No more IMC rating
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps EASA will agree but change the wording to something along the lines of "VFR flights at night will also comply with the IFR rules".
But removing the IMCr will damage UK flight training even more than it has been already. In the past I have flown with instructors and climbed "on top". These instructors normally have lapsed IR's and are using IMCr privileges - it seems common for a new instructor to get the IR then let it lapse until they get an offer for the RHS of a Boeing. This will effectively end now....
Stats in the USA PROVE that IR'd pilots are less likely to kill themselves. That is why the FAA REDUCED IR minimum requirements some time ago (as in total time etc...) to allow more people to get an instrument qualification. The IMCr is an instrument qualification and the result should be the same. I don't see scores of people flocking to do a JAR IR any time soon, just because the IMCr goes. You'll have people illegally exercising their IMC skills, and gradually over thime these skills will erode (dt no revalidations etc..) and eventually the accident rate will go up......Anyone who is an AOPA US member can search the accident db via their website and compare IR and non IR accidents.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rustle
With the looming reclassification of airspace to N/K/U is it realistic to expect all EASA states to reclassify their airways to accomodate the new EASA-IMCR based on the UK model?
I made a similar point on the other place in October, but was told that according to an article in the AOPA mag, that this proposal had been quietly dropped. Is it actually still on?
dp
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In future aircraft pilot licensing is to be done on a European basis, rather then country by country. This is good. But it is being done by forcing the lowest common denominator on each country; we must all be the same. This isn’t so good.
Funnily enough, that's what I often think when it comes to legislation! Why should we constantly be under pressure to lower our standards to pander to others? What's wrong with saying to the rest of Europe "You must introduce an IMC-type qualification like the UK 'cos it's been a proven life-saver"? (OK, not going to happen but it would be nice).
Additionally, as someone else rightly pointed out, why can't we opt out? The French do it all the time (& the Italians & Spanish), not because they are being arrogant/nationalistic/awkward, but because it's not in the interests of their people. Personally, I admire the French (etc) for having the balls to do this, pity our politicians are corrupt guardians of vested interests who don't care a crap who they dump on.
It's not as if the IMCR was ever valid outside the UK so it doesn't concern anyone else but the UK, nor are we demanding that this be recognised everywhere else, it's a UK thing, simple as that.
Sadly, that's not the way it'll be looked at. As you may have gathered, I was hoping to start my IMC early next year, don't think I'm going to bother now until we get a firm idea of it's comparable replacement (if any?).
Funnily enough, that's what I often think when it comes to legislation! Why should we constantly be under pressure to lower our standards to pander to others? What's wrong with saying to the rest of Europe "You must introduce an IMC-type qualification like the UK 'cos it's been a proven life-saver"? (OK, not going to happen but it would be nice).
Additionally, as someone else rightly pointed out, why can't we opt out? The French do it all the time (& the Italians & Spanish), not because they are being arrogant/nationalistic/awkward, but because it's not in the interests of their people. Personally, I admire the French (etc) for having the balls to do this, pity our politicians are corrupt guardians of vested interests who don't care a crap who they dump on.
It's not as if the IMCR was ever valid outside the UK so it doesn't concern anyone else but the UK, nor are we demanding that this be recognised everywhere else, it's a UK thing, simple as that.
Sadly, that's not the way it'll be looked at. As you may have gathered, I was hoping to start my IMC early next year, don't think I'm going to bother now until we get a firm idea of it's comparable replacement (if any?).
If you were to say "You must introduce a UK-style IMCR in Europe", you will face the self-interest of the European commercial pilots' unions - who will simply allege that it "would not be safe to share our busy European airspace in IMC with lower-trained pilots".
Even though that's rubbish, it's what they're currently saying....
Whereas the French are determined to carry on with their lunatic 'Brevet de Base' - which allows people with less than half JAR-FCL PPL hours to fly passengers on short journeys with the 'permission' of an instructor. Hardly suprising that their accident rate is so high!
My suggestion?
All current national licence and rating rights and privileges shall be retained by granting equivalent EASA-FCL licences and ratings with privileges restricted to the previous national privileges.
The cost of this process will be born entirely by National Aviation Authorities.
Alternatively, just leave everything as it is. It isn't broken - it doesn't need to be fixed!
Even though that's rubbish, it's what they're currently saying....
Whereas the French are determined to carry on with their lunatic 'Brevet de Base' - which allows people with less than half JAR-FCL PPL hours to fly passengers on short journeys with the 'permission' of an instructor. Hardly suprising that their accident rate is so high!
My suggestion?
All current national licence and rating rights and privileges shall be retained by granting equivalent EASA-FCL licences and ratings with privileges restricted to the previous national privileges.
The cost of this process will be born entirely by National Aviation Authorities.
Alternatively, just leave everything as it is. It isn't broken - it doesn't need to be fixed!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, couldn't agree more! You just know that's going to happen.
I too was going to quote the 'Brevet de base' as an example of opt-out/special case treatment permitted despite it's high accident rate (I couldn't remember what it was called and didn't want to embaress myself!!
).
As an engineer, I would also say, if it aien't broke, don't fix it, but sadly we're back to one my vested interests rants again.......
I too was going to quote the 'Brevet de base' as an example of opt-out/special case treatment permitted despite it's high accident rate (I couldn't remember what it was called and didn't want to embaress myself!!
). As an engineer, I would also say, if it aien't broke, don't fix it, but sadly we're back to one my vested interests rants again.......
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That proposal to divide airspace into (essentially) known and unknown categories has AFAIK been dropped. It would be contrary to ICAO, etc.
Obviously it is still possible to revise airspace but retain the existing classes A-G. I have no idea whether this is on the cards.
But the big differences in the way airspace is used around Europe is at the root of this issue - the UK has lots of Class G and practically everything else is Class A. Class D is operated as Class A, more or less. The IMCR works well in the UK; it would not work in say Belgium.
Obviously it is still possible to revise airspace but retain the existing classes A-G. I have no idea whether this is on the cards.
But the big differences in the way airspace is used around Europe is at the root of this issue - the UK has lots of Class G and practically everything else is Class A. Class D is operated as Class A, more or less. The IMCR works well in the UK; it would not work in say Belgium.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
I think a step too far at this stage is the adoption of a Europe wide rating. All we can hope is that the other Europeans see the advantages in time - so I do agree, first lets secure the preservation of the national ratings we already have.
Thank you.
I think a step too far at this stage is the adoption of a Europe wide rating. All we can hope is that the other Europeans see the advantages in time - so I do agree, first lets secure the preservation of the national ratings we already have.
Get a new thread going with just the right information in it and I will stick it.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEPs can be found here:
http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/MembersPrincip.htm
(second link down if you Google 'Who is my MEP' :-) )
Tim
http://www.europarl.org.uk/uk_meps/MembersPrincip.htm
(second link down if you Google 'Who is my MEP' :-) )
Tim
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
which rating IMC or IR ?
Do you as a member of the public want to trust your nice Grandmother's life to a pilot with only 15 hours training?
Can I point out that (IMHO) the deciding factor is 'currency' and not the rating you hold. I would agree that someone who obtained an IMCR eighteen months previously and hasn't bothered to maintain currency are deluding themselves if they think they can safely make it back from L2K in solid clag.
But at the same time this applies equally to IR pilots. There are plenty of CPL/IR jet jockeys at our club who would baulk at the prospect of a solid IMC trip, even with a known 800' base, or better, at the destination. On the other hand many of our IMCRs would relish the prospect and enjoy every minute.
This is probably because you jet jockeys fly on fully auto systems most of the time and so, like everyone else, the manual skills decay. A quick brush up in a simulator once a year doesn't compare with being banged around in the real thing every week.
Those CPL/IRs who are on top of the game have probably achieved this through keeping close links to their GA origins - not sim checks.
I know who I would rather trust my Grandmother's life with . . . any IR or IMCR pilot who flies at least 2 hours a month in the clag on manual ! (and not just someone in a shiny blue suit, epaulettes and a platinum IR badge)
Last edited by drambuster; 2nd Dec 2007 at 11:38. Reason: typo
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHAPS
I have started a new thread which BRL has promised to make a sticky.
PLEASE BEFORE YOU POST HERE, OTHERWISE THIS POST WILL BE LOST, CAN I SUGGEST YOU GO AND POST ON THE NEW THREAD.
BRL
You might want to close this thread?
I have started a new thread which BRL has promised to make a sticky.
PLEASE BEFORE YOU POST HERE, OTHERWISE THIS POST WILL BE LOST, CAN I SUGGEST YOU GO AND POST ON THE NEW THREAD.
BRL
You might want to close this thread?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
That proposal to divide airspace into (essentially) known and unknown categories has AFAIK been dropped. It would be contrary to ICAO, etc.
...the big differences in the way airspace is used around Europe is at the root of this issue - the UK has lots of Class G and practically everything else is Class A. Class D is operated as Class A, more or less. The IMCR works well in the UK; it would not work in say Belgium.
...the big differences in the way airspace is used around Europe is at the root of this issue - the UK has lots of Class G and practically everything else is Class A. Class D is operated as Class A, more or less. The IMCR works well in the UK; it would not work in say Belgium.
Likelihood of that happening?
Use of Class A, B or C airspace in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules requires an IR, not an IMC rating.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, then the issue is why the options have been framed thus -
a) a euro-wide IMCR, OR
b) no IMCR at all
There is no logic to removing national ratings.
Europe is a mixture of very different countries, with different attitudes, cultures, food, acceptance of European authority, acceptance of any authority, you name it. The idiot politicians who set up the European "Union" all that time ago did it to immportalise themselves and to prevent Germany from starting another war. There is really no other purpose to it.
I actually suspect that when this is all played out, national ratings will be retained, or some other political compromise will be found which amounts to the same thing.
a) a euro-wide IMCR, OR
b) no IMCR at all
There is no logic to removing national ratings.
Europe is a mixture of very different countries, with different attitudes, cultures, food, acceptance of European authority, acceptance of any authority, you name it. The idiot politicians who set up the European "Union" all that time ago did it to immportalise themselves and to prevent Germany from starting another war. There is really no other purpose to it.
I actually suspect that when this is all played out, national ratings will be retained, or some other political compromise will be found which amounts to the same thing.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect there will be 2 tiers of licence: EASA and "National" (bit like JAA and NPPL) and some of the French idiosyncrasies (mentioned earlier) will exist in their national licence and some of ours in a UK NPPL.
That an IMC/IR cannot be added to an NPPL is neither here nor there, as it is currently the case - no change.
Other states may agree to accept flights crewed only by NPPL holders, or they might not - I don't know if they do now or not.
That would fit/sit better with the new LSA-style aircraft which also would not be eligible for IFR flight.
I would also assume that anyone with an EASA licence would have automatic NPPL privs, and that there would be an "upgrade" course available from NPPL to EASA as required.
Of course that might all be completely wrong too.
You heard it here first
That an IMC/IR cannot be added to an NPPL is neither here nor there, as it is currently the case - no change.
Other states may agree to accept flights crewed only by NPPL holders, or they might not - I don't know if they do now or not.
That would fit/sit better with the new LSA-style aircraft which also would not be eligible for IFR flight.
I would also assume that anyone with an EASA licence would have automatic NPPL privs, and that there would be an "upgrade" course available from NPPL to EASA as required.
Of course that might all be completely wrong too.
You heard it here first
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Eurocontrol Airspace Classification website...
"The third strategic step, to reduce the number of airspace categories to only three is currently under development."
"The third strategic step, to reduce the number of airspace categories to only three is currently under development."
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cirencester UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The currently expressed intent of EASA is that national licences will continue for flying Annex II aircraft ONLY (i.e. aircraft not within the scope of EASA, such as historic aircraft, amatuer built a/c, microlights < 450kg, hang gliders and some others). Once transition to the new EU licences (FCL and LAPL - main difference between the being the medical, and IRating) takes place - estimated 2009-2010 - then a national licence (e.g. UK NPPL) will not be accepted legally for flying an aircraft within the scope of EASA rules, anywhere in the EU.
There will of course be grandfathering of all current licences into the new EU licences. The conditions / rights for grandfathering are expected to be determined by the UK CAA in case of UK licence holders. Broadly NPPL = LAPL, JAR PPL = EU FCL/PPL
The LAPL for aeroplanes, gliders, balloons and helicopters, all up to 2mt MTOM (but balloons on cu. capacity), is drafted as a non-commercial, VFR only licence but with night VFR ratings. We (MDM.032 group) have discussed a possible IRating but the TORs of the group do not allow us to include this. Separately there is the FCL.001 group which is drafting the Implementing Rules for the ICAO compliant licences, and that is where the IR / IC debate is being held.
The UK IMC situation is going to be a battle ground in the EU (it is already). There will be several stages during the proposals for these EU licences to put your views to the regulators (EASA and the Commission) - responding to the NPA when it is published (eta end of Q1/08 in my opinion), lobbying MEPs (not MPs as this is a EU matter), providing support to the position of your representatives on the three pan-European GA representative bodies - IAOPA, Europe Air Sports, and ECOGAS.
However, in terms of lobbying, remember that the Implementing Rules for the licences, currently being finalised as drafts at EASA, do not go before the Council of Ministers working group or the Parliament for decision. They will in due course, after public consultation through the NPA, be submitted by EASA to the European Commission, to be agreed through the 'comitology' process between member states' representatives in the Commission. And that means majority decisions.....so to retain the IMC, if not catered for in the draft Implementing Rules, will mean persuading other member states representatives on the Commission, not just the UK, to back the case for the IMC. May not be so easy.....
I never have believed in a federal Europe, but that is what this is all about, IMHO.
DGR / Europe Air Sports
An EAS Member of EASA MDM.032 group
There will of course be grandfathering of all current licences into the new EU licences. The conditions / rights for grandfathering are expected to be determined by the UK CAA in case of UK licence holders. Broadly NPPL = LAPL, JAR PPL = EU FCL/PPL
The LAPL for aeroplanes, gliders, balloons and helicopters, all up to 2mt MTOM (but balloons on cu. capacity), is drafted as a non-commercial, VFR only licence but with night VFR ratings. We (MDM.032 group) have discussed a possible IRating but the TORs of the group do not allow us to include this. Separately there is the FCL.001 group which is drafting the Implementing Rules for the ICAO compliant licences, and that is where the IR / IC debate is being held.
The UK IMC situation is going to be a battle ground in the EU (it is already). There will be several stages during the proposals for these EU licences to put your views to the regulators (EASA and the Commission) - responding to the NPA when it is published (eta end of Q1/08 in my opinion), lobbying MEPs (not MPs as this is a EU matter), providing support to the position of your representatives on the three pan-European GA representative bodies - IAOPA, Europe Air Sports, and ECOGAS.
However, in terms of lobbying, remember that the Implementing Rules for the licences, currently being finalised as drafts at EASA, do not go before the Council of Ministers working group or the Parliament for decision. They will in due course, after public consultation through the NPA, be submitted by EASA to the European Commission, to be agreed through the 'comitology' process between member states' representatives in the Commission. And that means majority decisions.....so to retain the IMC, if not catered for in the draft Implementing Rules, will mean persuading other member states representatives on the Commission, not just the UK, to back the case for the IMC. May not be so easy.....
I never have believed in a federal Europe, but that is what this is all about, IMHO.
DGR / Europe Air Sports
An EAS Member of EASA MDM.032 group
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by David Roberts
...so to retain the IMC, if not catered for in the draft Implementing Rules, will mean persuading other member states representatives on the Commission, not just the UK, to back the case for the IMC. May not be so easy.....
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternative proposal - some won't like this...:
Lobby for Night and IMC ratings on the NPPL (and thus IFR, of course). (And add IFR on PFA types as well!)
That stuffs those flying aircraft larger than SSEA standards, of course, but would work for a lot of us.
Tim
Lobby for Night and IMC ratings on the NPPL (and thus IFR, of course). (And add IFR on PFA types as well!)
That stuffs those flying aircraft larger than SSEA standards, of course, but would work for a lot of us.
Tim
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tmmorris
Lobby for Night and IMC ratings on the NPPL (and thus IFR, of course). (And add IFR on PFA types as well!)
Tim
Tim
Lower the medical requirements for a Day/VFR NPPL so people can still get one, then add a load of ratings to it? Why not just give ratings away with every 4th pack of "Special K"?
PFA/LAA and IFR are not bed fellows and nor should they be.
In the new world it wouldn't come as any great shock that the new national licence (as discussed above) would be managed by the same people that manage the aircraft it can be used in/on: PFA/LAA
Day/VFR aircrew flying day/VFR aircraft overseen by a day/VFR organisation.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK then, do as I suggest then reintroduce medical certification for those who want IMC/Night :-)
Presumably when we signed up to EASA we said we wouldn't do that sort of thing?
Tim
Presumably when we signed up to EASA we said we wouldn't do that sort of thing?
Tim
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tmmorris
Presumably when we signed up to EASA we said we wouldn't do that sort of thing?
Tim
Tim
Now, either because it is too difficult to manage or because it is expedient, EASA might be looking to delegate some of the low-level licensing (aircrew and aircraft) back to "national" bodies.
So it isn't a case of what we said we wouldn't do - we already gave that right away.
It is a case of limited opportunity on a local [national] level to do some things EASA don't want/need to do - Annex II aircraft ONLY as David Roberts alluded to above.
Hence the IMC rating is nearly dead: It is currently in a coma, but EASA have the life support machine's plug in their hand after "we" dropped it.