IMC priveledges
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose-x, I'm prepared to help, but I don't really want to be involved in aopa and certainly not PPL IR. From my observation, they don't stand for what I want.
PPL/IR isn't useful to me. Please don't tell me I'm wrong. Just tell me what I can do, and who I can work with, to protect my IMCR, and help my friends with NPPLs to get an IMCR as well.
If you want an easier PPL/IR, then great, I'm pleased for you. Now, please tell me how I can help work for what I believe to be a greater need for a greater number of pilots?
PPL/IR isn't useful to me. Please don't tell me I'm wrong. Just tell me what I can do, and who I can work with, to protect my IMCR, and help my friends with NPPLs to get an IMCR as well.
If you want an easier PPL/IR, then great, I'm pleased for you. Now, please tell me how I can help work for what I believe to be a greater need for a greater number of pilots?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fredacheck.
If you don't want to be part of the bodies that currently exist to represent you then you will need to go ahead and form your own. if you can gain enough members to be taken as representative then you will be able to interact with the regulator directly.
However it seems to me that both AOPA and PPL/IR are working towards your needs so perhaps by joining either or both of them and putting your comments forward your voice will be heard.
If you don't want to be part of the bodies that currently exist to represent you then you will need to go ahead and form your own. if you can gain enough members to be taken as representative then you will be able to interact with the regulator directly.
However it seems to me that both AOPA and PPL/IR are working towards your needs so perhaps by joining either or both of them and putting your comments forward your voice will be heard.
Thanks bose-x. Which one represents those that don't want a PPL/IR, and would like to protect the IMCR? Which one represents best my friends with NPPLs that would like to cross the channel? I'll join that one.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PPL/IR group welcomes pilots who are (or plan to be) IMC Rated, as well as full IR.
IFR privileges are a common objective. It isn't just about the full IR.
You can do "IFR" as
JAA IR
FAA IR (to mention the most common one)
IMCR
It's certain that one day there will be an EASA license/rating. In terms of a significant departure from JAA, this is still years away.
This privilege may be sub-ICAO i.e. good for Europe only, and the PPL-only bit of that will be the "Europe-wide NPPL" which Freda is referring to.
There will be an ICAO-compliant version of course because you need that for the ATPL route; whether this will be the only one (i.e. whether the sub-ICAO version will come about at all) nobody can tell as the whole subject is massively political.
Personally I think EASA should do a "PPL/IR" which is modelled on the FAA one exactly, because we know that works and has an excellent safety record around the world. To begin to remove foreign registered planes from Europe (the #1 objective really) they would also need to take on board FAA certification and medical procedures, which we also know work and have an excellent safety record around the world. Lots and lots of people agree with this (it's pretty self evident) but it's politically hard to swallow because of long-entrenched interests.
PPL/IR is without doubt the most effective body working on this area.
I'd join up!
IFR privileges are a common objective. It isn't just about the full IR.
You can do "IFR" as
JAA IR
FAA IR (to mention the most common one)
IMCR
It's certain that one day there will be an EASA license/rating. In terms of a significant departure from JAA, this is still years away.
This privilege may be sub-ICAO i.e. good for Europe only, and the PPL-only bit of that will be the "Europe-wide NPPL" which Freda is referring to.
There will be an ICAO-compliant version of course because you need that for the ATPL route; whether this will be the only one (i.e. whether the sub-ICAO version will come about at all) nobody can tell as the whole subject is massively political.
Personally I think EASA should do a "PPL/IR" which is modelled on the FAA one exactly, because we know that works and has an excellent safety record around the world. To begin to remove foreign registered planes from Europe (the #1 objective really) they would also need to take on board FAA certification and medical procedures, which we also know work and have an excellent safety record around the world. Lots and lots of people agree with this (it's pretty self evident) but it's politically hard to swallow because of long-entrenched interests.
PPL/IR is without doubt the most effective body working on this area.
I'd join up!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conversion and Bridging Provisions
Bose-x,
If indeed you are invoved with the proposed PPL/IR I do hope you will remind your colleagues to include conversion/bridging provisions.
There need to be arrangements;
a) for someone with an FAA IR to obtain the new PPL/IR (if he/she wishes, not compulsorilly),
b) for someone with an IMCR to trade up to the new PPL/IR,
c) for someone with the new PPL/IR, who decides to go professional, to trade up to the full JAA/IR.
In my experience, this is the sort of thing our lack-lustre regulators always seem to forget; (the classic example being the fact that someone with a CPL has to do the whole 14 ground exams to trade up to ATPL).
Broomstick.
If indeed you are invoved with the proposed PPL/IR I do hope you will remind your colleagues to include conversion/bridging provisions.
There need to be arrangements;
a) for someone with an FAA IR to obtain the new PPL/IR (if he/she wishes, not compulsorilly),
b) for someone with an IMCR to trade up to the new PPL/IR,
c) for someone with the new PPL/IR, who decides to go professional, to trade up to the full JAA/IR.
In my experience, this is the sort of thing our lack-lustre regulators always seem to forget; (the classic example being the fact that someone with a CPL has to do the whole 14 ground exams to trade up to ATPL).
Broomstick.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I promise I am not going to post again about the issues I raised before.
On other issues I agree particulary with BP regarding his comments about transitional arrangements. I too k advantage of the transitional arrangements that existed many years ago.
I can well imagine those with an IMCR that I guess these days has cost them several thousand pounds are going to be far from thrilled if / when this is phased out, if no credit is given torwards the IR. I guess they will be even less thrilled if they have just done their IMCR and no one told them about these discussions (promise I am not going there again). As BP says not to do so would already hall market the proposals with some of the issues which has caused the CAA and Europe so many problems over mode S.
No one (amoung those that regulate) it would seem want the wide operation of N reg in Europe (and it is growing). You can understand why! This is a perfect opportunity to get them back into the European system with doubtless some cudous which would flow from doing so. Sounds like perfect bait to me! Give them an easy transition as well.
These guys that have neen operating on an FAA IR or IMCR and using the rating regularly are better at what they do than newly minted JAA IRs - they are qualified through expereince and their log books will so testify.
On other issues I agree particulary with BP regarding his comments about transitional arrangements. I too k advantage of the transitional arrangements that existed many years ago.
I can well imagine those with an IMCR that I guess these days has cost them several thousand pounds are going to be far from thrilled if / when this is phased out, if no credit is given torwards the IR. I guess they will be even less thrilled if they have just done their IMCR and no one told them about these discussions (promise I am not going there again). As BP says not to do so would already hall market the proposals with some of the issues which has caused the CAA and Europe so many problems over mode S.
No one (amoung those that regulate) it would seem want the wide operation of N reg in Europe (and it is growing). You can understand why! This is a perfect opportunity to get them back into the European system with doubtless some cudous which would flow from doing so. Sounds like perfect bait to me! Give them an easy transition as well.
These guys that have neen operating on an FAA IR or IMCR and using the rating regularly are better at what they do than newly minted JAA IRs - they are qualified through expereince and their log books will so testify.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm trying not to post again too 
But........
This is the BIG BIG deal as far as I and many other's here are concerned. For example, a high hours IMCr holder would be forced to do the entire JAA IR course, despite being highly experienced. An ICAO IR holder is required to do a minimum of a 15 hour course - which has always been the case.
While we're at it - re-designing the IR for the 21st centuary -, why not completely get rid of these requirements. What is wrong with "training as required" for previous experienced IR/IMC holders.
Don't think we're bitching to be difficult
. I just believe that if the IR is going to be re-designed, then lets do it properly first time around rather than compromise before we even start.
If we had an IR which had more realistic ground exams, and gave credit for previous instrument time, then I think we *may* see current IMCr holders flocking to get an IR. I still don't think an annual examiner flight is nescessary myself for an experienced pilot, especially as it only includes a hold / ILS etc...but I could probably live with it. I would have thought that an "instructional flight of at least one hour duration " along with logged experience or "a flight with an examiner once every 12 months"would be a more appropriate option for the PPL/IR - it seems ok to revalidate SEP privileges afterall.
If all these things were taken into account, I think that it could convince many people not to keep their planes on the N register, and we'd see far less people bothering to go and do the FAA IR.
But........
conversion/bridging provisions.
While we're at it - re-designing the IR for the 21st centuary -, why not completely get rid of these requirements. What is wrong with "training as required" for previous experienced IR/IMC holders.
Don't think we're bitching to be difficult
. I just believe that if the IR is going to be re-designed, then lets do it properly first time around rather than compromise before we even start. If we had an IR which had more realistic ground exams, and gave credit for previous instrument time, then I think we *may* see current IMCr holders flocking to get an IR. I still don't think an annual examiner flight is nescessary myself for an experienced pilot, especially as it only includes a hold / ILS etc...but I could probably live with it. I would have thought that an "instructional flight of at least one hour duration " along with logged experience or "a flight with an examiner once every 12 months"would be a more appropriate option for the PPL/IR - it seems ok to revalidate SEP privileges afterall.
If all these things were taken into account, I think that it could convince many people not to keep their planes on the N register, and we'd see far less people bothering to go and do the FAA IR.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok here goes.
Fredacheck, PPLI/IR and AOPA will both represent your interests, but you have to join and raise it for representation. Or start your own lobby group.
I will say again, this is a European piece of work not a UK only and the IMCR was taken out of the loop for a reason. To get changes to the IR agreed we needed to have a level footing for all Europeans. The rest of the world does not have an IMCR. EASA/JAA will not accept IMC training as it is sub standard, the vast majority of IMC Instructors have never held an IMC let alone an IR. As a result of this the standard of some IMC training is quite shocking. I know you will all come back and tell me your IMC Instructor was an IR Instructor or an Airline Captain or similar, but this is not the case across the board, we can't have one rule for one and a different for others. So it is much easier to take it out of the loop rather than be bogged down. Any ICAO compliant IR will be allowed a cross over so 15 hrs and the reduced exam set. If the FAA was 50/55hrs then it would probably be just a straight exams and test but again we have to meet JAA standards gold plated as they may be.
All of these comments have been taken onboard and will be raised. But please remember all these things are about compromise. The mere fact that the CAA/JAA are prepared to make changes is a significant compromise.
Al, You have valid comments, but again it is about compromise. The airlines will not tolerate a PPL in CAS who has not met the same standard as they have met. Common rules for all. Once a year a one hour test is hardly difficult especially as it covers your SEP renewal anyway.
We are not re-designing the IR, we are making the current IR more accessible.
Fredacheck, PPLI/IR and AOPA will both represent your interests, but you have to join and raise it for representation. Or start your own lobby group.
I will say again, this is a European piece of work not a UK only and the IMCR was taken out of the loop for a reason. To get changes to the IR agreed we needed to have a level footing for all Europeans. The rest of the world does not have an IMCR. EASA/JAA will not accept IMC training as it is sub standard, the vast majority of IMC Instructors have never held an IMC let alone an IR. As a result of this the standard of some IMC training is quite shocking. I know you will all come back and tell me your IMC Instructor was an IR Instructor or an Airline Captain or similar, but this is not the case across the board, we can't have one rule for one and a different for others. So it is much easier to take it out of the loop rather than be bogged down. Any ICAO compliant IR will be allowed a cross over so 15 hrs and the reduced exam set. If the FAA was 50/55hrs then it would probably be just a straight exams and test but again we have to meet JAA standards gold plated as they may be.
All of these comments have been taken onboard and will be raised. But please remember all these things are about compromise. The mere fact that the CAA/JAA are prepared to make changes is a significant compromise.
Al, You have valid comments, but again it is about compromise. The airlines will not tolerate a PPL in CAS who has not met the same standard as they have met. Common rules for all. Once a year a one hour test is hardly difficult especially as it covers your SEP renewal anyway.
We are not re-designing the IR, we are making the current IR more accessible.
bose-x, thanks for the information. Looks like you're doing a great job to make PPL/IR more accessible.
All this is completely logical and sensible, but emphasises that for what many IMCR pilots want (to fly IMC outside CAS/airways), a PPL/IR will always be a lot of cost and training that is not really relevant to us.
Any advice you can offer on who and how to lobby to keep the IMCR would be much appreciated.
EASA/JAA will not accept IMC training as it is sub standard
The airlines will not tolerate a PPL in CAS who has not met the same standard as they have met.
Any advice you can offer on who and how to lobby to keep the IMCR would be much appreciated.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any genuine effort to ease the route to IFR in CAS has to be applauded. Well done Bose x.
Just a couple of points:
There is no JAA minimum training requirement to convert an ICAO IR. Just pass the ground exams and flight test. The 15hrs is a CAA peccadillo.
Does this mean that the Man has worked out another way of keeping us out of CAT's CAS? Mode S and P-RNAV must be only the beginning.
Just a couple of points:
There is no JAA minimum training requirement to convert an ICAO IR. Just pass the ground exams and flight test. The 15hrs is a CAA peccadillo.
Does this mean that the Man has worked out another way of keeping us out of CAT's CAS? Mode S and P-RNAV must be only the beginning.
"EASA/JAA will not accept IMC training as it is sub standard, the vast majority of IMC Instructors have never held an IMC let alone an IR. As a result of this the standard of some IMC training is quite shocking."
That is complete and utter rubbish, as well you know. You may also wish to know that some airline pilots who now have to pass the IMC Rating revalidation test if they wish to have IMC privileges in SEP aeroplanes are finding it quite hard to meet the test standards.
Work is most certainly in hand towards ensuring that credit will be given for holders of the UK IMC Rating seeking to obtain a EASA IR. Please do not spread such false rumours about this very worthwhile rating.
That is complete and utter rubbish, as well you know. You may also wish to know that some airline pilots who now have to pass the IMC Rating revalidation test if they wish to have IMC privileges in SEP aeroplanes are finding it quite hard to meet the test standards.
Work is most certainly in hand towards ensuring that credit will be given for holders of the UK IMC Rating seeking to obtain a EASA IR. Please do not spread such false rumours about this very worthwhile rating.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry beagle but i did not see you at the last meeting of the PPL/IR working group. Are you party to something that was not discussed last week?
Generally speaking I have great empathy for what you have to say, but acusing me of spreading false rumour to what was minuted at a meeting on Tuesday of last week is a little out of order. If you know something that has arisen since the last meeting please feel free to share it with us.
Generally speaking I have great empathy for what you have to say, but acusing me of spreading false rumour to what was minuted at a meeting on Tuesday of last week is a little out of order. If you know something that has arisen since the last meeting please feel free to share it with us.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose-x, I understand you are participating in a working group hosted by the CAA. Are you aware of any similar initiatives in any other JAA countries?
I'm a new PPL and I've been thinking about getting an IR (no IMC rating where I live... Even Night VFR is out of the question here) but the classroom requirements have seriously put me off. Doing things part-time the theory lessons alone would be a years work.
So if there's anything I can do in my area on a working group or something, I'd like to help.
I'm a new PPL and I've been thinking about getting an IR (no IMC rating where I live... Even Night VFR is out of the question here) but the classroom requirements have seriously put me off. Doing things part-time the theory lessons alone would be a years work.
So if there's anything I can do in my area on a working group or something, I'd like to help.
No, not the PPL/IR group, but rather more closely with the rule makers.....
Recognition of the UK IMC rating as the first part of the 'modular' IR was looking pretty good, the last time I heard. Maybe I'll find out more this week?
If someone at the PPL/IR group actually minuted such a libellous comment as "......the vast majority of IMC Instructors have never held an IMC let alone an IR", that displays ignorance as well as arrogance.
Perhaps these worthies should research the quailifications needed to instruct for the UK IMC Rating rather more carefully before spouting such nonsense.
Recognition of the UK IMC rating as the first part of the 'modular' IR was looking pretty good, the last time I heard. Maybe I'll find out more this week?
If someone at the PPL/IR group actually minuted such a libellous comment as "......the vast majority of IMC Instructors have never held an IMC let alone an IR", that displays ignorance as well as arrogance.
Perhaps these worthies should research the quailifications needed to instruct for the UK IMC Rating rather more carefully before spouting such nonsense.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose,
Everyone posting, including me, has strongly supported your work. There is no reason to be defensive. But the thread title is on the IMCR, and PPL/IR is an additional subject. A lot of us have been probing for more understanding, that's all.
If ANYONE with any basis whatsoever, gives an opinion that we might be going to lose our IMCR, then I would hope that there will always be howls of protest which may be heard at the Belgrano, without any criticism implied to the messenger.
The most recent posts leave me mystified.
1. I had always understood that an FI could only instruct for ratings he himself held. In all the 2 year IMCR renewal tests over the decades, with many examiners, I have never had one not requiring the full extent of the test and the accuracy limits specified.
2. At the time I passed the PPL/IR exams at Kingsway, I was able to study for them by correspondence course, and I am sure that the flight training requirement was 40hrs, and my understanding is this is the FAA PPL/IR requirement to this day. Restoration of these would do a lot to the objective of accessability. It is now alleged in a previous post that the 55hrs is solely a CAA requirement, and not a JAA one.
3. You now appear to imply that non recognition of IMCR time and qualifications towards a new EASA PPL/IR is a minuted recommendation of the PPL/IR committee. I can only fervently hope that BEagle is right that the CAA/EASA will reject this view. IMCR holders will know that whatever PPL/IR Europe say about wanting IMCR holders as members, they will never represent their interests, and always denigrate the value of the IMCR.
My own view is that throughout the requirements for flight training, there is an over emphasis on hours, when the abililty to perform the flying and ground examinations should be the absolute criteria, irrespective of the hours of training an individual student requires to achieve this. Why shouldn't an IMCR with over 40hrs instrument time simply be able to get a PPL/IR by doing just the training he personally needs to pass the flight and ground exams?
Everyone posting, including me, has strongly supported your work. There is no reason to be defensive. But the thread title is on the IMCR, and PPL/IR is an additional subject. A lot of us have been probing for more understanding, that's all.
If ANYONE with any basis whatsoever, gives an opinion that we might be going to lose our IMCR, then I would hope that there will always be howls of protest which may be heard at the Belgrano, without any criticism implied to the messenger.
The most recent posts leave me mystified.
1. I had always understood that an FI could only instruct for ratings he himself held. In all the 2 year IMCR renewal tests over the decades, with many examiners, I have never had one not requiring the full extent of the test and the accuracy limits specified.
2. At the time I passed the PPL/IR exams at Kingsway, I was able to study for them by correspondence course, and I am sure that the flight training requirement was 40hrs, and my understanding is this is the FAA PPL/IR requirement to this day. Restoration of these would do a lot to the objective of accessability. It is now alleged in a previous post that the 55hrs is solely a CAA requirement, and not a JAA one.
3. You now appear to imply that non recognition of IMCR time and qualifications towards a new EASA PPL/IR is a minuted recommendation of the PPL/IR committee. I can only fervently hope that BEagle is right that the CAA/EASA will reject this view. IMCR holders will know that whatever PPL/IR Europe say about wanting IMCR holders as members, they will never represent their interests, and always denigrate the value of the IMCR.
My own view is that throughout the requirements for flight training, there is an over emphasis on hours, when the abililty to perform the flying and ground examinations should be the absolute criteria, irrespective of the hours of training an individual student requires to achieve this. Why shouldn't an IMCR with over 40hrs instrument time simply be able to get a PPL/IR by doing just the training he personally needs to pass the flight and ground exams?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MikeJ, I agree completely with you.
The IMCR was specifically taken out of the discussion on change of the IR due to the political hot potato that it would cause and clearly is.
Beagle. Unless you are working for the CAA or EASA and have some inside knowledge that you wish to share with us then I fail to understand your comments.
The PPL/IR working group is a CAA working group with representatives from PPL/IR and AOPA.
Is there something yoy wish to share with us?
As I keep saying the IMC is specifically outside the scope of the changes that we are working on with regard to the PPL/IR. Acceptance of IMC hours towards the IR is out of scope of the working group. If you read my post I state my views on the IMCR having made it clear that the IMCR is out of scope of the working group. The reason the IMCR is out of scope is the EASA view that it does not meet the standards required of the IR at this stage. If you know something more than feel free to share it. As they say put up or shut up.
The IMCR was specifically taken out of the discussion on change of the IR due to the political hot potato that it would cause and clearly is.
Beagle. Unless you are working for the CAA or EASA and have some inside knowledge that you wish to share with us then I fail to understand your comments.
The PPL/IR working group is a CAA working group with representatives from PPL/IR and AOPA.
Is there something yoy wish to share with us?
As I keep saying the IMC is specifically outside the scope of the changes that we are working on with regard to the PPL/IR. Acceptance of IMC hours towards the IR is out of scope of the working group. If you read my post I state my views on the IMCR having made it clear that the IMCR is out of scope of the working group. The reason the IMCR is out of scope is the EASA view that it does not meet the standards required of the IR at this stage. If you know something more than feel free to share it. As they say put up or shut up.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If someone at the PPL/IR group actually minuted such a libellous comment as "......the vast majority of IMC Instructors have never held an IMC let alone an IR", that displays ignorance as well as arrogance.
Nobody from PPL/IR has said this and nobody would because it isn't correct.
There is a story going around that there are still some (old) instructors around who started instructing in the days when a plain PPL (with an FI) could teach the PPL. Later, when the CPL was made mandatory for paid instructing, these people were grandfathered in, by getting a BCPL. There were some other changes in between. As this is a sort of "CPL", and since a UK CPL carries IMC Rating privileges, these people ended up with an IMCR and were able to teach it.
I don't know if the above is actually correct (it's many years before my time) but if so any such instructors would now be approaching retirement.
It's true that many or most IMCR instructors don't hold a current IR, but that's simply a result of the UK PPL training scene, which is made up mostly of ATP candidates who are "just passin' through" and doing some hour building while thumbing through airline adverts. These people do have to get an IR eventually but many/most of those that do get it let it lapse while building hours because there is no point in spending £hundreds on renewing something that you don't actually need.
Anyway, if IMCR training was a safety hazard, we would see this in the accident data, but there is no support for this suggestion. And if there was, the way to approach it would be to do something about the training, not to abolish this very useful and accessible rating.
Nobody from PPL/IR has said this and nobody would because it isn't correct.
There is a story going around that there are still some (old) instructors around who started instructing in the days when a plain PPL (with an FI) could teach the PPL. Later, when the CPL was made mandatory for paid instructing, these people were grandfathered in, by getting a BCPL. There were some other changes in between. As this is a sort of "CPL", and since a UK CPL carries IMC Rating privileges, these people ended up with an IMCR and were able to teach it.
I don't know if the above is actually correct (it's many years before my time) but if so any such instructors would now be approaching retirement.
It's true that many or most IMCR instructors don't hold a current IR, but that's simply a result of the UK PPL training scene, which is made up mostly of ATP candidates who are "just passin' through" and doing some hour building while thumbing through airline adverts. These people do have to get an IR eventually but many/most of those that do get it let it lapse while building hours because there is no point in spending £hundreds on renewing something that you don't actually need.
Anyway, if IMCR training was a safety hazard, we would see this in the accident data, but there is no support for this suggestion. And if there was, the way to approach it would be to do something about the training, not to abolish this very useful and accessible rating.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Work is most certainly in hand towards ensuring that credit will be given for holders of the UK IMC Rating seeking to obtain a EASA IR. Please do not spread such false rumours about this very worthwhile rating.
If ANYONE with any basis whatsoever, gives an opinion that we might be going to lose our IMCR, then I would hope that there will always be howls of protest which may be heard at the Belgrano, without any criticism implied to the messenger
The reason the IMCR is out of scope is the EASA view that it does not meet the standards required of the IR at this stage.
If the FAA was 50/55hrs then it would probably be just a straight exams and test but again we have to meet JAA standards gold plated as they may be.
If ANYONE with any basis whatsoever, gives an opinion that we might be going to lose our IMCR, then I would hope that there will always be howls of protest which may be heard at the Belgrano, without any criticism implied to the messenger
The reason the IMCR is out of scope is the EASA view that it does not meet the standards required of the IR at this stage.
If the FAA was 50/55hrs then it would probably be just a straight exams and test but again we have to meet JAA standards gold plated as they may be.
It is always the same, various groups working separately and each claiming to support the interests of their own members (a claim in itself which is usually doubtful) and if they end up with anything, it usually solves half the problem but creates as many new problems.
When I last looked the PPL IR claims to represent European IR, FAA IR and IMCR holders. Clearly IMCR holders are not thrilled about being excluded. They are even less thrilled about not being represented. I could be wrong, but they might just constitute the majority of the membership.
The FAA IR holders are fed up hearing about gold plated standards.
I have to concede I do still support the initiative but only on the basis something is better than nothing. I also will support anyone who is prepared to give their time freely and for that reason alone well done Bose-X.
Frankly, I am even more appalled at the lack of consultation, having read the recent posts on this thread. Unless I am very much mistaken, the PPL/IR does not represent their members views on this issue. It may well not be politically expedient to argue the IMCR holders case, but IMCR holders are jolly well entitled to know how and why that view has been reached, and they are also jolly well entitled to know if their rating is going to be “phased out”. It may well not be expedient to address the FAA IR’s position, but again they are entitled to know why not. Moreover, I don’t agree with the position in either case. I see no reason at all why any instrument holder should not be given either a carry over allowance for their training and experience before, or direct access to the test. After all they still have to pass the test! It happens in nearly every other walk of life - why must this be different? I cant imagine for one moment why the Regulator would object to such a proposal, and if he did, that still means the proposal should be put, and we should all know why their has been an objection.
Moreover, if this is introduced, it could be seen as very good grounds for the Regulator to dispense with the IMCR and FAA IRs if for no other reason than on the pretext that an accessible alternative rating is available. As I said earlier, I suspect if this was the outcome their could be a fair few PPL / IR members wanting their subs back.
So in summary, whilst I must broadly support the proposal, I do not support the way it would seem these working groups are going about it. It is not for you to assume you represent your members’ interests unless you are able to demonstrate you have consulted with your memebers, and it is not for you to determine what is or is not politically expedient and you do not have my support if you believe this is the correct way of going about changes of this sort.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really have no idea what the future of the IMCR is. It is not a subject that is being discussed as part of the changes to the IR.
I for one would be very unhappy to see it go. I travelled many hours on the IMCR before the IR. I still however hold the view that a lot of IMCR teaching is a shocking standard and no doubt this will have to be reviewed at some stage if the rating is to survive. This is however MY OPINION and NOT part of the IR review work.
You are confusing both PPL/IR and AOPA's role in this. The CAA have made this initiative and PPL/IR and AOPA are part of the effort. The effort is only to MAKE THE IR MORE ACCESSIBLE, it is NOTHING to do with the future of the IMCR and as such the IMCR is not being discussed or considered in these changes. The comment made at the meeting was the IMCR was out of scope and the hours would not count towards the rating. At that stage it was decided to leave the IMCR well alone. If Beagle is working on something else with the CAA to get the hours counted then this is all well and good. But what we need to do as make the rating more accessible before we can even start counting hours towards it.
But for what I hope is the final time, THE IMCR IS OUT OF SCOPE for the current work we are undertaking.
I for one would be very unhappy to see it go. I travelled many hours on the IMCR before the IR. I still however hold the view that a lot of IMCR teaching is a shocking standard and no doubt this will have to be reviewed at some stage if the rating is to survive. This is however MY OPINION and NOT part of the IR review work.
You are confusing both PPL/IR and AOPA's role in this. The CAA have made this initiative and PPL/IR and AOPA are part of the effort. The effort is only to MAKE THE IR MORE ACCESSIBLE, it is NOTHING to do with the future of the IMCR and as such the IMCR is not being discussed or considered in these changes. The comment made at the meeting was the IMCR was out of scope and the hours would not count towards the rating. At that stage it was decided to leave the IMCR well alone. If Beagle is working on something else with the CAA to get the hours counted then this is all well and good. But what we need to do as make the rating more accessible before we can even start counting hours towards it.
But for what I hope is the final time, THE IMCR IS OUT OF SCOPE for the current work we are undertaking.