IMCR - The Petition - Please give your support [Archive]

FullyFlapped

14th Dec 2007, 09:05

I sincerely hope the clowns who are setting out to damage this petition (anyone know who they may be?) take a long slow read of the thread on the AAIB report of those two poor sods killed at Blackpool earlier this year. Even leaving personal stupid decision-making to one side, as has already been said, ANY more instrument currency/training/experience than they obviously had on board might just have avoided them getting into that situation in the first place.

And then, personally, I'd be happy to see said clowns have that report rolled into a tight tube and hammered somewhere very painful .... muppets.

FF :=

IO540

14th Dec 2007, 09:40

Not sure whether lobbying European Air Sports is the best course of action. According to reports, they were the chief people who ensured that the LAPL would not have the IFR add-on which EASA had originally wanted it to have.

dublinpilot

14th Dec 2007, 10:38

IO,

Surely that makes them the best people to lobby? They need to know that they are alienating a large group of European pilots, and that there will be consequences if they don't change their mind.

In my experience, people tend to take the path of least resistance. If EAS gets no resistance, then they'll continue down the path they have chosen. If they get a big backlash they may give it further thought.

Obviously it would be wrong to lobby them exclusively, but I see no reason not to lobby them.

dp

Fuji Abound

14th Dec 2007, 14:32

I am pleased to see Dorothy Pooley has signed the petition.

S-Works

14th Dec 2007, 15:05

How do we know it's her? There are so many false entries on that petition now that it no longer has an credibility.

IO540

14th Dec 2007, 15:46

It's obvious that every petition will have a load of monkeys signing it.

What will happen (if anybody ever looks at one of these things) is that somebody will contact a few dozen people at random and check them out. A few clown signatures don't cause a problem.

Fuji Abound

14th Dec 2007, 16:03

I0540

It doesnt matter

- I knew Bosey couldnt resist the comment he made

- Fortunately I have spoken to Dorthy at some length, who is a great supporter of the IMCr and is a very well informed and intelligent lady.

S-Works

14th Dec 2007, 16:35

I am sorry Fudji but I really don't see your point of name dropping.

We know that everyone supports retention of the IMCR, I have not seen a single post or talked to anyone who says it should go. There are those including myself who think the standards need improving but that is a separate discussion.

So I really do not see the point in your continuous posts about who has signed.

What we want to see is how you plan on keeping the rating not. All I see the moment is you enjoying being the centre of attention and doing **** all to represent pilots like myself.

Fuji Abound

14th Dec 2007, 19:53

Why is Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington President of AOPA?

Why is HRH president on many organisations?

We all like to know that people of exceptional ability or standing support or are behind a particular organisation or matter - that's all.

Actually I would far rather not be the centre of attention (if for that matter I am, which I very much doubt).

I have said on a few occasions I do feel very passionatley about this issue.

I have also said I dont have all the answers.

All I am seeking to do is tell as many people as I can that this is really important to us all and we should all work together to find a solution to protect priviliges which we have earned.

rustle

14th Dec 2007, 20:01

So I really do not see the point in your continuous posts about who has signed.

I dunno about that bose.

Graham Hill has signed it (posthumously I assume)

dublinpilot

14th Dec 2007, 21:07

Rustle.....I do hope that it's not you adding these ficticious names to the petition simply to wind up Fuji here. :sad: Whoever is doing it, is doing a great diservice to GA, and is no friend to GA.

Bose, I've noticed that Fuji has refrained from AOPA bashing since my posting the other day asking you & him to call a truce or take it to pm. Can't try to respond by being a little bit more constructive, and not trying to wind him up?

dp

rustle

14th Dec 2007, 21:51

EKKL

14th Dec 2007, 22:05

There is a poster, not a million miles from here who allegedly 'spammed' the Pink Aviators own forum causing it to crash and costing the site owner a fortune to get it sorted out......... (and he -the spammer- is in IT......)

Some people will not learn will they.... :ugh:

Very childish if you ask me.

I am very now hungry and just off to rustle up some food. :D

See you next time. :ok:

englishal

14th Dec 2007, 22:21

It wouldn't surprise me if certain people on here are deliberately trying to sabotage this venture, and hence another attempt to save the IMCr in the process....Indeed someone on ONE of these forums must be doing it, as these are the only places it has been posted.

Not saying anyone is of course, but it wouldn't surprise me....Why else would someone be such a low life tosser to add these bogus names.....

Probably the same ort of person that dobs on their neighbour for having a noisy aeroplane....:ugh:

rustle

14th Dec 2007, 22:28

Indeed someone on ONE of these forums must be doing it, as these are the only places it has been posted.

Don't be so naiive.

All petitions are listed in the index by date opened/date closing/number of "signatures"

If you think the only way to find new petitions is by someone linking to them you are wrong.

Search the petitions site for "CAA" or "aviation" or "pilot" and see how many you can find.

englishal

14th Dec 2007, 22:34

No of course it is not the only way to find out about them....
But it is a coincidence isn't it? And I wouldn't put it past someone on here....and as BoseX's name was allegedly put on there, then it MUST have come from someone viewing one of these forums no?

rustle

14th Dec 2007, 22:35

Infact this one about LoS (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/lee-airfield/) is looking a bit sad :{ with only three sigs...

Fuji Abound

15th Dec 2007, 08:52

Well, however you look at it, still nearly 50 a day - 376 names now on the petition - and it is just the start!

Please tell all your buddies to sign up, tell the instructors, tell your mates at the Flying Schools.

Whatever it does or doesnt achieve it is a hell of a measure of the ongoing support.

Worth also noting that at the current rate over 5,000 pilots will have signed by the time the petition closes.

wet wet wet

15th Dec 2007, 13:40

Just a thought, but I assume that the e-petition site logs the user's IP address. Maybe of interest to the sad git who's out to sabotage this excellent initiative.

Fuji Abound

16th Dec 2007, 21:25

Wet wet wet

True. However I dont think you will find there are very many false names.

However, lest it be forgotten another unashmaed BTT and another reminder of the place to go. I believe it really is important.

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

S-Works

16th Dec 2007, 21:35

Whilst I think it is a waste of time and badly worded. Not to mention the 5,000 signature being a tad optimistic I think the attempts to sabotage it are pathetic.

I would also rather my name had not been added to it as I don't support it in it's current format.

julian_storey

17th Dec 2007, 19:54

I don't actually see why anyone one shouldn't wish to oppose the possible loss of the IMC rating.

Furthermore, I completely fail to understand why anyone (especially one who claims to support the retention of the IMC rating) should be so negative about the efforts of others to save it.

I would support any kind of campaign to save the IMC rating, no matter how weak an idea I felt that particular campaign to be.

S-Works

17th Dec 2007, 19:59

I am sorry Julian, but I have stated my position. I think the IMCR deserves saving but I think that your campaign is cack handed and does little to give credibility to the situation.

I have given you my forecast of the result. If I am proven wrong please feel free to point it out.

In the meantime I can't just add my name to your campaign to give it strength in numbers. It's a principle thing. Sorry.

julian_storey

18th Dec 2007, 11:12

Bose it's not 'MY' campaign. It is a campaign which belongs to all 416 (and growing) people who have signed the petition.

It's a principle thing. Sorry.

Principle my arse.

Some people seem to climb the aviation ladder and then try to pull the ladder up behind them to prevent others reaching their lofty position. As an attitude, this sucks and it depresses me.

You have an Instrument Rating and seem pretty indifferent about those 'lesser souls' who don't have one and who are reliant on their IMC rating to get airborne when the weather is less than perfect.

I went from having a PPL, through to commercial flying on King Airs and now a Lear Jet. I only achieved this with a HUGE amount of generously given help and advice from others in the aviation community. To progress my career still further, I will remain reliant on help from others who know more and have more experience than I do.

In turn, I feel that it is encumbent on me to help those who have less experience than I do to progress their flying (be it as a career or a hobby) to whatever extent that I am able to. This is how it works.

I would suggest that an "I'm alright Jack" attitude doesn't really have a place in aviation and as an experienced aviator you should be ashamed of yourself.

Fuji Abound

18th Dec 2007, 11:37

This is an attitude that very sadly pervades GA like no other "activity". I dont think it has anything to do with the "professional" and "amateur" elements being combined because in my experience the professionals take your view point.

That is not to say that Bose falls into that camp.

Whilst I am sure he will talk for himself, I suspect he would say that he is not opposed to the campaign as such, more the way it has been presented.

As I have sort to explain, in my opinion I dont beleive his argument holds water. I firmly believe given the timescales step one is to ensure as many pilots as possible are aware of the issues. If this is achieved in part by a petition then so much the better. It is not the complete solution and a great deal more lobbying will be required.

As I suspect everyone knows only to well my own view is that none of the representative bodies were publising the issue or promoting it as well as was needed. I appreciate once again on that point Bose and I will disagree.

.. .. .. and back to the petition - I think the support already is superb and I would once again join you in asking everyone to please keep signing up - it is the best start we can make and I firmly believe it will help to demonstrate the strength of view that exists.

PLEASE SIGN

BEagle

18th Dec 2007, 11:39

You will also find that those pilots who, like myself, have held IRs of various types for the past 36 years on aircraft from Bulldog to Phantom to VC10 are quite happy to restrict their retirement IF requirements to the privileges afforded by the IMCR.

I opened my ATPL with a IR/MPA on the VC10 - I didn't need any IR at all to have it re-issued 5 years later.

I don't need - or wish to pay for - the privileges to fly SEP Class aeroplanes under IFR in Class A these days, neither do I need to fly to Cat1 minima. If the weather is that bad, I'll be doing something else!

The UK IMCR provides precisely what I need, is affordable and safe. It is a model the rest of €uroland should adopt with enthusiasm!

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 12:55

IMC ratings are an important sources of revenue for flying schools/clubs is one reason for signing.

By not signing you are saying that you do not agree with the UK IMC rating as a useful qualification for the PPL. I have seen the results of pilots who have had no instrument training, not very nice.

rustle

18th Dec 2007, 14:45

By not signing you are saying that you do not agree with the UK IMC rating as a useful qualification for the PPL.

Rubbish.

I think the IMC rating is a tremendous rating. I had one for a while.

That belief doesn't compel me to sign a petition though.

FullyFlapped

18th Dec 2007, 15:42

I think the IMC rating is a tremendous rating. I had one for a while.

That belief doesn't compel me to sign a petition though.
It obviously doesn't compel you to do anything : and that includes atacking those who are getting off their arses to try and help others (irregardless of whether you believe their actions are misdirected or not).

But just for the sake of argument, if you believe the rating is "tremendous", why won't you sign up to keep it ?

FF (signed up, BTW) :ok:

rustle

18th Dec 2007, 16:45

It obviously doesn't compel you to do anything : and that includes atacking those who are getting off their arses to try and help others (irregardless of whether you believe their actions are misdirected or not).

But just for the sake of argument, if you believe the rating is "tremendous", why won't you sign up to keep it ?

FF (signed up, BTW) :ok:

"Attacking"? :ugh:

FFS, if you (or anyone else) think I have asked any questions in any of the multitude of IMC threads recently that any competent person might not ask then you have completely missed the point.

If "getting off his arse to help" means starting a few threads on PPRuNe, then :D : Well done.

If "getting off his arse to help" means starting a badly worded petition, then :D : Well done.

But if "getting off his arse to help" meant finding out what the objections from the other EASA states might be and crafting an argument to counter those objections then it might have been a genuine :D

Bose and I (amongst others) have mentioned some of the other EASA-state's potential issues with an IMC rating, and if you think it furthers the cause of retaining or re-birthing the IMC rating to slag me off for asking questions instead of actually thinking through some of the objections and finding something (anything) to counter them then you are seriously misguided.

Good luck with the cause. :hmm:

Once you have formulated a plan or counter argument get a petition going that enables the PM to champion that plan: That I will sign happily. :ok:

dublinpilot

18th Dec 2007, 17:11

What part of the petition do you not support? Whatever you think of Fuji's efforts, I can't see much to object to in the petition. :confused:

FullyFlapped

18th Dec 2007, 17:33

Rustle,

Which one of your posts on this thread are you holding up as a constructive attempt to out-manoeuvre objections from other EASA states ?

And I'm not "slagging you off" ... but I don't see how it's helpful to adopt the position of opposition to this petition. Making people aware of the possibility of the loss of this rating IS the start of a plan, surely ? If enough of the UK pilot population sign up, it would be pretty trivial to get a newspaper interested in writing a "pilots outraged at Euro threat to UK air safety" tag : and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where you could go after that, shirley ?

FF :ok:

rustle

18th Dec 2007, 17:34

What part of the petition do you not support?

Asking "the Prime Minister to prevent the disappearance of the IMC rating when EASA take over UK flight crew licensing" when that is outside his direct control is pointless IMHO.

Asking him "to champion a solution through representations to EASA which might be acceptable to all EASA states" might be a Good Thing.

If you subscribe to the view that any publicity is good publicity then the petition is working (ish)

If you think a better petition might have been born out of constructive discussion, rather than a slanging match everytime bose-x or I posted, (which may avoid petition-fatigue through petitioning twice) then it might have been better to wait until the request of the PM was more achievable.

Whatever. I'm bound to be wrong again ;)

rustle

18th Dec 2007, 17:40

Rustle,

Which one of your posts on this thread are you holding up as a constructive attempt to out-manoeuvre objections from other EASA states ?

None on this thread, which is why I said "FFS, if you (or anyone else) think I have asked any questions in any of the multitude of IMC threads recently that any competent person might not ask then you have completely missed the point."

And I'm not "slagging you off" ... but I don't see how it's helpful to adopt the position of opposition to this petition. Making people aware of the possibility of the loss of this rating IS the start of a plan, surely ? If enough of the UK pilot population sign up, it would be pretty trivial to get a newspaper interested in writing a "pilots outraged at Euro threat to UK air safety" tag : and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where you could go after that, shirley ?

FF :ok:

The "start of a plan" would be to understand the issue, galvanise support, then make it look politically a "good idea" to support it.

Asking the PM to do something he cannot do will only make him/her look "a bit crap" when they can't do it - so he/she probably won't.

Asking the PM to do something he/she can do is win-win.

Half cocked petitions without overwhelming numbers such as those seen on the road-user-charging petition achieve not a lot and dilute any further "better" petitions.

FullyFlapped

18th Dec 2007, 19:10

Rustle,

The "start of a plan" would be to understand the issue, galvanise support, then make it look politically a "good idea" to support it.

Precisely. We all understand the issue, the petition is designed to promote awareness and garner support, and any UK politician worth his/her political salt will spot the PR opportunity in championing and defending UK flight safety against those awful eurocrats ... I'm glad we agree !

FF :ok:

S-Works

18th Dec 2007, 19:50

Whilst I am sure he will talk for himself, I suspect he would say that he is not opposed to the campaign as such, more the way it has been presented.

Exactly.

I said my piece, I do not oppose your campaign. As I said I don't support it in it's present format. Simple. Making me out not to care won't make me change my mind. Sorry.

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 20:25

S-Works

18th Dec 2007, 20:37

Dont take any notice of those who have another agenda and who should really be on The Chips Away site.

You either agree with the IMC rating being retained or you do not.

If you do sign the petition, if you dont **** off.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Why do we bother..... If you don't agree with me then we are not interested in what you have to say would be the correct translation of the quote above.

And you wonder why we won't support you.....
:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 20:39

Thanks but I neither need or want your support.

The original poster asked for help with his petition, nothing else.

S-Works

18th Dec 2007, 20:42

Good job really. I can see how you are single handedly going to abuse your way to retention of the IMCR. Perhaps it will work on the politicians?

So being rude to people who support the rating but not the method of campaign is the way forward....... I can see the intelligence in that.....

Contacttower

18th Dec 2007, 20:53

I have signed the petition...and I support Fuji's campaign. At the same time I understand bose's point of view. I don't necessarily see any contradiction in that (perhaps you could offer some more guidance bose...I know you know loads about this subject ;).)

I would not want to be associated with any campaign which told people to pi$$ off if they didn't agree with it.

S-Works

18th Dec 2007, 20:59

Or as the great Groucho said, I would not want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member.......
:p

Hey llanfairpg if I sign can I be a member of your gang and snog your sister?

Fuji Abound

18th Dec 2007, 21:14

Or as the great Groucho said, I would not want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member.......

Hmmm

now before you get upset again it is not a matter of being on my hobby horse but .. .. ..

I joined a certain organisation and made two posts to draw attention to the petition - nothing more, nothing offensive, I might add .. .. ..

within 24 hours my account was permanently closed - without any explanation what so ever I might add and the thread was removed.

I still have not received an answer to my request as to why.

Your quote of course rang a bell.

On another place, where I never post and never frequent (and not for any reason than lack of time), when I did for the first time recently I was surprised to find that a number of offensive remarks had been posted. Now it doesnt bother me, but anything I post on here which might be considered to be controversial and the person is free to "defend" themselves. That courtesy does not seem unreasonable.

S-Works

18th Dec 2007, 21:20

Erm I think I get your jist and agree..... I would suspect that the moderators of said forum also did not feel that they could support the petition in it's current form?

Just not sure that has anything to do with being told if I won't join your gang I can piss off.......

I have said many times I support the concept just not the methods. I happen to take these things seriously and won't be bullied into signing something I think is flawed.

Thats my personal choice and last time I looked it was a free country!

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 21:20

Great stuff but little to do with the IMC rating

S-Works

18th Dec 2007, 21:23

Oooh that's what I like single minded determination........:p

Fuji Abound

18th Dec 2007, 21:25

Erm I think I get your jist and agree..... I would suspect that the moderators of said forum also did not feel that they could support the petition in it's current form?

llanfairpg

Yes. I cant reconcile pulling a thread with which you dont agree for those reasons and "permanently baning" a contributor with it being a free country

.. .. .. never mind that we all seem to agree how important the IMCr is including nearly everyone of the all but 500 people signed up.

(arent you a moderator?)

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 21:35

Sorry FA if you are talking to me I dont know what you mean.

All of the above 'posters' seem to make good posts about everything else on here so i cannot understand why this discussion is dragging on and on.

I do not think the petition was very well worded(as previously stated) but he has started it now and you cannot change it, so its either sign it or do not sign it.

I know its a bit boring on here at the moment but put your energy into something interesting about private flying rather than just drivelling on about free speech, joining gangs etc or join the Beano forum

Fuji Abound

18th Dec 2007, 21:54

llanfairpg

The yes was directed at you - nothing more.

So far as your earlier comments are concerned I believe

If you support the petition - you must sign it,

If you support the notion that the IMCr should be retained - then you should sign the petition because it is indicative of the principle which you do support,

but if you dont beleive the IMCr should be retrained or have an alternative view you should be free to rationally express your view whilst supporting the right of everyone else to promote the petition as widely as they believe fit.

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 21:59

I agree with you
so my opinion is if you dont want to sign it dont and you know what!

rustle

18th Dec 2007, 22:03

On another place, where I never post and never frequent (and not for any reason than lack of time), when I did for the first time recently I was surprised to find that a number of offensive remarks had been posted. Now it doesnt bother me, but anything I post on here which might be considered to be controversial and the person is free to "defend" themselves. That courtesy does not seem unreasonable.

Neither of the two forums you allude to are unique in deleting posts without rhyme nor reason... :hmm:

Fuji Abound

18th Dec 2007, 22:03

llanfairpg

Of course Stalin took a different view with his Generals who didnt do things his way:

was it something like - one objector, one problem, no objectors, no problems.

Not that I subscribe to Stalin of course.

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 22:07

Not that I subscribe to Stalin of course.

Try a subscription to Private Eye you will understand me and my politics much better

Fuji Abound

18th Dec 2007, 22:18

Well I have had three Colemanballs published - do I qualify?

Contacttower

18th Dec 2007, 22:29

Great stuff but little to do with the IMC rating

....

Try a subscription to Private Eye you will understand me and my politics much better

hmm...:hmm:

llanfairpg

18th Dec 2007, 23:03

Thats the best post you have made for ages

Contacttower

19th Dec 2007, 00:34

Clearly my subtlety is lost on people....:p

llanfairpg

19th Dec 2007, 01:23

But remember, its never over till the fat pilot sings

S-Works

19th Dec 2007, 07:25

You guys are still missing the point. Just because the rating is worth saving does not make the means that are being pursued correct.

Being black and white with the attitude that you must sign if you support( even if you don't agree with the method) and if you don't sign you don't support it is very blinkered.

This is exactly the bureaucratic process that has gotten us into the situation in the first place. No preparation to find the middle ground.

yakker

19th Dec 2007, 08:05

Graham Hill has signed it (posthumously I assume)

Rustle, do you think there is only one person ever called Graham Hill?
The Graham Hill I know is indeed well and still flying.

All this bickering about the IMCr, are we all on the same side I wonder.
Apart from this petition, if anyone has another way of saving the IMCr then please inform us.

englishal

19th Dec 2007, 08:18

All this bickering about the IMCr, are we all on the same side I wonder.
It is amazing isn't it? It is like a school playground...."I'm not joining your petition, because you don't like mine, nah nah"........."I'm cleverer that you, you don't know what to write, I wouldn't have done it like that, I told you so"......etc....

GA in the UK does my head in sometimes....there is so much criticism, back stabbing, whispering behind peoples backs, that it is a wonder anyone ever gets a licence here......Oh well, perhaps it is time to apply for that Green Card....Bush will be gone soon......:ugh:

rustle

19th Dec 2007, 08:26

It is amazing isn't it? It is like a school playground...

They started it :p

eltonioni

19th Dec 2007, 09:42

I appreciate that there are people active within the AOPA, but I can't find hide nor hair within General Aviation magazine or the AOPA UK website of what's actually being done rather than 'it's at risk'.

I'm in the middle of doing my IMCr with the intent of using it in anger and maybe doing an IR later, but the organisation that I belong to doesn't seem to be telling me directly what they are up to if anything. I considered joining PPLIR but they don't seem any better either which is a surprise considering that the IMCr is the stepping stone for many people.

bigbloke

19th Dec 2007, 10:50

This is exactly the bureaucratic process that has gotten us into the situation in the first place. No preparation to find the middle ground.

If there were a reasonable middle ground on the table then probably folk would give it a fair hearing.

The only middle ground at the moment is that the IMCR will cease. ie: there is no middle ground or compromise on offer. so yes petitions, and letters to MP, MEP, EASA, CAA and pressure wherever it can be brought to bear until there is a reasonable option. To me the UK only IMCr is the middle ground.

I'm pretty sure if there is a chance of a Euro IR Lite that just isnt called the IMCr anymore but works elsewhere, that would work for a lot of people, but to compromise, surely it's necessary to understand what the compromise might be.

llanfairpg

19th Dec 2007, 10:56

You are always going to get the odd few who always have to pick holes in everything, its human nature, take no notice

dublinpilot

19th Dec 2007, 11:36

It is amazing isn't it? It is like a school playground...."I'm not joining your petition, because you don't like mine, nah nah"........."I'm cleverer that you, you don't know what to write, I wouldn't have done it like that, I told you so"......etc....

I agree totally. Last week I asked the main protagonists to stop their bickering in public, and as I was posting it, I though......"This must be what school teachers feel like!"

;)

llanfairpg

19th Dec 2007, 11:52

I agree totally. Last week I asked the main protagonists to stop their bickering in public, and as I was posting it, I though......"This must be what school teachers feel like!"

Similar but they get assaulted as well!

BEagle

19th Dec 2007, 12:49

So, would this suit people as a 'Euro IRlite':

Objective:

1.0 To enable pilots to cope safely with non-VMC weather in EU airspace.

Privileges:

1.1 To fly IMC/IFR in permitted airspace (other than Class A).

1.2 To navigate the aircraft by sole reference to instruments under circumstances which require mandatory compliance with defined routes.

1.3 To fly instrument approach procedures for which they have logbook endorsements to instrument approach minima +200 ft for precision approaches and +250 ft for non-precision approaches.

Specific Exclusions:

2.1. No multi-pilot IMC rating – multi-pilot ratings must include an IR by default, as is current JAA practice.

2.2. No CAT II/IIIa/IIIb/IIIc approaches permitted.

2.3. No flight in Class A airspace which requires mandatory compliance with IFR.

Training:

3.1. At least 10 hours Basic Instrument Flight Module, common to the modular IR training.

3.2. At least 10 hours procedural instrument flight training, to consist of:

Module 1: 4 hours training in take-off, departure, en-route navigation and holding.

3.3. Any 2 of the following 4 modules:

Module 2: 3 hours training in precision approaches with pilot-interpreted guidance.

Module 3: 3 hours training in non-precision approaches with pilot-interpreted guidance in azimuth only.

Module 4: 3 hours training in precision or non-precision radar approaches, with guidance provided by an external controller.

Module 5: 3 hours training in approved RNAV/GNSS approaches.

3.4. All instrument approach flight training modules shall include:

3.4.1 Missed approach and go-around training.

3.4.2 Visual circuit flying under simulated conditions of low cloud and reduced visibility (600 ft cloudbase and 1800m horizontal in-flight visibility).

3.5. Additional training will be required if the test is to be undertaken in a multi-engine aircraft:

Module 6: 4 hours training in one-engine inoperative procedures relevant to all phases of flight (take-off, departure, en-route, approach and missed approach).

3.6. Training to be conducted:

3.6.1. By either:

3.6.1.1. A FI authorised under JAR-FCL or EASA-FCL whose privileges include instruction in applied instrument flying; or

3.6.1.2 An IRI authorised under JAR-FCL or EASA-FCL;

3.6.2. At an RF or FTO;

3.6.3 In suitably equipped aeroplanes or, as specified in para 3.7., an FNPT2 or FFS.

3.7. Of the required hours procedural instrument flight training, the following synthetic training may be conducted in FNPT 2 or FFS:

3.7.1. 2 of the 4 hours of Module 1; and

3.7.2. 2 of the 6 hours of Modules 2-5 .

Skill Test:

4.1. Skill Test shall be conducted by a FE or IRE authorised under JAR-FCL or EASA-FCL to include:

4.1.1. Full Panel Instrument Flying.

4.1.2. Limited (or Partial) Panel Instrument Flying.

4.1.3. Use of radio navigation aids for position fixing and en-route navigation.

4.1.4. Let down and approach procedures, to include one precision and one non-precision approach, of which at least one shall be pilot-interpreted and of which at least one shall be concluded by a missed approach and go-around.

4.1.5. Bad weather circuit.

4.1.6. Flight with asymmetric thrust (multi-engined aircraft only).

llanfairpg

19th Dec 2007, 12:57

wow--you are obviously retired!

I cannot see the value in teaching approaches that the average PPL will never do. Why not concentrate on what the average PPL will do to fly enroute in IMC and return to a base or a diversion airfield.

The rating has to be affordable, 20 hours is too much

julian_storey

19th Dec 2007, 13:56

For those not keeping track, the petition has just about reached the 500 mark.

Contacttower

19th Dec 2007, 14:09

That would suit me fine BEagle...the only thing I'd say though is that I can imagine what the other member countries who are against the IMC rating might say:

(if the suggested IMC course is too short) 'that's not good enough, it will just cause people to do things they can't really handle' or if it's too long...'what's the point? They might as well do the IR.'

A balance has to be struck (and we all know that) and the IMC rating as it stands does need some alteration (as DFC, rustle, bose and all the others have said). For example if it is taken in a single...it shouldn't be valid in a multi.

I like BEagle's proposed syllabus.

DaveW

19th Dec 2007, 14:14

BEagle, I take a different view to llanfairpg - 20 hours certainly isn't too much. If candidates can't afford to obtain a usable skillset at a suitable standard, then then that's unfortunate. 20 hours is generally achievable, that's the main thing.

Approaches are required, naturally, otherwise what practical use would a rating be?

Some explicit commonality with the modular IR is an excellent suggestion, laying the ground for an upgrade path. A delta for ME is also good to have included from the outset.

Thank you for taking the time to develop that suggestion - not just for its inherent merit but also as a beacon of light in a thread that had otherwise lost its way!

I've a lapsed IMC, so am not competent to comment on the proposal in detail, but in summary I have to say it looks good to me.

julian_storey

19th Dec 2007, 14:16

For example if it is taken in a single...it shouldn't be valid in a multi.

That actually is a very valid point.

An asymetric go around in a light twin with a critical engine is substantially more demanding than anything you might have encountered if you'd done your IMC training and test in a Cessna 152!

BEagle

19th Dec 2007, 14:30

'My' proposal is modified from a concept initiated by others. However, I have made certain significant chnages, including a subtle amendment to the Skill Test.

You will also note that 4 hours could be completed in a FNPT 2 or in a FFS.

I would particularly welcome opinion from Irish and mainland European pilots.

dublinpilot

19th Dec 2007, 15:35

I would particularly welcome opinion from Irish and mainland European pilots.

BEagle,

As an Irish pilot, all I can say is that it would be most welcome! I asked the IAA about bringing in an IMC type rating here about two years ago, and was told they were not interested.

I would certainly love it if your proposal was extended across EASA land. Irish weather is probably even less suitable to VFR than much of the UK, as we get hit with the fronts from across the Atlantic before you guys. :hmm: We take the bashing, and pass on what's left of the front to you guys ;)

The biggest problem I would see with it being introduced here (apart from the IAA) is the lack of organisations with suitably equipped aircraft and instructors. There is very little instrument training going on here...only IR for those thinking of going commerical.

dp

FREDAcheck

19th Dec 2007, 16:04

BEagle's list seems about right, if more than I need. To keep the cost down, I'd add:

Class 2 medical only (no audiogram)
Written test at local flying school supervised by instructor (like IMCR test)
Substantial credit for existing IMCR holders, eg written/skills tests only plus training required by examiner

BEagle

19th Dec 2007, 16:23

My proposal for existing IMCR holders is that they should 'upgrade' at the next renewal point by including two approaches, of which at least one shall be pilot-interpreted and of which at least one shall be concluded by a missed approach and go-around.

I was 'brought up' on PAR and SRA approaches (and DF!), hence found all this procedural stuff rather novel. But the playstation generation seem happier with following a laid down procedure rather than coping with random ATC instructions and maintaining situational awareness when not flying the 'approach plate' procedure. Hence nowadays on IMC revalidation tests I get people to do a radar-vectored ILS, rather than a published NDB/ILS.

Fair point about the medical!

Re. the written exam, my opinion is that this should be conducted exactly as the currrent UK IMCR exam is. There may be cause to review the syllabus, mainly to ensure that privilegesof use and subdivision of EU airspace is properly addressed.

Irv

19th Dec 2007, 16:25

Re: the Beagle proposal:
Personally I could live with with it all being limited to Class F/G plus controlled airspace allowed but limited to Class D/E CTA/CTRs for arrival or departure.
Whether others could is another matter. All I really want to do myself is nip up through a cloud layer to do lessons in the clear air 'on top' in our Class G, and nip down again, and very occasionally if necessary, use the approaches at nearby class D under tight radar / procedural sequencing there. (At the moment, the IMC-R only gives extra IFR privileges in Class D/E, not 'all except "A"')
I think some countries who use Class E en-mass where we use Class G will never be happy with PPLs mixing it with commercials in IMC en-route without a real I/R. However, limit it as I described, and would they have an argument, as it would only 'work' where there are masses of class G (eg: UK), but not 'in their country'?
Its bad enough finding the weather to do lessons anyway, but to cut off the option to do the upper air work stuff in the clear air 'on top' of a layer is wrong

BEagle

19th Dec 2007, 17:01

Well, I wrote 'permitted' airspace.

Limiting Class D/E for arrivals/departures only would rule out simple procedures such as IMC crossings of the Brize and Lyneham CTRs. That would be a reduction of current privileges - something I would not support.

I would also propose that any flight in IMC must be in receipt of either a radar service ('traffic' or 'deconfliction' as they may become), or under procedural control. 'Big sky separation' has had its day! I can quite understand the anxiety of commercial airliner drivers flying in IMC in Class G under a RAS ('deconfliction') at the thought of uncontrolled IMC pilots wandering around nearby.

bookworm

19th Dec 2007, 17:18

I would also propose that any flight in IMC must be in receipt of either a radar service ('traffic' or 'deconfliction' as they may become), or under procedural control. 'Big sky separation' has had its day! I can quite understand the anxiety of commercial airliner drivers flying in IMC in Class G under a RAS ('deconfliction') at the thought of uncontrolled IMC pilots wandering around nearby.

Then you've made the airspace class E, in which all IFR flights must be in receipt of an air traffic control service. There's no justification for this -- the "commercial airline drivers" are not bothered as to whether the uncontrolled pilots are wandering around in IMC or VMC. The anxiety is that they won't be seen in time to avoid -- by the time they're close enough to sight in VMC they'll be setting of TCAS RAs anyway.

There's also insufficient ATC resource to provide this service with enough certainty to make IFR flight practical. What do I do when I've taken off on an IFR flight, called the local LARS unit and been told "FIS only due controller workload"?

I like the syllabus, BTW. The problem is with the privileges. They're not appropriate to airspace in mainland Europe where class A is rarely used. Your EuroIMC-rated pilots will be flying ILSs into Frankfurt Main, Brussels and Madrid.

Contacttower

19th Dec 2007, 17:23

Then you've made the airspace class E, in which all IFR flights must be in receipt of an air traffic control service.

If one suggests on PPRuNe that it is safe to go IMC in the open FIR without a radar service then you will be shouted down by all. Most people ask for a radar service while in IMC...what is wrong with formalising that?

Irv

19th Dec 2007, 17:30

I never seem to have a problem getting a radar service just to nip up or down through a layer because I say I only need it for that short duration. It's getting a word in sometimes being the problem, rather than getting what I want!

dublinpilot

19th Dec 2007, 18:56

Personally I could live with with it all being limited to Class F/G plus controlled airspace allowed but limited to Class D/E CTA/CTRs for arrival or departure.

I read recently on the EADS website that EASA still wanted to rationalise the number of airspace classifications used. I wouldn't be surprised to see class D being phased out in a few years, and for us to be left with something like Class C (which EASA is already looking for above FL195), Class E and Class G.

The privlidges must take account of this in one form or another if it's to be accepted.

dp

dublinpilot

19th Dec 2007, 19:04

Actually it was the Eurocontrol website (http://www.eurocontrol.int/airspace/public/standard_page/142_airspace_classification.html).

The second strategic step is to harmonise and simplify the airspace classifications FL 195 and below. This resulted in an agreement that the airspace classifications to be applied should be ICAO classes C, D, E and G, with a caveat that where justified, for higher density, higher complexity TMA and other CTA, a higher classification may be used. The implementation date for this stage was 13 April 2006. As of 30 April 2007, 33 states are in compliance.

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

With C being Eurocontrols favourite above FL195, and one having to go to make 3, it's seems quite likely that D will be the one to go.

dp

bookworm

19th Dec 2007, 19:07

If one suggests on PPRuNe that it is safe to go IMC in the open FIR without a radar service then you will be shouted down by all.

By all? No I don't think so. Not by those who have looked at the real risks involved.

Most people ask for a radar service while in IMC...what is wrong with formalising that?

I could equally say "Most people who fly in IMC have an instrument rating. What is wrong with formalising that?" ;)

Risk management may dictate that a short period of flying in IMC without a radar service avoids scud running below a cloud deck in an area of much higher traffic density. Class F/G airspace allows that, as it should. Just because something is good practice much of the time doesn't justify making it mandatory.

rustle

19th Dec 2007, 19:12

With C being Eurocontrols favourite above FL195, and one having to go to make 3, it's seems quite likely that D will be the one to go.

dp

Don't confuse N/K/U (the three they want) with existing classes A-G.

Different kettle of fish all together AFAICT with no real direct comparison except perhaps G and U (and maybe A and N at a stretch) ;)

dublinpilot

19th Dec 2007, 19:29

Rustle,

Recent reports seem to suggest that they have given up on the the idea of N/K/U and reverted back to ICAO classifications.

dp

rustle

19th Dec 2007, 19:56

I thought that was only recent reports here in this forum, rather than news from Brussels...

Maybe DFC is right (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3784670&postcount=2)

Fuji Abound

19th Dec 2007, 20:12

I think 20 hours is spot on.

For example if it is taken in a single...it shouldn't be valid in a multi.

I agree.

If it were taken on a multi should it be valid in a single?

What is the view on whether an Europe wide IMCr might be accepted?

I have heard widely conflicting opinions.

I have also been told today from a well placed source that "retiring" the IMCr is now recognised as becoming a hot potatoe as is for that matter revoking the CAA life time licenses. Interesting developments. A solution is being sought other tan simply "abolishing" both.

BEagle

19th Dec 2007, 20:47

Given that FCL001 are currently meeting in Cologne and that this issue has now attracted the political interest of the EU Commissioner, that is hardly surprising...

My firm recommendation would be to maintain all National privileges 'until an equivalent European qualification is available'.

llanfairpg

19th Dec 2007, 20:56

Fuji Abound

19th Dec 2007, 21:01

But where are these IMC rated pilots going to fly these approaches legally.

Please would you expand a little.

llanfairpg

19th Dec 2007, 21:15

I am just wondering which airfields these IMC rated pilots will be going to legally do these non precision and precison approachs that Beagle is talking about.

Fuji Abound

19th Dec 2007, 21:19

Sorry I am still lost.

Why arent the same approaches as are available now, not still going to be available?

llanfairpg

19th Dec 2007, 21:25

Sorry

I do not think the IMC should be 20 hours on the basis that the cost may put some off.

I see the rating more as an insurance policy or a restriced rating

BEagle

19th Dec 2007, 21:30

llnfrpg - what are you talking about?

There are plenty of places currently available where IMCR holders may fly instrument approaches legally. There is no reason to suspect that these will be denied under a pan-EU IMCR.

Only those CTRs with Class A airspace are denied to UK IMCR holders in IMC. And precious few IMCR holders would wish to land at such places in any case, I would assert.

Fuji Abound

19th Dec 2007, 21:32

To be clear

1. Are you suggesting that you believe a lite IMCr is required with much less than 20 hours training and no IMC approach "rights",

2. but you accept that under "Beagles proposals" and with the appropriate log book endorsements IMC approaches can be flown in class D with access therefore to almost all airports.

llanfairpg

19th Dec 2007, 21:48

Sorry take no notice, i will delete that.

Fuji Abound

19th Dec 2007, 21:53

Back to an earlier question what about the multi single debate.

It seems to me a single IMCr cant translate to a multi IMCr, but for a pilot who has endorsements for both, should he have to renew both in a SEP and a multi aircraft?

Also is the 25 month renewal period sound?

What about FAA IR style rolling renewals for those who have logged adequate currency?

Contacttower

19th Dec 2007, 22:30

If its going to be credible in the eyes of the other member states then 25 months may have to be reduced. FAA style rolling renewals would be good I think...and also perhaps logging of 'actual' IMC time (as the Americans call it) could form part of maintaining currency.

Irv

19th Dec 2007, 22:53

Beagle's "KEEP national ratings til EASA equivalent":
Yes, please, that will do nicely!

BEagle

20th Dec 2007, 07:26

I think it should be 'retain national licences and ratings until EASA equivalents are available'.... However, EASA seem to have ruled that out.

Rolling validity has already proved a disaster for the NPPL and will be changed next year. I would certainly not support it for the 'EU IMCR'.

However, much as there is a 90-day recency rule for passenger carrying, perhaps there should be an appropriate recency rule for flying approaches in IMC. Although that doesn't seem to be a particular problem at present, of course.

Logging 'actual IMC' is not a current JAR-FCL requirement, they require the flight 'condition' of IFR to be logged. Which, in the UK, can be in gin clear VMC, of course.....:hmm: Like much Eurocracy, it is meaningless.

mm_flynn

20th Dec 2007, 10:50

Not wanting to dash hopes - but the basic structure of an IMCr that excludes Class A airspace just reinforces my view that the European airspace is not compatible with what people are envisaging.

Why exclude A? what is so difficult about IFR in A vs. B-D?

This seems a natural structure to the UK pilot, but the only reason I can think for not allowing IMCr pilots into Class A is because that (slightly simplified) is where are all of the CAT fly.

The iron wall between PPL and Commercial IFR that exists in the UK doesn't exist in most of Europe. I doubt our European GA friends will thank us for making all of the French airways Class A as in the UK. Without that kind of airspace change, the Class A limitation just belies a UK centric mindset.

S-Works

20th Dec 2007, 11:24

While I think the suggestions are great for a Euro wide IMCR the chances of it happening are zip. It will never get past the pilot unions to allow pilots with as little as 15-20 hrs of training to mix it with the big boys. In realty I am not sure I would want to be in busy controlled airspace mixing it with those with so little training.

I get great comfort from the fact that when I am sat in the airways and things get uncomfortable due to weather etc that everyone is trained to the same standard and capable of dealing with everything thrown at them regardless of whether they are in a 172 or 737.

The chaos around Europe it would cause with pilots arriving and departing off airways in IMC is an accident waiting to happen.

I think we have a better chance of success if we keep our eye on our own patch and leave the rest of Europe as they are.

Fuji Abound

20th Dec 2007, 11:41

Bose - we are agreeing far too much these days, but I would share your view.

From a theoretical point of view mind you I think mm_flynn is correct.

If you have flown airways in typical GA aircraft, the airways part is the most straight forward. Moreover in fact it carries the least risk. At typical GA altitudes even with oxygen the airways are desserts - there is no one esle there. Even if you run into weather and fall to pieces the only person you are likely to kill is yourself.

The point of mixing is where CAT and GA are being vectored off airways into TCAs. In reality even then the mix between GA and CAT would be minimal if the IMCr class A restriction were lifted because very little of the GA traffic would want to use the main airports.

As is so often the case so many of the concerns are ill informed and derive from a lack of understanding about the needs of GA.

The number of people like Bose who are competant and have the need to operate into larger airports are very few and would not change what ever licensing changes were made. If I can I will go out of my way to avoid the larger airports - not only because of the cost but the inevitable hassle associated with every aspect of getting in and out of the airport and usually of getting fuel.

S-Works

20th Dec 2007, 11:53

I think thats where the problem lies though Fuji. At the moment the airways are quiet because there are not many people who have access to them. If we were to allow IMCR holders into the airways system they would get a lot busier. Traffic that has to be managed that requires controllers who are already very busy. Who pays for this? It opens a whole can of worms on user charging that I don't think we want to open. Travel in the airways is quiet and easy 98% of the time, but I have come in from europe on big storm cell days where traffic is all over the place and you have to be very on the ball to deal with it. It is those days where I think the number that the proposed training would prove to be inadequate.

The next problem is that the smaller airports you refer to have instrument approaches are all trying to get into the bigger airports game with associated fees. They don't like the little aircraft buzzing around now, what happens when there are more of them?

The solution of course would be to allow GPS approaches to uncontrolled are at least FISO fields, giving GA their own instrument capable bases of operation that does not interfere with the CAT traffic.

I really think that the object here should be to concentrate on keeping the IMCR in it's current form and not be trying to reinvent the wheel. An IMCR that gives access to the airways will never happen as it will be seen as a sub standard IR and the airlines will go to great lengths to block it.

Fuji Abound

20th Dec 2007, 12:09

Travel in the airways is quiet and easy 98% of the time, but I have come in from europe on big storm cell days where traffic is all over the place and you have to be very on the ball to deal with it. It is those days where I think the number that the proposed training would prove to be inadequate.

We are off at a tangent for discussion purposes and we are discussing theory because I agree with your practical view.

However, as you previously pointed out the IMCr guys are not flying on those sort of days. Whilst the license may entitle you to do something the reality is rather different and nearly everyone with an IMCr is pretty cautious. I think that is part of the reason why the safety record is so good. I dont think that is about to change.

Moreover on the sort of days you mention unless you are completely stupid you are going to have a stormscope at the very least and a reasonably capable bit of kit. That probably eliminates 90% of the fleet anyway.

Again, I think this is an aspect where education is so important.

Unfortunately there are a large number of commercial pilots now who have very little knowledge of GA ops or even for that matter what priviliges come with the IMCr. I hope every effort will be made to educate those that make the decisions.

S-Works

20th Dec 2007, 12:22

So you have come around to exactly the point I am making, 90%(or more) of pilots won't use the IMCR for the type of flying that is actually being proposed in earlier posts. So why push to add more privileges rather than just keeping what we have?

So keep the IMCR to the UK only where it fits in with our airspace better, do not try and push for airways access, refine the rating (which we do last year, take a look at LASORS 08) and leave it there.

This way you are not going head to head with the airlines who will win every time.

llanfairpg

20th Dec 2007, 13:04

As long as IMC examiners are not directly employed by the CAA you will never get airways access and quite rightly so too.

Refinement as Bose suggests is the best way forward, it seems some are trying to turn it into an IR. Cost for the student must be a consideration too.

englishal

20th Dec 2007, 13:40

Who cares about the airways? Anyone can fly in them in the USA, from a PPL student to a 747 captain....There is no problem.

Flying airways is EASY. There is nothing to it. The hard part comes on reaching the IAF.

I do think that some sort of "IFR clearance" should be required though. This would also open up to possibilty of Tracon style approaches - i.e. cleared for a GPS into Old Sarum by London "Approach";) even though the field is non towered.....

Anyway, good one beagle :ok:

llanfairpg

20th Dec 2007, 14:16

Flying airways is EASY. There is nothing to it.

Till you ice up or have another sort of emergency!

(sorry BP its another one liner but honestly I have read the thread and from my own personal experience this statement contributes to Es comment)

Contacttower

20th Dec 2007, 14:16

This would also open up to possibilty of Tracon style approaches - i.e. cleared for a GPS into Old Sarum by London "Approach";) even though the field is non towered.....

That would be brilliant!

So keep the IMCR to the UK only where it fits in with our airspace better

But bose I didn't think that was an option...I thought it was Euro IMC or nothing. If we are going to sell the IMC rating to Europe it does need 'beefing up' a bit in order for it to be taken seriously.

llanfairpg

20th Dec 2007, 14:20

I thought Eurocratic law allowed for each country to have its own versions of these types of proposals or are we all going to start driving around roundabouts the wrong way as well.

S-Works

20th Dec 2007, 14:24

As Al points out flying airways is easy, it is one of the best kept secrets in General Aviation, right until the point where it all goes wrong. The dynamic nature of European Airways flying is quite different from the US and when you throw in some very busy terminal airspace and bad weather the potential for disaster looms.

Airways flying should be the remit of the IR qualified pilot and we should not be trying to go down the road of turning the IMCR into a cheap IR. That path will never succeed as I have said before and will do the cause a great disservice.

This year our working group made a number of changes to the IMCR which as I said have been incorporated into Lasors. Changes around EFIS and Glass cockpits, GPS approaches, use of the IMCR in an ME etc. Nothing to far reaching but enough to tidy loose ends up.

mm_flynn

20th Dec 2007, 14:30

Till you ice up or have another sort of emergency!

Which is probably even more difficult to manage on your own in the open FIR than when talking to a controller in CAS. Of course out in the FIR you just 'plummet at the nearest school' and don't interfere with CAT ;)

If there is any proposal for a Euro IMCr it needs to make sense in the UK Class A airways, as the Europeans have achieved the separation of PPL/IMC and CAT traffic by not having an IMCr rather than the UK approach of having the very restricted airways system of the UK. (A task I don't believe can be achieved)

My view is the two potential avenues of success are
1 - retention of the IMCr for the UK (or at least a competency based transition to an IR)
2 - an IR rating which is competency based and has an appropriate knowledge set on which competency is based.

Trying to create an acceptable Euro IMCr has too many problems to be achievable (cultural, vested interest, airspace structure, etc)

PS - Bose, How is European airspace more 'dynamic'? Certainly more cases of 'what the h@!! do they have as my flight plan' vs the US who boringly tell you what they are planning to do? But European controllers seem to leave you on whatever STAR/runway they told you on the ATIS vs NY/LAX who seem to juggle it all around till the last second.

eltonioni

20th Dec 2007, 14:33

Wouldn't a more useful approach be to insist on currency?

Regardless of what level of iron-man training purgatory one has to undergo, surely an IR that you don't use is far less use than an IMCr that you do.

llanfairpg

20th Dec 2007, 14:33

I remember a chap in a C172(4 up) flying airways to Le Touquet on a hot summers day (with quite a few Cbs around) from Coventry by the time he finally got into the airway he had already caused mayhem and continued to do so until crossing the coast. He too thought airways flying was simple. well until then he did, he never flew airaways again.

llanfairpg

20th Dec 2007, 14:36

mm_flynn

20th Dec 2007, 14:44

I remember a chap in a C172(4 up) flying airways to Le Touquet on a hot summers day ... He too thought airways flying was simple. well until then he did, he never flew airaways again.
Was his problem a lack of competence in holding course or level, inability to follow his nav kit, lack of RT fluency (all which an IR should address) or lack of performance to fit into the plan he filed/the controls wanted from him.

S-Works

20th Dec 2007, 14:47

Which is probably even more difficult to manage on your own in the open FIR than when talking to a controller in CAS. Of course out in the FIR you just 'plummet at the nearest school' and don't interfere with CAT

And that is the problem. Managing on your own outside of CAS makes it your own problem. Having the same problem is CAS will cause massive disruption in the system and is why the airlines will block any attempt. If you want to play with the big boys you play by the same rules plain and simple.

Everything else that has been said in terms of training and currency makes sense. But I do not think an IMCR has any place in the airways.

You have to have something that differentiates between trying to get an IR by the back door/easy route and the key benefit of the IMCR which enhanced safety for predominately VFR pilots. The airlines and thus the regulators will block the former but you stand a chance with the latter.

Johnm

20th Dec 2007, 14:57

What we need is a proper IR Lite. From a flying point of view the IMCR doesn't really cover flight planning or holds very well. It also doesn't deal effectively with STARS and SIDs.
However for basic handling and travelling in IMC it's a good start and I and many others have used the privileges in anger many times. It's also pretty good for approaches, but the inability to file IFR makes routine flying of approaches to stay current a bit difficult, though most of us fly them when we can to keep up to scratch as far as possible and I don't get in anybody's way I just take my turn with everyone else.
Ironically I've clearly seen from the right hand seat how much easier flying IFR in airways is than flying VFR or IMCR (my new shorthand for IFR without the benefits:))

mm_flynn

20th Dec 2007, 14:59

If you want to play with the big boys you play by the same rules plain and simple.
Yet the French (and many other Europeans) are happy to have PPLs 'sharing the airways' in the sense that you follow the same lateral track and have only 500 ft separation within the same airspace block. The only thing they ask for is that you are well clear of the clouds so can see and be seen. You don't even have to be able to see your ground features or in many cases even talk with them.

You have to have something that differentiates between trying to get an IR by the back door/easy route and the key benefit of the IMCR which enhanced safety for predominately VFR pilots.Agreed

S-Works

20th Dec 2007, 15:08

To be fair it's only the French that allow access to the airways for VFR pilots, but you clearly have to be VFR.

What we are talking here was allowing IMCR pilots to fly the airways, ask the French is they would agree to this in IMC conditions and you would get very strong resistance. You also have to remember that the french lower airways system is deserted in the UK it is avery different matter around the concentrations of GA airfields that we all fly from. Most days I am the only GA traffic going across the TMA but it is absolutely heaving with CAT. The last thing the controllers need is a whole lead of poorly trained and poorly equipped IMCR pilots to manage as well. It would cause chaos. I also refer back to my previous comment about how this is funded?

I maintain that we should not be reinventing the wheel. If you want IR privileges do an IR. If you want to enhance your mission capability and general safety as a predominately VFR pilot then do the IMCR.

llanfairpg

20th Dec 2007, 15:12

Was his problem a lack of competence in holding course or level, inability to follow his nav kit, lack of RT fluency (all which an IR should address) or lack of performance to fit into the plan he filed/the controls wanted from him.

His problem started when he walked in to the flying club and did not do any performance planning, the a/c barely made the level and then ATC asked him to go up another 2000ft and had to level several times to gain altitude, with Cbs around he elected to go through some of them as he did not have the confidence to ask for heading changes, he was quite shaken by it all and that had a major effect on his performance as well.

He flew back VFR!

It all starts when somebody says flying airways is easy! Walking a tightrope looks easy to me but after you!

llanfairpg

20th Dec 2007, 15:14

To be fair it's only the French that allow access to the airways for VFR pilots, but you clearly have to be VFR.

I thought the Irish allowed PPL low level airways access as well or is that only under IFR

llanfairpg

20th Dec 2007, 15:16

the IMCR doesn't really cover flight planning or holds very well.

It certainly used to

S-Works

20th Dec 2007, 15:20

The other issue that will bubble out of this is the lack of suitable aircraft for these IMCR's should they be allowed airways access. The average spam can club flyer is illegal as it stands now for IFR flight and does not have the performance to get into anything but the really low airways and the are performance limited when asked to climb. They can refuse of course, but then leads to the controllers trying to find another resolution which all detracts from dealing with the paying customer i.e CAT.

I fly a 172 in the airways but at over 200hp, 18,000ft service ceiling, GNSS and O2 equipped I don't create problems. I am also doing it for many hundreds of hours a year.

So we then go back to currency issues. Rolling currency and reduced revalidation period with a tougher test?

mm_flynn

20th Dec 2007, 15:49

I thought flight along airways (obviously at VFR levels) was possible for a VFR pilot up to FL 195 in many countries (Ireland, Benelux, Germany, Denmark, France, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Czech Republic, etc.) a lot of them may well require Class C and D transits or clearance, but still OK for VFR and that it was only the France around Paris, the UK and Italy that had extensive Class A.

BEagle

20th Dec 2007, 15:52

bose-x, you stated:

This year our working group made a number of changes to the IMCR which as I said have been incorporated into Lasors. Changes around EFIS and Glass cockpits, GPS approaches, use of the IMCR in an ME etc. Nothing to far reaching but enough to tidy loose ends up.

Well, LASORS 2008 isn't yet available, according to the CAA website. And were these changes circulated to industry generally? Or did you mean you've proposed changes which have yet to be published for general consultation amongst industry stakeholders?

What exactly is the remit of 'your working group'?

I'm getting rather annoyed at not being able to speak with the CAA - so many times all you hear is "He's away in Cologne"......:hmm:

dublinpilot

20th Dec 2007, 16:00

I thought the Irish allowed PPL low level airways access as well or is that only under IFR

Everywhere allows PPL's access to the airways ;) I've never seen a requirement for a CPL or ATPL ;)

I take it you mean allow access to airways under VFR? The answer there is yes. Virtually all airways in Ireland are contained in class C airspace, so there is nothing prohibiting VFR flight on them.

If you mean under IFR in some form of sub IR qualification, then the answer is no. For IMC you need to fly under IFR, which requires an IR.

Incidently, if you feel that it's needed to prevent IMCR's from the airways, then you need to think carefully about how to do it. At present the thing that bans them is the fact that they are in class A airspace, and an IMCR holder can't fly IFR in anything above class D. However when the European airspace move to just three classes (2009) it's likely that class C will replace much of the class A&D in the UK. Therefore IMCR holders will be banned from airports that they currently use. If the IMCR privlidges are upgraded to class C to account for this, then they will also be allowed onto the new class C airways.

If you want to ban them from the airways, it's best to do that explicidly...."IMCR holders may exercise these privlidges on the airway system" would seem to sort it.

dp

englishal

20th Dec 2007, 16:32

I agree that the "airways" should be for IR holders if they remain as they are now. But saying that, some of the airways are pointless - The former N866 for example. Why not make ALL airways D up to 10,000' (and change the transition alt while we're at it;)) so that a "IRLite" holder can enter them with the appropriate clearance? 10,000' is no problem for any SEP as far as I am aware, I've been to 13,500 VFR, more than enough for the rugged terrain of the UK.....

llanfairpg

20th Dec 2007, 16:34

DP,Yes sorry badly worded

Do Irish PPL's regualrly use the the class C section of the airway.

dublinpilot

20th Dec 2007, 18:35

IIl,

There is no IFR in Ireland without an IR. So those without an IR can only use an airway under VFR.

Now here's the thing....All our airspace above FL75 is class c (with some minor off shore exceptions). It'd not like the UK, with tunnels through otherwise Class G airspace. So if you're above FL75 you're controlled....it then doesn't really matter whether you want to follow the airway though that class C, or want to take your own route right across them!

In any case, most GA confines itself to lower than this for a simple reason. In a country where 1 hour in a PA28 /C172 will take you from one side to the other, and little over 2 hours from top to bottom, there is rarely much benefit in going much higher than FL75 ;)

However there is nothing to stop someone using those airways under VFR in VMC with just a PPL.

I hope that answers your question ;)

dp

llanfairpg

21st Dec 2007, 11:24

DP Thank you

Fuji Abound

21st Dec 2007, 22:24

Well over 600 signatures now and still running at nearly 50 a day.

Please, if you have not done so, give your support.

and if you have, tell as many others about it as you can.

julian_storey

22nd Dec 2007, 09:47

The good news is that Pilot Magazine have included a link to the petition in their latest monthly 'e newsletter'.

http://www.pilotweb.aero/newsletterTemplate/default.aspx

BEagle

22nd Dec 2007, 10:06

Unfortunately it is unlikely to achieve a lot...

Information I have is that, if we're lucky, the UK IMCR may soldier on until 2012-ish, after which the EASA intention is that its privileges will cease to exist.

So, what is most definitely needed is a concerted effort to define a 'Class 2 IR', much as I've outlined.

One big point - we must avoid at all costs the idea that only 'CAA Examiners' will conduct the Class2 IR Skill Test. Current FEs with approval to conduct IMCR flight tests must remain acceptable - and instruction must be permitted at current RFs which instruct for the UK IMCR.

S-Works

22nd Dec 2007, 10:14

we tried this as part of the IRWG work and it got nowhere. We tried to have non CAA examiners conduct the IR test the same as with the CPL.

We also tried to get IR training to be conducted at standard schools and clubs rather than at the classic airline schools.

While your Class 2 IR is laudable it won't get anywhere. How can you justify a rating that requires a lower standard and less training to allow pilots to CAS along with a normal IR holder.

What you have proposed is just an IMC by another name and it won't wash.

Outside of saving the IMCR our energies are much better spent on making the existing IR more desirable.

julian_storey

22nd Dec 2007, 10:45

Outside of saving the IMCR our energies are much better spent on making the existing IR more desirable.

The problem is not that the IR isn't desirable. I should imagine that almost every private pilot reading this thread would like an IR, the problem is that it is very expensive.

Most PPL holders either don't have or can't justify the £12,000 that it would cost for them to get one.

Those people with an IR are either fortunate enough to have a spare £12k or are flying commercially or have invested £12k in the hope that it will enable them to fly commercially.

BEagle

22nd Dec 2007, 10:47

And, bose-x, that simply won't wash with current IMCR holders!

What is needed is a concerted viewpoint regarding the Class 2 IR - and this must come from industry throughout the EU.

The CAA have, for far too long, used the IR as their 'final test for suitability' for prospective commercial pilots, rather than as purely a test of instrument flying skills.

'Commercial' flying should be the province of the CPL world - and the 'full' IR should top up the Class 2 for such people.

In the RAF, there is the Green (Unrestricted) IR, which is equivalent to the 'full' JAR-FCL IR, and there is the White IR. Which is roughly equivalent to the Class 2 I propose. Which works well.

S-Works

22nd Dec 2007, 11:36

You are preaching to the choir here Beagle. I fully agree with what you say.

The military multi tier system works because they have a vast support infrastructure that revolves around very strict rules that are adhered to.

However the airlines for whom EASA pretty much exists in realty do not agree with you. They want a level playing field when flying under IFR, they won't share airspace with people they see as being inadequately trained. Like it or not it will be the airlines that get there way.

600/18,000 people signing a petition is not going to budge the airlines in anyway sadly.

englishal

22nd Dec 2007, 14:16

They want a level playing field when flying under IFR, they won't share airspace with people they see as being inadequately trained. Like it or not it will be the airlines that get there way.
Ban airlines from <10,000' then. No problem.

rustle

22nd Dec 2007, 14:39

Ban airlines from <10,000' then. No problem.

Make for a bloody long/steep boarding ramp. :O

BEagle

22nd Dec 2007, 14:45

The main aim must be to stop people such as the European Cockpit Association playing the bully boy and trying to drive GA under!

IAOPA, EAS and others must lobby FCL001, if a Class 2 IR is ever going to happen. So they need their members throughout the EU to speak up, not just a few of us in the UK.

julian_storey

22nd Dec 2007, 16:29

I would share the concern about inadequately qualified people having access to the airways system and any two tier IR proposal would need to address that.

Essentially though, BEAGLE's proposal is an attempt to reinvent the wheel. What we have already with the IMC rating is pretty much ideal as it is. It IS obviously a much more limited qualification than the IR, but it is ideally suited to the needs of those who hold it.

My view is that we shouldn't be trying to re-invent the wheel and that instead, we should be trying to stop the perfectly good wheel that we have on our cart already being nicked.

llanfairpg

22nd Dec 2007, 16:31

Ban airlines from <10,000' then. No problem.

Or just ban those who pay the smallest amount for ATC services etc

sternone

22nd Dec 2007, 17:35

I want a petition for having the IMC rating in all the EU countries!!

Fuji Abound

22nd Dec 2007, 17:41

Because there are so many signatories, only the most recent 500 are shown on this page.

Now there is a thing!!!

:)

Sternone

I think you may get what you want.

julian_storey

22nd Dec 2007, 17:52

We could well hit 700 by tomorrow.

We appear to have the support of Martin Robinson which I think adds much credibility to our cause.

llanfairpg

22nd Dec 2007, 18:21

JS I think you need a letter to Downing Street, remember the IMC rating and its advantages means nothing to non flyers and I do not think your opening script is comprehensive enough for non flyers.

julian_storey

22nd Dec 2007, 21:00

Good plan.

I'll wait until we have a few more names and get a little closer to the closing date for the petition.

bigbloke

23rd Dec 2007, 22:32

If the UK IMCr can soldier on until 2012, that's a whole lot better than October 2008 which was as I recall, the starting point.

That hopefully will allow time to plan for a future in GA IMC flying.

Whether that means IMCr uk only, Euro IMCr, IR Lite, IR slightly heavier (FAA / ICAO style) or IR something else short of the over burdensome JAA IR, at least it's time to be able to influence future events.

Happy Christmas All

Fuji Abound

26th Dec 2007, 17:53

Come on you lot - if you havent signed do it now - you now it makes sense:

.. .. .. and it is only a click away - what could be more simple.

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

The 1,000 names on the petition is not that far away.

:) :) :)

derekf

27th Dec 2007, 15:14

Fuji - where's the new website?

julian_storey

10th Jan 2008, 08:30

Over 1200 'signatories' now.

If you've not yet added your name, now would be the time! :)

llanfairpg

10th Jan 2008, 11:47

Have you contacted BALPA? A lot of airline pilots fly privately in retirement and currently will not even know about this proposed change. BALPA should be encouraged to publicise the petition in 'The Log'

S-Works

10th Jan 2008, 13:29

This I have to see!!!

Let me just point out it was chiefly the pilot unions who were so against the IMCR and voted against it.......

llanfairpg

10th Jan 2008, 13:56

Well not all BALPA members are against it as I see from some of my colleagues signatures on the petition. I would be very suprised to find any BALPA member who wants to fly light aircraft against this proposal. What union management want and what union membership want can be vastly different as Arthur Scargil and Brian Robertson eventualy found out!

Fuji Abound

10th Jan 2008, 14:01

Bose

Are you specifically saying the British Air Line Pilots Association voted against it?

S-Works

10th Jan 2008, 14:07

I am saying that the the Airline Pilots Association of which BALPA is one member voted against it. In fact not only voted against it but were very vociferous in their very anti views.

Fuji Abound

10th Jan 2008, 14:12

Bose

Do you mean the ECA?

S-Works

10th Jan 2008, 14:18

Sorry don't know what the ECA is. Pilot union reps were introduced as being from the Airline Pilots Association. I can dig out a names if I get chance they will be in the minutes.

eltonioni

10th Jan 2008, 14:24

Bose, are the minutes available?

S-Works

10th Jan 2008, 14:25

Not from me... Sorry not allowed to distribute that sort of thing.

eltonioni

10th Jan 2008, 14:34

Fuji Abound

10th Jan 2008, 14:34

European Cockpit Association.

I am already in correspondence with them.

BALPA is one of 32 member associations that are represented by ECA.

It may be incorrect to suggest that BALPAs stance is the same as the ECAs.

S-Works

10th Jan 2008, 15:06

I wouldn't expect anyone to compromise themselves in such a way. I'd imagined that EASA as a 'public body' representing and acting on behalf of the public, industry, and law makers across the EU would make its minutes available to those who want them.

I have no idea. I am sure if you wanted to make a request of the appropriate departments under some element of freedom of information you could do so.

I am unable to assist and don't want to get into an argument about it.

Fuji,

Allegedly the airline unions are all joined up and speak with one voice unlike the GA side of things! All I can comment on is that the 'airline unions' are anti IMCR.

Fuji Abound

10th Jan 2008, 15:11

Absolute showeeer.

BEagle

10th Jan 2008, 15:16

Indeed the European Crackpot Association.

Basically they will do ANYTHING to reduce the number of pilots daring to want to venture into the airspace these people think is theirs - and they also want to venture increasingly often into the 'open FIR' when hauling drunken hen parties and sink-estate trash to various European watering holes to drink themselves into oblivion....

They haven't realised - or perhaps don't wish to understand - that Mode S, Level 4 ICAO English and other requirements will naturally reduce the number of non-UK people able to use the UK IMCR flight test outside the UK, were it to be permitted.

The ECA is being exceptionally dog-in-the-manger over this. Or rather their somewhat vociferous spokesperson is. Regrettably the case for the UK IMCR wasn't presented by anyone with experience of the Rating and its uses........

On another tack, I know learn that anyone stupid enough to bother with the LAPL won't receive any credit towards the EAS-FCL PPL(A)....:ugh: That was one of the chief requirements we had for the NPPL - a straightforward upgrade process from NPPL(SSEA) to JAR-FCL PPL(A).....:mad:

Neither am I convinced that the PPL/IR clique are terribly interested in promoting the UK IMCR.......

Fuji Abound

10th Jan 2008, 15:26

Regrettably the case for the UK IMCR wasn't presented by anyone with experience of the Rating and its uses........

Really .. .. ..

llanfairpg

10th Jan 2008, 15:35

But apart from all that what about approaching BALPA to see if you can get an article in 'The Log'?

This thread is about giving support not about belly aching about the rights and wrongs of other organsiations whom are obviously going to have different aggendas.

BEagle

10th Jan 2008, 15:39

Sorry, that should have been "anyone with everyday, practical experience of the Rating and its uses........"

Fuji Abound

10th Jan 2008, 15:49

Beagle

I think you will find Bose will contest this is so given AOPAs representation, however it is a closely guarded secret as to exactly who said what.

S-Works

10th Jan 2008, 16:08

Sorry, that should have been "anyone with everyday, practical experience of the Rating and its uses........"

I am sorry that we failed to measure up.......:(

I realise that the thousand hours I spent mooching around in the clag before the IR does not give me any practical understanding of everyday use of the rating or that Pam Campbell who along with her late husband have nearly 40 years of direct involvement with it.

Such is life.
:ouch:

Fuji Abound

10th Jan 2008, 17:14

I think Bose probably has a very good understanding of the issues.

What is less clear is:

how well the issues were presented,

what evidence was provided by the representative bodies with regard to the strength of feeling amoung their members,

what efforts were made to educate those involved (for example only one of the 32 members of the ECA probably has any understanding of the IMC rating).

It may be idealistic, but transparency and accountability are virtues, the lack off makes it impossible to assess the quality of representation and inevitably leads to doubts.

If that can not be seen by the numerous comments here and elsewhere then I suspect you need to get the eye content of your medical reviewed. :D

rustle

10th Jan 2008, 19:47

It may be idealistic, but transparency and accountability are virtues, the lack off makes it impossible to assess the quality of representation and inevitably leads to doubts.

Idealistic indeed...

Have you actually read your UKIMC website?

Where on that will I find out (transparently, naturally) what you are actually going to do about the IMC rating?

There is a link to a petition (my views on that folly are already known), and there is some "information" about the IMC rating - but other than a request to "join the campaign" there is precious little information (transparent or otherwise) about what the campaign is, what its aims are, what it is going to do (other than whine a lot) to achieve those aims, or anything else for that matter. :ugh:

S-Works

10th Jan 2008, 19:58

:p:p:p:);)

julian_storey

10th Jan 2008, 20:00

There is a link to a petition (my views on that folly are already known),

A petition supported by the editor of 'Pilot' magazine and which is well on the way to it's 1300th signatory.

Contacttower

10th Jan 2008, 20:01

Browsing through Pilot today and their short piece on the IMC rating was very pessimistic, it's difficult to believe some NAAs could be so stupid :ugh:...but to be fair when several EU countries don't even allow IMC outside CAS I can kind of see why they don't care for it.

Europe. :ugh:

Fuji Abound

10th Jan 2008, 20:11

Rustle

Ah yes,

that would be bringing the attention of this issue to many thousands of pilots,

stimulating a huge amount of interest and debate,

providing a forum for people to register their support, and even more importantly, to help us co-ordinate the campaign

providing relevant links to those concerned with this issue.

and, bearing in mind the campaign has hardly being going for a month, a lot more to come.

I am so sorry we have not achieved more in the first month. :}

Never the less, I shall thank those good folk who have given their time and put their hand in their pockets for nothing, and everyone who has emailed us pledging their support, thanking us for bringing this matter to their attention and asking how they can help.

Thank you.

rustle

10th Jan 2008, 20:20

Okay, interest and debate was happening here and at FLYER.

I say again: Where on the UKIMC website will I find out (transparently, naturally) what you are actually going to do about the IMC rating?

Not rhetoric about what others may or may not have done, but what you (your "campaign") are going to do.

Not what you "have achieved in a short period of time"

What you are going to do

Er... Thank you.

rustle

10th Jan 2008, 20:25

...but to be fair when several EU countries don't even allow IMC outside CAS I can kind of see why they don't care for it.

I doubt they have much choice whether it is IMC inside or outside CAS unless they control the weather. ;)

I assume you mean they don't allow IFR outside CAS?

hoodie

10th Jan 2008, 20:28

:p:p:p:);)

bose-x, you do realise, I suppose, that your attitude to the IMC-R in these public forums actually brings AOPA UK into disrepute (As well as yourself)?

You put yourself forward as an (the?) AOPA UK representative in the fight to maintain the IMC-R, but the majority of your pronouncements:

(a) Show barely concealed disdain for the rating, as well as those that make full use of it.

(b) Actively hinder a well-intentioned campaign that has raised the profile of the threat far higher, and far faster, within the GA community than any of the formal organisations have achieved.

(c) Snipe from the sidelines about the campaign's methods, but add zero constructive suggestions about how to achieve the desired results more effectively. Whilst at the same time suggesting that only AOPA knows how best to deal with the threat, whilst simultaneously declining to explain HOW you/they will actually do this.

(d) Are juvenile and disrespectful in your attitude to others who have the same aims that you supposedly claim.

Please, either be helpful and constructive or put a sock in it.

Other posters (and I don't mean those just registered - or the troll that is 'rustle'):

If I'm off-beam with this viewpoint, you will let me know, won't you? :ok:

Fuji Abound

10th Jan 2008, 20:36

Rustle

1. We have the support of two Euro MPs who are closely involved with this matter. We will be working with them to ensure that we present a strong case for the retention of the rating. We will also be working with them to ensure we are able to keep people abreast of the consultation process and what they can do to ensure their views are taken into account,

2. We are in correspondence with the ECA who it would seem have objected to the retention of the rating with a view to better understanding their objections and their understanding our position,

3. We are working with a post graduate at Cranfield with a view to producing a paper which will examine the safety arguments in support of the IMC rating,

4. We are in correspondence with on of the largest GA aircraft manufactureres in Europe who are strong supporters of the IMC rating and for whom the UK is a very important market,

5. We have the support of a number of the UK GA magazines and we have already worked with one of these magazines who will be featuring this issue shortly.

As time, energy and resources permit I have no doubt we will cast the net as far as we can.

rustle

10th Jan 2008, 20:41

So for exactly the same thing you criticise AOPA and others; you are guilty of failing to mention any of that on your website.

I know some dickheads on here are too stupid to understand, but I'm glad that by asking a couple of questions I now understand some of what you might actually be doing.

Thanks for answering ;)

One day you'll thank me and bose for asking awkward questions here before you have to answer them elsewhere - trust me on this. :}

Fuji Abound

10th Jan 2008, 21:10

Rustle

I think there is a difference already mentioned - we have been at this for just over a month - Christmas has come and gone in between. As you know it takes time and effort to have come this far. It is to be regreted we came to it so late.

Keeping everyone informed of what is taking place is terribly important, however less than a month is very little time in which to move these issues forward.

Never the less, I think you will find we already have more on the web site than any of the representative bodies.

I will thank you and Bose, and any one else for that matter, for asking awkward questions.

It is unfortunate that here, and elsewhere, there are posts which appear to have an alternative motive.

Hodie is right to draw attention to this and I think reflects the views of many.

There is a fine line been constructive comment, awkward questioning and what else has taken place.

I :D the first, and := the second.

julian_storey

10th Jan 2008, 21:23

bose-x, you do realise, I suppose, that your attitude to the IMC-R in these public forums actually brings AOPA UK into disrepute (As well as yourself)?

You put yourself forward as an (the?) AOPA UK representative in the fight to maintain the IMC-R, but the majority of your pronouncements:

(a) Show barely concealed disdain for the rating, as well as those that make full use of it.

(b) Actively hinder a well-intentioned campaign that has raised the profile of the threat far higher, and far faster, within the GA community than any of the formal organisations have achieved.

(c) Snipe from the sidelines about the campaign's methods, but add zero constructive suggestions about how to achieve the desired results more effectively. Whilst at the same time suggesting that only AOPA knows how best to deal with the threat, whilst simultaneously declining to explain HOW you/they will actually do this.

(d) Are juvenile and disrespectful in your attitude to others who have the same aims that you supposedly claim.

Please, either be helpful and constructive or put a sock in it.

Good work Hoodie :D

S-Works

10th Jan 2008, 21:38

Oh god..... I don't know why I bother....:ugh:

Thanks for your destructive input hoody, you have just done to me exactly what you were deriding me for.... :D:D

I have never claimed the job should be left to AOPA. I have repeatedly stated that my views are my own and not of AOPA. If I viewed the rating with the disdain you claim I would not have bothered to do anything to save it.

You have not bothered to read my posts or understand the reason why Rustle and I have pushed so hard to have the campaign explained.

I have explained the AOPA stance and even published against my better judgement part of the AOPA case.

A few pages on an anonymous website and a useless petition do not a campaign make. AOPA sit on the committees and provide direct input something as a member I am satisfied with.

Fujis campaign has lacked substance and I have merely questioned the direction. It has slowly illicited responses and I have publicly wished him well with it's success.

So I would respectfully suggest you crawl back into whatever hole you popped out of and keep your opinions about me to yourself. After all entering into a fight with me will just detracted from Fuji's campaign and you would not like to do that would you?????

hoodie

10th Jan 2008, 22:20

You have not bothered to read my posts

Very wrong.

So I would respectfully suggest you crawl back into whatever hole you popped out of and keep your opinions about me to yourself.

(d)

Fuji Abound

10th Jan 2008, 22:22

Bose

I think it is important, as you suggest, to fairly reflect each others views.

You feel that a web site and a petition do not make a campaign.

However, I have said previously, that many of the changes "proposed" by EASA have not been sufficiently well publicised, nor has any measure been taken of the views of private pilots.

If it achieves nothing more, this campaign set out to bring this issue firmly to the attention of a great many pilots and other interested parties, and has demonstrated the strength of support for retaining the IMC rating.

I believe this lends a great deal of credibility to those involved with the committee proceedings in terms of their ability to demonstrate the extent of the support among those they represent for retaining the IMC rating.

I have made no bones in the past that in this important regard I believe we have been let down by some of the representative bodies involved in this process. In terms of their ability to present the case for retaining the IMC rating I find it difficult to judge how effective they are because of the limited amount of information they appear willing to share. For that reason I think we all find it very difficult to judge whether we are in “safe hands” or not.

I appreciate this is a difficult perspective for you, because you are so closely involved with the issues that you have a far better appreciation of what is taking place than the rest of us. That is the danger of looking from the inside out - a danger of which I trust you are aware.

We all need to listen to the views of the private pilot community - the community of which we are apart. We may not like what they have to say but after all it is they we represent. If the message is that we need to communicate better then I believe it is well worth heeding that message - after all, we are all in this together - arent we?

Wrong Stuff

11th Jan 2008, 06:20

I find some of the posts on this thread very disappointing and reminiscent of a school playground. Whatever the truth of all the hard work and effort that goes on in committee meetings and behind closed doors, with regard to this thread I find myself in agreement with hoodie.

BEagle

11th Jan 2008, 07:03

Hoodie, you are indeed correct.

Bose-x, I'm afraid you are losing all credibility with your intemperate rants.

I have very good feedback from the last EASA meeting on 21-ish Dec and was disappointed at the IAOPA level of input towards the UK IMCR.

Re. the IMC outside CAS, that is precisely why I've used the term 'permitted' airspace, since that is not the same across all of Euroland.

Keep up the good work, Fuji!

Incidentally, bose-x, upon which AOPA Committee do you sit? Instructor Committee, FTPG or which?

Fuji Abound

11th Jan 2008, 09:34

BEagle and hoodie

Thank you for your support.

FullyFlapped

11th Jan 2008, 10:58

Let me nail my colours to the mast : I am happy to say I fully support the petition and campaign, have signed up and am available to help however I can.

Like many others reading this forum, I have absolutely no problem understanding the methods and aims behind Fuji's campaign (I am sure he wouldn't want it called that, but I believe he deserves huge credit for getting this ball rolling) and how this might progress beyond initial support gathering. To those of us who have had exposure to/worked in the media, it's blindingly obvious how this might work.

I have held off from commenting on the position of the detractors because I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion. And it's been amusing to watch how these negatives have morphed from outright condemnation and childish comments to a position of "we only want to point out that your aims aren't at all clear : you'll thank us one day". It seems that standing tall and beating your chest aren't that easy to do once the sand starts to shift beneath your feet ...

Well, there are two ways this can go. One is that at least someone tried to defend our rights and liberties, and failed because the vested interests were too powerful. The other is that someone tried to defend our rights and liberties, and either succeeded outright or at least brought about the creation of some acceptable middle ground. Either way it is an admirable process which deserves constructive support.

As to those wisemen who believe that this will have little effect because they "know how things are done" (largely in secret, apparently) : to those who cannot see the viewpoint of others who are frustrated by the seemingly endless erosion of our rights and liberties by brown-nosed surrender monkeys, and who just want to fight back for a change - well, you're still entitled to your opinions.

I'd even buy you a beer while we argue about it ! :p

gcolyer

11th Jan 2008, 11:06

Mines a pint of bitter please :}

llanfairpg

11th Jan 2008, 11:08

Like many others reading this forum, I have absolutely no problem understanding the methods and aims behind Fuji's campaign

Are you sure, because it was Julian Storey that started the Downing St petition?

FullyFlapped

11th Jan 2008, 11:15

OK OK OK - Fuji, Julian ... and whoever else I may have missed ! Well done to all of them.

Gcolyer ... any time, mate .. but you'll have to take it with a proper head on it ... not that watery muck you boys drink out of vases dahn sarf ... :)

gcolyer

11th Jan 2008, 11:29

Don't tar me with the suvna brush!!! i may be a suvna but i know how to have a propa beer wiv a propa ed on it. And none of that nancy boy larger stuff.

Fuji Abound

11th Jan 2008, 14:15

OK OK OK - Fuji, Julian ... and whoever else I may have missed ! Well done to all of them.

Thanks for your support guys.

I firmly believe the key at this stage in the game is to spread the message wide and far.

This is where it is so important everyone does their bit.

Please take just a minute to print off a bundle of the flyers from the web site and pin them up on your club notice board, every FBO you walk through and every flying club you might pass through on your travels. Lets make it our mission that every board will have a flyer on it.

Please try and bring the matter to the attention of fellow pilots when you meet. It is still of concern how many do not realise what is taking place.

It is so often said, and so easy to think, I'll leave it to someone else, but it is up to each of us.

julian_storey

11th Jan 2008, 19:13

All it takes for evil to triumph, is for the good people to do nothing ;)

llanfairpg

11th Jan 2008, 19:14

744 views in three hours

Thinking of flying light aircraft when you retire?

On the flight deck forum.

Widen your views, and the campaign

Fuji Abound

12th Jan 2008, 13:23

I posted this elsewhere but it is just as relevant here.

One aspect causes me increasing concern.

Put simply, few people understand what is taking place.

A few that do reassure us what a marvellous job is being done but satisfying ourselves that is so is more painful than having teeth extracted without pain killers.

Now, if I was concerned about the future of the IMC rating, or any other issue for that matter, I would want to know what my representative body was doing for me. After all we pay them to keep us informed.

It is not good enough so far as I am concerned to be told “we know best”, “leave it all to us”.

How else do you judge if your case is being properly represented?

From the numerous emails I have received, feedback at www.ukimc.org and comment here and else where, it is becoming clear that many believe their views are not being represented.

The ECA now has two members on the FCL working group. BALPA is on of 32 members of the ECA. The ECA is reported as being opposed to the retention of the IMC rating. Does this reflect the views of BAPL members - it would seem not.

So what is my point?

Do you want these people making decisions for you when you don’t know what their position is on the issue, or why they have adopted that position?

Do you want these people making decisions for you when it is unclear whether they understand the views of their members

Do you know what they have done to establish what your view is?

Now there are plenty of us on here who are members of AOPA, BALPA or some of the other representative bodies.

I would suggest that you pick up your pen, or keyboard and write -

ask them what their view is,

ask them for copies of the minutes of the meetings that have taken place,

ask them whether they are satisfied they have taken a pole of the view of their members,

ask them who is representing you on the FCL committee,

ask them who are ojecting to the retention of the IMC rating and why,

ask them what evidence they have put before the working group with regards the safety record of pilots who hold the rating.

After all without this information how do you know they are representing you in the way you would wish?

AOPA - [email protected]
BAPL - [email protected]

ECA - www.eurocockpit.be/component/option,com_contact/task,view/contact_id,21/Itemid,74/

You might be surprised by the reply you receive.

julian_storey

13th Jan 2008, 18:21

Personally I am very happy with all that AOPA have done to date on this subject. I don't though believe that the fact they are doing 'something' obviates the need for everyone else to do something too.

Absolutely everyone should do absolutely everything that they can to raise awareness about what is happening.

Fuji Abound

13th Jan 2008, 19:44

Julian

The trouble is I dont know whether or not to agree with you.

How can you access what they have done when so little is said?

I know a number of people have written. It will be interesting to see what response they get.

So much for open government.

julian_storey

14th Jan 2008, 07:56

The AOPA page in Pilot magazine is about the best source of information on what they've been up to.

My view is that the AOPA stance on this is absolutely right and their input to the EASA process is about right.

What AOPA have pretty much failed to do is to spread awareness of what could well happen amongst the GA community and that's what 'we' need to do.

2close

14th Jan 2008, 08:26

I avidly support this campaign to retain the IMC (although I do admit to having lost touch with exactly where the process is) and I have signed the petition (somewhere about No.12 I think) and I did take the time to write to Lembit Opik MP (before I found out that he had already written an article in FTN - :hmm: ).

However, I am a bit concerned that it is a case of preaching to the converted.

I may very well be wrong but it seems that the activity is being directed at UK bodies to bring them on side when the UK is the one country that is in favour of retention of the rating and I feel that all this hard work may be going to waste when, at the end of the day the vote is still against the UK.

Shouldn't the process be directed at convincing other NAAs of the benefits to flight safety by producing whatever hard facts are available. I'm sure that there is enough talent out there to put together a well worded working document, have this translated into the member languages of the FCL1 sub-committee and distributed to all. I don't know but it seems to me that the way to get them on board is to produce proper argument rather than amassing a big gang to beat them up - although I am also in favour of the literal application of the latter :E.

Just a thought.

I'll fetch me coat................;)

Fuji Abound

14th Jan 2008, 10:17

2close

I totally agree.

I don’t know whether or not this has already been done by the representative bodies and if so when and how.

This was part of the reason for my earlier post. It seems to be extraordinarily difficult to establish who has already done what - it is like a cloak and danger mystery. Unfortunately when you write and ask they don’t tell you.

Of course this makes it very difficult to know the best way in which to focus the campaign. Clearly the last thing one wants to do is re-invent the wheel by going over ground that has already been covered. On the other hand it is my distinct impression that some of the ground has not been covered.

Personally, I think the members of each of the representative bodies should be asking these questions.

If I didnt get answers I wouldn’t be joining next year.