No more IMC rating

[llanfairpg]

Sounds like those at the sharp end of this petion should be researching as many features as possible to provide evidence for retaining the rating.

Perhaps not many actually use the rating but that does not make it redundant, how many see it as an important insurance policy or something that enables them to fly further away from their base airfield than they would without such a rating. Would you for instance want to fly to Scotland for a weeks touring without an instrument qualification.

Surely it also has an importance in promoting flying school business, promoting safer flying and most importantly getting people to stay in flying and not moving to another hobby.

Some of the above may seem trivial but you need to have all points and all possibilities covered.

[IO540]

how many see it as an important insurance policy or something that enables them to fly further away from their base airfield than they would without such a rating

A lot of truth in that. On one recent trip to Crete and back, 100% IFR, I did not log any instrument time. It might have been 1-2 minutes total, out of some 30+ hours. Does that make IFR useless? A clever pilot will avoid actual IMC as far as possible, due to icing/turbulence.

[pilotincommand]

Surely the obvious way to get round this whole problem would be for the government to render ICAO IRs valid in G-reg aircraft under the ANO for private flying as they already do for PPLs. This way it would cease to be a licensing issue and so free from the grasp of the eurocrats. The cost of upgrading an IMCR to an FAA IR or similar would not be too excessive as all previous instrument time would count and would result in a higher level of training amongst these pilots.

Would it not make more sense to lobby the government for something that they can do rather than something they can't? Whether we like it or not, control over licensing has gone.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by llanfairpg

Sounds like those at the sharp end of this petion should be researching as many features as possible to provide evidence for retaining the rating.

Jeez. Nothing like a bit of consistency, and your comments are nothing if not inconsistent.

bose and I have been saying that since last year

[Shunter]

My intention has always been to acquire an IR. But with a career and family life, it isn't quite as straight-forward as it would be for a 20-something with no commitments.

I plan on finishing the FAA IR, using my IMC hours as credit, then sitting the JAA exams (without the need to attend an approved FTO as I already hold an ICAO compliant IR), and taking the JAA flight test.

It's a round-the-houses way of doing it, but exams don't trouble me and it makes sense for me in terms of both time and money. If in the meantime a more GA-friendly IR appears, I'll welcome it with open arms.

[llanfairpg]

Jeez.

Nothing like a bit of consistency, and your comments are nothing if not inconsistent.
bose and I have been saying that since last year

What I in fact said in another thread entitled

IMCR - The Petition - Please give your support

Was either support the petition or go way. On this thead which is entitled NO MORE IMC RATING I have said that there are other considerations to be made in regard to providing a case for retaining this rating-- these comments have nothing to do with the signing of a petition.

I am sorry that you feel this is inconsistent but what is strange is that you have taken the trouble to even mention it, are you here to score points or try and get the IMC rating retained?

[Fuji Abound]

bose and I have been saying that since last year

The vast majority see it rather differently, if that is, Bose sees it the same way as you do.

[englishal]

Well although Bose and Rustle may have been saying it since last year, since Fuji etc.. have started their capaign, Flyer, Pilot and Loop have all shown interest.

Hmm....must be something to do with lack of communication?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Well although Bose and Rustle may have been saying it since last year, since Fuji etc.. have started their capaign, Flyer, Pilot and Loop have all shown interest in writing articles.

Hmm....must be something to do with lack of communication?

My experience in public life tells me that the media, and the public, only take an interest in an issue when the bulldozers appear on site, having totally and utterly ignored it through several years of decision making and several rounds of consultation. ("But nobody consulted me" is the usual cry from someone who has steadfastly refused to respond to many many attempts to ascertain his views.)

So ... if the final decision on this one really hasn't been made ... and the press have picked it up already! ... then that's not a "lack of communication", it's far better communication than is usually the case in public policy decision making.

[Fuji Abound]

Gertrude

Are the bulldozers the campaign to save the IMC?

Are you suggesting we have go the communication process underway or something else?

[Contacttower]

having totally and utterly ignored it through several years of decision making and several rounds of consultation. ("But nobody consulted me" is the usual cry from someone who has steadfastly refused to respond to many many attempts to ascertain his views.)

I feel guilty not having really being paying attention to the whole EASA thing prior to it flaring up on here. However, someone correct me if I'm wrong, aren't the public consultations on this issue yet to happen?

[dublinpilot]

It's all very well to say that people will continue to fly illegally under IFR if the IMCr goes, and I have no doubt that they will, but I think that practice will die out with them. At least if the Irish experience is anything to go by.

I imagine, but without any proof, that much of the illegal IFR in the UK is by people in day VFR only aircraft, but who are trained in IFR flight. ie. the pilot is capable of IFR flight, but the aircraft isn't, or perhaps they are claiming to be VFR for some other reason (lappsed qualifications?). I'd be VERY surprised if many pilot who are untrained in IMC flight are conducting illegal IFR flights in IMC. I can't imagine their survival time would stretch to years

So what happens when that structure of the IMCr course goes?

Even if the IMC rating goes we, and I suspect many other schools/clubs, will still provide a minimum 10 hour instrument training course.

Is this the solution? I think not. I'm sure it's meant well, but I don't think pilots will do an additional IMC course, knowing that they can't fly IMC at the end of it, and that they can't keep those skills current. I think illegal IMC flight in Irish airspace (by non UK pilots) is very rare, mainly because the pilots don't have any IMC training (beyond the bit on the PPL), and recognise that they don't have the skills to fly IFR.

Likewise, they don't seak out training to give them the skills for what would be illegal flights.

So when those IMC trained pilots in the UK leave aviation, you'll be left with the same thing we have here.....depressing or what?

dp

[rustle]

Originally Posted by dublinpilot

I imagine, but without any proof, that much of the illegal IFR in the UK is by people in day VFR only aircraft, but who are trained in IFR flight. ie. the pilot is capable of IFR flight, but the aircraft isn't, or perhaps they are claiming to be VFR for some other reason (lappsed qualifications?).

Other than microlights which IO seems to think do this often, the greatest majority of folk claiming VFR when in IMC would be IMC/IR holders who are in aircraft > 2 tonnes.

Often discussed on the PPL/IR forum and tacitly approved by them since it is one of their mods/admins that discusses it most.

(For those that don't know, aircraft > 2 tonnes attract Eurocontrol charges when IFR.)

[mm_flynn]

Rustle - I think this >2tonne is mostly a 'G-reg' (or UK based) thing, driven as I said earlier by the UK operating environment.

Given that enroute UK IFR vs VFR in class G is simply being above 1000 ft and at the correct level if above the TA (both of which hopefully you would be doing if VFR as a matter of good practice), it does seem a bit rich to charge say £60/hr if you say "IFR" when you depart vs. "VFR" - and the difference in safety/service/risk reduction/operations within the UK is basically nil!

(Note - I am NOT saying that it is OK to just bimble around in clouds without having done the planning for a safe IFR flight, just that saying one TLA vs another makes not a jot of difference in how the flight is treated or operated)

[IO540]

I am not expressing a view on how many twin pilots are doing this (and if "Rustle" is a member of PPL/IR Europe, which presumably he must be otherwise how does he see their forum, then he should properly stand up for his beliefs and make his disapproval known at the proper place instead of posting it "anonymously" on here) but IMHO most twin pilots hold at least an IMCR and since Class G does not require radio contact, and thus does not require an IFR clearance, these pilots are in fact legal if they depart "VFR" (and let's face it, everybody departing in > 1500m with an IMCR is legally VFR at that point) and if they change to IFR while enroute they still remain legal because they did not need an IFR clearance......

The landing, with an IAP, is not an issue either because there is not a billing system in place which deals with popup clearances.

What would be illegal is flying in IMC under VFR outside the UK, without an IR. But there again many twin pilots do have an IR. I suppose one could be done for not having obtained an IFR clearance but this applies only to CAS and a pilot with a de-iced twin can fly around OCAS to most places. So, what is his real crime, if he has an IR and remains OCAS? ATC never have the authority to issue an IFR clearance for Class G. Class E is a problem - you would have to be outside that also.

I agree with DP that formal instrument skills are likely to die out with the current generation of pilots. However I find this difficult to square up with the obviously IFR instrument panel which is present in most upmarket "sports" planes made and sold in Europe. Flight in IMC, using the GPS and autopilot, must be awfully tempting if you have the kit, and is in fact very easy. The great difficulty in training for the IR checkride is mainly due to the way it is taught: partial panel, very high and artificial workload, and complex ATC instructions. If you are flying some "VFR only" plane in IMC, most likely non-radio, with good equipment, the pilot workload is minimal and enroute instrument flight is a piece of cake. If I can work this out, so can everybody who has one of these.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by IO540

...(and if "Rustle" is a member of PPL/IR Europe, which presumably he must be otherwise how does he see their forum, then he should properly stand up for his beliefs and make his disapproval known at the proper place instead of posting it "anonymously" on here)

Didn't renew my PPL/IR membership so can't post there, but that didn't erase my memory of posts past (nor my Google Desktop snapshot of them )

[DFC]

All this talk of the IMC rating being a very good insurance policy could lead to the position where the decision is made to;

Continue with a sylabus that is the same as the IMC rating but that on completion does not provide any privileges above normal VFR (not the UK restricted version).

In return for this expenditure, insurance premuims (which are of course mandatory) would be reduced and thus those taking the time and expense to increase their skill set and experience woule be rewarded.

------

Perhaps Dublin Pilot would like to remind us just how much touring has been done in his club........Have members flown to Italy, France, Spain etc. All PPL flying VFR. It ain't rocket science.

Any argument for the IMCrating based on the weather has to show that climate change has caused a problem that the many more VFR only flyers in years past did not have to cope with the same problems.

Since the PPL training inductry relies on operating VFR for thousands of hours every year in the UK, I would expect that any argument saying that the IMC rating was essential for VFR flight would also be an argument in favour of mandatory IMC ratings for flight instructors in the UK. How else could they cope safely with the weather? Microlights would have to have suitable instrumentation or grounded because how can they cope with the weather?

Regards,

DFC

[FullyFlapped]

DFC :

In return for this expenditure, insurance premuims (which are of course mandatory) would be reduced and thus those taking the time and expense to increase their skill set and experience woule be rewarded.

There isn't a Smily for "doubled up laughing so much it hurts", but if there was .. !

FF

[S-Works]

I have to say that as much is it pains me to say so. For once I think DFC is actually quite right and is the reason why the petition etc is fatally flawed.

You can't base a campaign on how unsafe VFR flying is without an IMCR when it quite clearly the worldwide figures don't back it up.

You have to come up with a unique reason for it that does not smack of back door IR.

[IO540]

You have to come up with a unique reason for it that does not smack of back door IR

That's a fair point but the real justification for it is perverse: it is entirely to do with not upsetting the airline pilot [union] elite corps who sit on the committees.

One of the best kept secrets of IFR flight is that the actual skill set required is much less than the "professionals" would have you believe.

If the entry to the "IFR club" was any tighter, they would have you wear a leather apron, one breast bared, and swear an oath of secrecy.