IMC priveledges
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The South
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But for what I hope is the final time, THE IMCR IS OUT OF SCOPE for the current work we are undertaking.
Here's a thought then. How about allowing a small number of the 50 hours required for the SE IR (say 10-15) to be allowable if taught by an FI with an IR, (as opposed to an IRI)? That should cover the better end of current IMCR training whilst being based on JAA qualifications only.
This seems reasonable given that there's always the IMCR->FAA IR->JAA IR route which could be legitimately used to get credit for previous instrument hours even with the rules as they stand.
Mark
Last edited by mark147; 2nd Apr 2007 at 12:48. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or how about this for an even more cunning plan. Allow the first 15 hours of the IR to be taught by an IRI as a module. At the end of this module an IMC can be issued and the module is full credit for the IR? That way the eurocrats are kept happy about standards and the IMCR has full credit towards the IR.........
My personal OPINION is not that there is anything wrong with the IMCR, in fact I think it is a fantastic rating. I think it is the fact that in a lot of cases it is taught by Instructors on grandfather rights who have never held an IR and in a lot of cases not even an IMC having gained the rating as IO540 pointed out under a grandfather scheme. If we could prove to the Eurocrats that IMCR is being taught to an acceptable standard then maybe they would accept it as valid.
But as I said this is MY OPINION and NOTHING to do with the review.
My personal OPINION is not that there is anything wrong with the IMCR, in fact I think it is a fantastic rating. I think it is the fact that in a lot of cases it is taught by Instructors on grandfather rights who have never held an IR and in a lot of cases not even an IMC having gained the rating as IO540 pointed out under a grandfather scheme. If we could prove to the Eurocrats that IMCR is being taught to an acceptable standard then maybe they would accept it as valid.
But as I said this is MY OPINION and NOTHING to do with the review.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The South
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That works only for new people coming through though.
I think the modular training thing is a must though, regardless: a PPL with a full time job is going to find it difficult to do the full 50/55 hours in a single block. What's the thinking on that so far? I'd suggest it would need to be three separate modules. I guess there's then the issue of how long they're valid for and how long you have to complete the entire course.
I think the modular training thing is a must though, regardless: a PPL with a full time job is going to find it difficult to do the full 50/55 hours in a single block. What's the thinking on that so far? I'd suggest it would need to be three separate modules. I guess there's then the issue of how long they're valid for and how long you have to complete the entire course.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think one idea that needs to be put to bed is a Europe-wide IMC Rating, either as an acceptance of the UK one, or as a very accessible IR with just one little exam and 15-20hrs of flight training.
This one keeps popping up - understandably because it would be rather good.
But there is exactly zero chance of it happening.
The rest of Europe doesn't have UK's combination of
a) widespread Class G, and
b) nobody in charge giving a damn what one does in Class G, VFR or IFR
The CAA accepted in the 1960s that people will fly in clouds under VFR and eventually the IMCR came along to provide some training so they don't end up in hills etc.
This has never been officially accepted anywhere else. People still do it in reality but everybody pretends not to. Pilots routinely fly in clouds under VFR all over Europe. With decent equipment etc it's pretty easy and safe. Even in the USA, FAR 91.175 attempts to prohibit DIY instrument approaches, and elsewhere flying below the MOCA is out, but at least they have an accessible IR so few people over there have a good reason for doing it.
Maybe one day, following some huge airspace revision under EASA, it might happen, but it's exceedingly unlikely.
As regards the current business, the present effort on making the JAA IR more accessible which (I've made some enquiries) has been going on for a few years and is still ticking along, sort of, isn't going to yield anything that will compete with the FAA IR before EASA takes over approx next year. There has not been any consultation because this is a process that's been running for ages and is still in the early stages. There may have been a recent acceleration but time is running short before it will all get turned over by EASA.
Basically, under JAA, you have a committee for everything and they have to settle for the tightest common denominator.
EASA will be a largely autocratic body which is good for getting things done, but it won't please everybody.
The politics are massively convoluted and nobody can say where it will all lead. I've stopped worrying about all these things; there is always a cloud on the horizon in aviation, and you have to enjoy what you have while you have it, while picking up every piece of paper you can when the opportunity arises because you never know what grandfather privilege it might one day give you.
This one keeps popping up - understandably because it would be rather good.
But there is exactly zero chance of it happening.
The rest of Europe doesn't have UK's combination of
a) widespread Class G, and
b) nobody in charge giving a damn what one does in Class G, VFR or IFR
The CAA accepted in the 1960s that people will fly in clouds under VFR and eventually the IMCR came along to provide some training so they don't end up in hills etc.
This has never been officially accepted anywhere else. People still do it in reality but everybody pretends not to. Pilots routinely fly in clouds under VFR all over Europe. With decent equipment etc it's pretty easy and safe. Even in the USA, FAR 91.175 attempts to prohibit DIY instrument approaches, and elsewhere flying below the MOCA is out, but at least they have an accessible IR so few people over there have a good reason for doing it.
Maybe one day, following some huge airspace revision under EASA, it might happen, but it's exceedingly unlikely.
As regards the current business, the present effort on making the JAA IR more accessible which (I've made some enquiries) has been going on for a few years and is still ticking along, sort of, isn't going to yield anything that will compete with the FAA IR before EASA takes over approx next year. There has not been any consultation because this is a process that's been running for ages and is still in the early stages. There may have been a recent acceleration but time is running short before it will all get turned over by EASA.
Basically, under JAA, you have a committee for everything and they have to settle for the tightest common denominator.
EASA will be a largely autocratic body which is good for getting things done, but it won't please everybody.
The politics are massively convoluted and nobody can say where it will all lead. I've stopped worrying about all these things; there is always a cloud on the horizon in aviation, and you have to enjoy what you have while you have it, while picking up every piece of paper you can when the opportunity arises because you never know what grandfather privilege it might one day give you.
What an absolute buggers muddle as I suspected!
I think one idea that needs to be put to bed is a Europe-wide IMC Rating, either as an acceptance of the UK one, or as a very accessible IR with just one little exam and 15-20hrs of flight training.
...But there is exactly zero chance of it happening.
...But there is exactly zero chance of it happening.
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 for one would be very unhappy to see it go. I travelled many hours on the IMCR before the IR.
The original suggestion was to add an IMC rating to the upcoming European Pilot License but the european representatives were very much against the idea, having the view that it would become a poor mans IR. What is more likely to happen is the IMC rating will disappear under EASA but a much more achievable PPL/IR is on the way imminently.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not pushing either way on what happens to the IMCR. It is not in the remit of the changes to the IR. I really don't know how many times I have to say that!! SO REALLY FOR THE VERY LAST TIME <THE FUTURE OF THE IMCR IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IR REVIEW>
AOPA as an organisation DO listen to the needs of members and will be fighting to get a Europe wide IMCR whether that happens or not remains to be seen. My personal OPINION is that it will not succeed but if it does I would be happy. What we are trying to do is make the IR more achievable and I really don't want to get bogged down in the endless debate about the demise or not of the IMCR.
My OPNION of the future of the IMCR is separate from the work being undertaken to make the IR more accessible.
AOPA as an organisation DO listen to the needs of members and will be fighting to get a Europe wide IMCR whether that happens or not remains to be seen. My personal OPINION is that it will not succeed but if it does I would be happy. What we are trying to do is make the IR more achievable and I really don't want to get bogged down in the endless debate about the demise or not of the IMCR.
My OPNION of the future of the IMCR is separate from the work being undertaken to make the IR more accessible.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So he's working on something that will lead to the end of the IMCR, in his opinion. I gather (from Bose's post on flyer) that he is representing AOPA. Does this mean he is also pushing for the AOPA position of maintaining and extending IMCR?
Bose has made it VERY CLEAR that the future of the IMC is not under consideration at the working group that he is involved in.
It will be up to someone else to decide if the IMC rating continues or not. The group that Bose is involved in has no say, no input and no mandate to do anything, good or bad about the IMC rating. How many times does he have to say that, how many different ways does he have to say that before people listen?
Bose could love or hate the IMC rating....it makes no difference...he has no say in it's future.
PLEASE read the thread before posting.
dp
Sorry for being so grumpy...it's a bit out of charterer, but I'm amazed at the amount of times Bose has had to say the above.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't people READ this thread before posting.
If you read the WHOLE thread the question asked was whether the IMCR might be extended to a Europe wide rating.
Bose contibuted by telling us he is involved with a working group to get the terms of the PPL IR amended.
He said
"What is more likely to happen is the IMC rating will disappear under EASA .. .. .."
"There is no suggestion that the IMCR is unsafe at all."
The IMC rating IS NOT part of our remit."
"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."
I think it is quite right to bash on about exactly what is happening when even Bose-X doesnt seem to be certain!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji, re-read my posts and separate what is my OPINION against what is happening with the IR Review.
My OPINION is that the IMCR will disappear under EASA but I am not providing any input into the future it. Cutting and pasting snippets out of context just ties us all up in knots.
The whole point of my post was to highlight the fact that an easier to access IR is coming and that there is a viable alternative to the IMCR. The original poster was not UK based so I tried to help by answering in a European context.
THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS MY OPINION AND IS NOTHING TO WITH THE IR
The fact is the IR changes are here and now, any chance of a euro wide IMCR is pie in the sky at the moment as far as I can see. The Eurocrats don't like the IMCR, it is a quaint English thing, not thought up in Europe so they are not interested in it. They want to pigeon hole the European Pilots License as a day/VFR only licence and pave the way for advanced ratings to be put onto the normal licence with clear paths to allow cross over.
END OF MY OPINION
Sometimes I really wonder why I bother trying to help. The fact is I should not need to care, after all I have a JAA IR so why should I give a toss about anyone else who wants to go and get one if this is the way I am going to be treated.
In fact - I had it hard soanyone who comes after me should have it hard.
Go and sort your own changes out as I get no benefit from this at all.
My OPINION is that the IMCR will disappear under EASA but I am not providing any input into the future it. Cutting and pasting snippets out of context just ties us all up in knots.
The whole point of my post was to highlight the fact that an easier to access IR is coming and that there is a viable alternative to the IMCR. The original poster was not UK based so I tried to help by answering in a European context.
THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS MY OPINION AND IS NOTHING TO WITH THE IR
The fact is the IR changes are here and now, any chance of a euro wide IMCR is pie in the sky at the moment as far as I can see. The Eurocrats don't like the IMCR, it is a quaint English thing, not thought up in Europe so they are not interested in it. They want to pigeon hole the European Pilots License as a day/VFR only licence and pave the way for advanced ratings to be put onto the normal licence with clear paths to allow cross over.
END OF MY OPINION
Sometimes I really wonder why I bother trying to help. The fact is I should not need to care, after all I have a JAA IR so why should I give a toss about anyone else who wants to go and get one if this is the way I am going to be treated.
In fact - I had it hard soanyone who comes after me should have it hard.
Go and sort your own changes out as I get no benefit from this at all.
Last edited by S-Works; 2nd Apr 2007 at 16:03.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even in the USA, FAR 91.175 attempts to prohibit DIY instrument approaches
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Bose.. one thing I'm a little uncertain of.. is the IMCR part of the ongoing remit for the IR working group? I'm not sure you ever made it clear.
Ultimatly, PPL-IRs input is advisory.. and that's great. That's what they came into being for. IR holders (although not IMCR obviously) are having their thoughts and input into what is going to be a major overhaul with EASA.
Your work is valuable Bose.. However, other people you've been "defensive" with are involved in the "decision making" process of the regulator themselves as opposed to acting as an advisor. It's not JUST you hoping to bring positive change!
That said keep it up.. all of you.. it is appreciated
Ultimatly, PPL-IRs input is advisory.. and that's great. That's what they came into being for. IR holders (although not IMCR obviously) are having their thoughts and input into what is going to be a major overhaul with EASA.
Your work is valuable Bose.. However, other people you've been "defensive" with are involved in the "decision making" process of the regulator themselves as opposed to acting as an advisor. It's not JUST you hoping to bring positive change!
That said keep it up.. all of you.. it is appreciated
If you think I'm not reading the posts then I'm not making my point well; sorry about that.
My reading of what bose and others are saying is that EASA etc are looking for a harmonised PPL/IR, and that this will be justification to remove the UK IMCR.
If this is true...
My reading of what bose and others are saying is that EASA etc are looking for a harmonised PPL/IR, and that this will be justification to remove the UK IMCR.
If this is true...
...then what bose is doing may undermine the IMCR, so it is disingenuous to say that the future of IMCR is not his concern.
If this is not true......them please reassure me so. Please reassure me that the existence (or not) of an accessible PPL/IR will make absolutely no difference to the future of the UK IMCR.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Kirstey the working group is not advisory it involved in the decision making process. The report that is produced at the end with input written by each of us what will be submitted. There would not be a lot of point in being involved otherwise.
And I was defensive with Beagle after his attack on me after I expressed an opinion. So if he works for the CAA and knows something I have missed then he should share it. If he does not and is participating in working groups himself then he should share that as well not just debunk what others are saying.
Change only occurs when people are prepared to stand up and do something about it. When we are representing you as the aviation public I would expect some support. To many people are quick to complain an put down any efforts but I don't see them committing the time and effort to help.
AOPA regularly asks for help from the membership but you don't see hordes of people coming forward to put there time and effort where there mouths are.
And I was defensive with Beagle after his attack on me after I expressed an opinion. So if he works for the CAA and knows something I have missed then he should share it. If he does not and is participating in working groups himself then he should share that as well not just debunk what others are saying.
Change only occurs when people are prepared to stand up and do something about it. When we are representing you as the aviation public I would expect some support. To many people are quick to complain an put down any efforts but I don't see them committing the time and effort to help.
AOPA regularly asks for help from the membership but you don't see hordes of people coming forward to put there time and effort where there mouths are.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think I'm not reading the posts then I'm not making my point well; sorry about that.
My reading of what bose and others are saying is that EASA etc are looking for a harmonised PPL/IR, and that this will be justification to remove the UK IMCR.
I did not say it WILL BE justification, I have no idea but there is a possibility that could happen in my OPINION.
If this is true...
...then what bose is doing may undermine the IMCR, so it is disingenuous to say that the future of IMCR is not his concern.
I did not say it was not my concern, I just said it is not part of the remit of the working group - I really don't know how many more times I have to say it!!
If this is not true...
...them please reassure me so. Please reassure me that the existence (or not) of an accessible PPL/IR will make absolutely no difference to the future of the UK IMCR.
My reading of what bose and others are saying is that EASA etc are looking for a harmonised PPL/IR, and that this will be justification to remove the UK IMCR.
I did not say it WILL BE justification, I have no idea but there is a possibility that could happen in my OPINION.
If this is true...
...then what bose is doing may undermine the IMCR, so it is disingenuous to say that the future of IMCR is not his concern.
I did not say it was not my concern, I just said it is not part of the remit of the working group - I really don't know how many more times I have to say it!!
If this is not true...
...them please reassure me so. Please reassure me that the existence (or not) of an accessible PPL/IR will make absolutely no difference to the future of the UK IMCR.
Sorry bose for criticising you. I'm grateful for the tireless efforts by you and others on behalf of the GA community. I think an accessible PPL/IR is great, and I might even go for it myself if it doesn't cost too much.
This thread is about IMCR, and IMCR is probably more important to more UK private pilots than PPL/IR. I'm unhappy about anything that might undermine it, and you've just said
I did not say it WILL BE justification, I have no idea but there is a possibility that could happen in my OPINION.
For me that rings alarm bells. I am reading the posts, but what you've just said suggests that what you are doing for PPL/IR may not be independent of the future of IMCR.
As this thread is about IMCR, can anyone shed light on what is being done (and can be done) to protect the future of IMCR?
This thread is about IMCR, and IMCR is probably more important to more UK private pilots than PPL/IR. I'm unhappy about anything that might undermine it, and you've just said
My reading of what bose and others are saying is that EASA etc are looking for a harmonised PPL/IR, and that this will be justification to remove the UK IMCR.
As this thread is about IMCR, can anyone shed light on what is being done (and can be done) to protect the future of IMCR?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes I really wonder why I bother trying to help. The fact is I should not need to care, after all I have a JAA IR so why should I give a toss about anyone else who wants to go and get one if this is the way I am going to be treated.
You talk about remit - but whose remit - you talk about wanting peoples views, but when they are given, point out that they are not within your remit.
Look AOPA represents its members - it is a representative organisation and so is the PPL/IR. Without its members these organisations would not exist and there would be no working groups.
I could be very wrong, but I think there are more than a few that are very concerned about the IMCR issue and about the FAA IR issue and would want that included in your remit. I also think it is reasonable they ask why it is not. So far I think we are short of an explanation.
If I have taken your comments out of context I apologise, but I also think that I am not the only one reading the various posts on this thread who would conclude they are far from clear. I am no nearer understanding who is working with whom, who set the remit in the first place, who’s views are actually being represented and so on - in short that is why I said it is a buggers muddle.
If these organisations want to put forward proposals that do not have the support of their members, and more importantly if these organisations don’t give their members the opportunity to comment, then they are on very dangerous ground.
(and for what it is worth it is not personal as I am sure you didn’t decide on what the remit was).
What however you may well take as personal if you wish, is that you rightly appear to solicit views, and you seem to represent these organisations in an official capacit but yet dismiss very relevant comment as being outside a remit that would seem to have appeared out of thin air.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
My mistake, I should have started a new thread.
I do want peoples views, just not views on the IMCR, that is not what I am working on......
I have stated a number of times what the remit is an where it came from. But here goes one more time.....
The CAA decided to look into why the uptake of the IR at PPL Level was so low. The two bodies that have the most direct representation for this type of flying are PPL/IR and AOPA. These two organisations were asked to provide representatives at the working group. the working group is known as the PPL/IR working group because of the content not because it is a working group formed by the organisation known as PPL/IR. This is a CAA working group, the members of the working group have a remit:
IR Working Group - Terms of Reference
A recommendation of the General Aviation Strategic Review stated that the:
CAA, Government and GA to work better together to influence legislative changes emanating from the EU with the aim of maintaining a fair balance for all aviation interests. A current example is a need to ensure that the requirements for private pilots to gain an instrument rating are relevant and proportionate.
The Instrument Rating Working Group (IRWG) aims to improve access to the Instrument Rating for PPL holders and to encourage an increase in the numbers of PPLlIR rating holders in the UK by ensuring that the requirements for private pilots to gain an instrument rating are relevant and proportionate.
The IRWG will:
1. Review current and newly proposed requirements for JM IR (aeroplanes)
2. Determine why PPL holders are reluctant to trainltest for the JM IR
3. Determine what training and testing requirements would be acceptable to PPL holders.
4. Draw comparisons with other States and EASA proposals
5. Make proposals to the CM on IR training and testing requirements to meet the working group objectives.
The IRWG will report to the Head of Personnel Licensing Department (Hd PLD) by 5 June 2007. Interim reports shall be made to Hd PLD as and when the IRWG considers appropriate or necessary.
The Chief Flight Examiner will chair the IRWG with a Secretary and relevant representation drawn from CM SRG staff, and members drawn from industry who are considered best able to represent the interests of sectors affected by matters under review.
A quorum shall consist of the Chairman, Secretary and at least two industry representatives. To ensure continuity, members shall not be substituted nor represented by proxy, if at all possible.
The CM will host the Working Group meetings at Aviation House or at a regional test centre acceptable to the members. Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by external members of the IRWG will, as is CM practice, be borne by those members or organisations that they represent.
IRWG working methods
1. The IRWG will meet three times, in March, April and May 2007. Further meetings can be held if required by the Group.
2. Material for consideration by the Group members will be submitted to the Secretary and circulated to members bye-mail. When appropriate, the Chairman may request comments on such material to be exchanged bye-mail prior to discussion at meetings.
3. To make most efficient use of the time available, activity at meetings will, whenever possible, be limited to summary presentation of previously circulated material and discussion of that material.
4. The Group will identify topics considered to merit further investigation and record a brief summary of the potential or provisional impact or effect of each. Subsequent work packages, with clearly identified objectives and timescales for completion, will be established to conduct the detailed investigation.
5. Industry representatives should endeavour faithfully to represent the widest practicable constituency of those affected by the work of the IRWG, irrespective of the organisation with which the representative is primarily associated.
My mistake, I should have started a new thread.
I do want peoples views, just not views on the IMCR, that is not what I am working on......
I have stated a number of times what the remit is an where it came from. But here goes one more time.....
The CAA decided to look into why the uptake of the IR at PPL Level was so low. The two bodies that have the most direct representation for this type of flying are PPL/IR and AOPA. These two organisations were asked to provide representatives at the working group. the working group is known as the PPL/IR working group because of the content not because it is a working group formed by the organisation known as PPL/IR. This is a CAA working group, the members of the working group have a remit:
IR Working Group - Terms of Reference
A recommendation of the General Aviation Strategic Review stated that the:
CAA, Government and GA to work better together to influence legislative changes emanating from the EU with the aim of maintaining a fair balance for all aviation interests. A current example is a need to ensure that the requirements for private pilots to gain an instrument rating are relevant and proportionate.
The Instrument Rating Working Group (IRWG) aims to improve access to the Instrument Rating for PPL holders and to encourage an increase in the numbers of PPLlIR rating holders in the UK by ensuring that the requirements for private pilots to gain an instrument rating are relevant and proportionate.
The IRWG will:
1. Review current and newly proposed requirements for JM IR (aeroplanes)
2. Determine why PPL holders are reluctant to trainltest for the JM IR
3. Determine what training and testing requirements would be acceptable to PPL holders.
4. Draw comparisons with other States and EASA proposals
5. Make proposals to the CM on IR training and testing requirements to meet the working group objectives.
The IRWG will report to the Head of Personnel Licensing Department (Hd PLD) by 5 June 2007. Interim reports shall be made to Hd PLD as and when the IRWG considers appropriate or necessary.
The Chief Flight Examiner will chair the IRWG with a Secretary and relevant representation drawn from CM SRG staff, and members drawn from industry who are considered best able to represent the interests of sectors affected by matters under review.
A quorum shall consist of the Chairman, Secretary and at least two industry representatives. To ensure continuity, members shall not be substituted nor represented by proxy, if at all possible.
The CM will host the Working Group meetings at Aviation House or at a regional test centre acceptable to the members. Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by external members of the IRWG will, as is CM practice, be borne by those members or organisations that they represent.
IRWG working methods
1. The IRWG will meet three times, in March, April and May 2007. Further meetings can be held if required by the Group.
2. Material for consideration by the Group members will be submitted to the Secretary and circulated to members bye-mail. When appropriate, the Chairman may request comments on such material to be exchanged bye-mail prior to discussion at meetings.
3. To make most efficient use of the time available, activity at meetings will, whenever possible, be limited to summary presentation of previously circulated material and discussion of that material.
4. The Group will identify topics considered to merit further investigation and record a brief summary of the potential or provisional impact or effect of each. Subsequent work packages, with clearly identified objectives and timescales for completion, will be established to conduct the detailed investigation.
5. Industry representatives should endeavour faithfully to represent the widest practicable constituency of those affected by the work of the IRWG, irrespective of the organisation with which the representative is primarily associated.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bose-x;
5. Industry representatives should endeavour faithfully to represent the widest practicable constituency of those affected by the work of the IRWG, irrespective of the organisation with which the representative is primarily associated.
Not sure this one is met.
There isn't even a thread on the AOPA forum about it. (There may be one on PPL/IR forums - I wouldn't know as I am no longer a member)
If you're only meeting in March, April and May some of the "input" should have been discussed on the AOPA forum/website in January IMHO.
Anyhoo, like you, why should I gaf
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point Rustle, perhaps I should discuss it on forums and illicit opinions.......
Oh, I did and all I got was abuse about the bloody IMC rating and changes/the future of that is nothing to do with the IR!!!!
5. Industry representatives should endeavour faithfully to represent the widest practicable constituency of those affected by the work of the IRWG, irrespective of the organisation with which the representative is primarily associated.