No more IMC rating

[Slopey]

Originally Posted by DFC

So the only issue if the ability to fly IFR in IMC and fly instrument approaches at aerodromes and depart IFR etc etc where under ICAO an IR is required.

Well, that's exactly what I'd use it for. To get in and out of Aberdeen in less than VFR conditions.

So in my case, it's not a case of 'you'd only loose this' and unless a IR Lite was forthcoming, as I have no desire to go commercial, I'd have to do all the meaningless content in the IR exam syllabus - which would mean I would'nt do it (certainly not when they need to be done at Gatwick over 2 days at £60 quid a pop ).

And this chestnut seems to come up every time:

Originally Posted by DFC

10 or 15 Hours Training often by pilots who don't homd more than an IMC themselves.

Training almost totally completed at a single aerodrome with very limited enroute training.

But these people have been examined by an examiner and have met the required standard haven't they? If you're going to argue the training is substandard, then these pilots shouldn't be passing the exams and should recieve further training before they can pass.

So what's wrong here? Is the exam itself not testing IMCR candidates to the proficiency needed?


In a country with wx as poor most of the year as the UK, where the IMCR has been in place and operating without interference to commercial traffic (or at least there's hardly ever been any threads about such interference on here - with the exception of busting zones, but that's probably in VMC anyway!), why should there not be the continuance of a very useful rating which keeps pilots away from class A but gives them a chance of getting in and out of larger airports without the need for them to be trained in airline pilot theory?

Perhaps the only way out of this is to get the FAA IR - not easier to attain by any standards, but 1 exam instead of the many, and world wide IR privaladges (or so I believe from other threads) in an N reg.

(But of course the CAA want to ban N reg's from the UK also don't they).

EASA might as well issue a free copy of FlightSim with every new PPL, because if this continues, it's about as close as you're going to get!

[englishal]

And what DFC fails to take into account is that the "low time" IMCr holders don't typically do trans-UK flights in IFR conditions until they have built up their experience. The sort of people who do are the ones who probably had several hundred hours "actual" under their belt despite (previously) "only" having an IMCr.

[Shunter]

Exactly right englishal. After I gained my IMCR I spent somewhere in the region of 20 hours gradually building up my skills before I started doing long XC trips, IMC at night, over water, rough terrain etc... I practice holds, SIDs and IAP's at my home base to keep myself current and flew a perfect approach recently in 2000/BKN030. I am quite capable of flying in IMC with a high level of accuracy and find it quite sad that DFC thinks IMCR holders cannot be capable instrument pilots. Maybe some aren't as good as others, but please don't tar us all with the same brush.

[JDCP]

Will existing IMC holders lose their IMCr?

If you already have an IMCr...will it be 'withdrawn / cancelled' by the authorities, or will pre-existing holders be allowed to keep them ?

Thanks.

JDCP.

[DaveW]

Did you read the link provided by Fitter2 at the very first post in this thread?

The first two paragraphs of that answer your question:

It would appear from a recent JAA FCL 001 core group meeting held at EASA’s headquarters in Cologne, that with the exception of the UK, Europe doesn’t want the Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) rating.

So what? UK pilots may ask. It doesn’t bother us; we’ll just carry on exercising our IMC privileges in the UK and leave the rest of Europe to do their own thing. Actually, no. They won’t. When EASA takes over Flight Crew Licensing in the near future, all National flying licences and ratings will cease, either to be replaced with Europe-wide equivalents, or removed entirely. And without the endorsement of other Member States within the JAA community a licence or rating cannot be adopted by EASA.

[rustle]

WTF are you writing in absurd sized fonts?

Your opinion doesn't mean more just because it is writ so large.

[DFC]

I am not in any way critising the pilots who hold the rating, teach the rating or exammine the rating. What everyone in Europe outside the UK PPL group see is a standard that is set far too low and a rating that relies more on people being sensible and self training post rating issue than a realistic standard of knowledge and skill that befits a pilot entering IMC IFR flight and who (Mystic Meg aside) can not tell when they will exit if at all before making an approach to land.

All this "I don't want to be a commercial pilot I don't need an IR" is UK establishment propoganda and those that believe it are bigger fools than those that spread the stuff in the first place.

The Instrument Rating is the rating that according to ICAO entitles you to fly IMC IFR. That is it. Please refer to the ICAO learning objectives before complaining about the JAR learning objectives.

The biggest part of the aviation world says - you want to fly IFR then you need an IR........even the FAA have this simple ICAO compliant requirement.

Again I say - All this "I don't want to be a commercial pilot I don't need an IR" is utter tosh. The standard that CPL pilots are tested to in order to gain the IR is the PPL level of instrument flying.

Regards,

DFC

[Fuji Abound]

Who Rustled your keyboard then?

Anyway, back to a serious subject for some that for once doesnt warrant the usual PPRuNe fun and games. Please can we not get sidetracked in this silly way.

I apologised if you bothered to read the posts for using larger characters in the first place but I thought this was really an issue worthy of catching peoples attention. If you dont like my style that is tough.

We shouldnt get too involved in DFCs points because whilst as always they have merit, the world of GA will change over the next ten if not twenty years.

For one thing many airprots throughout Europe will have GA style airports. The percentage of aircraft that are adequately fitted out to fly in IMC will increase. Also, if you believe global warming is takingh place conditions that warrant flying at least part of the time on instruments will become more common at the same time as the forecasts contain a greater element of variability.

It is a fallacy that most GA pilots either want or are capable of operating in upper airspace. This is neither the place for aircraft that are not pressurised or lacking in performance. The lower airways throughout Europe are a grave yard - hardly anyone is their and certainly none of the commercial traffic wants to use this airspace.

It is also a fallacy that GA pilots want to be held in the holding stacks (twit these hardly ever occur these days in conditions when GA aircraft are likely to be flying anyway). GA pilots dont want to as a whole operate out of the larger regional airports if for no other reason than the charges are so steep and the convenience is so poor. (In Frankfurt recently I waited half a lifetime for fuel and the other half dealing with security).

No, GA pilots have a very different agenda.

The IMCR, and for that matter the old CAA route to an IR, were introduced by very wise men against great opposition at the time. In both cases they stood the test of time. Their record as significant contributors to safety and their effectiveness in meeting the goals setout I dont beleive can be disputed.

To change something that works well and has a long proven record is very dangerous, a principle again enshrined in Governments recognising the need for regulatory impact assessments.

With anything of this nature the earlier people make their views known the better. We need to get our views noticed.

For all of these reasons these are matters crucial to the future of GA and very worth while fighting for.

[Fuji Abound]

Again I say - All this "I don't want to be a commercial pilot I don't need an IR" is utter tosh. The standard that CPL pilots are tested to in order to gain the IR is the PPL level of instrument flying.

As I just said we must not get side tracted.

We should only be concerned with the evidence.

As I just also said the IMCR and improver route to the IR were introduced by men far wiser than us for very good reason.

If the evidence can be produced that the rating is unsafe or does not achieve what it sets out then let it be produced. I tell you it does not exist.

It is not an IR and it was never intended to be. It is what it is. It has existed in parallel with the IR and it has stood the test of time.

[DFC]

There is also - and this will be a big factor;

If EASA bring in an IMC Rating and thus not ICAO compliant, how will countries react to having to file differences with ICAO that they do not agree with themselves?

Microlights, Permit to fly aircraft etc etc are to a large extent similar across Europe and more in need of fine tuning than anything seriously dramatic.
However, asking a fully ICAO compliant country to file a difference and force it to allow something that it has never agreed with is going to be very hard to acheive.

The whole argument with the French regarding upper age limits under JAR-FCL went on because the French were more restrictive than ICAO.

While we may have EASA, it is ICAO that is still setting the benchmarks and going sub-ICAO is something that while the UK are happy to do on a regular basis and then critise certain African countries for having airlines that are not keeping ICAO standards, other European countries are not as inclined to do.

More restrictive - yes, less restrictive - very hard to get.

Regards,

DFC

[rustle]

People also need to understand that the world extends outside the UK, and that now the UK have joined with the rest of Europe in EASA, not everything is going to remain the way it was "in the good old days".

Last time bose-x or I wrote this stuff (a few months ago) here or on FLYER we were laughed out of town.

Is that an "Oops" I can hear?

This isn't about being sidetracked: It's about getting real, waking up, and smelling the coffee (rather than English Tea )

[Fuji Abound]

This isn't about being sidetracked: It's about getting real, waking up, and smelling the coffee (rather than English Tea )

No, it is about recognising that we are world leaders.

It is about recognising that we have a mechanism that every pilot I have spoken to in Europe is envious of.

It is about recognising that in the UK GA pilots fly in poor weather safely and legally whereas in Europe they either dont fly at all, kill themselves trying or survive breaking the law.

Every country in Europe recognises the FAA IR - it is not ICAO compliant. Change as change might they cant fail to recognise the FAA IR.

What you fail to realise is GA pilots want the IMCR or they want an accessible IR. I reckon there is hardly a single pilot who would not agree with that simple statement. The reason they have not got it is they have no satisfactory mechanism for influencing the regulator who has become dominated by the commercial operators.

Moreover it goes far beyond the IMCR.

The commercial operators dont want GA in the sky at all. In Europe they are seen as a nuisance. They have been difficult over the mode S issue, they have been difficult over the fee charging structure, they are even a thorn in the side over duty on Avtur. We are unpopular - face it.

When EASA takes over Flight Crew Licensing in the near future, all National flying licences and ratings will cease, either to be replaced with Europe-wide equivalents, or removed entirely.

Just done your night rating. You can forget that as well unless you have an IR (in which case you didnt need to do it anyway). Oh yes, and you have just paid the CAA for your "national" ratings - one valid for life the other 25 months. Piad the instructor a great deal of money as well have you. They took the fee did they? I wonder if they, or EASA, happened to mention that what you thought you had paid for is not what you might get. They are on very dangerous ground if only we realised it or are they going to stop accepting IMCR students 24 months before all this comes to pass and cancel night training. There are going to be a lot of very quite airports around the country at this time of year when it gets dark.

An EASA dominated by commercial operators will see their rights eroded beyond recognition and their costs rise out of all proportion.

In America it is very different. Guess why!

I will have another cup of tea please - thank you.

Is that an "Oops" I can hear?

I know, I know but as I said earlier please try and resist the clever remarks.
If you are happy to see the demise of these priviliges I am equally happy to respect your opinion - I dont agree with it, but I wouldnt boast about how clever I had been either.

[FREDAcheck]

BEagle said:

3. E-mail the CAA and do the same.
4. E-mail your MP and do the same.
5. E-mail the DfT and do the same

Can anyone advise when to email please? I mean, no point emailing an MP until the issue is presented as an order for Parliament to nod through (or whatever they do). I'd appreciate advice on the process, and when we might add our voices, albeit to little likely effect. Perhaps Bose or others involved can warn us when the issue reaches various people we might lobby? Even if we are just p*ssing into the wind.

[S-Works]

Then do something about it rather than spouting off here!!!

If you put as much energy into convincing the regulator that you are right as you do convincing us we are wrong then everything would be fine.

I have tried to tell you the situation and where we stand. I have tried for more than a year (check the archives) to say that this was coming.

As much as you hate and I hate the idea we are pretty much part of Europe and the gap is ever closing. Our government have ALREADY signed away our rights. It is only now that it has filtered down to a level where you are feeling it.

As I keep saying, do something about it.

[Fuji Abound]

As I keep saying, do something about it.

Bose you have everyones attention I think.

The stage is yours.

At least tell us what you think should be done.

I cant beleive telling the few people on here that arent already members of AOPA UK that they should join is the answer?

[S-Works]

U really want my opinion?

I am afraid you are not going to like what I have to say......

[Fuji Abound]

Go on - do tell - better to know if we are all wasting our time.

I always fancied going back to tiddly winks .

[DFC]

Originally Posted by BEagle

How can you voice your outrage?

1. Join AOPA and lobby the CEO. Or rather, add your voice to his existing concern!
2. Join the PFA and do the same.
3. E-mail the CAA and do the same.
4. E-mail your MP and do the same.
5. E-mail the DfT and do the same

So if you have a problem with the CAA do you;

1. Join the local WI
2. E-mail the local CFI
3. E-mail your County Councilor
4. Email the local Council Transport Department

?????

This is a European issue and the most important person to contact is your MEP.........that is what they are for and they are the ones operating at European level on your behalf.......unlike the WI.

-------

Originally Posted by Fuji

No, it is about recognising that we are world leaders.

Is that world leaders in moaning or Xenophobia? It is not much else as far as I can see.

World leaders set the standard not operate far below it.

Regards,

DFC

[obanite]

More regulation, less safety?..

I'm new to PPruNe and have just found this. I haven't done an IMC rating but wanted to in the future. I couldn't afford to do an IR - in time or in money. That's why the IMC's so attrative to a lot of pilots. They don't intend to use it every day - or at least that's what I know from the pilots I know who have it. It's to give you confidence and get you out of trouble should you be unfortunate enough to get caught out.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that we need to do something.

Bose-X?

[Fuji Abound]

World leaders set the standard not operate far below it.

You must please stop confusing different things.

We have set the standard for an IMCR applicable to the need of some private pilots. It does exactly what they want and it does it safely. It has stood the test of time. It was introduced by people of great stature at a time when a much more straight forward IR existed. It is not an IR, no one is petending it is - that is why it is not called an IR and comes with restrictions.

.. .. .. and while we are about it lets get on to the night rating. I guess on the same basis that goes? Has that messaged been broadcast? If I am right that should really stir the pot!

.. .. .. and while we are also about it, on a practical note, if an instructor takes your money followed by the CAA for a 25 month IMCR or a life time night rating but EASA remove both within their validity where does that fit? Does that mean we will see the end of the IMCR 25 months before the changes are enacted?