Flyer and Pilot join the IMC campaign

[Fuji Abound]

Pilot and Fler magazines have joined in with the following news briefs on their web sites.

With nearly 1,000 pilots having signed the petition and a growing number signed up at:

www.ukimc.org

the campaign is growing in momentum. As we move into the New Year some serious lobbying will be under way so we need your support more than ever.

Numbers in the first instance count so if you have not signed up it is a great New Years resolution to do so.


The IMC and BCPL ratings look like becoming the latest victims of European harmonisation, which thus far seems to have brought penalties, but no significant benefits. You can register your protest at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/IMC-Rating

[Pilot]



IMC rating Europe update

First Posted: Mon 31 Dec 2007

A series of meetings in Euroland before Christmas have brought some mixed news about the future of various licences, ratings and privileges for pilots around Europe.

The main bone of contention for many existing UK pilots revolves around the IMC rating. The main news here appears on the surface to be bad. The IMC rating will cease to exist, and at the moment there is nothing to replace it.

However, there is a strong likelihood that a working group will be set up to examine the requirements of instrument flying privileges in Europe. This has come about following lobbying which has highlighted to European officials the desirability of some form of sub-instrument rating for private pilots. There are no details at all yet. The CAA - which is supporting moves to retain some form of sub-instrument rating allowing IMC privileges for PPLs - is likely to form part of the group.

In the meantime there is the suggestion that the IMC rating will still be with us for four or so years, allowing pilots already holding the rating to exercise their privileges, by which time new arrangements may (but may not) be in place. However, it is not clear whether training for the IMC rating (which, remember, is currently a UK-only rating) will be able to continue for the whole of that period, if current proposals are adopted.

The timetable is that an NPA (Notice of Proposed Amendment) will be issued in the first quarter of 2008. This will cover a broad range of issues, including the new LAPL (a European Light Aircraft Pilot Licence - a sub-PPL licence which aims to encourage sport flying) and the dropping of the requirement for a flying instructors to hold a CPL, as well as the matters relating to the IMC rating.

Elsewhere on the IMC rating front, the campaign to preserve the existing rating continues, with a growing petition on the Number 10 website and a new site (www.ukimc.org/) run by pilots to support that petition.

[Flyer]

Thank you to both magazines.

[llanfairpg]

Splendid, Happy New Year to you

[FTN]

Just for completeness, there is also an update on the Flight Training News website (***************** (http://www.*****************)):
GA petitions to keep IMC rating
Public opposition is growing fast concerning the threatened removal of the Instrument Meteorology Conditions rating (IMCR) for UK pilots. Aviation Internet forums have been corralling support for a new petition on the Prime Minister’s website to retain the IMCR. The petition appeared shortly after FTN reported on a JAR-FCL core group meeting, where the UK was the only Member State that voted in favour of establishing a European IMC rating when national ratings (such as the UK IMCR) are removed as EASA takes control of flight crew licensing, thought to be early in 2009.
The petition, posted by Julian Storey on 12 December, has amassed 698 signatures to date and echoes concerns raised in the European Parliament that the European Safety Agency "is not fit for purpose".
The petition states:
"Since the rating was introduced some 50 years ago there has been no evidence produced to suggest the IMC rating is unsafe. It would seem patently obvious that UK pilots should be entitled to undertake further training which at the very least would enable them to cope with un-forecast changes in the weather. They should also be able to plan their flight to take advantage of the safest conditions - for example flying at higher altitudes in good visibility rather than scud running beneath the base.
"Controlled flight into terrain remains one of the greatest causes of aircraft accidents and almost always results in the pilot and passengers being killed. There is ample evidence to suggest that these accidents are far less likely to occur if pilots are trained and licensed to fly in IMCs.
"For these reasons there are many pilots who consider the loss of these privileges to be disastrous. There are those who believe so far as UK pilots are concerned it will be the single most dangerous development in licensing that has ever taken place."
At around the same time UK MEP Timothy Kirkhope told European Parliament during a plenary session that "scrapping the IMCR would be disastrous" and that EASA was not yet "fit for purpose".
However, despite the current lobbying in support of the IMCR from both members of the European Parliament and the UK GA community at large, sources close to the consultations have told FTN that it may already be too late to change the effect of the 12:1 vote against the IMCR. Discussions have been continuing at EASA since we last reported and a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) detailing flight crew licensing issues such as the IMCR is likely to be published early in the New Year. We will be bringing you a full update in our forthcoming edition.
A happy New Year to all
The Flight Training News Team

[znww5]

Seems strange that the UK government can opt out of European legislation when it suits (single currency, working time directive, single border initiative etc), but is unable/unwilling to do so in this instance. Funny that!

PS Petition duly signed and I encourage every pilot to do so.

[vref75]

Their should be some bridging course to allow IMC holders to become SEP IR.

[IO540]

So... the BCPL would be lost too?

That's interesting as it would upset a LOT of instructors. AIUI, this one goes back many years, to the days when a PPL could train PPLs and get paid for it. When this was stopped and a CPL was needed, all those instructors were given a honorary BCPL. Basically most "older" instructors (those who were never career pilots) are teaching on BCPLs so killing the BCPL without a grandfather route would strip out most of GA's best instructors.

[BEagle]

Yes, IO, that is the EASA intention.

But, I understand, those affected will be able to continue as PPL/FIs for which they may receive remuneration.

The only thing they would lose would be the 'commercial' description of their licence.

PPL holders will be able to instruct for remuneration - without needing to sit the 'commercial level' exams currently required. But it will be largely up to the FIC schools to ensure that instructional standards are maintained.

This should help expereinced PPL holders who wish to do some part-time flight instruction; if it reduces the openings for CPL hours-builders then the airlines will probably have to go back to selecting and training their future workforce themselves. Much like any other industry which needs specific skills from its workers.

One other point which isn't very clear, is whether organisations approved by the CAA to conduct flight training outside Europe will be permitted to continue to do so under EASA. Certainly all their FIs will have to hold EASA licences and ratings, rather than holding FAA licences and raings and CAA authorisation. Not to much of a problem for PPL schools, but the effect will be on those instructing at CPL/ATPL level (such as the Oxford trainees in the USA) remains to be assessed........

[TheOddOne]

So... the BCPL would be lost too?


BEagle, what about those of us who got the BCPL originally by taking the CPL exams and passing the CPL GFT? Am I the only one left? I had to go this route originally as I could pass the old Class II medical but not the Class I. I now have a JAR Class I and FI(R) (also CRI) on my BCPL. This suits me perfectly at the moment for the living I'm trying to make.

I guess I'll have to look at the upgrade options when I've built more hours, but the status quo does me.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[soay]

if it reduces the openings for CPL hours-builders then the airlines will probably have to go back to selecting and training their future workforce themselves.
Given the animosity the airlines seem to have towards GA, it's more likely that they'll recruit from overseas than invest in training.