the same.
4. E-mail your MP and do the same.
5. E-mail the DfT and do the same

Can anyone advise when to email please? I mean, no point emailing an MP until the issue is presented as an order for Parliament to nod through (or whatever they do). I'd appreciate advice on the process, and when we might add our voices, albeit to little likely effect. Perhaps Bose or others involved can warn us when the issue reaches various people we might lobby? Even if we are just p*ssing into the wind.

[S-Works]

Then do something about it rather than spouting off here!!!

If you put as much energy into convincing the regulator that you are right as you do convincing us we are wrong then everything would be fine.

I have tried to tell you the situation and where we stand. I have tried for more than a year (check the archives) to say that this was coming.

As much as you hate and I hate the idea we are pretty much part of Europe and the gap is ever closing. Our government have ALREADY signed away our rights. It is only now that it has filtered down to a level where you are feeling it.

As I keep saying, do something about it.

[Fuji Abound]

As I keep saying, do something about it.

Bose you have everyones attention I think.

The stage is yours.

At least tell us what you think should be done.

I cant beleive telling the few people on here that arent already members of AOPA UK that they should join is the answer?

[S-Works]

U really want my opinion?

I am afraid you are not going to like what I have to say......

[Fuji Abound]

Go on - do tell - better to know if we are all wasting our time.

I always fancied going back to tiddly winks :}.

[DFC]

How can you voice your outrage?

1. Join AOPA and lobby the CEO. Or rather, add your voice to his existing concern!
2. Join the PFA and do the same.
3. E-mail the CAA and do the same.
4. E-mail your MP and do the same.
5. E-mail the DfT and do the same

So if you have a problem with the CAA do you;

1. Join the local WI
2. E-mail the local CFI
3. E-mail your County Councilor
4. Email the local Council Transport Department

?????

This is a European issue and the most important person to contact is your MEP.........that is what they are for and they are the ones operating at European level on your behalf.......unlike the WI.

-------

No, it is about recognising that we are world leaders.

Is that world leaders in moaning or Xenophobia? It is not much else as far as I can see.

World leaders set the standard not operate far below it.

Regards,

DFC

[obanite]

I'm new to PPruNe and have just found this. I haven't done an IMC rating but wanted to in the future. I couldn't afford to do an IR - in time or in money. That's why the IMC's so attrative to a lot of pilots. They don't intend to use it every day - or at least that's what I know from the pilots I know who have it. It's to give you confidence and get you out of trouble should you be unfortunate enough to get caught out.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that we need to do something.

Bose-X?

[Fuji Abound]

World leaders set the standard not operate far below it.

You must please stop confusing different things.

We have set the standard for an IMCR applicable to the need of some private pilots. It does exactly what they want and it does it safely. It has stood the test of time. It was introduced by people of great stature at a time when a much more straight forward IR existed. It is not an IR, no one is petending it is - that is why it is not called an IR and comes with restrictions.

.. .. .. and while we are about it lets get on to the night rating. I guess on the same basis that goes? Has that messaged been broadcast? If I am right that should really stir the pot!

.. .. .. and while we are also about it, on a practical note, if an instructor takes your money followed by the CAA for a 25 month IMCR or a life time night rating but EASA remove both within their validity where does that fit? Does that mean we will see the end of the IMCR 25 months before the changes are enacted?

[DFC]

They don't intend to use it every day - or at least that's what I know from the pilots I know who have it. It's to give you confidence and get you out of trouble should you be unfortunate enough to get caught out.


Do you need a rating in your licence to do that or do you need some more training and regular brush-ups?

How much of this keep the IMC is fueled by the RTFs who charge you £150 per hour for a beat up old C172 non-FM immune, non-mode S PPL VFR training aircraft and then charge you £180 for the same aircraft with the same instructor in the same airspace doing simulated IMC flying.........the only extra being a $5 pair of foggles that do not block the view completely anyway?

Have a look outside the UK and you can get an JAA IR for OK more than the IMC costs but far less than the cheapest UK based FTO.

Not meeting the ICAO hearing requirements, not meeting the ICAO sight requirements - watch out for people with their own agenda's.

All of the things I have posted on this topic may seem negative but they are only 5% of what is going to have to be rebuffed in order to convince a country that has never allowed a UK IMC holder to exercise the IFR privileges in their airspace to swallow the idea.

Regards,

DFC

[S-Works]

Well my personal view is that it is probably already a done deal. A year ago when I tried to warn you would have been better to mobilize resistance.

I don't want to see it go, as I have said before I think it would be a catastrophe for flight safety.

But as much as it pisses me off to agree with DFC, trying to get MEP support along with the fighting power of the AOPA and PPLIR crowds might make the EASA bods sit up and listen enough.

As has been pointed out, the UK is a small part of Europe and the europeans don't understand the IMC or how it fits into our unique environment.

The problem with politicians is they steal your wallet while kissing your baby and it's only when you get to the pub to buy a beer you realise it's gone......

[Fuji Abound]

.. .. .. and the night rating?

Or am I talking c$$p?

[rustle]

If you are happy to see the demise of these priviliges I am equally happy to respect your opinion - I dont agree with it, but I wouldnt boast about how clever I had been either.

I've never once said getting rid of the IMC rating is a good idea, nor have I implied it and I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that I had. Thanks.

I am, however, "clever" enough to realise that national [only] ratings are likely to be gone in a fairly short time frame.

[DFC]

.. .. .. and the night rating?
Or am I talking c$$p?

The Night Qualification is not a national rating.

The UK requires all night flight to be IFR or SVFR. JAR-FCL permits non-IR holders to fly IFR in such a case subject to airspace limitations i.e. outside controlled airspace..........which is exactly what the UK situation is.

The debate there is if the UK is right to have such a limitation.

Perhaps EASA will agree but change the wording to something along the lines of "VFR flights at night will also comply with the IFR rules".

Regards,

DFC

[Fuji Abound]

Perhaps EASA will agree but change the wording to something along the lines of "VFR flights at night will also comply with the IFR rules".

.. .. .. and maybe not.

.. .. .. and what do pilots do in Europe at the moment at night, without an IR?

.. .. .. as apparently the Europeans dont understand what we do.

I've never once said getting rid of the IMC rating is a good idea, nor have I implied it and I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that I had. Thanks.

If you are happy to see the demise of these priviliges

I would have said "since" if I thought you had, or "as you have implied" if that was my impression - as it was I said "if".

.. .. .. but no offence taken as I didnt imply it.

Please do try not to be so sensitive though -

I would rather debate the issues, not get dragged into the minuteau of the wording. I do that all day long when it is important - and most of the time I cant spell and my grammar is dreadful.

[IO540]

The UK is not such a small part of Europe economically. It just accepts European regs without question and with enthusiastic enforcement, whereas the French and the Italians sign the treaties, pick the bits they like and informally ignore the rest.

The UK does have the biggest GA scene in Europe, and (judging from how much activity one sees flying around Europe) by probably a big margin.

There is some GA in Germany, a bit in France, and the rest of Europe is more or less dead - except for ultralight "pure sports" activity operating close to the ground. That is probably the real reason why the UK gets sidelined in Europe on GA issues. Most of the national reps on the committees (being ex air force or ex national airline ATP types) have not seen any domestic GA pressure.

[Fuji Abound]

Bose

Here is what I would do:

1. Write to Diamond and the other GA manufacturers in Europe - there are a few. I would point out that they shouldn’t bother making any IFR equipped aircraft because other than the few schools teaching the IR and the even fewer PP with an IR the market will die. They charge a lot more for an IFR fit, and guess what, that translates into profit downstream. They are very influential.

2. I would write to the flying schools and I would ensure there were flyers with every letter. I would have a web site from which these flyers could be printed so students and members could lobby their flying schools. I would point out the significant loss of income that will ensue because there will be no IMCR to teach. (You can forget the average flying school teaching the IR if you have any idea what is involved).

3. I would write to every single one of my members if I was AOPA, PPL IR, PFA etc. I would encourage them to write to their MP, Euro MP, EASA members and the CAA and raise the matter with their flying schools, groups, clubs etc. I would make sure they knew exactly how to do so, what they should consider saying and where they should write.

4. I would write to my MP, my Euro MP and whoever I could at EASA and make a complete and utter nuisance of myself. I know a fair amount about planning. People will tell you the planners ignore all the emotional and unsubstantiated objections they receive. Well they don’t. If they come from enough people and people of influence at the very least it causes the entire application to be carefully reviewed, as much as they might like to ignore them. I am not suggesting the complaints should be emotive, avoid it if you can, but it doesn’t matter if you cant. I would do it now. Make a complete nuisance of yourself now.

5. I would prepare a well researched document about the IMCR which would deal with why it was introduced, the benefits it has brought, its safety record etc and I would ensure this is in front of every member of EASA that was relevant, and every flying school I could get hold of in Europe.

6. I would launch a wide ranging complaint about commercial operators activities in open FIR and the way in which this was encroaching on GA. My purpose would be to make it quite clear to the commercial operators that if they want our help with widening their access to airspace we had better see some reciprocation.

7. Whilst I was about it I would may sure that the risk to the night rating, life time licenses and maintenance organisations where all spelled out.

8. I would ask everyone to sign a petition - and sign they should not because they were intending to do and IMCR or had one, but because of the impact of the wider reaching changes on GA that EASA will have. On the basis of what I read be I am in no doubt whether intended or not this represents a sustained attack on the way we do GA in the UK and it should be ignored at our peril.

9. I would make sure I had the support of all the GA mags, that they really understood what we were about and why the campaign was so imprortant.

10. I would ask everyone for a tenner or whatever amount was appropriate so I was properly funded and I would be prepared to mount a legal challenge.

If sufficient people leant their support I am absolutely in no doubt even at this stage the campaign would be won!

[tmmorris]

Well, I've just emailed eight of my nine MEPs on the subject... let's see if I get any replies.

The ninth is Green Party and I can't see she would be very supportive :rolleyes:

Tim

[bigbloke]

Fuji

That sounds like a plan. I like the fact that it all supports the work that is going on rather than detract from or dilute it.

I'm not sure that I understand item 6.

BB

[soay]

Fuji Abound has offered some very sensible advice, but to make it work, we all need to be absolutely clear about what the issues are. It will only confuse the message, if the officials we write to get different interpretations of what's going on and what's at stake. Hence, I'd add one extra point to Fuji's list: publish somewhere a concise explanation, with references to any supporting documentation. Ideally, it should be a PDF file with copying prohibited, to discourage the sending of identical messages, which are more likely to be ignored.

[Fuji Abound]

BB

Thank you.

Well 6 might just be a bit antagonistic.

The comment was made that the anti lobby at EASA are the commercial operators.

So to usual an old fashion term - lets stir it up a bit. You want to give us a hard time, we will give you one hell of a hard time when you want access to regionals which dont have CAS.

[IO540]

Very good suggestion Fuji re writing to aircraft manufacturers.

This was done when there was that DfT thread to N-reg. Every single maker of turboprops and jets was contacted by FAX (email is usually a waste of time; most big companies dump most incoming email as spam) having first telephoned them and obtained the name of their head of marketing.

Some of them were aware of the UK move but most apparently weren't.

These people have the biggest political clout, and obviously any general measures against private IFR in general are intimately tied up with N-reg because a transfer to N-reg will be the obvious exit option. If Europe wants to screw one thing they will have to screw the whole lot.

But as David Roberts explains it may be too early to do this.

[Fuji Abound]

Thank you IO.

Not sure about it being too early - lets run that again.

Experience tells me it takes us Britains a time to feel passionate about something like this, but once we do we are like the proverbial Bull Dog looking for a good cuppa of English tea.

Therefore the sooner we start to get everyone going the better .. .. ..

.. .. .. leave it till the "appropriate time" and the Eurocrats will do their usual job of steam rolling it through (done deal and all that) - not dissimiliar to the sort of thing that has been going on at Daedaleus if you have followed that thread.

Well, I've just emailed eight of my nine MEPs on the subject... let's see if I get any replies.

Brilliant!

Like to post up a list of emails or addresses (better still) so we can start gathering this information in one place?

Anyone fancy doing a bit of research on the IMCR or perhaps knows all the history, how it came about etc. Think we are after an old timer on this one?

MODS

Any chance of a sticky please - at least to see if we can get a bit of a campaign going.

Anyone from the other place.

I dont like to mention Flyer on here, but they do have a pretty active forum.

Any one fancy cross linking threads.

[IO540]

Here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3112484&postcount=3)is a lead on the IMCR history.

[BRL]

Get a new thread going with just the right information in it and I will stick it.

I am just off to the hospital right now as my daughter was taken in a few days ago but I will be back this evening. As I say, get a new thread going with the main bits on it and I will sort it when I return later.

Over to you..........

[DaveW]

Any one fancy cross linking threads.

Done (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=38946&start=90). Thanks for the good work so far, FA and all. (And that's from someone whose IMCR lapsed a few years ago!)

[dublinpilot]

FA,

When writing to the GA manufacturers, after all the doom and gloom of withdrawing the IMC rating, we could also offer them a carrott. We could point out the huge potential increase in IFR market, if EASA does adopt the IMC rating, as it would apply all across Europe then.

There would be lots of people then able to undertake IMC flights that couldn't previously, and people who previously discounted GA as a way of making business travel across the EU, might have to reevaluate their options if they had access to an EU wide IMC rating.

dp

[rustle]

When writing to all the airframe manufacturers, MEPs, CAA, EASA et al I would expect them to know a lot more about the airspace classification of other EASA states (i.e. non-UK), airway classifications of other non-UK EASA states, and the concept of IFR OCAS in other non-UK EASA states than seems apparent from this thread.

Taking just one example from the above (not-exhaustive) list: With the looming reclassification of airspace to N/K/U is it realistic to expect all EASA states to reclassify their airways to accomodate the new EASA-IMCR based on the UK model?

50/50?

80/20 in favour?

99/1 against?

This isn't just about little Englander's keeping a rating. National ratings are history. You need to consider EASA-wide implications before anyone is going to take this seriously.

IMHO of course ;)

[FREDAcheck]

OK, let's write to people. I wonder if those in the know about how this is happening might help me complete a letter? Perhaps we could help each other at least with the factual elements of a letter. You see, if I write to my MP/MEP, what am I complaining about? Who is doing what that I object to? What do I want my MP/MEP to do? Never mind the style of this draft, I'd appreciate comments on the factual elements at the end.
Please help me stop another case of the European standard banana; excessive and unnecessary harmonisation.

In future aircraft pilot licensing is to be done on a European basis, rather then country by country. This is good. But it is being done by forcing the lowest common denominator on each country; we must all be the same. This isn’t so good.

To fly in cloud, pilots need an “instrument rating”. This greatly increases safety, even for private pilots who get caught out in bad weather. However the instrument rating is designed for commercial pilots and is both expensive and excessive as a “bad weather safety skill” for private pilots. Uniquely, the UK has an “IMC rating” – a lower qualification that is within the reach of any private pilot.

Quite simply: the IMC rating saves lives.

No other country has this rating, and for reasons that do not reflect on why the UK should – or should not – have one. So why must we lose something valuable for the sake of mindless harmonisation?

(Help needed here on: )

Please help lobby for a UK exception or opt-out. (Or what?)
This rule/regulation/order/whatever originates from EASA (which stands for…) subgroup JAA FCL 001 and is to be presented to… by… on such and such a date…
And please will you… (do what?)

[englishal]

Perhaps EASA will agree but change the wording to something along the lines of "VFR flights at night will also comply with the IFR rules".
Even better news for FAA licence holders. This would allow FAA holders to fly at night without any ambiguity....and use their IFR privileges OCAS at night.

But removing the IMCr will damage UK flight training even more than it has been already. In the past I have flown with instructors and climbed "on top". These instructors normally have lapsed IR's and are using IMCr privileges - it seems common for a new instructor to get the IR then let it lapse until they get an offer for the RHS of a Boeing. This will effectively end now....

Stats in the USA PROVE that IR'd pilots are less likely to kill themselves. That is why the FAA REDUCED IR minimum requirements some time ago (as in total time etc...) to allow more people to get an instrument qualification. The IMCr is an instrument qualification and the result should be the same. I don't see scores of people flocking to do a JAR IR any time soon, just because the IMCr goes. You'll have people illegally exercising their IMC skills, and gradually over thime these skills will erode (dt no revalidations etc..) and eventually the accident rate will go up......Anyone who is an AOPA US member can search the accident db via their website and compare IR and non IR accidents.

[dublinpilot]

With the looming reclassification of airspace to N/K/U is it realistic to expect all EASA states to reclassify their airways to accomodate the new EASA-IMCR based on the UK model?

Rustle,

I made a similar point on the other place (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=37610&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30) in October, but was told that according to an article in the AOPA mag, that this proposal had been quietly dropped. Is it actually still on?

dp

[DBisDogOne]

In future aircraft pilot licensing is to be done on a European basis, rather then country by country. This is good. But it is being done by forcing the lowest common denominator on each country; we must all be the same. This isn’t so good.

Funnily enough, that's what I often think when it comes to legislation! Why should we constantly be under pressure to lower our standards to pander to others? What's wrong with saying to the rest of Europe "You must introduce an IMC-type qualification like the UK 'cos it's been a proven life-saver"? (OK, not going to happen but it would be nice).

Additionally, as someone else rightly pointed out, why can't we opt out? The French do it all the time (& the Italians & Spanish), not because they are being arrogant/nationalistic/awkward, but because it's not in the interests of their people. Personally, I admire the French (etc) for having the balls to do this, pity our politicians are corrupt guardians of vested interests who don't care a crap who they dump on.
It's not as if the IMCR was ever valid outside the UK so it doesn't concern anyone else but the UK, nor are we demanding that this be recognised everywhere else, it's a UK thing, simple as that.
Sadly, that's not the way it'll be looked at. As you may have gathered, I was hoping to start my IMC early next year, don't think I'm going to bother now until we get a firm idea of it's comparable replacement (if any?).

[BEagle]

If you were to say "You must introduce a UK-style IMCR in Europe", you will face the self-interest of the European commercial pilots' unions - who will simply allege that it "would not be safe to share our busy European airspace in IMC with lower-trained pilots".

Even though that's rubbish, it's what they're currently saying....:mad:

Whereas the French are determined to carry on with their lunatic 'Brevet de Base' - which allows people with less than half JAR-FCL PPL hours to fly passengers on short journeys with the 'permission' of an instructor. Hardly suprising that their accident rate is so high!

My suggestion?

All current national licence and rating rights and privileges shall be retained by granting equivalent EASA-FCL licences and ratings with privileges restricted to the previous national privileges.

The cost of this process will be born entirely by National Aviation Authorities.

Alternatively, just leave everything as it is. It isn't broken - it doesn't need to be fixed!

[DBisDogOne]

BEagle, couldn't agree more! You just know that's going to happen.
I too was going to quote the 'Brevet de base' as an example of opt-out/special case treatment permitted despite it's high accident rate (I couldn't remember what it was called and didn't want to embaress myself!! :oh:).

As an engineer, I would also say, if it aien't broke, don't fix it, but sadly we're back to one my vested interests rants again.......:ugh:

[IO540]

That proposal to divide airspace into (essentially) known and unknown categories has AFAIK been dropped. It would be contrary to ICAO, etc.

Obviously it is still possible to revise airspace but retain the existing classes A-G. I have no idea whether this is on the cards.

But the big differences in the way airspace is used around Europe is at the root of this issue - the UK has lots of Class G and practically everything else is Class A. Class D is operated as Class A, more or less. The IMCR works well in the UK; it would not work in say Belgium.

[Fuji Abound]

BEagle

I think a step too far at this stage is the adoption of a Europe wide rating. All we can hope is that the other Europeans see the advantages in time - so I do agree, first lets secure the preservation of the national ratings we already have.

Get a new thread going with just the right information in it and I will stick it.

Thank you.

[tmmorris]

MEPs can be found here:

http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/MembersPrincip.htm

(second link down if you Google 'Who is my MEP' :-) )

Tim

[drambuster]

Do you as a member of the public want to trust your nice Grandmother's life to a pilot with only 15 hours training?
DFC you seem to have quite a low opinion of IMCR pilots. (see DFC bottom of P3 and Fuji Abound bottom of P1 expressing concern about IMCR pilots)

Can I point out that (IMHO) the deciding factor is 'currency' and not the rating you hold. I would agree that someone who obtained an IMCR eighteen months previously and hasn't bothered to maintain currency are deluding themselves if they think they can safely make it back from L2K in solid clag.

But at the same time this applies equally to IR pilots. There are plenty of CPL/IR jet jockeys at our club who would baulk at the prospect of a solid IMC trip, even with a known 800' base, or better, at the destination. On the other hand many of our IMCRs would relish the prospect and enjoy every minute.

This is probably because you jet jockeys fly on fully auto systems most of the time and so, like everyone else, the manual skills decay. A quick brush up in a simulator once a year doesn't compare with being banged around in the real thing every week.

Those CPL/IRs who are on top of the game have probably achieved this through keeping close links to their GA origins - not sim checks.

I know who I would rather trust my Grandmother's life with . . . any IR or IMCR pilot who flies at least 2 hours a month in the clag on manual ! (and not just someone in a shiny blue suit, epaulettes and a platinum IR badge):ooh:

[Fuji Abound]

CHAPS

I have started a new thread which BRL has promised to make a sticky.

PLEASE BEFORE YOU POST HERE, OTHERWISE THIS POST WILL BE LOST, CAN I SUGGEST YOU GO AND POST ON THE NEW THREAD.

BRL

You might want to close this thread?

[rustle]

That proposal to divide airspace into (essentially) known and unknown categories has AFAIK been dropped. It would be contrary to ICAO, etc.

...the big differences in the way airspace is used around Europe is at the root of this issue - the UK has lots of Class G and practically everything else is Class A. Class D is operated as Class A, more or less. The IMCR works well in the UK; it would not work in say Belgium.

So even if the N/K/U proposal has been shelved there is still a problem with getting all other EASA states to change their airspace/airway structures to fit in with an EASA-wide IMC rating.

Likelihood of that happening? :}

Use of Class A, B or C airspace in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules requires an IR, not an IMC rating.

[IO540]

Well, then the issue is why the options have been framed thus -

a) a euro-wide IMCR, OR
b) no IMCR at all

There is no logic to removing national ratings.

Europe is a mixture of very different countries, with different attitudes, cultures, food, acceptance of European authority, acceptance of any authority, you name it. The idiot politicians who set up the European "Union" all that time ago did it to immportalise themselves and to prevent Germany from starting another war. There is really no other purpose to it.

I actually suspect that when this is all played out, national ratings will be retained, or some other political compromise will be found which amounts to the same thing.

[rustle]

I suspect there will be 2 tiers of licence: EASA and "National" (bit like JAA and NPPL) and some of the French idiosyncrasies (mentioned earlier) will exist in their national licence and some of ours in a UK NPPL.

That an IMC/IR cannot be added to an NPPL is neither here nor there, as it is currently the case - no change.

Other states may agree to accept flights crewed only by NPPL holders, or they might not - I don't know if they do now or not.

That would fit/sit better with the new LSA-style aircraft which also would not be eligible for IFR flight.

I would also assume that anyone with an EASA licence would have automatic NPPL privs, and that there would be an "upgrade" course available from NPPL to EASA as required.

Of course that might all be completely wrong too. :O

You heard it here first ;)

[Roffa]

From the Eurocontrol Airspace Classification (http://www.eurocontrol.int/airspace/public/standard_page/142_airspace_classification.html) website...

"The third strategic step, to reduce the number of airspace categories to only three is currently under development."

[David Roberts]

The currently expressed intent of EASA is that national licences will continue for flying Annex II aircraft ONLY (i.e. aircraft not within the scope of EASA, such as historic aircraft, amatuer built a/c, microlights < 450kg, hang gliders and some others). Once transition to the new EU licences (FCL and LAPL - main difference between the being the medical, and IRating) takes place - estimated 2009-2010 - then a national licence (e.g. UK NPPL) will not be accepted legally for flying an aircraft within the scope of EASA rules, anywhere in the EU.
There will of course be grandfathering of all current licences into the new EU licences. The conditions / rights for grandfathering are expected to be determined by the UK CAA in case of UK licence holders. Broadly NPPL = LAPL, JAR PPL = EU FCL/PPL
The LAPL for aeroplanes, gliders, balloons and helicopters, all up to 2mt MTOM (but balloons on cu. capacity), is drafted as a non-commercial, VFR only licence but with night VFR ratings. We (MDM.032 group) have discussed a possible IRating but the TORs of the group do not allow us to include this. Separately there is the FCL.001 group which is drafting the Implementing Rules for the ICAO compliant licences, and that is where the IR / IC debate is being held.
The UK IMC situation is going to be a battle ground in the EU (it is already). There will be several stages during the proposals for these EU licences to put your views to the regulators (EASA and the Commission) - responding to the NPA when it is published (eta end of Q1/08 in my opinion), lobbying MEPs (not MPs as this is a EU matter), providing support to the position of your representatives on the three pan-European GA representative bodies - IAOPA, Europe Air Sports, and ECOGAS.
However, in terms of lobbying, remember that the Implementing Rules for the licences, currently being finalised as drafts at EASA, do not go before the Council of Ministers working group or the Parliament for decision. They will in due course, after public consultation through the NPA, be submitted by EASA to the European Commission, to be agreed through the 'comitology' process between member states' representatives in the Commission. And that means majority decisions.....so to retain the IMC, if not catered for in the draft Implementing Rules, will mean persuading other member states representatives on the Commission, not just the UK, to back the case for the IMC. May not be so easy.....
I never have believed in a federal Europe, but that is what this is all about, IMHO.
DGR / Europe Air Sports
An EAS Member of EASA MDM.032 group

[soay]

...so to retain the IMC, if not catered for in the draft Implementing Rules, will mean persuading other member states representatives on the Commission, not just the UK, to back the case for the IMC. May not be so easy.....
I raised this point earlier, but nobody bit: given the way the process works, surely it would be better to get the other European AOPAs on board first. If we can't persuade fellow aviators of the benefits of the IMCR, there's no chance of doing likewise with the bureaucrats on the Commission.

[tmmorris]

Alternative proposal - some won't like this...:

Lobby for Night and IMC ratings on the NPPL (and thus IFR, of course). (And add IFR on PFA types as well!)

That stuffs those flying aircraft larger than SSEA standards, of course, but would work for a lot of us.

Tim

[rustle]

Lobby for Night and IMC ratings on the NPPL (and thus IFR, of course). (And add IFR on PFA types as well!)

Tim


Lower the medical requirements for a Day/VFR NPPL so people can still get one, then add a load of ratings to it? Why not just give ratings away with every 4th pack of "Special K"? ;)

PFA/LAA and IFR are not bed fellows and nor should they be.

In the new world it wouldn't come as any great shock that the new national licence (as discussed above) would be managed by the same people that manage the aircraft it can be used in/on: PFA/LAA

Day/VFR aircrew flying day/VFR aircraft overseen by a day/VFR organisation.

[tmmorris]

OK then, do as I suggest then reintroduce medical certification for those who want IMC/Night :-)

Presumably when we signed up to EASA we said we wouldn't do that sort of thing?

Tim

[rustle]

Presumably when we signed up to EASA we said we wouldn't do that sort of thing?

Tim

When "we" signed up to EASA we gave everything away. Airspace, aircrew licensing, maintenance and aircraft licensing - the lot.

Now, either because it is too difficult to manage or because it is expedient, EASA might be looking to delegate some of the low-level licensing (aircrew and aircraft) back to "national" bodies.

So it isn't a case of what we said we wouldn't do - we already gave that right away.

It is a case of limited opportunity on a local [national] level to do some things EASA don't want/need to do - Annex II aircraft ONLY as David Roberts alluded to above.

Hence the IMC rating is nearly dead: It is currently in a coma, but EASA have the life support machine's plug in their hand after "we" dropped it.

[Contacttower]

Sorry, this thread somehow seemed more appropriate:


I am really sorry about that chaps, I am afraid Rustle really doesnt like me, not that I know him I might add. I am sure he has made some valid points, but I am afraid they are just lost on me.



Don't worry, I think the sticky was a great idea. I understand your point of view rustle, but I don't think anyone on this forum wants to here this:


If the intention is to petition to retain a national rating after EASA take over all FCL then IMHO you're on a hiding to nothing as one of the "benefits" of EASA is standardisation across FCL.

[Justiciar]

It suddenly occured to me, what are the French going to do about their Qualification Montagne (Ski and wheel), which authorises flight into high alpine airfields, summer and winter. Is this too not a "National Licence" and will it not be abolished when national licenses and ratings go? I would imagine them being less than happy with just anyone trying to land at say Courchevel. Pure self interest will be the best way of getting the Frence on our side (they are as bad as we are)!

[Contacttower]

One part of me actually thinks: I'm not sure I care what EASA do or say, because at the end of the day there is a limit to how much they can actually do about what goes on in the UK under the CAA.

The French have a history of breaking rules laid down by the EU and I doubt they would take a different view if EASA threatened to close down Qualification Montagne, they will just carry on with it just like they did with the British beef ban.

It's similar to international law or the UN or things like the Geneva convention. They only get enforced when the countries who are in a position to do so feel their interests are threatened, and without that they are meaningless. Unlike laws and regulations of sovereign nations there is no police force and judical system to enforce them.

So ultimately if the CAA where to dig its heels in over the IMC rating and continue to issue them there would be f:mad:k all EASA or anyone else for that matter could do about it.

[S-Works]

It suddenly occured to me, what are the French going to do about their Qualification Montagne (Ski and wheel), which authorises flight into high alpine airfields, summer and winter. Is this too not a "National Licence" and will it not be abolished when national licenses and ratings go? I would imagine them being less than happy with just anyone trying to land at say Courchevel. Pure self interest will be the best way of getting the Frence on our side (they are as bad as we are)!

As I understand it they will be included into differences training requiring a logbook sign off.


So ultimately if the CAA where to dig its heels in over the IMC rating and continue to issue them there would be fk all EASA or anyone else for that matter could do about it.

Not wanting to be rude but that shows a breath taking naivety and total lack of understanding about just what we have given up to be part of EASA.

The CAA will no longer have any control over licensing, they will be a field office to EASA and will be issuing EASA licences. They will be unable to issue anything that is not an EASA rating.

In future there will no UK ANO just an EASA version of it.

Come on guys if you really are going to motivate people into supporting the cause the very least you can do is gain an understanding of the position we are in.

[IO540]

I'm not sure I care what EASA do or say, because at the end of the day there is a limit to how much they can actually do about what goes on in the UK under the CAA.

The practice is that anybody can fly any way they like in UK Class G, under "VFR". Or abroad for that matter. Enroute, there is no way this can ever be enforced.

The major immediate drawback of killing the IMCR will be that one will not be able to land on an instrument approach in real IMC - short of declaring a mayday. This will encourage DIY approaches; these may be made illegal but this is unenforceable.

The slightly lesser drawback will be that one will not be able to depart from an airfield in CAS (e.g. Bournemouth) if the conditions are sub VFR - this varies but usually means cloudbase below 1200-1500ft or so. I believe ICAO says something like 1500ft. Currently, it is normal practice to depart from a Class G airport as "VFR" under practicaly any conditions so long as the vis is not quite zero, and I guess this will continue. At non-ATC airfields this cannot be stopped anyway.

The longer term problem is that IMCR training will obviously have to cease and, with the passage of time, the number of pilots who will be able to safely fly using "imaginative VFR" will reduce. Eventually, there will be just a few old hands left, plus some current IR pilots, plus some cowboys. This is what they have in the rest of Europe, but most of the rest of Europe has very little GA activity anyway.

[Contacttower]

Come on guys if you really are going to motivate people into supporting the cause the very least you can do is gain an understanding of the position we are in.

I'm sorry bose-x my comment was made in a burst of anger...I took deep breaths and I think it has passed now.

[rustle]

Not wanting to be rude but that shows a breath taking naivety and total lack of understanding about just what we have given up to be part of EASA.

What, like mentioned HERE (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3743898&postcount=120) (Admittedly it was on a page prior to this one) :D

[Contacttower]

Now, either because it is too difficult to manage or because it is expedient, EASA might be looking to delegate some of the low-level licensing (aircrew and aircraft) back to "national" bodies.



rustle forgive me if I've got this wrong but EASA seem to be in two minds about this...on the one hand they want to integrate...but on the other they don't have resources to do so...so actually FCL licencing comes back to the 'professionals' ie the people in the national CAAs who have been doing it for years.

Disregarding what I said earlier that bose took issue with that sounds more like a stay of execution for the IMC rating rather than actually saving it- EASA will one day want to 'complete' the take over even if they can't do it in the near future.

[S-Works]

You need to be very clear on where the power lies. EASA will delegate tasks back to the CAA but this does not change the game. It will still be EASA licencing and EASA rules with no power of change by the national aurhorities.

The CAA will be a field office following the party line.

[Justiciar]

As I understand it they will be included into differences training requiring a logbook sign off


One question will be what the privileges of a pan European PPL will be. Will they be an improvement on what is permitted in the UK, i.e. perhaps the ICAO minima? Then perhaps you will be able to get differences training to allow the PPL holder to fly an ILS :hmm:

[rustle]

PPLs can already fly an ILS in VMC under VFR. No differences training required ;)

[S-Works]

One question will be what the privileges of a pan European PPL will be. Will they be an improvement on what is permitted in the UK, i.e. perhaps the ICAO minima? Then perhaps you will be able to get differences training to allow the PPL holder to fly an ILS

What you mean some sort of sub ICAO national instrument rating?

We could call it something like the Instrument Meteorological Rating in order to differentiate it from a proper instrument rating?

[Contacttower]

bose you are confusing me now :confused:.

[S-Works]

Sorry it was a bit of tongue in cheek humour. What was being suggested is how the IMCR came about in the first place pretty much.

[IO540]

PPLs can already fly an ILS in VMC under VFR

So........... I can fly VFR from the UK to say Frankfurt and ask for an ILS?

:ugh: :ugh:

It sort of works in the UK, where ATC will probably just assume the pilot has an IMCR.

The IMCR itself dates back to c. 1970. Before that, a plain PPL could fly in IMC.

[rustle]

So........... I can fly VFR from the UK to say Frankfurt and ask for an ILS?

If you like. Why not? If you are VFR, they know you are VFR and you know you are VFR what is stopping you asking for an ILS approach?

I know it isn't likely to be approved as they probably have VRPs and expect regular "circuit" behaviour, but what is the legal prohibition you seem to be implying?

[Robin_Flyer]

I am a simple GA pilot who wishes to fly as safely as possible. I regained my IMC rating nearly two years ago and have always regarded it as a 'get you out of trouble rating' rather than an excuse to fly in conditions which I am not capable of dealing with. I have had the benefit of flying recently with a like-minded pilot in our syndicate who has a similar opinion and we have started 'simulated IMC' flying practice together in order for both of us to try and stay current. In conjunction with flying with an instructor, this has been very enjoyable and has much improved my flying abilities.

I personally think the IMC rating is extremely valuable and cannot understand why it would be removed simply to harmonise with Europe. I think in fact that they should introduce an equivalent throughout Europe.

However, I do agree that an IMC is not a licence to deliberately fly in marginal conditions and hope for the best!

[David Roberts]

I am getting information from my colleague in FCL working group that the UK IMCR is under discussion today / tomorrow, as well as 'review of IR'. More news soon.
Those who are aiming arrows at EASA are probably shooting at the wrong target. Look at the process and the players - EU agenda, airspace, etc. More anon.

[Contacttower]

Those who are aiming arrows at EASA are probably shooting at the wrong target. Look at the process and the players - EU agenda, airspace, etc. More anon.


The article I read in the PPL/IR mag Instrument Pilot made it clear that it was really the other member states rather than EASA itself that were going to be the problem for the IMC rating.

Europe!! :ugh:

[David Roberts]

I have a difficulty in that I have an intimate knowledge of the procedures and protocols of working groups at a certain tower block in Germany. In particular, the proceedings are not published outside a group until a proposal is published for public consultation. As has been demonstrated in at least one working group in 2007, external pressures on a group can be totally counter-productive and lead to disbandment of activities. Petitioning at this stage falls into this category. This is the way the system works. Abiding by the system and process can be productive, however, even if frustrating at times.
Therefore, all I can say is that I have had a Christmas dream and the story goes like this:
The importance of the Santa being able to fly through clouds to deliver Christmas gifts has been acknowledged by the residents of a castle in Germany, in relation to the skies over a large island. Many in the Community of Santas and their logistics chiefs regard this rating as not satisfactory for wandering around the skies on the mainland, but the great wizard of the Belgrano said ‘fear ye not, for I have seen the great safety benefit of this ability to navigate through clouds and it should be preserved, even where the training may be regarded by some as less than required for driving a large metal sleigh.’ ‘But can you prove its worth?’ asked the big chiefs who control the large metal sleighs in the skies. ‘Not statistically’ says the man from Belgrano, ‘but there are 18,000 Santas who will go on strike at Christmas if they can’t fly through clouds.’ The man in charge of the large metal sleighs was greatly disturbed and one of chiefs who oversees the Santas of large metal sleighs was vehemently opposed to allowing the island’s Santas to fly in clouds.
‘We must do something about this’ says the guardian of the tower. ‘How about using the exemption in Article 10 of the regulation for Santas, to assist those in the island’s skies for the four year transition period’ suggests someone, ‘ whilst the folks in the tower work out a solution to the rather over-burdensome requirements for the rating that these Super Santas have?’ ‘Good idea’ they agree, ‘there are two types of Santa flying in clouds and we need alignment on the mainland for all these people, but it must be possible to allow both to continue flying in clouds not just over the island but on the mainland too.’ ‘This will involve grandfather rights for Santas on the island so they can fly through clouds on the mainland’ they say. ‘Of course’ someone was heard to say.
The discussion amongst all the chiefs and the union representatives of Santas ended on a very positive note with constructive proposals for a way forward. The chief said not to expect all the presents to be delivered this Christmas though as the logistics of the operation will take time.
The dream was a little unclear on some details but I did wake up with a smile on my face, thanks to my colleague’s efforts. Maybe the details will be made available to me soon and I can clarify parts of the dream.
Goodnight!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Isn't politics fun. (Though I must say that at the level at which I do politics it doesn't get quite as fun as that.)

At least someone somewhere has recognised my point that in a liberal democracy (and that, surely, is the entire point(#) of the European process!) you don't go round taking away people's rights to do things without good reason.

(#)http://www.brettward.co.uk/ironcurtain.jpg - this is now an internal EU border, you don't get shot for trying to walk across it any more.

[wac flyer]

As a recent member of the forum, I am amazed at how personal the posts become. However, I am sure many will agree with contributions that are more recent. WE ARE a community and the loss of the IMCR would most likely have a major impact on flight safety and or hours flown. I have a current IMC and have logged more than 350 under IFR. The time required for the full IR make it an unrealistic option. This would effectively mean that the days of using a light aircraft for personal business travel.

[S-Works]

so what would you have done if there had been no IMCR in the first place just like the rest of the world?

[IO540]

so what would you have done if there had been no IMCR in the first place just like the rest of the world?

For the answer to that one, get in your plane, leave UK airspace, and fly on for say 1000nm in any random direction, while counting the GA planes which you hear on the radio. Don't bother to spot any (there usually won't be any to spot).

That's the choice. A lot of problems are solved by altogether eliminating the subject matter.

[S-Works]

Thats rubbish IO. There is plenty of GA around Europe despite your rather blinkered view.

I merely played devils advocate and asked the question of what would people have done without an IMCR.

The loss of the IMCR would be unfortunate but hardly the end of the world and it certainly is not the only reason that people are able to do any practical flying.

Lets have a poll and ask how many people really use a light aircraft for 'personal business aviation' that without an IMCR will be unable to fly.

This is not meant as a red rag, it is a genuine question. The IMCR is a UK only rating as we know. The number of Instrument approaches in the UK available in real terms to GA is very low therefore the number of people is equally low. So what sort of personal business are people actually flying on that requires an IMCR that would not be served by aligning PPL standards across Europe?

I ask the question because I actually do a lot of IFR personal travel, mostly CI and near Europe and believe me it's lonely out there.

Like I said not looking for an argument just really interested.

[DFC]

WE ARE a community

Yes but you are very much a very small minority.

If one acepts that the current IMC is a realistic way of operating regular IFR flights then one has to accept that the ICAO IR and the FAA IR and the JAA IR are all way beyond the required standard for safe operation IFR IMC.

The trick is convincing everyone that is the situation because if you can't show that then the majority will continue to see the IMC rating as something that they do not want on their patch (which is now all of Europe).

Just look at BEagle's reaction to a local French rating and imagine all the other pilots in the rest of Europe (as well as some in the UK) having that reaction to the IMC.

The argument that you need the rating because the weather in Europe is not good enough for regular VFR flying gets you no where.

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

There is plenty of GA around Europe despite your rather blinkered view.

A lot of ultralight stuff at a low level, doing short hops around the local clubs, but very little longer range touring goes on. As you well know if you have an IR and use it. Especially true in France (according to French pilots I know personally), which I find really odd. I've done quite a number of trips to the radius of say Greece/Spain and on most of them did not see another GA plane (once outside the UK).

I merely played devils advocate and asked the question of what would people have done without an IMCR.

The loss of the IMCR would be unfortunate but hardly the end of the world and it certainly is not the only reason that people are able to do any practical flying.

That's because

(1) people all over the world fly illegal VFR, and

(2) people living in countries with nicer weather have less need for instrument privileges

The IMCR formalises what people do anyway and makes it legal, in the process adding access to published instrument approaches which one could not otherwise use without drawing attention.

Now, we could have a perfectly good debate on why legalise something which people do anyway and which is impossible to regulate.

I think the answer is that there should be a legal framework, not just because it is "right" but in a more practical sense because it enables the pilot to legally land on an instrument approach without his risk management decisions being affected by the prospect of getting done.

A VFR only pilot who is instrument capable isn't going to ask for an IFR clearance unless he is utterly desperate. I would still do touring if I was limited to VFR but the flight would be strictly outside CAS and would have preplanned GPS "approaches".

The death rate in France is double that of the UK and much of it is CFIT which is exactly what this is about.

[S-Works]

That's because

(1) people all over the world fly illegal VFR, and

(2) people living in countries with nicer weather have less need for instrument privileges

The death rate in France is double that of the UK and much of it is CFIT which is exactly what this is about.


Please provide direct evidence.

[IO540]

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[S-Works]

Now come on IO, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I am just using one of your responses and asking for direct evidence not anecdotal evidence based on something your uncles bob first cousins sister might have said to the nanny.

:O:O:)

[dublinpilot]

so what would you have done if there had been no IMCR in the first place just like the rest of the world?

Probably do just what the rest of Europe does....don't fly IFR days. We have no IMCr in Ireland, and I only know of one pilot who uses an IR (and doesn't fly for the airlines). I know of a few who had commerical aspirations and have lappsed IR's, and tons who fly for airlines, but only 1 flying for fun with a current IR.

Not much touring happening here too....people don't seem to have the confidence to go very far. Probably because they aren't trained to fly on anything but beautiful clear days.

dp

[FREDAcheck]

I hate to stir up the argument about illegal IMC flying, but I think there's plenty of evidence that it happens. I know of quite a few people without IMCR happily flying VFR on top (and flying IMC to get there). I watched dozens of them doing it on departure from the PFA Rally a few years ago. (It's possible but very unlikely that all those departing pilots had IMCR; the weather was much worse than forecast, but they were going to get home come what may.) PPRUNE and other bulletin boards contain various hints of people flying VFR on top with no legal way up or down.

Clearly one should be careful of the "it's going to happen so let's make it legal" argument, but I think it's valid if you can make it safe as well as legal by providing the training that leads to a qualification such as IMCR. Which is exactly what we've (currently) got.

[S-Works]

thanks DP.

So far still no responses to my original question just quite a bit of melodrama about how the loss of the IMCR will be the end of flying as we know it.

I am genuinely interested in gathering data on whether the IMCR rating is something that really gets used by a lot of people or whether it is a tiny minority and the rest of people are just upset by the loss of a little used badge.

Now I do know that there are a few people that use it, I used it extensively pre IR as I know did IO. But the numbers so far have not actually come close to double figures.

So come on guys please let me have some real data. This is being gathered to be used towards a positive submission.

[llanfairpg]

Even if the IMC rating goes we, and I suspect many other schools/clubs, will still provide a minimum 10 hour instrument training course.

I am suprised there is not more support for the fact that we are geographically unique as a small narrow island and we sit on the line of the polar front. Surely if we want to keep this rating and the rest of Europe dosnt want us to we should be making a case for why we are different from the rest of Europe and need to keep the rating?

[S-Works]

I am not sure our weather is different enough to make an argument and the Irish get any weather you refer to worse and in advance of us yet they never provided an argument for an IMCR or approved use of the UK one.

[llanfairpg]

As you say you are not sure--but records are available. I would speculate that we get many more days in this country with a cloud base below 1000 feet than in most European countries.

In my experience of operating into Europe I have certainly made more diversions from UK airports than any other.

We also have a unique geographical make up, narrow and long, never far from high ground or the sea.

Yes Ireland gets the weather first but the number of registered pilots in Eire as opposed to the UK must be small.

Not that many countries in Europe get moist south westerleys with the Gulf Stream or first stop unstable polar maritime air.

Or the Haar!

[mm_flynn]

I hate to stir up the argument about illegal IMC flying, but I think there's plenty of evidence that it happens. I know of quite a few people without IMCR happily flying VFR on top (and flying IMC to get there). I watched dozens of them doing it on departure from the PFA Rally a few years ago.

I suspect, but have no facts, that 'illegal VFR' flying is a very British phenomenon. The rules here are much more fluid than elsewhere (lots of Class G, IFR and some IMC privileges for PPLs, some non-standard VFR restrictions, and a simple set of IFRs that for a PPL often become one with the VFRs).

The anecdotes I have heard tend to involve G-reg aircraft all around Europe and not a lot of local aircraft - for example LFAT on an IMC day seems to have a G-reg but no F reg movements - but that could just be my perspective.
------------
I have an IMC and fly IFR regularly, but I got my IMC off the back of my FAA IR so it doesn't really help Bose's data gathering.

[IO540]

No use doing a survey here; 99% of UK pilots don't read this stuff.

I've seen loads of illegal VFR flight in France and Spain. It's also commonly done in ultralight types, which is why so many of them are IFR equipped these days.

It's equally true that much of Europe outside the UK doesn't fly much - hence my comment about dealing with a problem by legislating it out of existence.

It's true the UK has a nice mix of Class G with (practically) no service in it which facilitates this kind of flying (legal or not) but France has Class E to FL105 or so and it's a free for all for "VFR". However I think VFR in IMC in France is done mostly at low level, not in the Class E "airway" routes; just as well since they contain IFR traffic.

[S-Works]

No use doing a survey here; 99% of UK pilots don't read this stuff.

I've seen loads of illegal VFR flight in France and Spain. It's also commonly done in ultralight types, which is why so many of them are IFR equipped these days.

Which does little to justify the IMCR. I to have seen my fair share of illegal 'VFR' flight mostly by Brits blagging out of places.....

Which also does not justify the IMCR.

I could really do with some hard facts.

[Shunter]

Got my IMCr back in the summer and yes, I do use it regularly. Sometimes it's simply to punch through the cloud to get on top (and back down again), but frequently it's for maintaining IFR zone-transit altitudes. When I've been touring it's been of great help; taking off from a farmstrip in claggy Cornwall in 3000m/800ft, flying on top to Exeter and coming in on the ILS to break cloud at 500ft. Collecting the old girl from her Derby annual, going IMC at 800ft, getting on top at FL50 then taking the kind offer of an SRA into Leeds.

It's all about planning and currency, and I suspect I'm in the minority of IMCr holders. I would guess that a good 50% of flights in the back end of 2007 simply wouldn't have happened without having the rating. The rating is what you make of it; you can get it, then never use it and end up being an over-confident liability. Or... you can get it, use it, hone it and become a very capable instrument pilot.

Do I have £10k to complete an IR in a reasonable timeframe? Not really. The IMCr cost me under £1500 and was done in 3 weeks at a steady pace.
Would having to attend an approved FTO many hours drive away and learn a load of stuff which is utterly irrelevant to flying a Cessna please the missus? Take a guess...

[llanfairpg]

Sounds like those at the sharp end of this petion should be researching as many features as possible to provide evidence for retaining the rating.

Perhaps not many actually use the rating but that does not make it redundant, how many see it as an important insurance policy or something that enables them to fly further away from their base airfield than they would without such a rating. Would you for instance want to fly to Scotland for a weeks touring without an instrument qualification.

Surely it also has an importance in promoting flying school business, promoting safer flying and most importantly getting people to stay in flying and not moving to another hobby.

Some of the above may seem trivial but you need to have all points and all possibilities covered.

[IO540]

how many see it as an important insurance policy or something that enables them to fly further away from their base airfield than they would without such a rating

A lot of truth in that. On one recent trip to Crete and back, 100% IFR, I did not log any instrument time. It might have been 1-2 minutes total, out of some 30+ hours. Does that make IFR useless? A clever pilot will avoid actual IMC as far as possible, due to icing/turbulence.

[pilotincommand]

Surely the obvious way to get round this whole problem would be for the government to render ICAO IRs valid in G-reg aircraft under the ANO for private flying as they already do for PPLs. This way it would cease to be a licensing issue and so free from the grasp of the eurocrats. The cost of upgrading an IMCR to an FAA IR or similar would not be too excessive as all previous instrument time would count and would result in a higher level of training amongst these pilots.

Would it not make more sense to lobby the government for something that they can do rather than something they can't? Whether we like it or not, control over licensing has gone.

[rustle]

Sounds like those at the sharp end of this petion should be researching as many features as possible to provide evidence for retaining the rating.

Jeez. Nothing like a bit of consistency (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=304313&p=3782289), and your comments are nothing if not inconsistent. :ugh:

bose and I have been saying that since last year :D

[Shunter]

My intention has always been to acquire an IR. But with a career and family life, it isn't quite as straight-forward as it would be for a 20-something with no commitments.

I plan on finishing the FAA IR, using my IMC hours as credit, then sitting the JAA exams (without the need to attend an approved FTO as I already hold an ICAO compliant IR), and taking the JAA flight test.

It's a round-the-houses way of doing it, but exams don't trouble me and it makes sense for me in terms of both time and money. If in the meantime a more GA-friendly IR appears, I'll welcome it with open arms.

[llanfairpg]

Jeez. Nothing like a bit of consistency (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=304313&p=3782289), and your comments are nothing if not inconsistent.
bose and I have been saying that since last yearWhat I in fact said in another thread entitled

IMCR - The Petition - Please give your support

Was either support the petition or go way. On this thead which is entitled NO MORE IMC RATING I have said that there are other considerations to be made in regard to providing a case for retaining this rating-- these comments have nothing to do with the signing of a petition.

I am sorry that you feel this is inconsistent but what is strange is that you have taken the trouble to even mention it, are you here to score points or try and get the IMC rating retained?

[Fuji Abound]

bose and I have been saying that since last year

The vast majority see it rather differently, if that is, Bose sees it the same way as you do.

[englishal]

Well although Bose and Rustle may have been saying it since last year, since Fuji etc.. have started their capaign, Flyer, Pilot and Loop have all shown interest.

Hmm....must be something to do with lack of communication?;)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Well although Bose and Rustle may have been saying it since last year, since Fuji etc.. have started their capaign, Flyer, Pilot and Loop have all shown interest in writing articles.

Hmm....must be something to do with lack of communication?;)

My experience in public life tells me that the media, and the public, only take an interest in an issue when the bulldozers appear on site, having totally and utterly ignored it through several years of decision making and several rounds of consultation. ("But nobody consulted me" is the usual cry from someone who has steadfastly refused to respond to many many attempts to ascertain his views.)

So ... if the final decision on this one really hasn't been made ... and the press have picked it up already! ... then that's not a "lack of communication", it's far better communication than is usually the case in public policy decision making.

[Fuji Abound]

Gertrude

Are the bulldozers the campaign to save the IMC?

Are you suggesting we have go the communication process underway or something else?

[Contacttower]

having totally and utterly ignored it through several years of decision making and several rounds of consultation. ("But nobody consulted me" is the usual cry from someone who has steadfastly refused to respond to many many attempts to ascertain his views.)



I feel guilty not having really being paying attention to the whole EASA thing prior to it flaring up on here. However, someone correct me if I'm wrong, aren't the public consultations on this issue yet to happen?

[dublinpilot]

It's all very well to say that people will continue to fly illegally under IFR if the IMCr goes, and I have no doubt that they will, but I think that practice will die out with them. At least if the Irish experience is anything to go by.

I imagine, but without any proof, that much of the illegal IFR in the UK is by people in day VFR only aircraft, but who are trained in IFR flight. ie. the pilot is capable of IFR flight, but the aircraft isn't, or perhaps they are claiming to be VFR for some other reason (lappsed qualifications?). I'd be VERY surprised if many pilot who are untrained in IMC flight are conducting illegal IFR flights in IMC. I can't imagine their survival time would stretch to years ;)

So what happens when that structure of the IMCr course goes?

Even if the IMC rating goes we, and I suspect many other schools/clubs, will still provide a minimum 10 hour instrument training course.


Is this the solution? I think not. I'm sure it's meant well, but I don't think pilots will do an additional IMC course, knowing that they can't fly IMC at the end of it, and that they can't keep those skills current. I think illegal IMC flight in Irish airspace (by non UK pilots) is very rare, mainly because the pilots don't have any IMC training (beyond the bit on the PPL), and recognise that they don't have the skills to fly IFR.

Likewise, they don't seak out training to give them the skills for what would be illegal flights.

So when those IMC trained pilots in the UK leave aviation, you'll be left with the same thing we have here.....depressing or what? :uhoh:

dp

[rustle]

I imagine, but without any proof, that much of the illegal IFR in the UK is by people in day VFR only aircraft, but who are trained in IFR flight. ie. the pilot is capable of IFR flight, but the aircraft isn't, or perhaps they are claiming to be VFR for some other reason (lappsed qualifications?).

Other than microlights which IO seems to think do this often, the greatest majority of folk claiming VFR when in IMC would be IMC/IR holders who are in aircraft > 2 tonnes.

Often discussed on the PPL/IR forum and tacitly approved by them since it is one of their mods/admins that discusses it most.

(For those that don't know, aircraft > 2 tonnes attract Eurocontrol charges when IFR.)

[mm_flynn]

Rustle - I think this >2tonne is mostly a 'G-reg' (or UK based) thing, driven as I said earlier by the UK operating environment.

Given that enroute UK IFR vs VFR in class G is simply being above 1000 ft and at the correct level if above the TA (both of which hopefully you would be doing if VFR as a matter of good practice), it does seem a bit rich to charge say £60/hr if you say "IFR" when you depart vs. "VFR" - and the difference in safety/service/risk reduction/operations within the UK is basically nil!

(Note - I am NOT saying that it is OK to just bimble around in clouds without having done the planning for a safe IFR flight, just that saying one TLA vs another makes not a jot of difference in how the flight is treated or operated)

[IO540]

I am not expressing a view on how many twin pilots are doing this (and if "Rustle" is a member of PPL/IR Europe, which presumably he must be otherwise how does he see their forum, then he should properly stand up for his beliefs and make his disapproval known at the proper place instead of posting it "anonymously" on here) but IMHO most twin pilots hold at least an IMCR and since Class G does not require radio contact, and thus does not require an IFR clearance, these pilots are in fact legal if they depart "VFR" (and let's face it, everybody departing in > 1500m with an IMCR is legally VFR at that point) and if they change to IFR while enroute they still remain legal because they did not need an IFR clearance......

The landing, with an IAP, is not an issue either because there is not a billing system in place which deals with popup clearances.

What would be illegal is flying in IMC under VFR outside the UK, without an IR. But there again many twin pilots do have an IR. I suppose one could be done for not having obtained an IFR clearance but this applies only to CAS and a pilot with a de-iced twin can fly around OCAS to most places. So, what is his real crime, if he has an IR and remains OCAS? ATC never have the authority to issue an IFR clearance for Class G. Class E is a problem - you would have to be outside that also.

I agree with DP that formal instrument skills are likely to die out with the current generation of pilots. However I find this difficult to square up with the obviously IFR instrument panel which is present in most upmarket "sports" planes made and sold in Europe. Flight in IMC, using the GPS and autopilot, must be awfully tempting if you have the kit, and is in fact very easy. The great difficulty in training for the IR checkride is mainly due to the way it is taught: partial panel, very high and artificial workload, and complex ATC instructions. If you are flying some "VFR only" plane in IMC, most likely non-radio, with good equipment, the pilot workload is minimal and enroute instrument flight is a piece of cake. If I can work this out, so can everybody who has one of these.

[rustle]

...(and if "Rustle" is a member of PPL/IR Europe, which presumably he must be otherwise how does he see their forum, then he should properly stand up for his beliefs and make his disapproval known at the proper place instead of posting it "anonymously" on here)

Didn't renew my PPL/IR membership so can't post there, but that didn't erase my memory of posts past (nor my Google Desktop snapshot of them :8)

[DFC]

All this talk of the IMC rating being a very good insurance policy could lead to the position where the decision is made to;

Continue with a sylabus that is the same as the IMC rating but that on completion does not provide any privileges above normal VFR (not the UK restricted version).

In return for this expenditure, insurance premuims (which are of course mandatory) would be reduced and thus those taking the time and expense to increase their skill set and experience woule be rewarded.

------

Perhaps Dublin Pilot would like to remind us just how much touring has been done in his club........Have members flown to Italy, France, Spain etc. All PPL flying VFR. It ain't rocket science.

Any argument for the IMCrating based on the weather has to show that climate change has caused a problem that the many more VFR only flyers in years past did not have to cope with the same problems.

Since the PPL training inductry relies on operating VFR for thousands of hours every year in the UK, I would expect that any argument saying that the IMC rating was essential for VFR flight would also be an argument in favour of mandatory IMC ratings for flight instructors in the UK. How else could they cope safely with the weather? Microlights would have to have suitable instrumentation or grounded because how can they cope with the weather?

Regards,

DFC

[FullyFlapped]

DFC :

In return for this expenditure, insurance premuims (which are of course mandatory) would be reduced and thus those taking the time and expense to increase their skill set and experience woule be rewarded.

There isn't a Smily for "doubled up laughing so much it hurts", but if there was .. !

FF :ok:

[S-Works]

I have to say that as much is it pains me to say so. For once I think DFC is actually quite right and is the reason why the petition etc is fatally flawed.

You can't base a campaign on how unsafe VFR flying is without an IMCR when it quite clearly the worldwide figures don't back it up.

You have to come up with a unique reason for it that does not smack of back door IR.

[IO540]

You have to come up with a unique reason for it that does not smack of back door IR

That's a fair point but the real justification for it is perverse: it is entirely to do with not upsetting the airline pilot [union] elite corps who sit on the committees.

One of the best kept secrets of IFR flight is that the actual skill set required is much less than the "professionals" would have you believe.

If the entry to the "IFR club" was any tighter, they would have you wear a leather apron, one breast bared, and swear an oath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry) of secrecy.

[wac flyer]

18 years ago I may not have any choice but to follow a full IR or not use the plane as a practical mode of transport. However, i think most would agree that misses the point.
We have a rating that most believe is of practical advantage and a contribution towards flight safety!

[S-Works]

Yadda yadda yadda, we have heard your view on why a thousand times. Boy you really do dislike the airlines types!

But that does not help coming up with a sensible justification that has to be acceptable to these 'committee types' you refer to.

[Fuji Abound]

DFC

Flying in very good VMC above an overcast has a great many advantages over flying below an overcast in miserable visibility as you will know.

There are many occasions when this works very well for en route flying where the departure and arrival are well above minima.

It is a safer and more effective alternative for all concerned.

There are many who do not have an understanding of the issues that are involved. That this is so is indicative of the dreadful failure of the representative bodies in the past to do what they are paid to do.

I cannot begin to tell you the number of emails I have now had from pilots and other interested parties who have expressed that they has no idea how the sytem worked.

There are equally those who fully understand the issues involved, but are quick to dismiss them, rather than support and develop what is in my opinion a very worth while campaign.

If you fundamentally believe in something such as this and if you are more eloquent and better able to set out the issues than you feel are those who are trying to do somehting about it, you would do as well to support them.

Personally I do not have a vested interest, so in that respect it matters not one bit to me. For that reason I feel I can take a detached view and I can tell you that when already nearly 1,000 pilots support the campaign, not to mention a number of other very experienced and influencial individuals I feel I can safely conclude that whatever the outcome we are doing the right thing for the right reasons.

[dublinpilot]

Perhaps Dublin Pilot would like to remind us just how much touring has been done in his club........Have members flown to Italy, France, Spain etc. All PPL flying VFR. It ain't rocket science.


DFC,

I'm not sure how much use this will be to you, but in reply to your question.

I'm in a club with about 40 members, and have been a member there for about 3 or 4 years now. In that period, I have toured around much of France, a little bit of Spain, and extensively around the UK. One other club member has toured much of France and the UK (while flying with me). Four of us did a Spanish tour in 2006, but they only did it because they had someone else to 'show them what to do'. They wouldn't have done it unless I organised it, planned all the routes and flights for them, showed them were to get the required info, organised PPR, explained the different airspace etc.

So apart from the friend that has toured with me, and apart from the two others who be brought along on the Spanish trip (and that was their only foreign trip), I reckon no more than four other members of the club have left the island in the 3 or 4 years that I've been a member. Of those four or five, none ventured any further than the Isle of Mann or Wales. What's worrying is that I don't think that this is untypical. There is another club located beside us, and I think they would be in a similar position....one or two members will venture far afield, and the vast majority will stick to local flights.

In the school where I trained (one of the busiest in the country at the time) I can only recollect hearing of one PPL who ventured to the Isle of Mann, and noone any further. The one exception to this was a school organised student fly out to Avranche.

People are afraid of getting stuck in bad weather when going away. I won't pretend that it's the only reason, there are others, such as costs, experience vs confidence, family commitments and probably (as IO always says) the PPL training not equipping them with the skills to do serious flights. But I do believe that the fear of the weather is a big part of it. Remember from the point of view of people in the South East of the UK, they don't have far to go to reach the continent, and hopefully some nicer weather. We generally have at least three-four hours of flying before we reach the continent (depending on speeds and locations).

I hope EASA decides to look at the LAPL again, and allow for IMC privileges to be attached to it. It would make a huge difference to us over here.

dp

[englishal]

Ok, lets say that the IMCr goes.....

In that case I think it would be fair to expect that ALL FI's MUST hold a valid IR to exercise the privileges of the FI rating and be paid for it. How about that then? I bet that would get many complaints, but if we apply the same safety mentality as EASA I think the paying public should be offered the best protection.

The reason I say this is that I have flown with many UK FI's who only have an IMCr or lapsed IR (and using IMCr privileges). Conversely every US FI I have flown with has an IR, and the majority of them have the CFII rating (instrument instructor)....

I think that when the IMCr goes, people won't bother doing further instrument training. I do know of foreigners who come to the UK to do an IMCr, yet wouldn't bother doing further instrument training in their home country. Why bother? You may as well go to the USA, do 15 hrs instrument at a cost of $1500 and 5 days while you have a holiday.

Everyone will lose if the IMCr dies a death....

[S-Works]

Everyone will lose if the IMCr dies a death....

Please expand?

[englishal]

Flying schools will suffer with less revenue - less people continuing to train post PPL
Instrument skills of the PPL will reduce
Safety will be reduced
FI's will be required to maintain IRs (to get on top in bad weather)
Etc....

[S-Works]

Flying schools will suffer with less revenue - less people continuing to train post PPL

* will they? IMCR rating issue is constantly falling so I am not sure that adds up.

Instrument skills of the PPL will reduce

* An IR will equally enhance instrument skills

Safety will be reduced

* Please define exactly how this will happen, not just anecodtal evidence but hard facts.

FI's will be required to maintain IRs (to get on top in bad weather)
Etc....

* GOOD, might improve the training standards. Or maybe they should not be getting on top when teaching VFR courses?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

* An IR will equally enhance instrument skills
Not mine.

I have succeeded in negotiating being allowed to spend enough to get myself an IMCR over the next year or so, but an IR would be completely out of the question.

[S-Works]

Good, it will enhance your skills as a VFR pilot. Enjoy.

[pilotincommand]

Instrument skills of the PPL will reduce
* An IR will equally enhance instrument skills

It may well do but it will also leave a very big hole in your bank balance. The requirements for a JAA IR are a nonsense. What makes Europe so special that it alone demands training far in excess of ICAO requirements? Also, as many have previously commented, the theory requirements are totally unnecessary for GA pilots.
FI's will be required to maintain IRs (to get on top in bad weather)
Etc....
* GOOD, might improve the training standards. Or maybe they should not be getting on top when teaching VFR courses?
Anyone who has ever flown in this country, especially on the east coast, knows that there are a number of airfields that frequently suffer from low cloud when all around is CAVOK. The IMCR at least gives instructors at these fields a means to get their students to better weather to practice upper air work, navigation or to do circuits at other aerodromes.

[TheOddOne]

Or maybe they should not be getting on top when teaching VFR courses?

Bose,

It can be frustrating for instructor and student alike when poor weather means that we can't fly. If we cancelled every trip because conditions aren't CAVOK then we'd not get anywhere. No, we DON'T launch into IMC or conduct lessons 'on top', but occasionally we encounter cloud lower than the forecast on the way to the training area. With an IMC rating, I'm able to momentarily take control and get us to good VMC on the other side. We train in the Aylesbury area and the Chiltern ridge sometimes suffers from orographic cloud when the region to the North and South is clear.

Do you find this position reasonable, or should we turn back at the first sign of reduced visibility?

Actually, as a school, we're very conservative with our wx minima and I hope that this rubs off on the students!

TheOddOne

[FREDAcheck]

Bose, your posts today rather give the impression that you don't support the IMCR. You've questioned every post in favour of the IMCR. I thought you had said that you supported the continuation of the IMCR (while explaining that you thought it is doomed, whatever we do). Perhaps you are just playing devil's advocate in order to get people to clarify their positions?

Forgive me for asking for repetition, but I'd appreciate if you could restate your views on the value of the IMCR (no matter whether you think it's doomed), in view of today's posts.

[old-timer]

My proposed solution....


FAA / IR, especially with the $/£ rate..., get a good aero lawyer to sort the ownership / registration etc & off you go.......or better still...emigrate & to hell with euro aviation...


{{{{{{{{{{:)exit stage left awaiting the torrent of comments :-)

[S-Works]

Perhaps you are just playing devil's advocate in order to get people to clarify their positions?

And I was beginning to think people were incapable of seeing past there own dogma..... :O

[Johnm]

OK so here's my position. Take away my IMCR and I'll just assume an IR, file IFR and fly IFR. I have the skills so who's to tell???:E

[FREDAcheck]

And I was beginning to think people were incapable of seeing past there own dogma.....
Forgive me, but irony doesn't get through bulletin boards very well (or maybe I'm being dense). I've read most of the threads on IMC and the earlier ones on accessible IR, and I really don't know whether you think IMCR is a good thing or not; your posts today suggest you don't think it is. I'm not having a dig or trying to make a point. This post is intended to be an irony-free zone. But I understand you've been involved in some of the Working Groups aiming to have influence in the future of instrument flying, and I'd like to know your views on IMCR. Irrespective of whether there's a cat in hell's chance of saving IMCR, do you think it worth saving?

[S-Works]

I have stated my views on the IMCR on many occasions. I think it is a fine rating IF it is taught to the correct standards and the advice of the CAA is followed with regard to use and minima. I think the problem lies in the use of it as mini IR and the ignoring of the training advice which is not done in a quiet lets just get on with way but in a highly vocal barrack room lawyer style. You only have to read the endless discussion on minima and why an IMCR should be allowed to use the airways because they are just as good as an IR holder.

This is exactly the sort of thing that is thrown back at us in committee by the Europeans and more importantly the airlines and as why the IMCR is under the spotlight in the first place.

I have really just tried to play devils advocate with my recent posts and make the people who are working on campaigns to save the rating actually think about why they want to save it and what it is going to be used for.

The weather and safety arguments don't stand up and have been countered by many. Even DFC who I would argue with over the colour of the sky makes valid points. But everyone on here is hell bent on shouting down reasoned argument with standard dogma and not actually coming up with a genuine counter argument that will stack up.

Yes we have to save the IMCR, but why? Answer please.........

[FREDAcheck]

Bose, thanks for restating your views. Broadly I agree.
The weather and safety arguments don't stand up and have been countered by many.
Not quite sure which weather and safety arguments you mean, as there have been so many. Personally I think it does add to safety and does allow PPLs to fly safely in poorer weather than is possible without IMCR training (and currency). For example, the IMCR training is designed to allow a PPL to land safely in forward visibility of 1.8km instead of 3km, and to navigate safely in IMC or out of sight of the surface. To me that makes a weather and safety argument in favour of IMCR, but I suspect this isn't what you mean. And I agree entirely with what you say on following CAA advice on minima.

[Johnm]

Bose-x wroteYes we have to save the IMCR, but why? Answer please.........
OK I'll have a go. We have to save the IMCR because it is the best available start point for an accessible PPL/IR. IMHO if it is enhanced by tighter tolerances requiring more practice and supported by the addition of knowledge of SIDs, STARS, flight planning, airways, BRNAV and met then bob's your uncle. That's a much more efficient way to create the PPL/IR than to try to cut lumps out of the existing IR syllabuses.
No-one quarrels with the flying demands it's the worthless theory and the consequent costs that we're all fighting against.
I'll also remind you of my earlier posts that there's a lot of trips I've done between CI and UK that I couldn't have done without IMCR either practically or legally.

Edited to add: BTW I'm an old but not bold pilot

[Fuji Abound]

Let me remind you of your previous answer:

The Arguments for Adopting the IMC Rating throughout Europe

• The IMC Rating has been a key element in the UK’s programme to improve safety standards amongst General Aviation (GA) private pilots, instructors and even CPL holders who do not hold an Instrument Rating, through the additional training for more than 30 years.

• The IMC Rating, which has been held by 18,000 UK GA pilots, is considered to be one of the reasons why the UK has achieved one of the best GA safety records in Europe.

• A number of pilots from mainland Europe are prepared to come to the UK each year to train for the IMC Rating, even though they may only exercise its privileges in UK airspace, as it gives them additional experience and confidence in their flying.

• The incidence of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) and loss of control accidents are thought to have been significantly reduced as a result of the UK’s IMC training programme. These accidents are almost always fatal and it is thought that large numbers of lives have been saved.

• At mixed GA and CAT airports it is generally safer and simpler to have as many approaching and departing aircraft as possible following a single set of procedures. The IMC Rating makes this possible.

• In the interests of safety and utility almost all manufacturers of light aircraft now equip their aircraft with instruments required for IFR flight. A European flight crew licensing system, which does not provide for private pilots to be trained in the use of these safety enhancing instruments, is inappropriate and contrary to the interests of safety.

• No European Agency should be introducing legislation, which prohibits the use of safety enhancing equipment.

• For pilots wishing to progress to a full Instrument Rating the IMC Rating is a natural stepping stone.

• Any attempt to introduce European licensing laws, which remove the privileges of UK IMC Rating holders is likely to produce a very hostile reaction from large numbers of general aviation pilots, with well funded legal challenges to EASA.

[S-Works]

I don't need reminding of my previous answers Fuji. Unlike some I am not a mindless retard and have good retention, especially when recalling the AOPA submission to save the IMCR.

I would like to see other peoples answers not plagiarism off our case.

[DFC]

Do you find this position reasonable, or should we turn back at the first sign of reduced visibility?

Imagine actually teaching a student that it is good to make an early decision to turn back because of poor weather ahead and actually showing them how it can happen and how it is done.

No No No......you must press on and get their money today! today! not tomorrow. While grabbing their money you ensure that they get a good dose of your press-on itis and they will probably be faced with their first ever retreat from bad weather after they get their licence.

Do as I say not as I do is alive and well in UK instruction.

---------

Another problem with the whole.........you can not tour widely unless you have an IMC rating or the IO540 version of I would not have toured so widely without the IMC prior to getting the IR -

If the IMC is only valid in the UK then how did those who had it and found it so valuable for touring the far flung corners of Europe get value from something that they could not use.

Does not mention of vast touring in areas where the IMC was not valid (Le Touquet traffic figures must provide great evidence) coupled with the monthly VFR touring stories in all the UK flying mags work against an argument that the IMC is essential for such flying?

The basic JAR-PPL can fly VFR over 8/8 cloud cover with no ground contact. It is only the UK that puts restrictions on a PPL with respect to in sight of the surface at all times etc. Do you expect a pan-european licence to have such a limitation or one that required 10K vis for special VFR?

Thus again some of the reasons for the VFR pilot having an IMC would evaporate.

------

Dublin Pilot,

Club established in the 70s. You are around for the past 3 years and you think that period is suficient to gauge the extent of VFR touring? Even you admit to having toured Spain as a VFR pilot and you sem to have made it safely back. ;)

----------

Honnestly, I can not see how a petition to the local council along with much complaining from a few residents of Newcastle would cause much of a tremor in the Westminster parliment or the CAA............heck they even walked all the way to London to make their point on an issue some years back and were still ignored.

No replace Newcastle with UK, Westminster with European and CAA with EASA and you will see that little has changed since the Jarrow march.

Can't see that UK AOPA representative Martin what's his name walking far. :)

Regards,

DFC

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Good, it will enhance your skills as a VFR pilot.
Yes, that's my primary motivation for doing it, but there are also those days when it might be nice to fly on top and be able to use the ILS to get back home.

[Fuji Abound]

I don't need reminding of my previous answers Fuji. Unlike some I am not a mindless retard and have good retention, especially when recalling the AOPA submission to save the IMCR.

Thanks for referring to me as a mindless retard.

Lets see what we have achieved so far:

1. Over 1,000 names on the petition,

2. Articles in Pilot, Flyer, Loop.

3. Widespread discussion

4. A wide base of support including FBOs, CFIs, GA suppliers and a number involved with the political process.

Lets see what it has cost.

No one supporting the campaign has been asked for a penny. Those behind the campaign have given of their time freely and have met the expenses incurrred so far from their own pockets.

We are going to give it our best shot.

Personally, I take my hats off to seeing so many people coming together behind a single issue.

You may disagree, you may dislike our approach, you clearly dislike me, but I shall at least stick to my guns. I agreed not to express my views about certain of the representative bodies and I agreed not to take you and Rustle on.

I shall stick to my side of the bargain.

Needless to say what you do is a matter for you.

I think it is such a shame that we cant work towards a common goal.

That alone imho is the single reason why GA in the UK is so disjointed and so poorly represented.

I repeated the reasons you previosuly set out because they were "lost" in another lengthy thread. I dont see the need to keep on reinventing the wheel. You asked the question and presumably wanted comment. Lets expand on a solid base.

:)

[llanfairpg]

Imagine actually teaching a student that it is good to make an early decision to turn back because of poor weather ahead and actually showing them how it can happen and how it is done.

Why imagine it, its certainly part of our basic PPL syllabus and in our text book (Pratt Ex 19)

You do all seem to be going around in circles!

[Contacttower]

Unlike some I am not a mindless retard

bose the difference between insanity and genius is measured only by success...so why don't you leave Fuji and the campaign alone for a change, we'll wait and see what happens, until then perhaps all the detractors should reserve judgement.

Does anyone know if/when pubic consulations will start on this issue?

[TheOddOne]

Imagine actually teaching a student that it is good to make an early decision to turn back because of poor weather ahead and actually showing them how it can happen and how it is done.

No No No......you must press on and get their money today! today! not tomorrow. While grabbing their money you ensure that they get a good dose of your press-on itis and they will probably be faced with their first ever retreat from bad weather after they get their licence.

Do as I say not as I do is alive and well in UK instruction.

DFC,

Yes, we DO teach turning back in IMC, instead of the 4 hours instrument flying I did for my PPL, it's now just an hour learning specifically how to do a 180 turn back to VMC. You are also supposed to get them to fly into real cloud so they can experience the real effects of disorientation so that they are more motivated to avoid it.

Getting to the training ground in the scenario I sugested isn't about 'grabbing their money today!' I cancelled a 2-hour dual x-country today (oops, yesterday already!) because the forecast was marginal. I could have perfectly well flown it myself but the student wouldn't have learned anything. He's saved his money for another day and I've earned - precisely ZERO for the day, no pay, nothing. My decision was based purely on what was best for the student, I've lost out personally, you need to accept that this is going to happen in the Winter, I guess.

So my IMCr IS useful for my job as an Instructor, but NOT for teaching 'press-on-itis'!

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[BEagle]

Well, I have certainly used the benefit of the IMCR during early instructional flights.

Rather than bouncing around in the murk below clag attempting to teach the basics of attitude flying, 5 min to VMC on top with smooth air and a ruler straight horizon was a much better option.

I have deliberately taken a weaker student on a dual cross-country in less-than-ideal conditions to prove to her that 'heading and time' flown accurately and backed up with one or two landmark fixes actually works.

DFC, your posts are becoming increasingly weak and biased. Fortunately others are taking a more constructive approach - including the CEO of AOPA UK about whom you were so rude.

[dublinpilot]

Perhaps Dublin Pilot would like to remind us just how much touring has been done in his club........Have members flown to Italy, France, Spain etc.

Dublin Pilot,

Club established in the 70s. You are around for the past 3 years and you think that period is suficient to gauge the extent of VFR touring?


DFC/Splash 1

You asked me a direct question about what happens in my club, and I answered it as openly and honestly as I could. Don't complain when you ask a question, and then don't like the answer. :rolleyes:


dp

[DFC]

Dublin Pilot,

No, you tried to say that no one tours VFR in your club in order to try an give a reason for having an IMC rating i.e. if they had an IMC rating they could tour more widely and not have to worry about getting home if thr weather closed in a bit.

Unfortunately, as I pointed out, the club that you claim to be a member of has done plenty of touring VFR and you also claim to have done some VFR touring quite safely.

Therefore rather than being a Splash 1 or Strike 1 or whatever for you, I think that it is your argument that has crashed and burned.

The cause for the IMC rating would be better served by having some decent proposals, and not having Penelope Pitstop or people from countries that never had the IMC rating trying to re-write history.

How about BEagle explaining the rationalle behind, the operation of and the benifits of the RAF Instrument Grading system. Now there is an established system that is in use world wide and as I am sure BEagle can show has many advantages.

Regards,

DFC

[dublinpilot]

No, you tried to say that no one tours VFR in your club in order to try an give a reason for having an IMC rating i.e. if they had an IMC rating they could tour more widely and not have to worry about getting home if thr weather closed in a bit.


DFC, I said no such thing. I made it very clear that I have managed some good VFR touring, and a collegue his enjoyed some too.
I did say that I thought having access to an IMC rating would be helpful, but

made it quite clear that it was not the only reason for the low amount of VFR touring going on in my club, our neightbours, and my former school.

Absolutely NOWHERE have I said that it's not possible to tour extensively VFR. It absolutely is possible...not as reliable, but certainly possible. I have encouraged it as much as I can amoung my club members, even going as far as organising the trip to Spain and opening it to all club members. I wouldn't be promoting it amoung our members if I didn't think it was possible!

What happened in the 70's is irrelvant to today. (Though we do get a clue to your age bracket ;) )

You asked me a direct question, I answered it honestly, and you didn't like the answer. :rolleyes:

dp