EASA? What a joke!
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please don't confuse an IMC with being qualified or able to fly PROPERLY on instruments
There are good and bad IMC's, just as there are good and bad IR's. I'm sure an IMC who's sharp and current would give any half-arsed IR a damn good run for his money!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair shunter, he has a point the basic IMCR is not designed for extended flight in IMC it is a pop up and down.
You have shafted your own argument by pointing out that someone who has honed his skills can be a safe and competent IFR pilot. There are a few ways to do this, go out and fly a lot and practice practice practice or go out and do an Ir where you will fly a lot and practice practice practice. The end result is the ability to fly on instruments but one gets to do it an all classes of airspace the other is VERY limited.
I would be very interested to hear about your experience with current IR rated pilots though, please share.
And I would suggest that you don't confuse the very simple test standards of the IMCR with those of the IR. Including the fact that no IMCR examiner will test to IFR minima only to the CAA recommended DA/DH. Therefore no IMCR pilot can claim they have been tested to the same standards as an IR pilot. They may with practice be able to fly to minima, although it would be interesting to see how many IMCR pilots have actually flown an approach ti IR minima in reality (rather than just claiming it), when I had an IMCR I flew a thousand hours on it using it as a mini IR and can count the number of MINIMA approaches I did on 1 finger..........
You have shafted your own argument by pointing out that someone who has honed his skills can be a safe and competent IFR pilot. There are a few ways to do this, go out and fly a lot and practice practice practice or go out and do an Ir where you will fly a lot and practice practice practice. The end result is the ability to fly on instruments but one gets to do it an all classes of airspace the other is VERY limited.
I would be very interested to hear about your experience with current IR rated pilots though, please share.
And I would suggest that you don't confuse the very simple test standards of the IMCR with those of the IR. Including the fact that no IMCR examiner will test to IFR minima only to the CAA recommended DA/DH. Therefore no IMCR pilot can claim they have been tested to the same standards as an IR pilot. They may with practice be able to fly to minima, although it would be interesting to see how many IMCR pilots have actually flown an approach ti IR minima in reality (rather than just claiming it), when I had an IMCR I flew a thousand hours on it using it as a mini IR and can count the number of MINIMA approaches I did on 1 finger..........
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They may with practice be able to fly to minima, although it would be interesting to see how many IMCR pilots have actually flown an approach ti IR minima in reality (rather than just claiming it), when I had an IMCR I flew a thousand hours on it using it as a mini IR and can count the number of MINIMA approaches I did on 1 finger..........
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed IR holders only very seldom operate to the absolute minima (for an IR holder).
--------
Flying Pram,
I think that you will find that I mentioned "Dual" Training and there is no dual training requirement or test in navigation to de-restrict a microlight rating.
Regards,
DFC
--------
Flying Pram,
I think that you will find that I mentioned "Dual" Training and there is no dual training requirement or test in navigation to de-restrict a microlight rating.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess that was kind of my point. Looking at my logbook for November I flew 4 approaches to minima and another for to less than 400ft. The rest were all flown to what would have been acceptable for an IMC holder.
The fact is that the holder of an IR generally has one because the have a need to travel when the weather is crap and they have an aircraft capable of doing so.
The average IMCR holder is a club flyer, operating from VFR airfields in ill equipped aircraft. So to try and compare an IMCR holder to an IR holder is not smart.
I flew yesterday, no one else at my airfield did they sat and ate chips and talked flying as the weather was 'crap'........ Most of them IMCR holders.
The fact is that the holder of an IR generally has one because the have a need to travel when the weather is crap and they have an aircraft capable of doing so.
The average IMCR holder is a club flyer, operating from VFR airfields in ill equipped aircraft. So to try and compare an IMCR holder to an IR holder is not smart.
I flew yesterday, no one else at my airfield did they sat and ate chips and talked flying as the weather was 'crap'........ Most of them IMCR holders.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew yesterday, no one else at my airfield did they sat and ate chips and talked flying as the weather was 'crap'........ Most of them IMCR holders.
Do you think flying on instruments is like one of your contests in the playground?
Good for you that you flew yesterday. Actually when you claimed you flew yesterday both the TAFs and METARs were fine. The weather was always forecast to detiorate later in the day - and, guess what, it did, and you were back on the ground.
So what if you p^&ssed around the local cabbage patch in a bit of cloud and wind!
I suspect those sitting in the club house had a bit more sense. No where to go on such a miserable day and no good reason to go - unless you happen to work at the weekend.
.. .. .. but if that is what turns you on .. .. ..
Whether you have an IR or IMCr is not some sort of competition in who has got the most gold plate.
You really need to understand that each has its own use, and each in turn is potentially as good, or bad, as the pilot using it.
I think you will find that those with 10,000 hours in light aircraft usually are not so inclined to boast when they have a job to do and go fly in weather when they would far rather have their feet up in front of the fire.
When you go fly in your single in crap weather with the base on the deck it doesnt matter if you have an IR or not when the donkey stops you are going to kill yourself.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose & Stellair
As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, all my flying is without the assistance of an autopilot. As a typical PPL doing about 100 total hours per annum, I would suggest that 20 hours of that flying manually in IMC is more than sufficient to maintain currency. I certainly don't need to 'settle down' as I have over 200 hrs total time on instruments and find the whole experience thoroughly enjoyable as well as being intellectually challenging.
It is not my objective to fly in conditions that require ILSs down to 200'. I am happy to stick with 500' or thereabouts as that ensures I can complete 95% of my planned business and leisure trips. If I wanted to improve on that then I would not hesitate to up the game and get an IR.
You both extol the virtues of the 'real' IR rating versus the limited IMCr. However, in my experience the 'paltry' 20 hours a year manual IMC flying exceeds that of many jet jockey chums of mine who point out that their company policy is to conduct the entire commercial flight on autopilot . . . especially if the conditions are bad. So although the two of you have creased up with laughter, I actually think my instrument skills compare quite favorably with many of my IR friends.
. . . .. and Stellair - I am gutted that you won't be joining our club. What a loss
The safe IMCR pilots are the guys that go out and practice, practice, practice and 20hrs a year is not practice
It is not my objective to fly in conditions that require ILSs down to 200'. I am happy to stick with 500' or thereabouts as that ensures I can complete 95% of my planned business and leisure trips. If I wanted to improve on that then I would not hesitate to up the game and get an IR.
You both extol the virtues of the 'real' IR rating versus the limited IMCr. However, in my experience the 'paltry' 20 hours a year manual IMC flying exceeds that of many jet jockey chums of mine who point out that their company policy is to conduct the entire commercial flight on autopilot . . . especially if the conditions are bad. So although the two of you have creased up with laughter, I actually think my instrument skills compare quite favorably with many of my IR friends.
. . . .. and Stellair - I am gutted that you won't be joining our club. What a loss
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry what part of my post prompted you make yet another personal attack on me?
Exactly my point I was merely pointing out the difference in use between the IMCR and the IR holder.
You really are a cocky ****. I also gave the METAR and pointed out it was a perfectly OK day for an IMCR holder, yet no one wanted to go flying.
I don't fly around the 'cabbage patch' I have better things to do with my time. I went flying because I had a meeting and I am curious to know what allows you to judge what aircraft I flew as I have a multi engine IR......
You really need to understand that each has its own use, and each in turn is potentially as good, or bad, as the pilot using it.
You said that yesterday and I let it go.
I don't fly around the 'cabbage patch' I have better things to do with my time. I went flying because I had a meeting and I am curious to know what allows you to judge what aircraft I flew as I have a multi engine IR......
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again I would ask the question as to how this became an IR vs IMC slag match when the thread started by asking about EASA and IMC tickets?
IO and BoseX have made some sensible comments.
IO and BoseX have made some sensible comments.
Last edited by stellair; 26th Jan 2008 at 07:01.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know full well that I was referring to the IMCR in it's CURRENT form which is what all of these discussions revolve around saving. I was also making the point that the rating has not been around for 50 years.
As a matter of fact, however, I didn't know that you/AOPA would argue the safety case based only on the more recent introduction of the 15-hour IMCR course that extended IMCR priviliges to include (limited) IMC access to controlled airspace. Nor would I consider that to be a sensible stance.
If that is considered to be the relevant time frame, however, I would point out that AOPA's own submission to EASA is consequently in error. The IMCR in its current form has been around since March 1981, which is 26 years not the >30 quoted by AOPA. Overall though, including in its previous guise, the IMCR has been enhancing PPL safety in the UK for 38 years.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Islander, it seems you are indeed looking for a spat dragging up a comment from several pages ago that has been discussed to death.
The AOPA submission is correct. It gives the correct number of years. It does not get dragged down in idle irrelevant history nor try to claim that the rating has been around since the wright brothers..... 38 years is not 50 years is it?
I do not see the relevance of your comment. The IMCR as it stands NOW is what needs to be preserved or are you suggesting we take it back to 10 hrs?
Anyway as I have said several posts ago, I am done arguing AOPA's case on here.
The AOPA submission is correct. It gives the correct number of years. It does not get dragged down in idle irrelevant history nor try to claim that the rating has been around since the wright brothers..... 38 years is not 50 years is it?
I do not see the relevance of your comment. The IMCR as it stands NOW is what needs to be preserved or are you suggesting we take it back to 10 hrs?
Anyway as I have said several posts ago, I am done arguing AOPA's case on here.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stellair
My point exactly . . . so your conjecture throughout this thread that IMCr is not for 'real' pilots (but simply for getting stupid PPL mutts out of sticky situations) is also wide of the mark.
Sure you guys at Air Atlantique do some impressive hands-on IR work - probably more than most - but that doesn't make the IMCr a waste of space. The rating is absolutely fine for my business and private use and, unless it gets binned, I have no need to upgrade to an IR. Horses for courses
Don't assume how people operate, you'd be suprised,
Sure you guys at Air Atlantique do some impressive hands-on IR work - probably more than most - but that doesn't make the IMCr a waste of space. The rating is absolutely fine for my business and private use and, unless it gets binned, I have no need to upgrade to an IR. Horses for courses
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drambuster, again go back and read my posts! I think it is vital for all PPLs to have an IMC, and what a superb rating to have available.
For once you have said something sensible....horses for courses. Absolutely.....
I originally felt the need to post on this thread to address a comment about the nasty old French and EASA that was incorrect. Somehow it turned into a battle about IR vs IMC..........Stupid .
For once you have said something sensible....horses for courses. Absolutely.....
I originally felt the need to post on this thread to address a comment about the nasty old French and EASA that was incorrect. Somehow it turned into a battle about IR vs IMC..........Stupid .
Last edited by stellair; 26th Jan 2008 at 07:03.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no practical difference between the IMCR and the IR, a few years down the road, within the limits of their respective privileges.
It all comes down to currency on type, currency on type, currency on type, and whether the man has the fund$ to get his hands on a decent plane. And you are only ever as good as your last flight.
The two training products are aimed at different markets and this is what results in one having often ropey currency - lack of time/money to fly and lack of access to a decent IFR plane.
Whereas somebody with an IR will either be using it on their own substantial flying budget, will be getting someone else to pay for it all, or will let it lapse.
Almost nobody will do an IR to fly rented spamcans. Most are illegal for IFR in CAS anyway.
Incidentally 20hrs/year instrument flight is plenty and is far more than the vast majority of IRs get. Most IFR flight is in VMC anyway, and most is on autopilot. If I was flying 500hrs/year (which is at the limit of what is possible while having any kind of life) and all of it on airways flights, I would not be logging as much as 20hrs/year instrument flight. Not HONESTLY.
The more clever you are in the weather/route planning, and/or the more powerful plane you fly, the less instrument time you will log.
Hilariously, the pilots who log the most instrument time are
a) pilots of unpressurised public transports (Trilanders and such) who fly at ~ FL100 max, and in bad weather they either fly in IMC (plenty of sick bags get used then) or they scud run the knackered old dogs over the sea at 700ft, all nice cosy CAA authorised stuff which is exactly what private IFR pilots try damn hard to avoid doing by flying VMC on top on oxygen in sunshine
b) pilots of > 1999kg piston twins who fly "VFR"
to avoid IFR charges - one often can't get to VMC on top while VFR because one can't get the clearance into CAS, so this kind of flying is often sitting in the muck the whole way
Pot and kettle come to mind when I read ostensibly professional pilots knocking somebody here.
It all comes down to currency on type, currency on type, currency on type, and whether the man has the fund$ to get his hands on a decent plane. And you are only ever as good as your last flight.
The two training products are aimed at different markets and this is what results in one having often ropey currency - lack of time/money to fly and lack of access to a decent IFR plane.
Whereas somebody with an IR will either be using it on their own substantial flying budget, will be getting someone else to pay for it all, or will let it lapse.
Almost nobody will do an IR to fly rented spamcans. Most are illegal for IFR in CAS anyway.
Incidentally 20hrs/year instrument flight is plenty and is far more than the vast majority of IRs get. Most IFR flight is in VMC anyway, and most is on autopilot. If I was flying 500hrs/year (which is at the limit of what is possible while having any kind of life) and all of it on airways flights, I would not be logging as much as 20hrs/year instrument flight. Not HONESTLY.
The more clever you are in the weather/route planning, and/or the more powerful plane you fly, the less instrument time you will log.
Hilariously, the pilots who log the most instrument time are
a) pilots of unpressurised public transports (Trilanders and such) who fly at ~ FL100 max, and in bad weather they either fly in IMC (plenty of sick bags get used then) or they scud run the knackered old dogs over the sea at 700ft, all nice cosy CAA authorised stuff which is exactly what private IFR pilots try damn hard to avoid doing by flying VMC on top on oxygen in sunshine
b) pilots of > 1999kg piston twins who fly "VFR"
to avoid IFR charges - one often can't get to VMC on top while VFR because one can't get the clearance into CAS, so this kind of flying is often sitting in the muck the whole wayPot and kettle come to mind when I read ostensibly professional pilots knocking somebody here.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How anyone can claim they are current as an Instrument pilot on 20hrs in a YEAR is beyond me.............
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The average IMCR holder is a club flyer, operating from VFR airfields in ill equipped aircraft. So to try and compare an IMCR holder to an IR holder is not smart.
I flew yesterday, no one else at my airfield did they sat and ate chips and talked flying as the weather was 'crap'........ Most of them IMCR holders.
I flew yesterday, no one else at my airfield did they sat and ate chips and talked flying as the weather was 'crap'........ Most of them IMCR holders.
I just cant get too grips with the inconsistancy.
It was you who just said the weather was crap. Now the weather is either crap or it is not. Perhaps if you have an IMCr it is a bit more crap than if you have an IR?
.. .. .. then there is the average IMCr holder. I dont think the rating has much to do with what aircraft the pilot owns or rents. I suspect that has a lot more to do with how deep his pockets are, so how that runs on into comparing someone with an IMCr and an IR I dont know?
Even if there was the casue and effect you suggest, firstly it would be meaningless because the population of owner operator IRated pilots is so small and secondly if they can afford the cost of the IR they can afford the cost of a more expensive aircraft.
.. .. .. in your contest a friend of mine flew today in a 152. The weather really was crap. He was also the only person flying. He doesnt have an IR. So what does that make him - an IMCr holder with bar or an idiot?
I get the impression that you dont understand the flying the average pilot does - that is all - and for that reason although I know you suggest otherwise I dont think you really understand the importance of the IMCr.
I have read most of your posts. I am sorry if you see it differently, but I can only tell you that candidly that is how I feel.