IMCR numbers going down

[IO540]

Just picked up the last issue of FTN. On page 32 they have a load of charts.

IMCR new awards have gone down from ~700 in 2002 to ~ 260 in 2007, in a more or less straight line. That is a factor of three.

Any guesses as to the reason for this decline?

[Arfur Feck-Sake]

Haven't seen the stats but has there been an increase in the number of IRs issued over the same period?

[TheOddOne]

Any guesses as to the reason for this decline?

Sorry, no. However, I would like to point out that this decline started way before the EASA debate was even hinted at.

I work at a large school in North-West London and at the moment we've only one student actively studying for the IMCr. At the moment, I'm not qualified to teach it and I'm wondering if it's going to be worth my while getting the additional qualification if I'm not going to be able to put it in to practice. Thus the downward spiral is self-sustaining...

TheOddOne

[IO540]

Yes, the decline is not related to EASA; it's a linear decline since 2002.

I wonder if it is caused by the continual slagging off of the IMCR (a get out of jail card, a get into jail card, etc) by the usual pontificators within the flight training business. But that doesn't make total sense since a flying school should be dead keen to sell extra training.

[englishal]

Equipment certification changes / lack of suitably certified aeroplanes perhaps?

[SkyCamMK]

My observation is that I have been having more older students who can afford to fly but are less skilled than some of the younger element. My last silver IMCR stude packed in when he could not master the ADF to a high enough level and after after a couple of his landings were criticised. I have a renewal stude tomorrow who keeps it up but does not actually use it. I detect a growing fear of flying in weather along with a perceived poorer climate for longer in the year and overly pessimistic forecasts on TV. I also notice that as flight is experienced as a holiday bus trip for the young it holds no glamour compared to my early days. I know only a handful of keen pilots at PPL who regularly use their IMC. Personally I love it but you need practice for the confidence which I see to be lacking in many low hour and training ppl students. In UK we don't use light aircraft enough and the costs are still rising too fast for many.

[flybymike]

The problem has always been that the IMC course teaches students how to pass the test, and not how to seriously use the rating in the real IFR world.

However, this is merely an observation unrelated to the downward trend, since IMC students by definition would not be aware of this situation until completing the course and only then finding themselves qualified to use a rating which they had not actually been taught how to use in real life!

[SkyCamMK]

That could be part of the problem but don't you think that as clubs like to keep fewer aircraft available to members who can be discouraged from longer trips and as the cost of landings and approaches has risen and the bigger airports have declined to offer the services thay did and that the common ATC call of "Remain clear of controlled airspace! and Squawk 7000 Good Day" and limited military LARS these days are also part of the problem. IFR in IMC terms is limited but the intention of the IMCr is not to fly in total cloud and approaches are not allways necessary. I know of IMC rated piklots who would very rarely file a flight plan and mix VMC and IMC flight as required by the conditions so long as they could get an RIS and or FIS as necesary for safety and why not. It needs updating and the hold making part of the syllabus instead of an option if tiime permits It should probably include more genuine IMC rather than screens and foggles should be banned but I know why they are not.

[flybymike]

Skycam, all true but of course my point was made relative to IFR flying and not simply IMC flying. Teaching srudents to use the rating on a real utilitarian basis including filing flight plans and conducting real actual A to B IFR trips ( regardless of whether in IMC) would make the rating much more usable and more attractive.

[Final 3 Greens]

Point 1 - is there a similar decline in PPL issues?

Point 2 - how many high income people have emigrated since 2002 - many thousands

I don't have the data, but there could be a correlation.

[Three Yellows]

Lots of valid points made above.

I use my IMC almost every time I go flying. I don't subscribe to the "get you out of trouble" scenario, as we all know if you are not in regular practice it will get you into trouble.

The problem is for most renters is that flying clubs will not sign you out unless its almost CAVOK. I am always amazed when I go flying that I seem to be the only aircraft in the sky, when in fact the weather isn't that bad.

The other problems are that where I learnt to fly, having done the PPL, they didn't encourage me to go and do more and as someone has said, the IMC course doesn't tell you lots of things you really need to know.... but then that's true of the IR/ATPL too.

[S-Works]

The suitability of aircraft for IMC flying in the club scene is next to none. There is a prosecution culture for those who make a mistake and in a badly equipped aircraft you have more chance of a mistake in IMC. In the past pilots would be happy to blag with a minimum IMC fit and a portable GPS, now they are more wary of explaining themselves if it goes wrong.

There is a growing move towards the LAA hot-ships which are day VFR at grass roots level and at the other end people tend to do the IR either FAA or JAA.

The cost of fuel and the burden of legislation, lack of access to approaches etc. make it more difficult to maintain the currency so people can't be bothered to do the training in the first place.

With the permit type culture a lot of people are still doing long touring trips but VFR and prepared to live with the delays that bad weather causes. Whatever many of us IR flyers may say an IR or IMC is not required for serious touring, it is required for serious business use where you are on a schedule and as a result there is a gulf appearing between the two camps.

What everyone needs to watch is how the gulf is very cleverly being engineered, a Europe wide licence that requires a minimal medical and is a VFR rating (possibly with Night) that basically pushes private flying towards the LAPL and pigeon holes flyers into the VFR hotships. Removing the need for a CPL from the FI rating only currently applies to LAPL training so more people will be pushed down that route, the guys with the CPL will be a shrinking market as the airlines eventually take them. What we are left with is GA neatly boxed.

If you then want to play with the 'big boys' IMC flight international rights etc you have to go for the full licence.

In a few years time it will be interesting to see the look on peoples faces when they turn up somewhere like the states with a LAPL and are told it is sub ICAO and they can't fly.

Europe is in danger of becoming the 'insular' united states of europe that we have always criticised the yanks for.......

[IO540]

Point 1 - is there a similar decline in PPL issues?

Not at all.

Point 2 - how many high income people have emigrated since 2002 - many thousands

Many, though I doubt this affects GA very much; for the % of the general population is still very small.

Also I don't think many high income people (say, £100k+) have been hanging around GA in recent decades. The high income men driving nice cars have moved on to more interesting activities (more excitement, more interesting females around, or both) back in the 1970s, as far as I can tell.

Removing the need for a CPL from the FI rating only currently applies to LAPL training

Where have you read this, bose x? It's categorically not what the #1 man in charge told me personally earlier this year.

Anyway, whatever is happening is specific to the IMCR, and it is a strong effect. I don't think it is the clapped out planes; they were just as clapped out when I started my PPL in 2000. It is a major attitude change somewhere. Are schools not advertising it? That would be a key factor because AFAICS most people that do it do it quite early on in their flying career, before they have got clued up on the real world out there.

There is a drift towards permit types, quite a strong one, but that just means the pilots are flying IMC enroute if necessary.

Once you learnt to fly instruments, and you have a decent GPS, you won't be afraid of IMC. What makes the IMCR (and the IR) hard is a) the lack of situational awareness without a moving map and b) the need to perform complex tricks like NDB holds.

[Julian]

I would say its a combination of lack of suitablly equipped rental aircraft (and maintained to such a standard that you would put your trust in the kit) and the, as Bose says, there is a reluctance for schools to sign you out.

I would hazard a guess that most people renewing IMC/IR quals are either going for the airlines or are owners and therefore more likely to use it. Maybe any FIs on here can give some info on that one for their own experience.

J.

[S-Works]

Where have you read this, bose x? It's categorically not what the #1 man in charge told me personally earlier this year.

I have read it in the FCL001 report sat on the desk in front of me. The number one man in charge may have told you something earlier in the year but that is not currently the situation, but I am impressed how your one man road show has direct access to the commissioner. Currently removal of the requirement for the CPL exams has gone through, but the proposal for renumerated FI's on a PPL currently only applies to the LAPL and the term used for these people is LAFE.

There is a drift towards permit types, quite a strong one, but that just means the pilots are flying IMC enroute if necessary.

Flying enroute illegally in IMC you mean in an aircraft restricted to DAY VFR ONLY flight?

I think schools are still pushing the IMCR hard as a rating because it is a revenue stream. As I said before I think GA is seeing a step change towards the lighter end which is VFR only for recreational purposes. Pilots can fly the old classics and the permit types on nothing more than a PPL with a two year revalidation. Simple and cheap.

While you and I will cling onto our IR Ratings for grim death due to the type of flying we do, most people are not interested in the time and financial commitments that even an IMC entails for the limited legal use they get in these types.

[Rod1]

bose x

I am impressed; you have come a long way in the last 18 months…:D

In the 90’s most of the club fleets were IFR equipped; now this is not the case. Even if the kit is fitted, it is old and often not operational. This may be less true south of Watford, but it is up here.:{

In recent times the CAA has somewhat rubbished the IMCR. More recently still the EASA uncertainty has struck. A surprising number of PPL’s think the IMCR has already gone, or is about to vanish so no point in doing it. By comparison my French PPL contacts would love to get one.

Serious VFR touring as part of flying for fun does not require an IMCR. Oddly there is an increasing pressure to not fit VFR only aircraft with adequate kit to “survive” in IMC. The VFR rules are very flexible, but you do need some kit and some training if you are going to fly near the VFR minima. To brand all VFR touring pilots as bandits who all fly illegal IFR legs is crap. The accident statistics show this is either not happening, or we are all so good at it that none of us has got it wrong for the last few years.

Back to the IMCR.

15% of the LAA has an IMCR (this is a significant number)
EASA are trying to kill it off.
The club fleet is becoming unsuitable.
The number of new aircraft which are VFR only is rising fast and getting faster.
The number of renewals is falling to a negligible level.

I am a big fan of the IMCR, but Given the above it is highly unlikely to survive, unless EASA reintroduce it as a “European” idea.:rolleyes:

Rod1

[S-Works]

I am impressed; you have come a long way in the last 18 months…

Now thats not fair Rod, I have always supported the permit hotships and have often said if I could fly IFR I would swap in a heartbeat. I also support the work of the PFA and as a result became a Regional Coach.

The problem is that the gulf between the two ends is increasing rapidly and I have an uneasy feeling that we are being manipulated into a VFR box for private flying. I think the permit hot ship flyers gloating about the cheap costs and flexibility of private strips etc. are accelerating us into this box.

[IO540]

Flying enroute illegally in IMC you mean in an aircraft restricted to DAY VFR ONLY flight?

Yes of course. Why do you think there is such a market for brand new and obviously IFR equipped permit types?

I see your point about changing to some VLA type if they could fly IFR but I think you would end up having a rather close look at the build quality compared to your Cessna, or my TB20, and walk away. The two don't compare. Most VLA types are built to much lower standards. They should be structurally (G) as strong but the general build standard is much lower. Look at details like control linkages... No wonder you get silly problems like tails falling off.

Serious VFR touring as part of flying for fun does not require an IMCR

Only if you are willing to fly in IMC illegally. It is virtually impossible to do significant touring without some encounter with cloud - unless one is a permanently retired old chap with all the time in the world.

To brand all VFR touring pilots as bandits who all fly illegal IFR legs is crap

Don't know where you get "all" from. Historically (say 2002) about 20% of PPLs got an IMCR. Now it is more like 7%. Taking the same % to permit pilots does not yield "all", but enough to support the drift.

I have an uneasy feeling that we are being manipulated into a VFR box for private flying.

Without a doubt this is true, but not by EASA. EASA is a very recent kid on the FCL block. The manipulation is being done by the traditional GA representative bodies, 99% of whose members are VFR only and most would be happy to shaft IFR GA capability for everybody else if it saved them £20 off their next medical, or enabled them to get it with a BP of 180/110 :) I can't blame them; this kind of thing needs a higher level authority which can say "we need IFR capability in GA" as a principle - just as EASA has always been saying. GA is its own worst enemy in this respect. I don't know why I bang on about this on behalf of others ... I have my CPL/IR and that should do me for long enough.

Back to the IMCR decline, I do live south of Watford but I don't see any difference in the junk that is available for rental today compared to when I started training in 2000.

I walked out of one school (which happened to have an AOC for charter) due to bare wires hanging around under the cowling. When I complained, saying this could cause a short & a fire, the instructor (an fATPL) said "that goes to the landing light; just don't turn on the landing light and you will be fine".

In short, I don't see what physical factor could have caused the 3x decline. I reckon the slagging off of the IMCR (GASCO. GASIL, CAA safety seminars a few years back, various instructors, often on pilot forums) is a prime candidate.

[S-Works]

Some of it can be put at the door of the CAA change in approach that occurred several years ago after a pilot with a 'current' but unused for 18 months IMCR launched himself from the South Coast in crap weather heading for Scotland and flew into a mountain. As a result of this the CAA started to recommend the rating as a get you home rather than sustained instrument flight rating.

As far as needing an IR for serious touring is concerned I have to disagree. I have a JAA IR and a huge pile more hours than IO does and I tour extensively. We normally go as a group and the other aircraft are VFR only and we never have a problem. We are going to Sweden next week and Morocco in July. I will fly IFR as it is easier but not because it is 'required' for serious touring. The whole point of touring is the journey.

When flying for business it is a different matter and that is when having an IR comes into it's own.

[Rod1]

“Only if you are willing to fly in IMC illegally. It is virtually impossible to do significant touring without some encounter with cloud - unless one is a permanently retired old chap with all the time in the world.”

This is a completely flawed argument. If a significant number of permit aircraft were being flown in IMC with uncertified systems then the accident rate for LAA aircraft would be higher than for similar accidents in C of A aircraft. Instead the accident rate for c of a aircraft is rising slowly (I think) but the accident rate IMC related incidents for LAA aircraft has been ZERO for years (as summarized in the LAA mags).

The start of the decline in the IMCR coincided with the CAA change in position regarding the IMCR being only a get you home qualification. This came about due to an accident not too dissimilar to the recent one in Scotland.

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

In respect of the first discussion I think we may be at cross purposes. Touring is more than possible without an IMCR or IR. However proper touring requires a different mind set and a reasonable understanding of the weather. If you do enough VFR touring you will get use to flying low on occasions and you will certainly get use to working around weather or adjusting your plans to allow for the weather. You will also get use to delaying your departure on occasions. It is surprising that in the Summer there are really very few days you cant fly BUT you sometimes have to wait to find a suitable gap in the weather. On the other hand with an instrument rating you are far more likely to complete a given sector of your tour without the same regard to the weather or diverting in terms of time or route from your plans.

In respect of the decline in pilots pursuing an IMCR without doubt the rating has been poorly “sold” by the schools, authorities and representative bodies in recent times. I think this is a great shame as I am convinced a pilot is far better off with an IMCR than without.

I have no idea how much illegal IMC flying takes place in aircraft that are not for whatever reason certified for flight in instrument conditions. I do however know that many VLA aircraft are more than adequately equipped for some types of instrument operations and I would be surprised if some of their members do not on occasions fly on panel to transition through cloud. I am however convinced that flight in instrument conditions (to some degree) by pilots without a current instrument qualification is not that rare, particularly by those with a lapsed rating of one description or another.

It would also be interesting to see how the number of instructors qualified to teach the IMC rating has changed over the same time span? My perception is that there are far fewer around than there use to be.

[XX621]

The high income men driving nice cars have moved on to more interesting activities (more excitement, more interesting females around, or both) back in the 1970s, as far as I can tell.


What activities with "interesting females around" exactly ?? (and where?)
(sorry to digress a very interesting thread but couldn't resist)

Can someone provide a link to a publication which defines exactly what constitutes an aircraft which is "certified for instrument conditions"?? I have asked a few people and no-one can give me a definitive response.

[S-Works]

Can someone provide a link to a publication which defines exactly what constitutes an aircraft which is "certified for instrument conditions"?? I have asked a few people and no-one can give me a definitive response.


Its part of the flight manual and subject to the minimum equipment list as defined in the ANO for the basic stuff. It is actually surprisingly little in what is actually 'required' kit!

[IO540]

If a significant number of permit aircraft were being flown in IMC with uncertified systems then the accident rate for LAA aircraft would be higher than for similar accidents in C of A aircraft

Not if

a) you use a decent GPS (which most VLA pilots do), and

b) you never try flying close to the ground (e.g. an approach)

Enroute, and icing aside (not a problem anyway as much of the VLA crowd flies little in winter, or high enough) IMC is quite safe.

I have a JAA IR and a huge pile more hours than IO does and I tour extensively

Well, Mr Bose Big Man, I have nearly 1000hrs which is way more than the average PPL ever reaches before chucking it in for good, and I was doing 150/year when I had just a PPL+IMCR, so if you have 10,000 hours all well and good but not really relevant to the argument because one ends up debating the very last 0.1% or so.

It is also no use an IR pilot saying that purely-VFR touring is possible because he is adopting a very different attitude from the start. I might do a VFR flight to say Calais but if I hear the wx there is OVC008 (unforecast, presumably, otherwise I would have gone IFR) I just request an IFR clearance and an ILS without even pausing for a breath. A VFR pilot cannot do this, and last time I did it (Caen) there was quite a panic to be heard on the French frequency from all the other Brits going VFR to LTQ etc because the bad wx was quite widespread along the coast.

An IMCR pilot cannot do this outside the UK but he can do it in the UK, and he can also fly VMC on top VFR worldwide (which is really vital for European VFR touring) and very importantly he can leave behind all that ridiculous compass+stopwatch crap and use his radio nav capability which completely transforms the certainty in 'going places'.

It would also be interesting to see how the number of instructors qualified to teach the IMC rating has changed over the same time span? My perception is that there are far fewer around than there use to be.

That is a curious one. I thought that anybody with an fATPL can teach the IMCR - such an FI will have done the CPL/IR after all.

What activities with "interesting females around" exactly ?? (and where?)

Helicopters is the only 'flying' activity I can think of, but it has to be a turbine one (sorry). And you have to fly her (or them ;) ) to posh country hotels in France. It's an awfully expensive way to get la*d.

Outside flying, I am reliably informed that swimming pool attendants do very well.

Motor racing, powerboat racing, anything to do with sailing (but not too serious sailing and only when it's warm).

[poss]

Sorry, no. However, I would like to point out that this decline started way before the EASA debate was even hinted at.

I work at a large school in North-West London and at the moment we've only one student actively studying for the IMCr. At the moment, I'm not qualified to teach it and I'm wondering if it's going to be worth my while getting the additional qualification if I'm not going to be able to put it in to practice. Thus the downward spiral is self-sustaining...

TheOddOne


Mate I think it would be a good idea for you to get it anyway. The IMC will be around for at least another 4 years and even if you aren't able to use it, the things that the course teaches you are very valuable and could one day save your life. My flying club will still run the course even if it is scrapped purely for the safety aspect of what you learn.

[XX621]

Bose-x: Thanks.
Sorry to digress everyone....

[S-Works]

Well IO, very unusual for you to stoop to personal attacks just because you don't like what has been said. I do believe that in the private flying hours pissing contest you are onto a loser by a large margin.

My point was around VFR touring, Calais in an 800OVC is hardly VFR touring is it?

My point is (again) that it is perfectly possible for the pilots of these hot ships to tour VFR. This is demonstrated all the time. Just because you have an IR and therefore it seems view yourself better than the VFR guys don't go round making stuff up to suit your arguments. Implying the permit flyers are breaking the law and flying in IMC to support your argument is just stupid.

Personally I am neutral either way, but the question was asked why the IMCR issues have fallen year on year. I gave a reasonable interpretation that is supported by comment from the VFR only flyers as to why. Changing styles and a move towards permit flying has had an impact on issues as these guys don't see the need for a rating they can't legally use.

You have just made up a view that they are doing it illegally to support your argument which kind of does them a bit of a disservice?

Perhaps you want to lean over the side of the cot and pick you toys back up.....;):ok:

[IO540]

It has been stated that a transition to lower operating cost (and VFR-only) aircraft is the main reason for the decline in the IMCR issues.

Taking the volume of the decline, from a baseline of say 750 in 2002 to 250 today, we get a total of 1500 who would have done it had the numbers remained constant. OK, this is very rough, but what are these 1500 people doing?

Are they all flying permit types? That's quite a lot of planes.

Bose - nobody can beat you in p*ssing contests, and I would never try. But you can never pretend to be a VFR pilot (and neither can I). On every VFR flight you embark on, you have the option of picking up an IFR clearance, and that completely transforms the mission capability.

[Rod1]

IO540,

I have about the same number of hours as you. I fly a VFR only aircraft and do long distance flying for fun. My aircraft does not even have a DI (compass+wistwatch rule). I do it, you say it cannot be done. I think we will infer from that that you cannot do it so you assume the rest of us are incapable…:E

I do hope you find all your toys:}

Rod1

Total number of permit aircraft (all types) has gone up by about 3500 ish since 2000.

[IO540]

Rod1, sure you can do it. Nevr said nobody can do it. I also know of a microlight pilot who flew all the way to Kathmandu, map & compass too. That's two people... hey, another 50 posts and we could even do a poll ;)

But the bulk ~ 99%? Not likely. Most PPLs don't do any significant European touring.

[S-Works]

But the bulk ~ 99%? Not likely. Most PPLs don't do any significant European touring.

I am sorry IO, a couple of years ago I would have agreed with you but it just not true. Do not underestimate the rise in capability and will of the new permit generation flyers. I have a whole new respect for them.

You are right I rarely fly VFR, it's to much like hard work and I am all to often on a schedule but that does not mean I am going to agree that long trips can't and are not being done VFR. These modern aircraft have great range, great economy, glass cockpits with state of the art GPS and they are being used.

As I mentioned before, there are 10 of us going to Sweden this month, I am th only IR holder and will be taking the easy way and going in 2 legs, the rest of the guys will be VFR. Te flyer trip to Berlin is a huge trip in May, I bet there are only a few of us IR holders.

Our Morocco trip in June/July I will be the only IFR pilot.

Times are changing.

However this does nothing to alleviate my view that we are being forced down a two tier system that will bit us in the bum later.

[SkyCamMK]

That is a curious one. I thought that anybody with an fATPL can teach the IMCR - such an FI will have done the CPL/IR after all.


Surely you would like to be trained by someone that has bee trained to train for IF. It may only be a 5 hour minimum course and test withan FIE but it can make a lot of differnce in some cases. How many cpl/ir 200 hr fatpl holders can and regularly do fly light aircraft in IMC or under IFR - not so many I think.

When I did mine I had 200 hours or so and now over 2500. What grieves me is that it is advanced training for safety purposes with respect to UK weather as well as the other advantages re touring and flight on top etc. It is criminal to remove it just because further south things are different. Our small island nation needs to stand up and continue regardless it's not their sky!

[Roffa]

bose wrote;

I do believe that in the private flying hours pissing contest you are onto a loser by a large margin.

You never miss an opportunity do you :D

But anyway, I was more interested in...

The suitability of aircraft for IMC flying in the club scene is next to none. There is a prosecution culture for those who make a mistake and in a badly equipped aircraft you have more chance of a mistake in IMC. In the past pilots would be happy to blag with a minimum IMC fit and a portable GPS, now they are more wary of explaining themselves if it goes wrong.


The last two years worth of CAA prosecutions can be found here. (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=503&pagetype=90&pageid=6484) I struggle to reconcile the facts against your prosecution culture assertion either generally or in relation to IMC rating/flight.

[IO540]

Surely you would like to be trained by someone that has bee trained to train for IF

I agree, of course, but do you think that the reduction in the IMCR business is caused by potential customers thinking (or knowing?) that the average IMCR instructor is no good? (a straight question, BTW)

IMHO, the potential customer won't have a clue. Same for the PPL - at that stage in your flying career you don't spot a bad one until many hours too late.

[S-Works]

Quote:
I do believe that in the private flying hours pissing contest you are onto a loser by a large margin.
You never miss an opportunity do you

But anyway, I was more interested in...

Quote:
The suitability of aircraft for IMC flying in the club scene is next to none. There is a prosecution culture for those who make a mistake and in a badly equipped aircraft you have more chance of a mistake in IMC. In the past pilots would be happy to blag with a minimum IMC fit and a portable GPS, now they are more wary of explaining themselves if it goes wrong.
The last two years worth of CAA prosecutions can be found here. I struggle to reconcile the facts against your prosecution culture assertion either generally or in relation to IMC rating/flight.

Actually, I meant to say 'perceived' culture of prosecution but I was to busy pissing. My apologies.

[IO540]

On reflection I don't see how an increase in the permit scene can account for a 3x drop in IMCR issues, taking place linearly since 2002.

Those doing the IMCR want to be able to fly in IMC. Everybody getting into the permit scene knows they cannot ever do so legally. They can do it illegally enroute and not get caught but it would take a helluva bold player to ask for an instrument approach somewhere, landing a type which every plane spotter will know cannot fly IFR...

There has to be another reason.

Can't be EASA - timing is wrong.
Can't be any regulatory issue - there have been no changes.
Unlikely to be the schools - they make £2-4k on each IMCR.
The weather is same as ever.

It's also unlikely to be any 'attitude' within the CAA. Most would be IMCR pilots barely come into contact with anything published directly by the CAA.

Can't be the JAA IR - the numbers of private JAA IRs have been single digits per year for years.

The FAA IR might account for a bit of it - we are looking at a drop of ~100 each year, but I would think that is rather more than the # of UK pilots doing the FAA IR.

[S-Works]

Those doing the IMCR want to be able to fly in IMC.

Bizarrely I think that is where you are wrong. A good number of those doing an IMCR did not want to fly in IMC, they just did the PPL and probably the night rating and got bored of the £200 bacon butty so looked for something else to do to continue to fly and the IMC was the next opportunity. Over the last few years pilots have migrated towards the permit scene and the microlights etc and found other things to spend the cash on.

Unlike you I spend a lot of time around flying clubs in touch with the training scene for AOPA and I get more exposure to the mindset of the low hour club flyers.

What ever you and I may think IMC flight is not the bee all and end all of aviation. Have you ever considered that there are many people who see no utility value in aviation and just like to go flying?

[PompeyPaul]

I'm nudging 70hours now!!! Yes, I'm Han solo himself, and have now got a whole wealth of experience to draw on. I've even flown to an airport now, that I hadn't before, all on my own.

I am attracted to the IMC because I want to fly in IMC. My weekend time is precious, trying to fit around "life control" and DIY chores that life control periodically hands out.

To many hours at a specific time on a specific day are cancelled due to wx. As I see it, if I had the IMC it would mean I would get to fly more and spend less time, with a face as long as your arm and a drill in my hand whilst I stare whispfully at the CAVOK outside.

I also want to start touring and it feels the chances of getting CAVOK over any significant distance is very limited thus I need the IMC. I fully want to fly in IMC on it.

It's true, the fact it may only last 3.5 years does slightly put me off....

[IO540]

Over the last few years pilots have migrated towards the permit scene and the microlights etc and found other things to spend the cash on.Why in the last few years in particular - that's the real question. Pre-2002, the IMCR issue rate was relatively stable.

As I keep saying, we are looking at a 3x drop. That's a helluva change, somewhere. Microlights etc have been around for donkeys years.

Unlike you I spend a lot of time around flying clubs bait ignored.

It's true, the fact it may only last 3.5 years does slightly put me off....It shouldn't put you off. It is a virtual certainty that any "EASA IR" will allow the IMCR training as a credit, as part of any last-hour political deal. And it could get better than that, e.g. a halfway module in the IR into which you get grandfathered, which will have some IMC privileges. But, anyway, the training and the capability to radio navigate are priceless - for the reasons you already know.

If you file and fly under VFR rules but plan and navigate the flight as IFR, your mission capability is dramatically improved, and this is just one bit of what the IMCR gives you.

p.s. Paul I've sent you an email but your email address with pprune is duff. I have sent in a PM.

[radicalrabit]

I think that an IMCr would give me as a new pilot (when I get there) the ability to navigate by instruments rather than map and compass, give me the ability to fly more often, given the crap weather we often get local to the Pennines that seems to improve as soon as you get 30 miles away , and to go somewhere with a purpose knowing that if the weather does become marginal I will know how to best get to where I want to go with the option of getting through the clag and over the weather into clearer sky.
Yes I also want to do my CPL ME AND IR just because it seems the more you know and the more you use what you know the more able you ought to be to cope when it all goes wrong.

Not a get out of jail free card but, as has been said, as a way to get from a to b with confidence.
The better I am as a Pilot the safer my kids will be flying with me!

[S-Works]

Why in the last few years in particular - that's the real question. Pre-2002, the IMCR issue rate was relatively stable.

Look at the average permit or microlight 5 years ago. The microlights were flying tents and the permit stuff looked like it had been cobbled together in someone's garage.

Now look at them, CT2K, Sky Ranger Ikarus etc on the microlight front sipping Mogas with 152 speeds makes for attractive flying. Permit wise look at the stuff like the Pioneer, the plastic thingy that Rod1 flies, the Glasair, the RV series, these are serious fast tools that people fit kick ass glass cockpits to. the Glassair even comes in a Turbine version!!

Given the option of a 172 on an expensive CofA or a 200kt hotship with a state of the art glass cockpit and able to self maintain I can see why people choose to give up rarely used IMCR privileges for far greater benefit.

If I could fly IFR Airways in one I would give up my Cessna in a heartbeat.

You also have to look at the ever aging rental fleet with ever increasing placards for inop items. Most rental fleets have only one or two IMC capable aircraft and schools are reticent to sign people out for rental in real IMC due to the risk of the aircraft being stranded away etc that it becomes harder for people to actually use the IMCR. So for the average non owning IMC pilot once the novelty wears off they realise in a rental scenario that the IMC does not have a great deal off worth. The sales of IMC capable tourers to private individuals have fallen off as the price of Avgas rises.

It's not difficult to see the reasons.

[172driver]

I probably could find the answer on here somewhere, but to add to this debate:

Can you fly a US 'homebuilt/kit a/c' on N-reg with an FAA license in Europe ? And if yes, can you fly IFR (obviously holding the required FAA license & rating). Truth be told, I'm not even sure if kitplanes are legal for IFR in the US, but....

[jez d]

Bose, I'm confused about your statement, "Removing the need for a CPL from the FI rating only currently applies to LAPL training".

I spoke with Peter Moxham recently, who drafted the 'differences' filing concerning the CPL requirement removal for PPL instructors with EU Parliament on behalf of EASA. According to Peter, the removal of the CPL requirement for PPL instructors is not limited to the LAPL, it applies to the JAR-PPL as well.

Interestingly, Martin Robinson agrees with your statement, and I guess he should know. However, Peter is adamant that it is not limited to the LAPL.

Personally I expect Peter is correct (he wrote it after all) and Martin has got the wrong end of the stick, which is presumably where you got your information from. Or do you have access to a draft proposal that states otherwise?

Regards

Jez

[IO540]

Can you fly a US 'homebuilt/kit a/c' on N-reg with an FAA license in Europe ?

I take it you mean the Experimental category. Yes but being sub-ICAO you need a permission from every airspace owner.

And if yes, can you fly IFR (obviously holding the required FAA license & rating). Truth be told, I'm not even sure if kitplanes are legal for IFR in the US, but....

They are OK for IFR - it depends on whether the inspector signed it as being ok for IFR. Whether they are ever OK for IFR over here (even with the permission) I don't know (I doubt it).

[luigi_m_]

I was very interested in doing my IMC later this year, until I saw the cost of ILS training. £58 a go has put me off doing it, so until I can afford an ME-IR, I will stick to the CAVOK days...

[IO540]

£58 where? That is steep even by UK standards. Was that Cranfield, including the landing?

But you can practice in a sim, even a PC sim (FSX etc) until you know exactly how to do it. That's how one should train IFR anyway - know exactly what you will be doing before you get airborne. Schools don't necessarily want to do that, for obvious reasons...

Then you don't need to fly many approaches.

[172driver]

I take it you mean the Experimental category. Yes but being sub-ICAO you need a permission from every airspace owner.

Correct. Now - how is 'airspace owner' defined ? I know in the past - and present - this is a national CAA. BUT, in an EASA future ? You get the drift...;)

[IO540]

If you wish to digress on how FAR 61.3 requirements might (or not) be met with JAA or EASA pan-EU rules, feel free ;)

Anyway, the FAA does not restrict its Experimental category aircraft territorially. It's entirely up to the foreign airspace what they let you do.

Personally, I doubt EASA will ever allow U.S. Exp Cat planes to fly over here. From personal discussions I've had (at the top, more or less) the whole drift of EASA is to be ICAO compliant. They even plan to file a difference to ICAO on the LAPL, which would make it ICAO compliant despite its GP medical, thus making it potentially usable outside EASA-land. And the US Exp stuff is sub-ICAO.

Now, if EASA introduced an Exp category over here............ that would be something else. I can't see it happening. I can see them doing a 750 kg class and maybe bigger stuff, which will be pretty well deregulated, VFR only. That will probably meet the requirements of most pilots.

In Europe, "IFR" is a 3-letter word which arouses massive emotions among the old fart regulators, which is why the IR has always been as hard as they could make it.

[DFC]

One of the main reasons for the decline in IMC ratings is unfortunately the number of pilots willing to operate as IO540 recomends.

Use GPS and ignore the law as well as safety while declaring to be VFR while actually flying IFR in IMC.

The IR is not dificult. Tacking an NDB is not difficult and completing a hold is not difficult. It simply requires training and lots of practice.

If a pilot knows the basics and is willing to spend time with RANT or similar practicing then I can be sure that they will come to find NDB holds easy.

Unfortunately, these days we are stuck in the modern "windows PC" culture - sod reading the manual or doing some training - turn it on and learn by doing. People want to apply the same to flying - NDB holds are too difficult so they should be banned. The GPS is simple to use so it should be mandatory and if you don't have one you are lost.

The simple fact is that many pilots exercise the privileges of the IMC rating without ever having held one or if they did have one they never renewed it. More shocking is that many fellow pilots are aware of the situation and either ignore the situation or wish they did the same or if you read IO540's comments - publicly endorse such actions.

If there were more thorough checks carried out not only would there be more IMC ratings or IR ratings held but there would be more pilot licenses held. Yes! do not for one minute believe that the number of active pilots equals the number of licence holders.

One only has to read the reports - flying in cloud hits hill, flying in cloud hits sea, flying in cloud hits mountain, flying in cloud hits mountain, almost hits red arrows also flying in cloud during a VFR flight, lost control after suction system failure - not qualified for IMC flight.

I have several times been flying IFR just above a solid overcast that covered most of the UK Base 3000 tops 5000. You would (perhaps not) be amazed at the number of home built permit types that pass by........many in IMC at the time!!!

Regards,

DFC