IMC Rating Petition

[julian_storey]

As some of you may have heard or read elsewhere on this forum, there is a good chance that once EASA harmonisation of european flight crew licensing takes place, the IMC rating (currently a UK only rating) could disappear.

This would be a bad thing for Private Pilots, for the flight training industry and also for safety in general.

I have a little petition on the go . . . .

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/IMC-Rating/

. . . to which I hoped that people might like to add their names.

Perhaps you could also encourage anyone you know who flies or has any kind of interest in aviation to do the same?

[S-Works]

I would sign up if it was not factually incorrect.

If you want to get support for something you need to state the facts correctly......

[Fuji Abound]

AOPA Pilots Are Better Pilots

I'd sign up too if that were factually correct.

Pathetic!

[julian_storey]

BOSE - I think the only factual inaccuracy in the petition wording is that the IMC rating has been around for a little less than the 50 years we originally thought.

The main thrust of the petition though is that unless we do something, a valuable privillige is likely to be lost.

[homeguard]

It is far too early to be sending petitions to the Prime Minister.
The EASA working party have not yet finalised their deliberations but yet rumours abound - who knows the truth of them. When the committee publish for public comment then that will be the correct time to respond with copies to the local MPs and it is worth being ready for that.
I agree also with boseX that any response must be factually correct. The petitions so far, that i've seen on pprune - have not been so and to be honest are a bit wet between the ears.
Comments like; "very few actually use the rating fully but only use it to climb through some cloud, maybe, from time to time (or words to that effect)", rather support the continental view that it is not a serious rating.
I can tell you that my students are trained to proper standards and are able to fly an ILS to mminima.

[Fuji Abound]

Home guard

It is far too early to be sending petitions to the Prime Minister.

I would agree with you but for one paramount exception.

It is not too early.

There are a few smart alecs on here who pointed out we were warned that we did nothing about EASA taking over FCL.

The problem is that there was no informed and inclusive discussion of the issues.

Exactly the same was proving too this time around with regards the IMCR.

Even AOPAs own membership have been complaining for some time about secret committees and lack of public disclosure.

Inclussive discussion is the first step and thanks to PPRuNe that process is underway - but has a long way to run. Just note the amount of discussion here over the last week or so. The net now needs to be spread way beyond us sad lot on PPRuNe.

However the second limb is petitioning.

To gain support to a pettition takes months not weeks. Roll it out just before EASA takes over FCL and you will get 50 names at best - do it now and you might get 1,000 or 10,000 or 50,000. In the real world support counts. If AOPA go to the table and explain they have 10 members no one is interested in what they have to say, if AOPA go to the table and say we can demonstrate there are 50,000 pilots in favour of this in principle people sit up and take note - or if they dont the whole lot should be fired!

[llanfairpg]

Always best to discuss a petition first before going to the Downing Street site as mistakes cannot be modified afterwards.

[Fuji Abound]

Yes, that is true.

Enthusiasm does sometimes get the better of us all. :)

[bigbloke]

The purpose of a petition is to raise awareness to the political establishment that a significant number of citizens are concerned about something that is happening or a possibility of happening and a channel for them to propose something different. In and of itself, there is no guarantee that it will be paid any attention whatsoever. It only really starts to have value when the numbers of signees rack up and it starts getting referred to in press coverage.

I imagine that if Julian were to email the site admins and explain that there is a typo and that it should read thirty something years rather than 50 then this could simply be rectified.

However, it's his democratic right to raise such a petition. I have signed it, warts and all because it proposes something which I support. ie: continuation of the IMCR so that some time in the future I might be able to acquire one. So it has an error in it, so what.

If you think it's worth keeping the IMCR just sign the dammed thing. If not, dont sign it. If somebody else raises a better one, I'll sign that as well, they are not mutually exclusive and I still want the IMCR to be available.

BB

[homeguard]

AOPA have representitives on the various committees. It is they who are not telling us what is being considered and therefore leaving discussion to rumour!
A point that must be borne in mind. Petitions do not have the same effect as individual letters. One petition with 50,000 names is still one petition and throughout politics today there is a general view that people sign anything put before them. 5000 letters is much more effective for it represents the genuine and knowedgeable concern of those involved. Standard letters, i'm told, should also be avoided.
It was known for many years that EASA would to be formed. But, that dosn't matter for it is what they decide that is of concern to us.
The CAA carried out extensive consultion with industry with regard to the JAA but completely ignored the pragmatic feedback repeatedly given. Consultation is a required exercise but usually undertaken with little intention to listen, just the same.
First of all get the facts right.
Secondly make sure that you know what your talking about - hearsay is hearsay.
Thirdly make sure that all involved is informed. Euro MPs, Local MPs, leaders of all political parties. THE CAA Executive and the DIRECTOR OF EASA should be the start.

[llanfairpg]

By the way the way I would progress any argument for retaining the UK IMC rating on the basis that we get a completely different pattern on Wx in this country, mainly straight from the Mid & SW Atlantic and N. Atlantic. drawing a comparison with any other European country is futile and not valid.

Because on the complexity and changeability of our Island weather our PPL pilots need the protection of a rating which is exclusiviley designed for that WX and is retained only for use in the UK.(last bit to satisfy the Euro prats)

On a slightly different point I think the UK IMC rating should concentrate on radar approaches rather then other approaches on the basis that any IMC rated pilot should be able to bring a flight to a safe conclusion within controlled airspace. The place to learn other types of approches in depth should be on the IR.

The IMC rating should be a rating that allows a pilot to get himself out of trouble by climbing to MSA and getting to a suitable airfield to make a SRA or PAR letdown.

[Fuji Abound]

bose-x said:


Quote:
The IMCR is a rating created by the late Ron Campbell in the mid 70's for AOPA. So it has not been around the 40 and 50 years people are spouting off on here. How can you be taken seriously at representing this when you have not even done your research on the background of the rating?????

Good advice, bose-x; advice that perhaps you too should heed!

The IMC Rating was originally introduced in 1970. The syllabus at that time (10 hours) was biased towards basic instrument flying, with VDF its only let-down procedure. Prior to its introduction, a UK PPL could legally fly IMC OCAS without any instrument qualification. The syllabus was subsequently extended into a 15-hour course at the behest of Ron Campbell and AOPA in March 1981.


Worth repeating here.

[llanfairpg]

I agree but the only problem is that a badly worded poll that people do not agree with can work very badly against you. If few people sign it a goverment minister can use this as evidence that not enough people supported retaing the rating and use that as ammunition for its withdrawal.

[julian_storey]

Honestly - do you think that it is sufficiently badly worded that people won't sign it?

I would hope that anyone reasonably sensible, who thought that the IMC rating was worth fighting to keep, would put pedantry to one side and sign it! :ugh:

[llanfairpg]

Well Julian only time will tell, quite honestly the argument about how long the rating has existed has nothing to do with it but it does go to show some of the character deficiencies that allow some people to become involved with unimportant trivia.

I for one apprecaite your intention but as i have said you could end up doing a diservice to the rating if not enough people sign. You need to get a lot of support first before going to a DS petiton, I know(I hope) i have been preparing one for the last 6 months!!!

If I were you i would get in removed talk to the relevant organisations, get some space in the pilot mags, talk to schools/clubs, on here etc etc THEN get your petition up and running

[englishal]

Here's a suggestion...

Those who want to sign it, then please do. Those that don't then kindly bugger off and stop whinging...

By the way, the weather in the UK is not some mystical weather pattern. Eurocrats may just turn around and go "what about Sweden?, Iceland, Ireland....blah"

[S-Works]

The IMC rating has been in existence in the UK for over 30 years. According to those involved in the original IMC rating Working Group, it was designed to provide private pilots with enhanced skills and greater confidence when faced with deteriorating weather conditions, by increasing a pilot’s instrument flying knowledge and radio navigation skills, when compared to the limited instrument flying instruction provided under the PPL syllabus.

The rating was originally lobbied for by industry representatives, most notably AOPA, who wanted to see a stepping-stone between the one-hour instrument navigation training provided under the PPL curriculum and the full-blown commercial Instrument rating, used by commercial pilots operating in Class A airspace.

The 15-hour IMC rating course finally settled upon, allows a private pilot to climb through cloud and operate ‘VFR on-top’ before letting down again through cloud at their destination airport on either an Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach or non-precision let down. The privileges are more limited than those afforded to holders of an Instrument rating, but are nonetheless said to enhance safety and prevent pilots "hedge-hopping" at low-level to remain in sight of the ground. Fundamentally, the IMC rating provides pilots with the skills to get themselves out of trouble when faced with deteriorating weather conditions, and was never designed as a ‘cheap’ Instrument rating. IMC rated pilots, for example, are not allowed access to airways, or Class A airspace and for flights within Class D airspace, which includes the airspace around many of the UK’s airports, 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.

Nonetheless, renowned UK aviator, display pilot and ex CAA employee, Barry Tempest, who was involved in the original IMC consultations back in the 1970s, told us that the rating originally came up against heavy criticism from the professional pilot unions, who saw it as little more than a budget Instrument rating which could compromise the safety of their operations. 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.

[IO540]

IMC rated pilots, for example, are not allowed access to airways, or Class A airspace and for flights within Class D airspace, which includes the airspace around many of the UK’s airports, 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.

You may like to read the above again, bose x.

There is no ban on "airways" (which just happen to be mostly in Class A in the UK) and there is no ban on Class D.

Perhaps some 1970s version of the IMCR did not allow access to Class D under IFR.

Interesting comment about unions. I know nothing about this one way or the other but I do know that any suggestion along these lines but within the ATC profession meets with a fierce response in these pages.

[Fuji Abound]

Fuji wrote:
.. .. .. around 1967 I think.

Fuji also drew attention to

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...84&postcount=3

which says

The IMC rating was introduced a few years before I learned to fly in 1970.

few = more than two, so 1967 seemed reasonable.

The IMCR is a rating created by the late Ron Campbell in the mid 70's for AOPA. So it has not been around the 40 and 50 years people are spouting off on here. How can you be taken seriously at representing this when you have not even done your research on the

Bose, I dont mind your being wrong - I am all the time. But this is what you posted (and now appears to have mysteriously vanished I might add). What I do mind is your constantly telling us that WE cant be taken seriously because we havent done our research.

I gave you an open invitation to point us in the direction of AOPAs rational for preserving the IMCr - do I need to remind you of your response?

I rather hoped we were in this together .. .. .. but it would seem we are not.

.. .. .. and yes, I dont much like AOPA for one reason alone, they tell us their mission is to support GA - ha, well even their own members have this to say

These days it's not good enough to do lots of hard work without ensuring everyone knows that you've been doing lots of hard work. Worse still a lack of communication is virtually an open door for someone else to claim credit or use the lack of communication as a weapon against you.

Communication with the membership is important, but promotion outside the membership base is probably more important. Especially so when competing with other organisations to be heard.

I have been generous. If you like we can explore some of the other comments.

[rustle]

If you read it properly :8 you would understand that the class D references demonstrate that IMC rating holders are allowed in class D under IFR, albeit with higher minimums than a proper instrument rating holder.

PS: How many threads about IMC ratings should be on the go at the same time?

FA keeps on about all the "discussion" he's been promoting, hasn't he realised it is the same 5 people yet?

Maybe he's the pink aviator of 2007 - the same few people continually commenting on [a] thread(s), and he thinks it's popular :D

[Fuji Abound]

PS: How many threads about IMC ratings should be on the go at the same time?

FA keeps on about all the "discussion" he's been promoting, hasn't he realised it is the same 5 people yet?

Maybe he's the pink aviator of 2007 - the same few people continually commenting on [a] thread(s), and he thinks it's popular Rustle

Have a look at the petition and see how many names there are already.
I wonder how those names got there - eh.

Perhaps they read about it here first?

Do you listen to Question Time - Do you actively take part?

May I also remind you that you pointed out that we dont do anything - well, at least we are trying - a bit of support might be useful?

Finally, since only a few are reading it, I wouldnt worry about my comments regarding AOPA if I were you - I dont suppose anyone is taking the slightest bit of notice.

[tmmorris]

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.

This bit isn't true - the first bit of it - either, as we have discussed to death on here many times. (I wonder if it was intended to be but they c@cked up the wording of the ANO? ;) )

Tim

[IO540]

I see some moron has joined up as Basil Brush.

I suppose an IQ of zero does not disqualify people from typing on a keyboard.

[wsmempson]

If you give enough monkeys keyboards, one of them will write Shakespeare. If you hand out less keyboards, you'll only get one of them to sign a petition....

[wsmempson]

i don't think penelope pitstop or lara croft will help much, either. shame.:eek:

[julian_storey]

It is slightly sad to see the bogus names on the petition, presumably added by someone a bit simple who thinks it's funny :ugh:

On a more positive note almost 200 genuine people have signed up in just over three days - so we're headed in the right direction! :ok:

[IO540]

There are likely to be 2000-4000 non-expired IMCR holders in the UK.

[julian_storey]

Well the petition is now up to over 250!