PLEASE READ THIS AND HELP SAVE GA IN THE UK - Save the IMCR

[Fuji Abound]

Dublinpilot and Rustle

Very good advice thank you.

Lets be done with AOPA.

One request though, despite how it may seem, we are all in this together and I would hope can all help each other.

Frankly, comments like you dont know what you are doing frustrate me - I dont and thats why I ask for your help - but I think that at least this thread has already got more of us discussing the issue than has ever happened on here before - surely that is already progress of sorts?

Moving on

Would some one like to set out the safety arguments for the IMCr.

[S-Works]

Right this is our fall out.

I have tried to explain the situation to you but you blindly run your mouth off with no understanding of how things actually get done in the real world. You are intent in goading me, well now you have. It still won't change the fact that in my opinion everything that can be done by AOPA at this stage has been.

You started this thread with a view on saving the IMC, why don't you go off and do that and report to us how you did it instead of running your mouth off all the time about how bad a job AOPA have done?

I have told you it is not my place to post documents on a forum and where to go and get them. There is nothing secret about the content, I have told you exactly what is in them, what is the point of copying them word for word into a public forum?

AOPA engaged with the MEMBERSHIP fully and actively, they formed working groups and those working groups sought the input of the membership who were prepared to actually bother to read and understand what was going on.

How do you think I got involved as an AOPA MEMBER??????

You are intent on bashing AOPA blindly and stupidly and are beneath contempt.

Your lack of understanding of bureaucratic process is breathtaking and will be your down fall.

So I will publish my own warning.

AOPA have engaged everyone possible on this matter and as a MEMBER I am satisfied. However it is the responsibility of every pilot to ensure that they stay up to date with the rules and regulations that govern their flying and changes that occur to it. Just as they are resonsible for the upkeep of a log boog, medical and revalidation.

This is the reason for NPA and RIA procedures, so that anyone with an interest can comment. People who join AOPA and PPLIR etc. join to allow people with more expertise to comment on their behalf. We rely on their integrity to make sure that that the common interests are looked after. In the case of AOPA and the IMCR the common interest is the preservation of a rating that AOPA created in the first place. To this end AOPA represented the MEMBERSHIP to the best of their ability, drawing on the experiences of the MEMBERSHIP as well as within and put across a strong case. Where this goes at the moment is anyones answer.

I personally think they have done an incredible job.

But what do I care? I have no restrictions on flying in any airspace so why am I bothering? Because I also believe that the IMCR is particularly worth saving. Pre IR days I used it extensively and believe it is one of the single most important things to happen to GA in the UK.

I however made the effort to understand the process of dealing with rule making and how it is contested rather than gobbing off about how wrong and unfair it was and then blaming everyones else.

[2close]

Originally Posted by IO540

Let me also add this is all tied up with the N-reg issue, because the FAA option would be a natural escape route for the more determined IMC Rating holders. So if you fly an N-reg or know somebody who does, this affects them too. The two issues are closely linked.

I have also come into some reliable information that there are also moves afoot within EASA medical regulation that comes into force in September 2009 to prevent persons flying foreign registered aircraft based in the EU unless the flight crew hold EASA medical certificates.

I have no idea of numbers but it is no secret that a number of pilots flying corporate N Reg in the UK are doing so because they are unable to obtain JAA Class 1 medicals - those persons will be well and truly stuffed if this gets through.

The authorities tried and failed in their attempts to get rid of N Reg once so now they attack the process another way.

I often wonder whether we are dealing with responsible adults or with petulant children who, when they can't get their own way by one means, resort to dirty tricks methodology to get their way via the back door.

[S-Works]

2close, you are quite correct, it is all in the documents for the RIA next year.

It is part of the desire for EASA to gain 'Oversight', which includes the proposal for foreign crews based in Europe to have dual licensing and all that goes with it.

[Fuji Abound]

I have told you it is not my place to post documents on a forum and where to go and get them. There is nothing secret about the content, I have told you exactly what is in them, what is the point of copying them word for word into a public forum?

Sorry missed that post.

Can you let us have the link again to the documents in which the safety case for the IMCr is set out please?

2close

Interesting.

AOPA have engaged everyone possible on this matter and as a MEMBER I am satisfied. However it is the responsibility of every pilot to ensure that they stay up to date with the rules and regulations that govern their flying and changes that occur to it. Just as they are resonsible for the upkeep of a log boog, medical and revalidation.

What cr*p.

Sorry I could not agree less. It is your responsibility to keep up to date with every development in tax legislation. Good luck.

If not then you really have no right to question AOPA's activities.

Sharp in take of breath.

Anyway time for a truce. Can we just beg to disagree on many of these issues and take Dublinpilots comment on board please.

If you will agree not to keep pointing out what a waste of time it is doing anything outside of AOPA and keep pointing out how everyone else has absolutely no idea what they are talking about then I will stop telling everyone my views about AOPA.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

If you will agree not to keep pointing out what a waste of time it is doing anything outside of AOPA and keep pointing out how everyone else has absolutely no idea what they are talking about then I will stop telling everyone my views about AOPA.

The two things - you not having a clue what you're talking about and your opinion of AOPA - are linked, but perhaps not in the way you imagine.

Do you really think you are going to have the last word on the AOPA subject again?

"Answers, not egos"

[S-Works]

The 'link' for the documents is to write to AOPA and ask for them. I assume you are a member? I have said this several times but you are so busy on your anti-AOPA tirade you keep missing it or ignoring it.

I have never said that anyone outside of AOPA has no idea what they are doing. I have said YOU have no idea what you are doing, big difference.

It is not up to AOPA to educate every person on the effects of legislation, it is there job to REPRESENT you, they do this very well.

I would also suggest you go and take a good hard look at who it was that actually sold us down the river looking after their own interests.........

I do know it is my responsibility to keep up with changes in tax legislation that effect ME. If I don't understand it I go and seek advice.

[Fuji Abound]

I'd love to see the 'pitch to keep the IMC' to see what arguments were put across in what way with what emphasis - and how long it lasted, given some of the attitudes listening.

If we'd come out of the meeting with a positive thumbs up, then basically we would be on a train, only having to make sure we didn't fall off it. As it is, we seem to have missed the train, which means enormous effort to chase it and try and board it, and that may or may not be possible, but it's certainly harder work!

The actual concept of presenting such a rating to other countries in a brief 'pitch' and asking them to understand it fully is flawed.

I would like to see the arguments made against an IMC (or equivalent rating) as much as those made for. In fact I would like to see any factual information about these Core Groups - they appear to be closely guarded secrets at the moment.

I think this is important.

http://www.joinaopa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=263

from this forum, and AOPA members.

Perhaps this information is in the public domain or even in AOPAs public domain. I shall look forward to seeing it.

We have missed the train so lets catch it back up, enough side tracking.
I would be very interested on comments regarding the safety ptich and the reasons why we should fight for the IMCr.

I am very pleased to say we now have a web domain dedicated to this issue which will run along side this thread. The web site will provide a source of information for this campaign.

[julian_storey]

10 Downing Street Petition

OK ladies and gentlemen. Put your names to this . . .

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/IMC-Rating/

Apologies to Fuji for nicking his fine wording.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by julian_storey

Apologies to Fuji for nicking his fine wording.

Fine wording indeed.

You might want to have checked the "50 years" bit before sticking it up there on the PM's website - was the IMC rating really around in 1957?

[2close]

Well done JS.

Signed.

I've fired off a short e-mail to Lembit Opik MP with the relevant links to information sources, although I'm sure he's aslo aware of what's going on.

[englishal]

Toys...prams...back in now?

I've signed...

[Fuji Abound]

Thanks Julian.

Well you beat me to it, but that is no bad thing. The web site is nearly ready to roll out so I can link to the petition.

As things progress there will be a developed action plan on the web site.

I have had some lengthy discussions with the CAA an EASA member and a parliamentary member which have all proved very useful.

There is rather more to this than meets the eye I have now discovered.

[Fuji Abound]

was the IMC rating really around in 1957?

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...84&postcount=3

.. .. .. around 1967 I think.

[2close]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

There is rather more to this than meets the eye I have now discovered.

Ooh, Fuji, you tease.

Spill the beans then.

I am security cleared......Nato Lavatory Level 1....and I promise not to tell anyone else....honest!!!

[Fuji Abound]

bose-x said:

Quote:

The IMCR is a rating created by the late Ron Campbell in the mid 70's for AOPA. So it has not been around the 40 and 50 years people are spouting off on here. How can you be taken seriously at representing this when you have not even done your research on the background of the rating?????
Good advice, bose-x; advice that perhaps you too should heed!
The IMC Rating was originally introduced in 1970. The syllabus at that time (10 hours) was biased towards basic instrument flying, with VDF its only let-down procedure. Prior to its introduction, a UK PPL could legally fly IMC OCAS without any instrument qualification. The syllabus was subsequently extended into a 15-hour course at the behest of Ron Campbell and AOPA in March 1981.

Worth repeating here.

I am sure Bose would not wish to claim credit for AOPA introducing it if they in fact did not, and if they did AOPA might want to fight a bit harder to keep it.

[S-Works]

Boy you really do dislike AOPA don't you?

Regardless, you are gobbing off without being in possession of the facts, I assume to fill your need for constant attacks on AOPA.

Fuji wrote:
.. .. .. around 1967 I think.

The IMC rating has been in existence in the UK for over 30 years. According to those involved in the original IMC rating Working Group, it was designed to provide private pilots with enhanced skills and greater confidence when faced with deteriorating weather conditions, by increasing a pilot’s instrument flying knowledge and radio navigation skills, when compared to the limited instrument flying instruction provided under the PPL syllabus.

The rating was originally lobbied for by industry representatives, most notably AOPA, who wanted to see a stepping-stone between the one-hour instrument navigation training provided under the PPL curriculum and the full-blown commercial Instrument rating, used by commercial pilots operating in Class A airspace.

The 15-hour IMC rating course finally settled upon, allows a private pilot to climb through cloud and operate ‘VFR on-top’ before letting down again through cloud at their destination airport on either an Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach or non-precision let down. The privileges are more limited than those afforded to holders of an Instrument rating, but are nonetheless said to enhance safety and prevent pilots "hedge-hopping" at low-level to remain in sight of the ground. Fundamentally, the IMC rating provides pilots with the skills to get themselves out of trouble when faced with deteriorating weather conditions, and was never designed as a ‘cheap’ Instrument rating. IMC rated pilots, for example, are not allowed access to airways, or Class A airspace and for flights within Class D airspace, which includes the airspace around many of the UK’s airports, Minimum Descent Heights (MDHs) allowed for instrument approaches as well as minimum horizontal visibility distances are much more restricted than they are for IR qualified pilots.

Nonetheless, renowned UK aviator, display pilot and ex CAA employee, Barry Tempest, who was involved in the original IMC consultations back in the 1970s, told us that the rating originally came up against heavy criticism from the professional pilot unions, who saw it as little more than a budget Instrument rating which could compromise the safety of their operations. And according to those present at the recent JAA FCL 001 group meeting in Cologne, the same negative reaction by professional pilot unions would appear to have occurred again, albeit this time by unions outside of the UK.

[Fuji Abound]

Fuji wrote:
.. .. .. around 1967 I think.

Fuji also drew attention to

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...84&postcount=3

which says

The IMC rating was introduced a few years before I learned to fly in 1970.

few = more than two, so 1967 seemed reasonable.

The IMCR is a rating created by the late Ron Campbell in the mid 70's for AOPA. So it has not been around the 40 and 50 years people are spouting off on here. How can you be taken seriously at representing this when you have not even done your research on the

Bose, I dont mind your being wrong - I am all the time. But this is what you posted (and now appears to have mysteriously vanished I might add). What I do mind is your constantly telling us that WE cant be taken seriously because we havent done our research.

I gave you an open invitation to point us in the direction of AOPAs rational for preserving the IMCr - do I need to remind you of your response?

I rather hoped we were in this together .. .. .. but it would seem we are not.

.. .. .. and yes, I dont much like AOPA for one reason alone, they tell us their mission is to support GA - ha, well even their own members have this to say

These days it's not good enough to do lots of hard work without ensuring everyone knows that you've been doing lots of hard work. Worse still a lack of communication is virtually an open door for someone else to claim credit or use the lack of communication as a weapon against you.

Communication with the membership is important, but promotion outside the membership base is probably more important. Especially so when competing with other organisations to be heard.

I have been generous. If you like we can explore some of the other comments.

[S-Works]

I am still at a lost to see why you are so intent on bashing AOPA. You really do have a bee in your bonnet over them.

I am also at a loss at to what you don't understand about AOPA's rational on saving the IMCR. Do you want a copy of every email and letter that has ever been exchanged on the subject or something?

AOPA have made it totally clear to the CAA, EASA the other member of the working groups that they want the IMCR to stay. They even went to great lengths to participate in a working group to change the rating enough to make it acceptable as a Euro Wide rating and pitched that at EASA. When the RIA is released the same people will review it and pass back comments again in support of the rating.

You are seriously being sidetracked by your venomous hatred of AOPA from the cause you are trying to gain support for and it really is quite pathetic.
Cross posting more comments to attack AOPA does nothing for your cause just makes you look like a dick. I have not seen AOPA attack your project for saving the IMCR.

As an AOPA member I have merely pointed out that if you are going to base a campagn on poor foundations and lack of knowledge about the very rating your are trying to preserve and a severe lack of knowledge on the process then you are doomed to failure.

At no time have I suggested that AOPA will do any better than you, merely that those who serve the AOPA membership interests have been involved in the rule making process for a very long time and know when discretion is the better part of valor.....
.


THE UK IMC RATING
Since its inception in the 1970s, the UK CAA has issued 18,000 IMC Ratings.
In looking at the statistics over the period 1980 – 2004, there are very few cases where pilots have lost control whilst legally using
the privileges of the IMC Rating in a serviceable aeroplane in UK airspace. In 25 years only 3 were found to have been failure to cope by IMC Rating holders.
This we know, but what we will never know is how many cases there were where the IMC rating got people out of trouble.
We do not have actual statistics for the other countries in Europe, but we do know that there are considerably more accidents caused by inadvertent or even intentional flight into IMC where the pilot has not been able to cope than there are in the UK.

The Arguments for Adopting the IMC Rating throughout Europe
• The IMC Rating has been a key element in the UK’s programme to improve safety standards amongst General Aviation (GA) private pilots, instructors and even CPL holders who do not hold an Instrument Rating, through the additional training for more than 30 years.
• The IMC Rating, which has been held by 18,000 UK GA pilots, is considered to be one of the reasons why the UK has achieved one of the best GA safety records in Europe.
• A number of pilots from mainland Europe are prepared to come to the UK each year to train for the IMC Rating, even though they may only exercise its privileges in UK airspace, as it gives them additional experience and confidence in their flying.
• The incidence of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) and loss of control accidents are thought to have been significantly reduced as a result of the UK’s IMC training programme. These accidents are almost always fatal and it is thought that large numbers of lives have been saved.
• At mixed GA and CAT airports it is generally safer and simpler to have as many approaching and departing aircraft as possible following a single set of procedures. The IMC Rating makes this possible.
• In the interests of safety and utility almost all manufacturers of light aircraft now equip their aircraft with instruments required for IFR flight. A European flight crew licensing system, which does not provide for private pilots to be trained in the use of these safety enhancing instruments, is inappropriate and contrary to the interests of safety.
• No European Agency should be introducing legislation, which prohibits the use of safety enhancing equipment.
• For pilots wishing to progress to a full Instrument Rating the IMC Rating is a natural stepping stone.
• Any attempt to introduce European licensing laws, which remove the privileges of UK IMC Rating holders is likely to produce a very hostile reaction from large numbers of general aviation pilots, with well funded legal challenges to EASA.

We believe that with the IMC Rating we, in the UK, have the highest safety standard for non instrument rated pilots in Europe – think how we could improve the standard of safety in GA throughout Europe if all EU Member States were able to benefit from allowing their GA pilots to train for and hold the IMC Rating.

There is no threat to Commercial Air Transport aircraft from this activity. On the contrary, infringements into their airspace are less likely to occur by a holder of an IMC Rating, than by an untrained pilot flying inadvertently into their airspace and losing control.

Europe needs this rating – give European GA pilots the chance to go for it, and for UK pilots to be able to retain it!

[Contacttower]

with well funded legal challenges to EASA.

bose what sort of grounds would those be based on?