Why the decline in IMCR issue numbers?

[IO540]

I see from the stats in FTN that the annual numbers have gone down from ~ 700 to ~ 250 over the past decade (speaking from memory).

Does anyone have a clue why this is?

Is the IMCR promoted less these days?
Is the training fleet in a worse condition?
Has the weather improved?
Are people flying a lot more illegal IFR?

[Duchess_Driver]

FAA IR anybody?

I'm not questioning the figures, but I can't believe this last years figures are as low as 250......we seem to have done that many on our own! Be interested to know if the fall in IMC numbers is in proportion to the number of PPL's (SEP's) issued or the drop is steeper.

Actually, I probably can believe it. A number of pilots I know were holding off because of the uncertainty of EASA and all that tosh.

[mad_jock]

Also with the change to JAR to remove your restriction to your FI rating the having the no instrument restriction removed wasn't a factor any more.

The club I help out at has many students who want to do the IMCR but there are none of us with the ticket to teach it. And it isn't a case that we are not experenced enough to teach it, a couple of us have a couple of thousand of hours in a manual turbo prop flying around the west coast of scotland.

The course is expensive and also the number of FII's that can teach it are few and far between. The logistics of being able to get a course when I am available has defeated me for the last 5 years. Just getting the FI 2 day course done within the 5 years was a battle.

Its very doudtful that your average FI waiting for the next rung up the ladder is able to afford the course when they proberly won't get the money back which they have spent. And once your up the ladder finding the time is nearly impossible even if your willing to pay for a removal that will never pay for its self.

[Duchess_Driver]

MJ

Check your PM's

[IO540]

I don't believe it is due to the FAA IR. I did mine in 2005-2006 and it was way harder than the IMCR (which I knocked off in 2002, across several variously wrecked spamcans, over a few months). The flight training was the hardest flying I have ever done, by a huge margin. On top of that you had the TSA/Visa stuff (then as now); relevant as few people will be doing the FAA IR in Europe these days. However it is true that the general awareness of it is probably much wider now than in 2000; I had not even heard of the N-reg option until 2004 - 4 years after starting training and 3 years after getting the PPL.

The decline in PPL issue has been less consistent but it is about 1/3 down on 10 years ago.

EASA uncertainty is a very fair point. OTOH are pilots out there aware of EASA? Pilot forum pilots will be, sure.

[Whopity]

Before 1999 an AFI could not upgrade to a FI without completing the upgrade course which comprised of removing the no applied instrument limitation from the instructor rating. Thus all FIs were qualified to teach IMC.

With the advent of JAR-FCL and the simpler requirements to unRestrict a FI rating, there was no longer a need to complete the old upgrade course which by now had become the IRI Course. In fact under JAA rules an instructor could not complete the IRI add-on until the rating was no longer Restricted. The cost of training has increased and for the average short term FI with their sights set on the airlines there was little probability of recovering their costs. So we now have a high proportion of FIs who are not qualified to teach IMC.

Now throw in economic factors and there are less customers; finally there is the EASA uncertainty however; I doubt that has had any significant effect. EASA have declared that it is not their intention to remove existing privileges and have intimated that IMC rating holders would be grandfathered into the new outcome of FCL008 whatever that might be, so I would have thought buying in on grandfather rights might have encouraged candidates to get an IMC whilst it still exists and before expensive approved training takes its place.

[blagger]

Whopity - and of course there is the question what will happen under EASA to those FIs like myself that have done the IRI / applied instrument removal based on our IMC ratings!

[Whopity]

You have qualified as an IRI so long as you have a JAA Licence it will be recognised as such by EASA however; without a valid IR it will be impossible to use it or revalidate it. Many FIC instructors and FIEs who don't hold a current IR will be in a similar position of being unable to teach for it or examiner holders of an IRI rating.

[mad_jock]

So would you advise to get it done before the change Whopity?

And would you need a SPA IR or would your multi crew one do?

I reckon including HOTAC etc it would cost me about 2k to get it removed or would it be better getting the IRI which would cost more I presume?

I would need to do 130 odd hours before I was making any money teaching it.

[mad_jock]

Actually I thought the restriction removal gave you the equiv of an IRI but would it be issued as such under the new rules?

[Whopity]

As an FI it doesn't matter much when you do the IRI tick except that if you currently have a UK national licence with in built IMC privileges or an IMC rating then you can avoid the expense of revalidating your SPA IR.
Actually I thought the restriction removal gave you the equiv of an IRI but would it be issued as such under the new rules? The restriction removal is a hangover from the UK National FI rating and has nothing to do with JAR or EASA. If you have completed the IRI course you will have qualified either as an IRI which is really a stand alone qualification or as an FI with IRI privileges. It is a JAA qualification and will be recognised by EASA. The real question is when are the CAA going to pull their finger out and stop issuing ratings with limitations that have not existed for the last 11 years. The only reason they didn't do it in 1999 was because nobody had amended the licence issue software. Once they stop applying the limitation, the question then will be how do you know who has IRI privileges other than by adding the IRI rating. Either way Gatwick will have to come up with a way of doing this by April 2012. Maybe another free licence re-issue; they will have to do one for ICAO English as EASA require the validity date to be apended.
I would need to do 130 odd hours before I was making any money teaching it.Which I think illustrates my point quite nicely.

[DFC]

One has to remember the simple over-riding principle under JAR and EASA;

If you don't hold the rating then you can't teach it.

Therefore someone with valid single pilot IR (ME/SE) and valid MEP rating and with an FI Rating valid for teaching the IR and MEP Class can not teach the IR on a single engine aircraft if their SEP raing las lapsed.

You have to hold the licence and be able to act as PIC during training.

The IMC rating has lost popularity in my experience because of the availability and ease of use of GPS. Previously, scud-running was an option that required excellent visual navigation skills.

People soon recognised that unless one was an excellent visual navigator, one would have to learn radio-navigation and since that was most of what the IMC rating involved it made sense to get the rating and not to have to scud-run in the first place.

A PPL in the 1980's would have a big problem getting from Newcastle to Exeter and 1000ft AGL in 3K visibility. These days, moving map, terrain database etc make it cheaper to by an all singing and dancing GPS and a TIS than do an IMC rating course.

[mad_jock]

they will have to do one for ICAO English as EASA require the validity date to be apended.

Serves them right on that utterly stupid policy which nearly caused me to be grounded while in Europe.

The same as the policy of not recording it on the letter confirming your license and ratings details.

O well that puts the whole cost up to 2600 including getting the restriction removed.

[IO540]

Fair point about GPS being the culprit but that gives you only enroute nav capability, not the right to fly an IAP at the end.

Also, such a vast increase in the use of GPS doesn't reflect itself in a reduction in CAS busts.

[potkettleblack]

There are also less people going down the commercial route as well which will have a knock on effect. I know a lot of people (incl myself) did the IMC to get an "leg up" for the CPL/IR. It set us up nicely for the hour building where we could bash holds, do untold position fixes, track radials etc etc. Helped out a fair bit on both the CPL and IR to be fair looking back on it and took some of the mystery out of instrument flying.

[DFC]

Fair point about GPS being the culprit but that gives you only enroute nav capability, not the right to fly an IAP at the end.



They don't want or need an IAP at the far end. With 3K they make a visual approach guided by the GPS. Under special VFR if in a control zone.

GPS has not and will not solve the problems of airspace infringements.

Airspace infringments are now more widely reported than before. There is no way to establish if the number is more or less than in the 1980's because back then it was - ring the tower when you land - very sorry won't do that again - no harm - and the pilot learned a lesson and nothing more was recorded.

Now we have reports being made for an unverified mode C readout from an aircraft talking to no-one indicating 100ft above the airspace floor.

Imgine what is going to happen when every aircraft has a mode S and places with an ATZ and 1 movement per week spend 500 oin one of those boxes that receives the mode S transmissions - !!

-----------

potkettleblack,

These days if a student is following the commercial route, the last thing you want to do is the IMC rating since none of it counts towards anything and it only adds extra dual time to the minima.

[blagger]

DFC - The primary motivation of everyone I have taught for IMC has been to learn the ability to do an IAP to ultimately get down safely. That's wh the EIR has been so strongly opposed.

[Whopity]

Apparently the FCL008 committee is scheduled to meet again in October. The EIR is about as much use as a concrete parachute and hopefully the UK will have a representitive on the committee who understands the IMC rating rather than someone with a vested interest elswhere. In any case, if Europe don't want the IMC, all they have to do is add a clause permitting States to issue ratings for use in their own airspace. We have the "Brevet de Basse" and the Swiss Mountain Rating in the EASA FCL so there is no reason why we can't retain the UK IMC rating and the means of instructing for it. It only require one line of text!