PLEASE READ THIS AND HELP SAVE GA IN THE UK - Save the IMCR
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PLEASE READ THIS AND HELP SAVE GA IN THE UK - Save the IMCR
THIS IS VITAL TO EVERYONE NOT JUST THOSE WHO MIGHT AT SOME TIME CONSIDER AN INSTRUMENT RATING.
PLEASE AT THE VERY LEAST TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS THREAD AND THE OTHER ASSOCIATED THREADS AND GIVE YOUR SUPPORT.
EVEN IF YOU DONT HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO MAKE HAVING READ THE THREAD PLEASE AT LEAST RECORD YOUR SUPPORT.
IT REALLY DOES EFFECT EVERYONE.
A report in Flight Training News suggests UK pilots will no longer have the benefit of an IMC rating when, or shortly after, EASA takes over FCL.
http://www.*****************/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=81&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=283&wpa ge=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reopt ion=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=& sc=2209&hn=ftnonline&he=.co.uk
There is little if any news to suggest that the IR will be made any more accessible for the average private pilot.
It is possible the UK s unique arrangements for night flying could be under threat.
For those with a CAA life time license these licenses will be effectively revoked. The new EASA license will have to be renewed every five years - a purely cash generating exercise.
HISTORY
The IMC rating was introduced during the 1960s. Before then a private pilot was entitled to fly outside of controlled airspace in IMC without a instrument rating. It was felt this was dangerous. The regulators accepted an IRing was beyond the means of most private pilots. The IMC rating was therefore made available to UK pilots as a national rating. Since the rating was introduced some 50 years ago there has been no evidence produced to suggest the IMC rating is unsafe. Many pilots over the years have found the IMC rating provides an excellent way of developing their instrument skills beyond the basic elements taught during the PPL.
PURPOSE
The IMC rating is often promoted as a “get you out of trouble rating”.
It has always been restricted to UK airspace and to flights outside of class A airspace. In addition to enabling the pilot to fly in IMC it also permits flights in VMC when the in flight visibility is less than ideal for a pilot with more limited instrument skills.
Practically there are many pilots who use the rating to enable them to legally transition from flying beneath to on top of a layer of cloud. There are others who will fly part of a sector in IMC and a few, with experience, who will use the full privileges the rating confers.
Our climate offers relatively few days when there is not some cloud in the sky. Whilst metrology has improved, our climate is significantly influenced by the close proximity of the Atlantic ocean and the prevailing south westerly winds. Consequently forecasts are not always accurate.
It would seem patently obvious that UK pilots should be entitled to undertake further training which at the very least would enable them to cope with un-forecast changes in the weather. They should also be able to plan their flight to take advantage of the safest conditions - for example flying at higher altitudes in good visibility rather than scud running beneath the base.
Controlled flight into terrain remains one of the greatest causes of aircraft accidents and almost always results in the pilot and passengers being killed. There is ample evidence to suggest that these accidents are far less likely to occur if pilots are trained and licensed to fly in IMCs.
For these reasons there are many pilots who consider the loss of these privileges to be disastrous. There are those who believe so far as UK pilots are concerned it will be the single most dangerous development in licensing that has ever taken place.
If this is allowed to occur there will be many pilots who have held an IMCR for many years who are no longer able to fly through cloud. They will often find they will have to decide whether to continue the flight in conditions that they consider unsafe or break the law. There will be many new pilots who through their own mistakes, or as a result of inaccuracies in the forecast, find themselves in conditions with which they are unable to cope. For these pilots the outcome is usually fatal, whereas with accessible instrument training beyond that provide by the basic PPL, this need not be so.
Who does this effect?
In summary, whether you are training towards your PPL, you have a PPL but are not considering an instrument rating at this time, you are considering an instrument rating, you have an IMCR or IR or are considering or have a night rating this effects you now because of the wide ranging impact it will have on GA in this country in more general terms.
It effects you if you own an aircraft that is equipped to operate in IMC, even if you don’t currently use it in this way. The market for these aircraft in the UK if these changes are adopted will suffer because very few pilots will be able to use them for their intended purpose.
It effects you if you are a member of a flying school or run a flying school. IMC training provides a valuable source of income and contributes towards the running costs of the school, the instructors and the infra structure. In exactly the same way so does night training.
It effects you if you are involved in the operation of an airfield. How many days are too poor for pilots to fly unless they have an IMCR or IR. On these days almost no flying will take place.
It effects you if you are involved with the manufacturer or maintenance of aircraft or the aircraft industry in general. The demand for aircraft equipped to operate in IMC will all but vanish.
In fact it effects everyone.
Many of us feel very strongly we need to do something about it before it is too late.
What you should do?
I have suggested that the following is a list of some of the actions we could take.
1. Write to Diamond and the other GA manufacturers in Europe - there are a few. I would point out that they shouldn’t bother making any IFR equipped aircraft because other than the few schools teaching the IR and the even fewer PP with an IR the market will die. They charge a lot more for an IFR fit, and guess what, that translates into profit downstream. They are very influential.
2. I would write to the flying schools and I would ensure there were flyers with every letter. I would have a web site from which these flyers could be printed so students and members could lobby their flying schools. I would point out the significant loss of income that will ensue because there will be no IMCR to teach. (You can forget the average flying school teaching the IR if you have any idea what is involved).
3. I would write to every single one of my members if I was AOPA, PPL IR, PFA etc. I would encourage them to write to their MP, Euro MP, EASA members and the CAA and raise the matter with their flying schools, groups, clubs etc. I would make sure they knew exactly how to do so, what they should consider saying and where they should write.
4. I would write to my MP, my Euro MP and whoever I could at EASA and make a complete and utter nuisance of myself. I know a fair amount about planning. People will tell you the planners ignore all the emotional and unsubstantiated objections they receive. Well they don’t. If they come from enough people and people of influence at the very least it causes the entire application to be carefully reviewed, as much as they might like to ignore them. I am not suggesting the complaints should be emotive, avoid it if you can, but it doesn’t matter if you cant. I would do it now. Make a complete nuisance of yourself now.
5. I would prepare a well researched document about the IMCR which would deal with why it was introduced, the benefits it has brought, its safety record etc and I would ensure this is in front of every member of EASA that was relevant, and every flying school I could get hold of in Europe.
6. I would launch a wide ranging complaint about commercial operators activities in open FIR and the way in which this was encroaching on GA. My purpose would be to make it quite clear to the commercial operators that if they want our help with widening their access to airspace we had better see some reciprocation.
7. Whilst I was about it I would may sure that the risk to the night rating, life time licenses and maintenance organisations where all spelled out.
8. I would ask everyone to sign a petition - and sign they should not because they were intending to do and IMCR or had one, but because of the impact of the wider reaching changes on GA that EASA will have. On the basis of what I read be I am in no doubt whether intended or not this represents a sustained attack on the way we do GA in the UK and it should be ignored at our peril.
9. I would make sure I had the support of all the GA mags, that they really understood what we were about and why the campaign was so imprortant.
10. I would ask everyone for a tenner or whatever amount was appropriate so I was properly funded and I would be prepared to mount a legal challenge.
Where do we go from here?
The purpose of this thread is to gather support, exchange views and to take the message to EASA that we object to the loss of these privileges in the strongest way.
There is already a lot of discussion here.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=302466&page=5
PLEASE AT THE VERY LEAST TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS THREAD AND THE OTHER ASSOCIATED THREADS AND GIVE YOUR SUPPORT.
EVEN IF YOU DONT HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO MAKE HAVING READ THE THREAD PLEASE AT LEAST RECORD YOUR SUPPORT.
IT REALLY DOES EFFECT EVERYONE.
A report in Flight Training News suggests UK pilots will no longer have the benefit of an IMC rating when, or shortly after, EASA takes over FCL.
http://www.*****************/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=81&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=283&wpa ge=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reopt ion=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=& sc=2209&hn=ftnonline&he=.co.uk
There is little if any news to suggest that the IR will be made any more accessible for the average private pilot.
It is possible the UK s unique arrangements for night flying could be under threat.
For those with a CAA life time license these licenses will be effectively revoked. The new EASA license will have to be renewed every five years - a purely cash generating exercise.
HISTORY
The IMC rating was introduced during the 1960s. Before then a private pilot was entitled to fly outside of controlled airspace in IMC without a instrument rating. It was felt this was dangerous. The regulators accepted an IRing was beyond the means of most private pilots. The IMC rating was therefore made available to UK pilots as a national rating. Since the rating was introduced some 50 years ago there has been no evidence produced to suggest the IMC rating is unsafe. Many pilots over the years have found the IMC rating provides an excellent way of developing their instrument skills beyond the basic elements taught during the PPL.
PURPOSE
The IMC rating is often promoted as a “get you out of trouble rating”.
It has always been restricted to UK airspace and to flights outside of class A airspace. In addition to enabling the pilot to fly in IMC it also permits flights in VMC when the in flight visibility is less than ideal for a pilot with more limited instrument skills.
Practically there are many pilots who use the rating to enable them to legally transition from flying beneath to on top of a layer of cloud. There are others who will fly part of a sector in IMC and a few, with experience, who will use the full privileges the rating confers.
Our climate offers relatively few days when there is not some cloud in the sky. Whilst metrology has improved, our climate is significantly influenced by the close proximity of the Atlantic ocean and the prevailing south westerly winds. Consequently forecasts are not always accurate.
It would seem patently obvious that UK pilots should be entitled to undertake further training which at the very least would enable them to cope with un-forecast changes in the weather. They should also be able to plan their flight to take advantage of the safest conditions - for example flying at higher altitudes in good visibility rather than scud running beneath the base.
Controlled flight into terrain remains one of the greatest causes of aircraft accidents and almost always results in the pilot and passengers being killed. There is ample evidence to suggest that these accidents are far less likely to occur if pilots are trained and licensed to fly in IMCs.
For these reasons there are many pilots who consider the loss of these privileges to be disastrous. There are those who believe so far as UK pilots are concerned it will be the single most dangerous development in licensing that has ever taken place.
If this is allowed to occur there will be many pilots who have held an IMCR for many years who are no longer able to fly through cloud. They will often find they will have to decide whether to continue the flight in conditions that they consider unsafe or break the law. There will be many new pilots who through their own mistakes, or as a result of inaccuracies in the forecast, find themselves in conditions with which they are unable to cope. For these pilots the outcome is usually fatal, whereas with accessible instrument training beyond that provide by the basic PPL, this need not be so.
Who does this effect?
In summary, whether you are training towards your PPL, you have a PPL but are not considering an instrument rating at this time, you are considering an instrument rating, you have an IMCR or IR or are considering or have a night rating this effects you now because of the wide ranging impact it will have on GA in this country in more general terms.
It effects you if you own an aircraft that is equipped to operate in IMC, even if you don’t currently use it in this way. The market for these aircraft in the UK if these changes are adopted will suffer because very few pilots will be able to use them for their intended purpose.
It effects you if you are a member of a flying school or run a flying school. IMC training provides a valuable source of income and contributes towards the running costs of the school, the instructors and the infra structure. In exactly the same way so does night training.
It effects you if you are involved in the operation of an airfield. How many days are too poor for pilots to fly unless they have an IMCR or IR. On these days almost no flying will take place.
It effects you if you are involved with the manufacturer or maintenance of aircraft or the aircraft industry in general. The demand for aircraft equipped to operate in IMC will all but vanish.
In fact it effects everyone.
Many of us feel very strongly we need to do something about it before it is too late.
What you should do?
I have suggested that the following is a list of some of the actions we could take.
1. Write to Diamond and the other GA manufacturers in Europe - there are a few. I would point out that they shouldn’t bother making any IFR equipped aircraft because other than the few schools teaching the IR and the even fewer PP with an IR the market will die. They charge a lot more for an IFR fit, and guess what, that translates into profit downstream. They are very influential.
2. I would write to the flying schools and I would ensure there were flyers with every letter. I would have a web site from which these flyers could be printed so students and members could lobby their flying schools. I would point out the significant loss of income that will ensue because there will be no IMCR to teach. (You can forget the average flying school teaching the IR if you have any idea what is involved).
3. I would write to every single one of my members if I was AOPA, PPL IR, PFA etc. I would encourage them to write to their MP, Euro MP, EASA members and the CAA and raise the matter with their flying schools, groups, clubs etc. I would make sure they knew exactly how to do so, what they should consider saying and where they should write.
4. I would write to my MP, my Euro MP and whoever I could at EASA and make a complete and utter nuisance of myself. I know a fair amount about planning. People will tell you the planners ignore all the emotional and unsubstantiated objections they receive. Well they don’t. If they come from enough people and people of influence at the very least it causes the entire application to be carefully reviewed, as much as they might like to ignore them. I am not suggesting the complaints should be emotive, avoid it if you can, but it doesn’t matter if you cant. I would do it now. Make a complete nuisance of yourself now.
5. I would prepare a well researched document about the IMCR which would deal with why it was introduced, the benefits it has brought, its safety record etc and I would ensure this is in front of every member of EASA that was relevant, and every flying school I could get hold of in Europe.
6. I would launch a wide ranging complaint about commercial operators activities in open FIR and the way in which this was encroaching on GA. My purpose would be to make it quite clear to the commercial operators that if they want our help with widening their access to airspace we had better see some reciprocation.
7. Whilst I was about it I would may sure that the risk to the night rating, life time licenses and maintenance organisations where all spelled out.
8. I would ask everyone to sign a petition - and sign they should not because they were intending to do and IMCR or had one, but because of the impact of the wider reaching changes on GA that EASA will have. On the basis of what I read be I am in no doubt whether intended or not this represents a sustained attack on the way we do GA in the UK and it should be ignored at our peril.
9. I would make sure I had the support of all the GA mags, that they really understood what we were about and why the campaign was so imprortant.
10. I would ask everyone for a tenner or whatever amount was appropriate so I was properly funded and I would be prepared to mount a legal challenge.
Where do we go from here?
The purpose of this thread is to gather support, exchange views and to take the message to EASA that we object to the loss of these privileges in the strongest way.
There is already a lot of discussion here.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=302466&page=5
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia water
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Activate action
Fuji,
Normally I am reader rather than a writer in flying fora. But this threat of loss of IMC has galvanised me to action.
I fully support you. You have proposed a very good & comprehensive plan.
To get the poltical and commercial engagement going with MPs & GA vendors we need to establish a list of email addresses & old postal addresses. Then lets share template letters and activate as many people as possible to send them..I assume that the pilots associations and magazines have the contacts. What we need is co-ordinated & concerted action.
Peter
Normally I am reader rather than a writer in flying fora. But this threat of loss of IMC has galvanised me to action.
I fully support you. You have proposed a very good & comprehensive plan.
To get the poltical and commercial engagement going with MPs & GA vendors we need to establish a list of email addresses & old postal addresses. Then lets share template letters and activate as many people as possible to send them..I assume that the pilots associations and magazines have the contacts. What we need is co-ordinated & concerted action.
Peter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French Lesson
Apologies for a similar posting in other fora, but I think the "French Lesson" is of vital evidence to us, literally a matter of life-and-death. It needs to be distributed as widely as possible.
The IMC rating in the UK, like the Instrument Rating in the USA, has democratised the life-saving skill of being able to fly and land on instruments safely.
There is evidence from France which suggests that our fatal accident rate COULD DOUBLE with the loss of the IMC rating.
This report was commissioned by the french ministry of transport, and was published in April:
http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfr...00415/0000.pdf
It shows that GA in France has twice the number of fatalities than either the UK, or the US (4.2 fatalities per 100,000 hours, versus 2.0 in the UK, and a similar level in the US)
Why?
Part of the reason is because both we and our American cousins have a large proportion of private pilots trained to fly on instruments, while the French PPL is almost strictly a visual flyer with no training or access to the safety of IFR when the weather turns bad.
So they have a far higher proportion of VMC to IMC related accidents: both loss of control and "classic" CFIT.
The sort of accidents which led to the introduction of the IMC rating in the UK by wise people, and there are plenty amongst the pilot population and their passengers (no doubt some reading this forum) who owe their lives to the IMC rating.
The report makes several recommendations, amongst which, relevant to this discussion, are the need for an accessible IR for private pilots in France; an IMC rating if you will.
Amongst interesting points in the report, is the fact that 80% of Accidents are due to "Human Factors". Furthermore when human factors were studied in depth, an analysis of 60 such accidents in france found that:
"The great majority (43 out of 60, with 98 fatalities) took place in unfavourable weather, underlining the problems with lack of training, over-confidence, poor decision-making and pre-flight preparation.
All areas which are dealt-with by the IMC rating.
It would be worth one of our representative bodies going to the expense of formally translating the "French Lesson".
The IMC rating in the UK, like the Instrument Rating in the USA, has democratised the life-saving skill of being able to fly and land on instruments safely.
There is evidence from France which suggests that our fatal accident rate COULD DOUBLE with the loss of the IMC rating.
This report was commissioned by the french ministry of transport, and was published in April:
http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfr...00415/0000.pdf
It shows that GA in France has twice the number of fatalities than either the UK, or the US (4.2 fatalities per 100,000 hours, versus 2.0 in the UK, and a similar level in the US)
Why?
Part of the reason is because both we and our American cousins have a large proportion of private pilots trained to fly on instruments, while the French PPL is almost strictly a visual flyer with no training or access to the safety of IFR when the weather turns bad.
So they have a far higher proportion of VMC to IMC related accidents: both loss of control and "classic" CFIT.
The sort of accidents which led to the introduction of the IMC rating in the UK by wise people, and there are plenty amongst the pilot population and their passengers (no doubt some reading this forum) who owe their lives to the IMC rating.
The report makes several recommendations, amongst which, relevant to this discussion, are the need for an accessible IR for private pilots in France; an IMC rating if you will.
Amongst interesting points in the report, is the fact that 80% of Accidents are due to "Human Factors". Furthermore when human factors were studied in depth, an analysis of 60 such accidents in france found that:
"The great majority (43 out of 60, with 98 fatalities) took place in unfavourable weather, underlining the problems with lack of training, over-confidence, poor decision-making and pre-flight preparation.
All areas which are dealt-with by the IMC rating.
It would be worth one of our representative bodies going to the expense of formally translating the "French Lesson".
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is excellent.
I am happy to help with this in any way that I can.
In addition to Fuji Abound's excellent list, would we do well to complie a list of MPs who understand and are sympathetic to light aviation? I believe that Lembit Opik for example holds a PPL.
I am happy to help with this in any way that I can.
In addition to Fuji Abound's excellent list, would we do well to complie a list of MPs who understand and are sympathetic to light aviation? I believe that Lembit Opik for example holds a PPL.
I had a go at drafting a template letter on the other thread, but I don't have enough information. Here it is again, modified a bit. Forgive the repetition, but I'd appreciate help.
It needs to be fairly pithy if MPs or MEPs are to read it. But can anyone help with the bits at the bottom please? What are we asking our MPs to do? We need to state what (precisely) we want them to do. What order, statute or whatever they should oppose. If we don't suggest what they should do, then sure as heck they won't do it.
It needs to be fairly pithy if MPs or MEPs are to read it. But can anyone help with the bits at the bottom please? What are we asking our MPs to do? We need to state what (precisely) we want them to do. What order, statute or whatever they should oppose. If we don't suggest what they should do, then sure as heck they won't do it.
Please help me stop another case of the European standard banana; excessive and unnecessary harmonisation.
In future aircraft pilot licensing is to be done on a European basis by EASA, rather then country by country (by the CAA in the UK). But it is being done by forcing the lowest common denominator on each country; we must all be the same.
To fly in cloud, pilots need an “instrument rating”. This greatly increases safety, even for private pilots who get caught out in bad weather. However the instrument rating is designed for commercial pilots and is both expensive and excessive as a “bad weather safety skill” for private pilots. Uniquely, the UK has an “IMC rating” – a lower qualification that is within the reach of any private pilot. There is evidence that this increases safety for UK private pilots (and those that share the airspace with them – that is, all of us).
Quite simply: the IMC rating saves lives.
No other country has this rating, and for reasons that do not reflect on why the UK should – or should not – have one. But once EASA takes over, every country must be the same. The UK IMC rating must go. Why must we lose something valuable for the sake of mindless harmonisation?
(Help needed here on: )
Please help lobby for a UK exception or opt-out. (Or what?)
This rule/regulation/order/whatever originates from EASA (which stands for…) subgroup JAA FCL 001 and is to be presented to… by… on such and such a date…
And please will you… (do what?)
PS - If the experts think this is not an appropriate form of letter, please draft something better.
In future aircraft pilot licensing is to be done on a European basis by EASA, rather then country by country (by the CAA in the UK). But it is being done by forcing the lowest common denominator on each country; we must all be the same.
To fly in cloud, pilots need an “instrument rating”. This greatly increases safety, even for private pilots who get caught out in bad weather. However the instrument rating is designed for commercial pilots and is both expensive and excessive as a “bad weather safety skill” for private pilots. Uniquely, the UK has an “IMC rating” – a lower qualification that is within the reach of any private pilot. There is evidence that this increases safety for UK private pilots (and those that share the airspace with them – that is, all of us).
Quite simply: the IMC rating saves lives.
No other country has this rating, and for reasons that do not reflect on why the UK should – or should not – have one. But once EASA takes over, every country must be the same. The UK IMC rating must go. Why must we lose something valuable for the sake of mindless harmonisation?
(Help needed here on: )
Please help lobby for a UK exception or opt-out. (Or what?)
This rule/regulation/order/whatever originates from EASA (which stands for…) subgroup JAA FCL 001 and is to be presented to… by… on such and such a date…
And please will you… (do what?)
Last edited by FREDAcheck; 1st Dec 2007 at 21:29. Reason: PS added
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tmmoris
We all need this:
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
We all need this:
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
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely - you beat me to it!
Also this would be useful:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
(finds your MP and allows you to contact them directly)
Tim
Also this would be useful:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
(finds your MP and allows you to contact them directly)
Tim
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition to Fuji Abound's excellent list, would we do well to complie a list of MPs who understand and are sympathetic to light aviation? I believe that Lembit Opik for example holds a PPL.
Do you have a contact?
Do we have any others?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lembit Opik's details as follows . . .
http://www.libdems.org.uk/party/peop...mbit-opik.html
He holds a PPL and less relevantly was engaged to Sian Lloyd the weather girl and dated one of the 'Cheeky Girls'
http://www.libdems.org.uk/party/peop...mbit-opik.html
He holds a PPL and less relevantly was engaged to Sian Lloyd the weather girl and dated one of the 'Cheeky Girls'
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Google for 'MP pilot licence' produces of course Opik but also:
Grant Shapps (Con) - Welwyn Hatfield
Gerald Howarth (Con) - Aldershot (also Shadow Defence minister)
but there must be more, even if they are lapsed.
Tim
Grant Shapps (Con) - Welwyn Hatfield
Gerald Howarth (Con) - Aldershot (also Shadow Defence minister)
but there must be more, even if they are lapsed.
Tim
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thinking about it, Lord Tebbit has more than a passing interest in aviation and was an airline pilot before entering politics.
He seems to like a scrap with the Europeans and could be a useful chap to get on side.
Don't think he ever dated a 'Cheeky Girl' though
He seems to like a scrap with the Europeans and could be a useful chap to get on side.
Don't think he ever dated a 'Cheeky Girl' though
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thinking about it, Lord Tebbit has more than a passing interest in aviation and was an airline pilot before entering politics.
Tim
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There's also the conventional appeal to human rights - in a liberal democracy the idea is that we don't take away someone's right to do something without a good reason.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we need to start with a list of pilots willing to support resisting the dropping of the IMCR.
What about a web site with some background information and a place where you can register your email address?
What about a web site with some background information and a place where you can register your email address?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent ideas.
One thing I would point out however is that we need to save the powder for when it will have the best effect.
Currently this stuff is in what might be described an early committee stage within EASA. These committees are stuffed with highly prejudiced people who are for the most part out of touch with GA - even if they ever were in touch with it.
Fortunately, these committees, whose representatives are not elected and whose makeup we cannot hope to influence anyway, are not the most harmful stage of the legislative process. It is what comes afterwards.
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.
One thing I would point out however is that we need to save the powder for when it will have the best effect.
Currently this stuff is in what might be described an early committee stage within EASA. These committees are stuffed with highly prejudiced people who are for the most part out of touch with GA - even if they ever were in touch with it.
Fortunately, these committees, whose representatives are not elected and whose makeup we cannot hope to influence anyway, are not the most harmful stage of the legislative process. It is what comes afterwards.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: England
Age: 60
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
Well done.
And Pilot H, very interesting French Lesson.... I guess we need as many hard facts as possible.
Thanks for starting this thread, you have my full support.
Maybe we should get the Cheeky Girls onside too
Well done.
And Pilot H, very interesting French Lesson.... I guess we need as many hard facts as possible.
Thanks for starting this thread, you have my full support.
Maybe we should get the Cheeky Girls onside too
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you - 3Y and I0.
The French lesson is very a superb contribution.
Please keep the comments coming.
I am going to see if we can roll out a petition and a dedicated web site if I can.
Anyone like to get something going on Flyer please!
The French lesson is very a superb contribution.
Please keep the comments coming.
I am going to see if we can roll out a petition and a dedicated web site if I can.
Anyone like to get something going on Flyer please!
Julian,
Lembit is already aware of the IMCR situation and has pledged his support in an article in the latest issue of FTN.
I suspect however, that little will happen before a Notice of Proposed Amendement (NPA) concerning the IMCR is released in the New Year by EASA.
Lembit is already aware of the IMCR situation and has pledged his support in an article in the latest issue of FTN.
I suspect however, that little will happen before a Notice of Proposed Amendement (NPA) concerning the IMCR is released in the New Year by EASA.