IMC priveledges

[PPRuNe Radar]

You are just taking the piss now. The IMCR is out of scope of the review. Lets leave it at that now.

It could be argued that the IR changes being discussed are out of the scope of this thread

I suggest Bose-X comes up with a new thread title and I'll split all the pure IR and IR vs IMC stuff in to that thread.

[S-Works]

And while I am at it I will ensure that teenage girls have there legs wired shut, I will close the borders to prevent illegal imigrants and I will tackle alleged global warming.....

You really have no idea of how these things work do you? You don't work on one thing and bring something else to the table.

There are lots of things that should or could be in the terms of reference but are not. They are not for a reason which is if you try and tackle to much in one go you get nothing done. The IMCR is a UK only rating, the IR and the changes are Europe wide. The selfish Brits clinging onto the IMCR are tiny minority in the global scheme. It is too complex for a small working group to try and incorpate anything to do with the IMCR into changes to the IR.

It is not my remit to protect the IMCR, I really have nothing to do with it and have no way of making it my remit. I am representing AOPA and GA on a specific project which is to make the IR more accessible. I am not working on a project to protect the IMCR. I am a member of the GA fraternity who is an UNPAID (including paying my own expenses) VOLUNTEER prepared to fight for change. The IMCR is not my focus and if I am being selfish not even of concern to me.

If you are that concerned about the future of the IMCR then you volunteer and do something about it. I don't need to be told as a volunteer that I should be "damn well" doing something about the IMCR.

If this is an example of the people that I am and the other working groups members are trying to benefit then I am really starting to ask myself why I am bothering. There is nothing in this for me after all I already have the ticks in the box.

[FREDAcheck]

OK bose. I wish you every success in the IR WG, and accept your view that it's not possible to deal with IMCR, although I'm sorry to hear it. I have worked in similar sounding WGs but not in aviation. In such cases, where we've felt strongly about an issue that is not within the ToR then we've issued a side report, a liaison statement (or whatever works) to express concerns about related but out-of-scope issues. Otherwise, side issues get lost just because they are "out of scope".

PS - just for clarity, I think our disagreement is that I reckon IMCR is a related issue in view of your comments that an accessible PPL/IR may lead to the end of the IMCR. It's not quite as unrelated as illegal immigrants or "ensure that teenage girls have there legs wired shut". I wonder why you suggested that? No, don't tell me. Anyway, if you say it isn't, you're the guy there. Good luck with the work.

[S-Works]

My comments about the loss of the IMCR were clearly noted as an OPINION, one that could perhaps have galvanised someone into taking action on it in the same way I was galavanised into action after listening for years to the comments about how hard the IR was to achieve.
In other words I did something about something I believe in off my own back at my own expense. Others could try it..............

PS: The teenage girls comment - Have you seen how many teenage mums there are? An easy way to a life on benefits and a free council house.

[englishal]

Please don't let the ill considered posts and off target opinions deflect you from the valuable work you're doing

I wouldn't say that any post on here has been ill considered?

People feel strongly about the subject and post about it. We all agree that Bose is doing this as a volunteer and is unpaid, and for that should be thanked.

However, some of us feel that while this new IR is being discussed that ALL aspects of it should be discussed. Can you imagine the backlash if they introduced a new IR, but in the process destroyed the IMCr and made no allowance to "upgrade"? You'd see some mightly pissed off people out there. If people are going to be writing reports for the CAA then these reports should include all aspects of the new IR in my view.

I'm happy it is being talked about, but just because of a change in the ground exams, won't make me rush out to do it. If however they took into account my current instrument time, then I would do it.

Anyway, I would have volunteered my time, but as with several people on here I knew nothing about these proposed changes....

[S-Works]

At what point did you want to be made aware of the proposed changes exactly? I personal letter to you as an FAA licence holder telling you that there might be changes to the access of the IR that would better us all and ask for your opinion. Or forming a working group and asking representatives to join it. Those representatives could then use oh I don't know maybe public forums, magazines, face to face conatct etc to illicit opinions...........

Are you a member of AOPA in the UK or PPL/IR Al? Being a member of the US AOPA might get you a nice magazine but not representation in Europe. AOPA is a franchise and if you want European representation you have to join a European organisation. Both AOPA and PPL/IR do massive amounts of work on our behalf and are always looking for volunteers. Try ACTUALLY volunteering rather than just saying you would.

It is an ASSUMPTION on everyone's part that the IMCR will go. I expressed an opinion that it could happen as it is a British minority "sport" but I don't know the future and neither does the working group. So we concentrate on the issue at hand, making the IR more accessible. After that maybe the CAA will go OK, we have made the IR easier to access what can we do to encourage IMCR holders to move over to the IR. I know we could do a review of the IMCR and what is applicable and then set a cross over path.

Cunning eh!

[Fuji Abound]

If you are that concerned about the future of the IMCR then you volunteer and do something about it.

Anyway, I would have volunteered my time, but as with several people on here I knew nothing about these proposed changes....

What confuses me about this thread is some pretty solid questions have been asked but we seem to keep coming back to "if you had volunteered" and "it is not within my remit". We really have got to grips with that part of the response.

The fact of the matter is I suspect some of us would have volunteered - IF we knew about it.

I asked a few times - but can some one from AOPA or PPL IR please explain why there is absolutely nothing at all about such an important issue on their web site?

Can some one please explain how AOPA and PPL IR are consulting with their members on this issue?

(and for the avoidance of doubt I am not JUST talking about the IMCR element)

Finally, I have really got to grips with the WG considering the IMCR issue is not within their remit - I got to grips with that about a million posts ago BUT I still dont understand how they reached that conclusion given the remit set out on here by Bose-X.

That is the question I asked.

Unless I am being really stupid it says nothing about excluding the IMCR from your review, but it does say Determine what training and testing requirements would be acceptable to PPL holders. For me if PPL holders say they want credit for IMCR training that IS part of your remit when considering the proposed trainng requirments.

[S-Works]

But to keep you happy I have added to my list the reason that people do not want to do an IR is that the IMCR is such a powerful rating there is no need to do an IR.

I have taken onboard the comments about the desire for some sort of allowance for the IMCR. I will pass that on.

The reason it wasnot on our remit was that as the IR is European and the IMCR is British trying to sort out a path for the IMCR holder would muddy the waters and take away focus for the majority of people whom an IMCR does not exist. You have to take a look at this on a European wide basis rather than just a selfish British angle. The Europeans just look at this and wonder what the fuss is all about.

So assuming for arguments sake you get a 15hr credit for the IMCR what do you want in the rest of the training and testing standards?

AOPA and PPL/IR are talking with there members through forums like these! There is a thread on both of those forums started by me soliciting opinions. There is upcoming news in the magazines, but remember magazines are put to press months in advance. I am talking to AOPA and PPL/IR members directly through email and in person. I am an IR holder and very regular GA flyer which is why I am on the group. I am therefore supposed to be representative. I am a MEMBER of AOPA and PPL/IR not management therefore I should be proof that AOPA and PPL/IR are consulting with the MEMBERS. There are few IR holders in AOPA with such current experiance of the IR system so I was asked. Not a lot of point in asking a permit DAY/VFR flyer to represent on an IR working group is there?

How much more do you want in communication, a personal invite to tea to discuss the matter?

[soay]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

Unless I am being really stupid it says nothing about excluding the IMCR from your review, but it does say Determine what training and testing requirements would be acceptable to PPL holders. For me if PPL holders say they want credit for IMCR training that IS part of your remit when considering the proposed training requirments.

Probably not if, reading between Bose's lines, the only way to get anything moving at a European level is to remain tightly focussed on the issue at hand. After they have successfully established a PPL/IR, negotiations can begin as to what current experience/ratings can count towards it. Trying to do both things simultaneously will probably just end in impasse, so I think he's taking the right approach - even if he's not always very diplomatic about it!

[S-Works]

Trying to do both things simultaneously will probably just end in impasse, so I think he's taking the right approach - even if he's not always very diplomatic about it!

Hallelujah!!!!

Sometimes a cudgel is better than diplomacy.......

[Fuji Abound]

How much more do you want in communication, a personal invite to tea to discuss the matter?

No come on that is not fair!

It was you who suggested people volunteer and yet now say you were asked. I am glad you were because I dont doubt your experience.

It was me who said I would like to see some consultation. Yes, I agree after this thread the private PPL IR forum has woken up - BUT, where was the consultation before? I would have thought PPL IR and AOPA would have WANTED some feedback from the members earlier?

With respect to your remit, I am still convinced you are finding something there which is in fact not there. That is not what the words say, however much some might like, or however much that might be more expedient.

Not a lot of point in asking a permit DAY/VFR flyer to represent on an IR working group is there?

Probably every good reason - after all he is going to be the person using the new system, not us old farts who got throught the old system . It needs to work for him far more than it does for us.

[S-Works]

Probably every good reason - after all he is going to be the person using the new system, not us old farts who got throught the old system . It needs to work for him far more than it does for us.

Apart from the fact that a Day/VFR flyer with no IR can hardly be qualified to comment on CHANGES to an exisiting system!! You have to understand the system to change it. With no prior knowledge what do you based the requirements on?

Feedback earlier than what? The first full meeting was 2 weeks ago, the group runs until June. You are being consulted through various forums. Or did you want to know about it before it had even ben considered!!!

The remit is a paper document used as the framework for the working group. We have had the first working group and agreed the terms of reference. You are reading more into the terms of reference than is needed I am afraid not me.

[michaelthewannabe]

I'm worried that IMC might not be available to other PPLs. Frankly, in the grand scheme of things, I'm quite sure that a non-airways non-Class A/B/C IMC rating is much more important to many more GA pilots than IR. Comments on this thread suggest some people are quite happy to sacrifice IMC to make IR easier. Note: easier. You can already get one if you really want.

As a noobie thinking of doing instrument training after I get my PPL in the next year or so, here's my POV: if I can get an IR for 10-15 hours extra flying training (on top of an IMCR) and a couple of relevant exams, then that (i.e. the ability to tour Europe without needing VMC all the way!) seems much more attractive than an IMCR.

Not everyone in my position will agree with me, because we all want to do different things with our licenses. Which is why this suggestion of BEagle's...

Current IMC rating:- Current IMC rating privileges

'Procedural' module + relevant theoretical knowledge exams + IMC Rating = Current PPL/IR privileges.

... seems like a plausible and sensible way forwards. Now I acknowledge that this is outside bose-x's scope, because the IMCR is UK-specific and bose-x's working group can only concern itself with Europe-wide matters.

It seems that the catastrophic loss of IMCR privileges might be a rather hypothetical risk: despite the CAA's occasionally unilateral attitude on things like Mode-S, it seems that their track record on grandfather rights is generally benign, and there's a clear range of plausible solutions. But bose-x's PPL IR working group is developing a benefit that will be very real for many UK GA pilots. Provided that everyone's concerns are borne in mind, I suggest that a hypothetical risk should not automatically block a real benefit - so the current uncertainty about IMCR conversion does not look like a sensible reason to block development of PPL IR proposals.

Of course, those who have a personal interest in retaining IMCR privileges might do well to take appropriate UK-specific action (i.e. lobby the CAA), to make sure the CAA's implementation of the PPL IR doesn't cause them to lose out.

mtw

[Fuji Abound]

Well IMHO usually the worst people to be asked to change an existing system are those involved with it - they usually have all sorts of vested interests, and good reasons for doing it that way, because that is the way it has always been done - and I am NOT including you Bose in that opinion.

Of course you need people with experience of the existing system and people who are qualified to comment on the system and these should in this case be in the vast majority, however I think you may also have something to learn from a private pilot considering an IR.

Any hows I said before I had made my contribution and I really have this time.

I would like to end by thanking Bose-X for all the time and effort he has and will spend on this matter on our behalf. Bose-X please please do not be disheartened, IMHO this is a really important issue and any concessions that can be achieved will not only be a great victory for common sense but also for safety. I believe it is right that people should challenge the way these things come about, should question the remit of those that develop new proposals of this sort and should seek to understand the whys and wheres. In the same way I think it is extremelly important that as many people are involved in the debate as possible so there can be dooubt everyone has had a fair opportunity to contribute. Those that do may well not like some of the views put forward and may consider some of those views to be irrelevant but it is at least worth listening . Thanks for listening.

[S-Works]

I think the CAA have a long history of making sure that individuals who hold privileges do not lose them. Look at the introduction of the BCPL to make sure the PPL Instructors could carry on. I don't recall a single case of a current holder of a rating losing it when things have changed.

So I would hazard a guess that those who hold a current IMCR are not going to lose any rights should the IMCR be withdrawn in the future. If we make an IR accessible then those pilots considering IMC flight in the future would be able to migrate towards an IR in the same as happens in the USA. Over time PPL's will consider an IR as a natural extension of rights again US style.
The regulators then need to find a way of allowing the IMCR holders a natural migration path.

Hopefully the knock on effect would be for the flying clubs to move towards IR training which will bring the price down against the overinflated prices charged by the commercial schools. End result is we all benefit.

Fuji, I have no vested interest in this, I already have an IR. I am trying to make it easier for those that follow me.

[DRJAD]

I quite agree, and am grateful as a PPL/IMCR holder for Bose-X's efforts.

I have an IMCR as stated, and use it frequently. However, I would be grateful for the opportunity to gain an IR in a way which is financially viable to a hirer like myself.

If an attainable PPL/IR comes along (and I mean attainable financially - I rather enjoy examinations, so that is no hardship at all) then I will be going for it. Perhaps I will have difficulty finding a reachable FTO at which to do it, but presumably that will change in time.

[englishal]

AOPA and PPL/IR are consulting with the MEMBERS.

I'm a member of PPL/IR

Actually I am a member of US AOPA because I consider my FAA certificate as my primary ticket - I hold FAA and JAR licences and medicals. I am a member of PPL/IR because I feel they do a worthy cause and I live over 'ere.

Anyway, nuff said. Thanks for your efforts Bose, I'll buy you a pint someday. You never know, if it looks like it is financially and time-wise achievable then it is even worth considering getting our aeroplane "airways-worthy".

[Three Yellows]

Bose-X - I don't think I've given you grief about this?

I've got an IMC, but as I've said before, I want to reliably be able to fly abroad in poor weather - legally. I've personally got no objection to the 55 hours flying training. My problem is all that coursework and bloody exams... I just don't have the time.

Bose, keep up the good work and please please please make it as easy as possible for me to use the ILS to get to my holiday home.

[FullyFlapped]

Bose-x,

Let's assume that when submitted this summer, your WG's report is deemed the finest thing since sliced bread, and all recommendations are accepted completely.

How long before I could hope to actually start training under the new regime ?

For what it's worth, I'm an IMC holder, but I need an IR, and would rather not go the FAA route because I don't want to take my plane to the N register. If this is all pukka, then well done you and whoever else is involved.

FF

[S-Works]

I am under the impression that the academic side will be available pretty much straight away. The next meeting is on Tuesday and I will raise it as an agenda item to find out the exact timescales.