FAA IR instead of IMC?

[wsmempson]

Ok, I have a JAR PPL with night privilages and am about to start my IMC in earnest - In the light of the EASA muddle heading our way, should I shelve this and instead get an FAA licence and do an IR to go with it? Can I still fly my Arrow in the GB and euroland on the G-register, or will I then need to put on the N-register to go with my FCL?:uhoh:

[S-Works]

You will need to go on the N-reg to use the IR in any controlled airspace.

[englishal]

But in the meantime, while the IMC exists, if you have an FAA IR then the CAA will give you an IMC rating based upon it.....for £70. So if you are in a position to do the FAA IR, I would definitely do that rather than the IMCr then you can fly in CAS.

One other thing, when the IMC finally dies a death, if you have an FAA IR then you will still be legal to fly in IMC outside CAS without the IMCr. There are still a lot of airfields with published approaches outside CAS...

Also...You never know, you may gain some credit towards some other european instrument qualification in the future by virtue of your ICAO IR. They may even give you a direct swap at some point...who knows. This would never happen with the IMCr.....

Of course if you put your aeroplane onto the N register, you'd then get worldwide IFR privileges.

[maxdrypower]

Despite all the uncertainty of the IMCR's future one thing is for sure , It is fifteen hours flying instruction that in the end will make you a better pilot , both visually and instrumentally. It will give you a greater appreciation of instrument flying and make you much safer , it will also be good revision from what you learnt on your PPL . It has to be remembered that in the majority of cases the IMCR is taught as a "Get you home safely" rating and not a licence to fly IFR from one place to the other , it still has its restrictions . What you have to ask yourself is , Are you happy to pay for flying training to increase your knowledge and skill level knowing that you may not be able to exercise the priviledges of your new found bit of blue paper in the form of an IMCR or would you be better placed doing some other form of training that will again increase your skill level but in a different way , AOPA Aeros perhaps ? I recently did an IMCR knowing that its days may be numbered . My long term intention is to do an IR anyway and I wanted to combine further training with an appreciation of what an IR might encompass . If it is your intention to get an IMCR so you can take off on pooh days and fly all over the place IFR then maybe the FAA/IR is more suited to you , as I said above most instructors , and I stand to be corrected will say the IMCR is not a licence to fly IFR , it is more of an insurance policy should things not turn out at your destination as you would wish , I found it money well spent and thoroughly enjoyed the flying I am a beter pilot for it even if i never use it.

[stickandrudderman]

As above! (+ some extra characters so prune-face will let me post)

[dublinpilot]

One other thing, when the IMC finally dies a death, if you have an FAA IR then you will still be legal to fly in IMC outside CAS without the IMCr.

Is it not likely that that will be harmonised with other European countries too? Ie. no IFR flight without an instrument rating valid in that aircraft?

dp

[172driver]

I think englishal has it - I'd go for the FAA IR (in fact intend to just that myself next year).

[julian_storey]

With the exchange rate as it is, it will probably cost you very little more to get yourself an FAA IR in the States than it would to get an IMC rating here.

You will be taught how to do things to a higher standard, EASA can't take your FAA IR away from you and until such time as the IMC rating is phased out (if indeed it is phased out) then the CAA will give you one on the basis of your FAA IR.

[wsmempson]

Thanks guys - I think the FAA IR sounds the route to go.:)

[TheOddOne]

Is it not likely that that will be harmonised with other European countries too? Ie. no IFR flight without an instrument rating valid in that aircraft?


How about campaigning firstly for a harmonised definition of IFR!!!

To many people, it conjures up flight with sole reference to instruments; not so in the UK!!

Here it simply means flight 1,000' above any obstruction within 5NM of track, except when landing or taking of in accordance with normal aviation pracitice, with observence of the Quadrantal Rule above 3,000'.

You can fly UK IFR on a beautiful sunny day simply by looking out of the window to ensure you're following your track and observing your altimeter (the only instrument required, as far as I can tell). No requirement for any form of electrical or vacuum instruments or a radio.

TheOddOne

[tmmorris]

Hence the logging time problem I've been known to agonise over.

My ATPL friends log every flight under IFR in the 'instrument flight' column. I was taught only to log time 'by sole reference to instruments'. Which is tricky.

For example, on Thursday afternoon I flew to and from the Severn bridges for a nice view in the afternoon sun. As we climbed out of our home field we passed through a thin scattered cloud layer. For a few seconds we were IMC - and we flew the entire flight under IFRs. So do I log that bit? After all, without an IMC rating it would have been illegal...

If I logged all my IFR flight time as instrument flight in the logbook I'd have a hell of a lot more - almost all my flying is IFR according to the technical definitions, with a little VFR at each end if I don't do a SID or IAP!

Tim

(edited to add - which is why it is often said that in the UK, IFR is a state of mind...)

[IO540]

The whole question of logging time is according to which piece of paper you are trying to get...

Is "IFR time" usable against anything at all? I don't know. Maybe something in the ATPL, but which ATPL?

Solo "instrument time" is usable towards the FAA IR, to a limited extent. One has to do 15hrs dual training. In practice nobody will have the slightest chance of passing the FAA IR checkride, never mind the oral, unless they have way exceeded the logbook hours requirements. What usually catches people out (on logbook requirements) is specific stuff like the 250nm x/c with 3 different approaches - some examiners require them done on the same day, some are happy if they are done in the context of a long trip somewhere.

[G_STRING]

Do you have to have either a JAA or FAA CPL rating in order to do an FAA Instrument Rating? (Or can you do the FAA IR on the back of a JAA PPL)?

[IanSeager]

Do you have to have either a JAA or FAA CPL rating in order to do an FAA Instrument Rating? (Or can you do the FAA IR on the back of a JAA PPL)

You can have the FAA IR on the back of an FAA PPL, which can itself be on the back of your JAA PPL...if you see what I mean.

Ian

[tmmorris]

Not trying to get anything! I have an IMCR and might decide or be forced into an IR at some stage (see other thread!) but I am assuming the hours won't count for that unless they've formed part of a course of training, even if the requirements for the ground exams are made more sensible.

It's just a case of having an accurate record of my flight time.

Tim

[IO540]

Not trying to get anything! I have an IMCR and might decide or be forced into an IR at some stage (see other thread!) but I am assuming the hours won't count for that unless they've formed part of a course of training, even if the requirements for the ground exams are made more sensible.

The current JAA IR gives no credit for any previous instrument training.

The FAA IR gives you full credit for previous instrument training, done anywhere.

IFR is sufficient and just shows future employers you have experience in this environment so should know what's what.

Well, OK, but that is outside the private GA context. I am not aware of any license or a rating which a private pilot can collect, where logged "IFR time" would be useful.

Typically, in European IFR/airways flight, one spends 99% of the time in clear VMC - at least that is the continuous objective. I certainly would not log that as "instrument flight".

[englishal]

Not trying to get anything! I have an IMCR and might decide or be forced into an IR at some stage (see other thread!) but I am assuming the hours won't count for that unless they've formed part of a course of training, even if the requirements for the ground exams are made more sensible.
In which case your best best would be to do the FAA IR and then convert THAT to JAR via the 15 hr route depending on your total IMC time.

If you have enough hours, you can do the FAA IR within a week - one of my mates who now flies Airbuses did it in about 6 days from IMC rating - over a weekend, so it is possible.

Play your cards right and you can do it somewhere that teaches you JAR procedures and tolerances and so when you convert you can be sure to do it in minimums....

Just an idea ;)

[rustle]

The current JAA IR gives no credit for any previous instrument training.

Yes it does if the "previous training" ended with an ICAO IR.

An important subtlety you inadvertently missed in your post. ;)

[IO540]

Yes, you are right.

However, this is more complex.

The 15 hrs training requirement for the conversion is a UK only thing. It is not in JAA. I know for a fact that e.g. Switzerland does not apply it - you "just" sit the JAA exams and turn up for the IR checkride.

So there is no such thing as a "credit" on an ICAO IR -> JAA IR conversion. The whole ICAO IR is carried forward. Only the UK wants you to sit with an instructor for 15hrs.

The fact that most people will need > 15hrs of familiarisation flying, with an instructor who knows the tricks the examiner will try on you, is a separate issue.

Englishal - I'd like to meet your friend who did an FAA IR over a weekend. He must have had some very recent flying, logged or not. It can't be done otherwise; the workload on the checkride is too high to just jump in from any sort of "normal flying".

[IO540]

Since the US pulled out of ICAO

What????

The USA has filed some differences to ICAO, but then so have many other countries. That is how ICAO works.

[englishal]

Englishal - I'd like to meet your friend who did an FAA IR over a weekend. He must have had some very recent flying, logged or not. It can't be done otherwise; the workload on the checkride is too high to just jump in from any sort of "normal flying".
He did the FAA IR in literally 5-6 days and about 8 hours. BUT but but ......initially he did the IMCr in the USA and all previous logged instructional time was with FAA CFII which may have been an advantage. He also had JAA CPL and had just done the JAA FI rating. He'd also used the IMCr for a number of years before getting the FAA IR....

He then converted to JAR and now flies Airbuses (A300 I believe....maybe he'll be along in a bit;))....

[S-Works]

The current proposal from EASA to allow N Reg ops in Europe is that the aircraft must be maintained with European oversight to European standards and that the crews must conform to European licensing in addition to FAA licensing.

This I suspect is to keep the biz jet type operators happy and to give EASA the oversight that they claim is necessary. The cutoff being proposed is 90 days to allow the ferry flight, visitors etc to come and go as needed but ensure that based operators are inside the EASA regime.

Strikes me as being a very reasonable solution to the N Reg issue and as rustle points out holders of an FAA get significant credit towards the JAA IR.

For the record it has not been my experience or that of anyone I know for a CAAFU examiner to try any tricks on candidates. The test is carried out to a standard format identical to the 170a test the candidate already did and is carried out to extremely professional standards. You either make the grade or don't there is no trickery involved.

[englishal]

What is PPL/IR's stance on this? (as you are an AOPA rep, their stance is clear)....

Ta

[172driver]

Bose, are you in effect saying that there will be no more N-Reg flying in Europe? If I read you right, then to all intents and purposes that's what it means: European maintenance / European licenses.

Please clarify, if I'm getting this wrong.

[S-Works]

No I am saying that the current proposal is to allow N-reg ops to continue in Europe subject to EASA oversight on maintenance and crew licensing.

[IO540]

The current proposal from EASA to allow N Reg ops in Europe is that the aircraft must be maintained with European oversight to European standards and that the crews must conform to European licensing in addition to FAA licensing.

Do you have a reference for that, other than the 2004 EASA document (which I can dig up in about 10 mins if I need to) which refers to EASA maintenance standards.

How would you propose to certify an N-reg aircraft as compliant under the EASA maintenance regime without EASA accepting FAA certification?

The cutoff being proposed is 90 days to allow the ferry flight, visitors etc to come and go as needed but ensure that based operators are inside the EASA regime.

Reference? Any EASA URL will do fine.

[youngskywalker]

If this is true then it effectively puts and end to the careers of pilots like me who only have FAA licences and can't convert either due to medical reasons or time/money restraints. Ah well, to be honest after 14 years of constant hassle and negativity i'm getting a bit 'scunnered' with the whole aviation industry... :(

[172driver]

Hmmmmm - how is 'oversight' defined then ?

[S-Works]

IO,
Information provided to me this week for review. I am unable to share exact content with you due to non disclosure.
However feel free to write to EASA yourself.
I am sure you will come up with a dozen reasons why I am wrong just as you did last year when I told you that I thought the IMCR was going.......
;)
The definition of oversight at the moment is bringing maintenance under the control of EASA organisation and synergy of licensing.

As I said before it strikes me that this is an effort on the part of EASA to accommodate N-Reg operations in Europe. After all the holder of an FAA IR is trained to the same high standard as a JAA IR holder so conversion should be a simple thing to achieve. Europe will continue to support ICAO and the Chicago convention by allowing foreign crews to operate with current licenses but ensure that those choosing to operate in European airspace on a permanent basis are given oversight.

There will be a transition period for all crews to achieve the correct licensing. There is nothing new here, it is just the same as happens under the FAA as I understand it.

[englishal]

But the licencing requirements in the states are less "onerous". They will give you an IR if you sit the "IFP" ground exam. IN fact they will give you a certificate based upon your foreign licence, and medical, which will include all ratings and type ratings for private use with no formality and no tests other than the IFP ground exam.

If EASA would do the same, give me a PPL ME IR and SE IR based upon one ground exam then you would of course have no objection me or most people on here....

Interestingly the French WILL give a JAA IR to an FAA IR holder who is not an EU/EEA resident.

[IO540]

The proposal to kick out N-reg has been around for far longer than I have been flying, according to old hands in the business.

The implementation is incredibly difficult.

Aeroplanes have a tendency to fly, so anybody operating a fleet will just rotate it via the EU. Anybody who can rent/lease will rent for 90 days and then rent another one. The commercial opportunities there are obvious.

Anybody over 5700kg can go on the IOM register, or one of the others which accept FAA certification/licensing.

Ultimately, the only people one could really screw would be small N-reg private pilots who can only just afford to do what they currently do. These are mostly FAA IR owner/pilots, and it's pretty obvious that their total number in Europe is under 1000.

Then one has to address the very basic issue of how one could subject an aircraft operated under FAA Part 91 to EASA maintenance requirements when the aircraft itself is not EASA certified, or contains equipment (e.g. TCAS) which is not EASA certified.

This has obviously not been thought through at all, but then neither was the 2005 UK DfT proposal, which was spectacularly withdrawn the instant it got anywhere near somebody with a brain who had to think about implementing it.

I am not saying the future is cast in concrete - it isn't. Everything is fluid.

There is even a possibility (very remote) of a total ban on private (i.e. non ATPL) flight in controlled airspace under IFR. There are many old farts in aviation regulation who want this.

But it's important to keep balance and not cause undue distress to pilots, by claiming such and such is just around the corner.

[tmmorris]

Thanks, Englishal, I will keep an eye on developments with the IMCR/IR and may well do as you suggest - we have friends in the US within 10 minutes' drive of a nice regional airport where they have already tried to sign me up for an IR (as I already fly with them on my FAA piggyback licence). So it would be logistically simple.

Tim

[julian_storey]

Well said IO540 :D

It would be almost impossible to prevent 'N' reg aircraft from being operated in the UK.

To do so would open up a huge can of worms - for example, if an 'N' reg biz jet and its FAA qualified crew are deemed by some piece of ill thought out legislation to be inadequately maintained and flown by an underqualified crew, then so potentially is the United Airlines 747 that flies into Heathrow. It's a nonsense.

The threat to the UK IMC rating is altogether more real and we should all do whatever we can to prevent that from happening.

[rustle]

...for example, if an 'N' reg biz jet and its FAA qualified crew are deemed by some piece of ill thought out legislation to be inadequately maintained and flown by an underqualified crew, then so potentially is the United Airlines 747 that flies into Heathrow. It's a nonsense.

"Keeping balance" is a good point by IO540, but the only nonsense in the quoted rant is the implication that a "biz jet" or UA 747 weighs in at less than 5700lbs.

It is the sub 5700lb aircraft they're after, and they will eventually win.

Dual oversight of maintenance is not difficult, but I would imagine it will become expensive as there will necessarily be two sets of paperwork to complete.

A lot of you N-reg bods already maintain two logbooks, FAA and JAA, as the recording requirements are slightly different: Why such a great problem to understand dual-logging all aircraft maintenance etc?

[172driver]

It would be almost impossible to prevent 'N' reg aircraft from being operated in the UK

I think the danger is not that they can't be operated in the UK, or anywhere else in Europe for that matter, but that they can't be based here.

[S-Works]

No the proposal does not stop operation or basing of N Reg. In fact it merely states that EASA want oversight of the maintenance and oversight of the licensing. This is an improvement over other proposals that wanted rid of the N Reg completely.

If you want to be based in Europe for more than 90 days the EASA wants oversight. If you are visiting like the airlines then oversight is maintained by the FAA.

I have not read anywhere that EASA consider FAA maintenance or licensing inadequate just that the FAA have admitted they do not maintain oversight of non US based aircraft or crews and so EASA want oversight of aircraft permanently based in their territory.

So the N Reg guys now have what they want which is to continue operations in Europe and EASA have what they want which is oversight. What is wrong with that?

[IO540]

So, copies of the FAA release to service sent to EASA? What is wrong with that? Accompanied by a cheque for Euro 1000, perhaps.

FCL is something else of course. The majority of private N-reg owners are there for the FAA IR.

But then everybody knows that if the certification and FCL are addressed reasonably (e.g. an FAA PPL/IR swapped for an EASA PPL/IR, and FAA STCs and 337s accepted) nobody will be on the N-reg anyway.

[S-Works]

I would suspect that there will be an element of compromise when it comes to the maintenance, long the lines of FAA maintenance schemes being carried out under the auspice of an EASA shop.

As for licensing, I suspect a more thorny issue, an FAA IR 'swapped' for an EASA IR having met the requirements will be the route. The jury is still out on the requirements, but our work has been submitted and is under review.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

As for licensing, I suspect a more thorny issue, an FAA IR 'swapped' for an EASA IR having met the requirements will be the route. The jury is still out on the requirements, but our work has been submitted and is under review.
So ... you're saying that for the IMCR holder the route will be

(1) get an FAA IR (because the hours already undertaken for the IMCR count, which they wouldn't in Europe)

(2) swap this for an EASA IR?

[S-Works]

What is with the Brits always looking for an 'easy' way of doing things.......... If there was a straight road between point A and B the Brits would find the detour.
Or how about have an IMCR and go and do an EASA IR?

Rather than going through what is a vastly convoluted detour to achieve the same thing? We are only talking about losing 15 hrs for gods sake. I have done that in the last week.

There will never be a straight 'swap' you will have to meet an national requirements wherever you. I just did the same in Canada, I had to take the exams and the flight test. It is the same the world over.

The IMCR training does not count for squat in the global scheme of things. I refer you back to my previous comments on average poor standard of IMC training. It's the reason we have no support for the rating in Europe!

Going the FAA route to come back to the JAA route just reinforces the view the Europeans have. You do yourselves no favours.....

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I am well aware that there is a faction who believe that anyone who doesn't do fifteen hours every week isn't current enough to be safe and shouldn't be flying.

The simple truth is that many of us do not have enough money to fly fifteen hours per week.

Currently the authorities do not support your point of view. If they come to do so lots of us will stop flying. Which you, I suppose, might consider to be a Good Thing.

[S-Works]

I am entitled to my point of view just as you are entitled to yours.

Out of interest if you cant afford to fly on a regular basis how can you think you will be safe with an IR

[julian_storey]

BOSE although I agree that you need to be current to fly in IMC conditions safely, you don't need to fly 15 hours a week.

[S-Works]

Julian, I never said that...... It was Gertrude in a fit of petulance that insinuated that I had.....

I merely pointed out that to be safe in IMC you have to be current, to be current you have to fly regularly, to fly regularly costs money. Which ever way uu look at it Instrument flight is not cheap.

If the loss of the IMC keeps the ill trained, ill equipped non current flyer out of IMC conditions then so be it.

But we are talking at cross purposes. I think the loss of the IMCR would be a disaster for British aviation. I just get fed up of the endless tirade against getting a proper instrument qualification and the constant need for short cutting the system.
The Eurocrats are driven by the airlines and the airlines representatives on these committees are usually not a million miles away from these forums. So when they sit at committee expressing there concerns about keeping light aviation away from the fare paying punters they have a wealth of information to back up what they say.

What I would like to see is the IMCR overhauled and accepted as a file difference specific to the UK. Trying to flog it to the europeans as a euro wide rating is a flight of fantasy. Getting the IAOPA to support it is flight of fantasy. The IMCR is a British anomaly that Europe does not really understand.

The UK CAA want to see the rating retained and to that end our working group has carried out a review and revised the IMCR and submitted it.
But I get fed up with peoples attitudes, it always seems that they are looking for a shortcut and that does not put GA in a good light.

I may appear blunt and often writing seems to convey that I have a poor attitude, but this is not the case. There are many on these forums who work with me on these matters and understand who passionately I feel about GA and preserving everything we have. I am also pragmatic and inn politics and bureaucracy everything is a case of give and take. This is unfortunately part of being forced to be European. I hate it the much as the next man and much prefer the US way of doing things. However the US is several thousand miles away, Europe is here or 26m way depending on your view.

[youngskywalker]

I have no objection to having to pass a handful of relevant exams and even to do a 50 hour IR conversion if thats whats required to convert from my FAA Multi CPL IR; it's the 14 ATPL exams and the best part of a years study with mandatory groundschool that put's me off and I suspect many of the other Pilots on here also, not to mention the expensive and much more stringent class one medical, which I failed anyway!

Think I'll pack it all in and go back to flying model aeroplanes...

[tmmorris]

Hear, hear.

(though you don't need a class 1 for PPL/IR, of course, just a class 2 and audiogram)

Tim

[Fuji Abound]

Bose

You mention the attitude of the airlines towards the IMCR and the perceived poor standard of training.

These seems a little a variance given the comment also made that they dont understand the IMCR. It would worry me to have an attitude about something I didnt understand.

Out of interest, do they produce any evidence to supoort their contention in terms of incidents or accidents involving pilots with only an IMCR? Hvae they been asked to produce the evidence or to justify their attitude?

[Guys, plenty of comment here but please dont ignore the sticky. Clearly a lot of you dont agree with this, but you have to read the sticky, add your support, comments etc otherwise it is all a waste of time really - please]

[172driver]

The Eurocrats are driven by the airlines and the airlines representatives on these committees are usually not a million miles away from these forums. So when they sit at committee expressing there concerns about keeping light aviation away from the fare paying punters they have a wealth of information to back up what they say.

One could of course point out the situation in the US where airlines and GA comingle without problems. I would even go further - it is BECAUSE they comingle, that there are no problems! If you learn to fly 'in the system' from day one, then you won't be totally thrown by a controller's instructions, you will also be accustomed to flying in CAS, etc, etc. I gets dangerous where those who never, ever had to deal with anything other than their local airfield (and its quite often very idiosyncratic R/T) start to mingle with the heavy metal.

it's the 14 ATPL exams and the best part of a years study with mandatory groundschool that put's me off and I suspect many of the other Pilots on here also

Count me in :ugh:

[rustle]

It would worry me to have an attitude about something I didnt understand.

ROFL :D

Good one. :ok:

[S-Works]

Fuji, you have hit the nail on the head. The airlines can't justify anything because the IMCR has a great safety record for a number of reasons. The holder of an IMC is split into a number of factions. Those that do it as a way of improving skills but have no aptitude or desire for instrument flight.

Those that do it and see it as a get out of jail free card but in reality never actually fly near iMC conditions or even in aircraft that are remotely IMC capable but like having the 'badge' that they are 'instrument' pilots.

Then there are the IMR holders who view it as a serious instrument qualification and spend considerable time, effort and money in consistently improving those instrument skills. I flew for more than a thousand hours using the IMCR.

The final group are the FAA IR holders who have an IMCR on the back of an IR. Again they have proven their dedication to safe instrument flight by making the effort to go out and get an ICAO IR even if 90% of them can't exercise the privileges to the full extent.

So if you look at the typical use of the IMCR the stats stack up very much in our favour.

The big problem in these discussions is that the people are incapable of separating a proper IR (FAA or JAA)from the IMC and the view that the IMCR is as good as an FAA IR and getting the FAA IR is just a top up. i have met very few IMCR pilots who were capable of doing any IR in minima based on their IMC skills. Those that did came from the regular IMC flyer group as mentioned above which in real terms also puts them far above minima as well. I did my JAA IR in exactly the minima including a first pass on the test, was that as a result of a mere 15 hrs of IMCR training or a thousand hours as an IMCR pilot?

[Fuji Abound]

The big problem in these discussions is that the people are incapable of separating a proper IR (FAA or JAA)from the IMC

I agree, and which it was never intended to be.

I may be important to educate them first. Then press them for the evidence - which I dont believe exists.


ROFL

Good one.

You just dont learn - do you?

Everyone else is trying to have a serious discussion about something important. At least on this occasion do try and join in and not spoil it please -leave the fun to an appropriate thread. It is the usual differences and people trying to be clever that means we never achieve anything.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

OK OK, let's be a bit more reasonable ...

I recognise your classification of IMCR holders. I don't know what I'm going to use it for myself, I haven't finished the course.

Mostly I'm doing the course to improve my skills. But the ability to not worry too much about how much cloud there is beneath me, and descend through it on the ILS at my home field if necessary, would widen the choice of days on which I could go for local joyrides. In a rented plane under the club's flying order book rules, which are rather stricter than the priviledges of the IMCR.

I don't know what evidenced case could be made for taking that away from us.

FWIW, at a few hours into the course I'm finding it hard work[#], and I don't expect to finish in 15 hours, and I would absolutely agree that I'm only going to learn how to do a subset of instrument flying not-very-well, and I can quite see that doing fifty hours or so is necessary to be taught the full range of skills to a reasonable level of comfort and accuracy. (It seems to me, for example, that to be comfortable tracking away from an NDB accurately at night with a vacuum failure and insufficient lighting to read the compass is worth a couple of hours on its own, in varying wind conditions, and obviously if you multiply that by everything that needs doing it comes to more than 15 hours.)

So, if the IMCR went, whilst I would regret its passing, I might decide to get some sort of IR by doing "the rest of" the training. What seems unreasonable is

(1) that the training already undertaken won't count
(2) having to pass exams in lots of stuff that isn't relevant to flying a 172 outside controlled airspace (which is all I would want to do with it).

Hence musing about potential "short cuts" which might avoid (1) and (2). Still doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[#] Which is good. People like challenges from time to time.

[rustle]

You just dont learn - do you?
IMHO it prob 98 isn't me that needs to learn more about airspace, rules, training requirements or EASA.

Everyone else is trying to have a serious discussion about something important. At least on this occasion do try and join in and not spoil it please -leave the fun to an appropriate thread. It is the usual differences and people trying to be clever that means we never achieve anything.

"People" aren't trying to be clever but with this thread, the IMC rating disappearing thread, and your other sticky thread, the disinformation and ill-informed discussion about ratings, EASA, airspace and training requirements beggars belief.

...and you want to write to people to influence things with that same disinformation?

If you got a letter and some/most of it was completely incorrect how much value would you place on the rest of it?

File 13 - the round one under the desk.

No wonder bose-x feels like :ugh: :hmm:

[englishal]

If there wasn't the ATPL exams (or whatever - we've been through this before, may as well do at least the CPL exams), the Class 1 audiogram, and not the mandatory 15 hour conversion but a flight test and training as required, then I'd convert my FAA IR to a JAA one.

I don't see what purpose the 15 hour "conversion" course serves, other than to milk people for money. If someone is not good enough, they won't pass the IR test, simple! If they are good enough, they will pass wwith flying colours. Why can't the examiners decide?

Realistically I would do some sort of conversion - but I'd do this at my own pace, and probably not with a JAR approved FTO. I have friends in aviation who would help me out.....But it seems like it is "jobs for the boys"...

Offer that, and it may apease a lot of folk ;)

[Fuji Abound]

"People" aren't trying to be clever but with this thread, the IMC rating disappearing thread, and your other sticky thread, the disinformation and ill-informed discussion about ratings, EASA, airspace and training requirements beggars belief.

Well it might be helpuf if you steer us in the right direction then?
I am afraid I have no time for people who take great satisfaction in pointing out how wrong everyone else is, but contirbute nothing.
How about a list of:

a) the elements that constiture disinformation,

b) the elements that comprise ill informed discussion about ratings,

c) the elements that comprise ill informed discussion about training.

If you have nothing useful to contribute other than smart arse remarks I guess most people will ignore you.

If you have something useful to say to help steer us in the correct direction.

I for one would be very grateful to learn.

[Contacttower]

rustle it would be good if you could identify what incorrect info is on all these IMC rating related threads. Personally I do feel rather confused about the whole thing :confused:.

[rustle]

Okay, starter for ten.

What, exactly, are you asking for?

Is it:

A) Wichety Grub ;)

A) Retention of the UK-valid IMC rating (as now) as a "national rating"?

B) Creation of a new EASA-wide IMC rating?

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.

If the intention is to create a new EASA-wide IMC rating then the next (first of many) question will be how you might handle the French (to name one) lower airway structure which, unlike the UK, isn't predominantly > class D?

Is the expectation that France will suddenly accept 15-hour IF pilots into their airways systems?

Is the expectation that they would "uprate" their airways to C or higher?

Or is the expectation that the EASA-IMC rating would not allow IF in CAS at all (unlike our current which allows IF upto D)?

Fairly basic stuff which needs to be discussed if this is to be a meaningful discussion, yes?

[Fuji Abound]

Rustle

Mmmm, well you have not answered the question .. .. ..

(which was to let us all know the details of the disinformation)

.. .. .. and the idea was to promote constructive discussion.

Of the questions you pose:

a) Is of course just plain stupid,

b) To which your answer is "you are on a hiding to nothing"

c) Which misses the point completely.

In short, this contibutes nothing.

Fair enough, if your position is it is a done deal I reespect your view, even though I dont agree with it.

I promise you only need to tell us once.

If it isnt lets having something more constructive.

[rustle]

Of the questions you pose:

a) Is of course just plain stupid,

b) To which your answer is "you are on a hiding to nothing"

c) Which misses the point completely.

In short, this contibutes nothing.

Fair enough, if your position is it is a done deal I reespect your view, even though I dont agree with it.

I promise you only need to tell us once.

If it isnt lets having something more constructive.

Frankly I can't be arsed to do all your work for you. If you see no value (i.e. something constructive) in understanding just one of many issues faced then more fool you.

5 years time we'll see where we are shall we, like your last well intentioned but ultimately useless campaign you started some 5 years ago (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=73102) will you still be talking about this in 2012?

Problem is EASA take over before then :D

Contacttower hopefully you, at least, can see some point in understanding at least some of the basics of that which you are trying to change? :confused:

BTW, when was this forum renamed "Fuji's Corner", and the only allowed posters are those who know FA? ;) :8

[Contacttower]

Contacttower hopefully you, at least, can see some point in understanding at least some of the basics of that which you are trying to change? :confused:



Of course I do.

BTW shouldn't this discussion continue on the 'End of the IMC rating' thread rather than this one which was meant to be about the FAA IR?

[Fuji Abound]

Frankly I can't be arsed to do all your work for you. If you see no value (i.e. something constructive) in understanding just one of many issues faced then more fool you.

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.

I think the IMCR is very well worth while trying to save. Trying to do so might well fail - bit surely it has to be worth a shot?

I have always believed the FAA IR is not the answer - but as more than a few pilots have found, it is the only practical alternative. Just do not be surprised if in Euroland once the IMCR is gone, next on the list will be the FAA IR.

cjboy

Exactly right, and we should all congratulate Bose for his efforts and give him every support.

I think this illustrates very well another aspect of the dreadful current state of affairs - EASA has brought with it uncertainty. No one is sure whether the IMCR will go, whether EASA will target Euro based N reg aircraft, or whether an accessable PPL IR can be negotiated by Bose and others. It is a muddle, completely unsatisfactory in a business were certainty is a pre-requisite.

What a shambles.

[IO540]

Rustle

You could try being a bit less aggressive in your postings. I've just looked at that 2002 thread you link to, and I note that some people had the same "I've done it so can't see why everybody else can't" attitude as they have today. I also note that there is the same bu11sh1t in there as we hear today e.g.

For starters, the TMA's are already full, as are the airways feeding them - hence slot times and height capping

which is nonsense. You can do a flight at FL100-FL200 right across any bit of Europe and you are very unlikely to get visual with anything, short of FL350 traffic high above. I've already explained why this is and won't do it again. Anybody who actually flies airways at GA levels knows this anyway; the extreme scarcity of traffic in that height band is quite evident enough.

Slot times do exist but they are merely an artefact of the Eurocontrol computer. They almost always mean nothing in the context of any real bottlenecks. Height capping? I'd love to be height capped to FL200 ;)

There should be less aggression in these discussions.

Pprune has a lot wider expertise on it, and a lot fewer nonstop meaningless one-liner generators, than Flyer.co.uk (which is a good thing) but it has a lot more people who behave aggressively (which is very bad).

Fuji

Very true, but has there ever been "certainty" in this game? I know you have been flying far longer than I have, but I have never seen any stability. Everything is up for grabs, and we pilots (well, anybody who is after anything beyond the simplest UK-only-VFR capability) live a constant paper chase.

Uncertainty is also created deliberately by regulatory bodies. Nobody is going to propose a hard-hitting and extremely controversial regulation in a half hearted manner.

[Roffa]

Fuji wrote:
I have always believed the FAA IR is not the answer - but as more than a few pilots have found, it is the only practical alternative. Just do not be surprised if in Euroland once the IMCR is gone, next on the list will be the FAA IR.

I don't follow your logic here, are you suggesting that taken to its extreme all US airlines will be banned from flying to Europe because the crews have FAA IRs?

[rustle]

I also note that there is the same bu11sh1t in there as we hear today e.g.

For starters, the TMA's are already full, as are the airways feeding them - hence slot times and height capping

which is nonsense.

You inadvertently missed the follow up (several posts further) to that TMA comment though: ...I would have thought my comment about TMAs being "full" was clearly tongue in cheek...

Apologies if my "TMA is full" gag caused FA's PPL-IR campaign to fail :O

[Contacttower]

I don't follow your logic here, are you suggesting that all US airlines will be banned from flying to Europe because the crews have FAA IRs?


I don't think Fuji was saying that...I think the FAA IR isn't the answer because it just seems so silly to go to another country to do a rating that isn't valid in the aircraft of your home country.

Many do though and I'll probably be one of them soon. The loss of an automatic IMC rating from the FAA IR might see the numbers doing it from the UK reduce though.

[Fuji Abound]

Uncertainty is also created deliberately by regulatory bodies. Nobody is going to propose a hard-hitting and extremely controversial regulation in a half hearted manner.

Yes, you are of course correct.

I suppose my point was that under the auspices of the CAA so far as FCL was concerned we have had a long period of stability. Pilots knew the requirments - and they knew where they stood.

EASA has caused much instability. Pilots do not know whether to train towards an IMCR. They dont know whether there might be further challenges to the FAA IR (although I dont it) and they dont know whether thier will be other widespread changes.

Perhaps EASA was a great mistake but it is too late for that.

However if EASA is not aware how strongly we feel about certain of the proposed changes then we shouldnt be surprised if changes there will be - and we will not like them

Returning to the issue, given that the life of an IMCR is 25 months, can anyone tell me if this means the CAA will have to cease issueing the rating or instructors have to cease signing off the renewal at leat 25 months before the rating is abolished (if that comes too pass)?

[Fuji Abound]

No don't think Fuji was saying that...I think the FAA IR isn't the answer because it just seems so silly to go to another country to do a rating that isn't valid in the aircraft of your home country.

Yes, thanks for the clarrification.

Apologies if my "TMA is full" gag caused FA's PPL-IR campaign to fail

Not funny, just boring. You must have something better to do. We got it - you think it is a complete waste of time. How many more times do you want to tell everyone.

PS You are not on the EASA committee are you?

PPS .. .. .. but I like it - it just makes everyone else realise it is worth trying to do something about it :ok: If you posted under two different names one name would be me and one owuld be you :) :) :)

[IO540]

The FAA IR will always be completely safe. The only body which can mess with it is the USA and they won't do that since most of the world flies under FAA licenses/ratings. Every U.S. airliner has an FAA ATPL in the LHS and either an ATPL or an FAA CPL/IR (like I have) in the RHS.

A particular country has some control over who flies through its airspace, but this isn't politically possible to mess with. Angola can do that for example (and shoot down anybody flying without permission) but one can't do that sort of thing in Europe.

What this comes down to in the end is control over long term parking of aircraft, according to their registration. Trying to work out how this control could be implemented and enforced is a mind bending exercise, particularly given the very low numbers involved (very low 4 digits for all of Europe). The main population (foreign reg jets etc) will escape simply through mobility - no parking control is possible on them.

There is a side issue involving the use of foreign (FAA) licenses in domestic (G-reg) aircraft (and this could be stopped easily through a change to the ANO) but this is largely moot anyway since very few pilots fly a G-reg on an FAA PPL, and anyway the UK is the only country in Europe that automatically validates ICAO PPLs for use in a G-reg.... The N-reg issue is mostly over the FAA IR and then you are flying an N-reg anyway.

[rustle]

Not funny, just boring. You must have something better to do. We got it - you think it is a complete waste of time. How many more times do you want to tell everyone.

:ugh:

I can't figure out if you are really, really thick or just pretending.

The comment you quoted was so obviously referring to a thread from 5 years ago that I cannot fathom how you think I was referring to this new campaign of yours.

Just for once why don't you open your eyes and mind and read some of the very constructive criticisms and helpful advice posted by bose-x, DFC and myself.

The only time a campaign like yours becomes a waste of time is when it can be shot down in flames immediately because the basics are incorrect or not thought about: Things myself, bose and DFC have all mentioned in the various threads scattered around.

[Contacttower]

Is there any way I can get IFR privileges in CAS on G-reg with an FAA IR?

Reason I ask is that for South Africa I have a 'foreign licence validation' which clears me to fly ZS (SA) reg planes, if I had an IR (FAA or JAA) I could add that to the validation after passing a flight test and that would clear me to fly IFR in ZS reg planes wherever I wanted to.

Is there a way of doing this in the UK?

[S-Works]

It's not the UK anymore, it is Europe, like it or not. You may take a flight test and some ground school and refresher training. The UK stipulates 15hrs for this but now we are part of one Europe I expect the same standard to be applied which hopefully will just be training as required.

[Contacttower]

The UK stipulates 15hrs for this but now we are part of one Europe I expect the same standard to be applied which hopefully will just be training as required.

So actually the situation might improve a little bit for FAA IR holders as far as using them in Europe is concerned?

[IO540]

Is there any way I can get IFR privileges in CAS on G-reg with an FAA IR?

No.

The conversion process (if it can be called that) from an ICAO IR to a CAA issued JAA IR is this:

- sit all the applicable JAA IR exams, as appropriate according to whether it is a PPL or a CPL

- do min 15hrs flying

- pass the IR checkride

Elsewhere in Europe, the 15hrs requirement may be missing (it is not a JAA thing) but you still have to pass the checkride.

There is no shortcut. The full ground school has to be studied and passed, even if you have an ICAO ATPL. That is the vast bulk of the work. The 15hrs of flying is probably not a major issue for most - you can knock that off in a week.

[S-Works]

Yes, it's all part the of review of the IR proposals that we put forward and are now sat with EASA.

[Fuji Abound]

The comment you quoted was so obviously referring to a thread from 5 years ago that I cannot fathom how you think I was referring to this new campaign of yours.

Forgive me for not responding any more - I am afraid that I too just dont understand any of your posts, so we are best to just ignore each other otherwise it all seems a little silly. I will just leave you to it for now. :). Good luck.

[Slopey]

bose - are the proposals put forward availiable in the public domain, or on another thread here, or are they for EASA's consumption only currently? Apologies, I'm sure I've seen it on here already - I'll have a search - unless you have a handy link ;)


For those with the time/availiability, possibly an FAA IR would be a better plan as it'll confer automatic IMCR privalages in G-reg and full IR in N reg. And once EASA take over, if the IMCR is not retained, at best we could hope that for a PPL with an FAA IR, to gain an JAA IR would result in 15hrs training and (hopefully) reduced exam requirements?

I'm just trying to work out which is the best route for me. I'll probably decide to do the IMCR anyway, use it for the 2 years before it gets chucked.

My choices seems to be:

IMCR - in the UK, for around £2k - 15hrs, done up the road, should nail it in a week or two.

FAA IR - in the states, around £4-5k, would take me a good few weeks - wife liable to kill me, if I don't take her with me!

JAA IR - possibly somewhere like Aerodynamics - circa £7k (£10k in blighty), but loads of exams - so many months more studying, take a good few weeks, wife liable to kill me in general.

As much as I want to do something which won't get dumped in 2 years, I want to get on and use the rating as marginal VMC definately keeps me stuck on the ground at the moment. I don't need class A access, and I don't need airways, and I'm not going to have access to an N reg any time soon.

I think ultimately I'll just have to take the IMCR route then become a staunch campaigner against it's removal! And possibly add a personal £5-10 an hour "IR fund" in case the worst happens!

Either way, us PPLs wanting an instrument qual are in limbo. But at least I'd get a couple of years (hopefully) use out of it.

And as someone said previously, it's not necessarily the hours requirement which is irritating, it's the exam requirements which assume I want to be an fATPL. If at least those were removed, it would be a great boon. The UK will always remain very expensive (probably even more with the loss of the IMCR), but at least there's the other european outfits who should be able to fill the gap at a lower rate. I'm surprised no eastern european outfits have got in on the act yet - or are they not part of JAA yet?

[S-Works]

If you don't want a frozen ATPL why don't you just do the IR exams instead.......

No one has given any timescales for the demise of the IMCR so I would still be doing it now. If nothing else it will sharpen your general flying skills and prepare you for a full IR in the future if you feel your path lies that way.

I did outline the proposals on a thread somewhere, the actual documents are not available for consumption on this website.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

the actual documents are not available for consumption on this website
Open government in action ... not how we run our local council, that's for sure!

[Contacttower]

Open government in action ... not how we run our local council, that's for sure!

Whatever happened to the Freedom of Infomation Act? :suspect:

[S-Works]

Not sure how the freedom of information act pertains to this. If you want the stuff if available under the act then you need to write to EASA and the CAA and ask for them.

Distributing them on anonymous forums is not in my remit.

[Contacttower]

Not sure how the freedom of information act pertains to this.


It doesn't particularly- I was making a joke (sort of).