EASA? What a joke!

[S-Works]

As you want mate, I don't give a damn!

You twist everything I say to your own end. Even your last post.

I have flown this morning, 8000m FEW1200ft, BKN1900 170/14kts RAIN a perfect flying day for those with an IMCR yet I heard no one else airborne. This is the same pretty much on every other crappy day that I go flying(and there are rather a lot of them).

I quite clearly gave the metar. the weather was crap, but thats what an IMCR is for.......

Fee free to twist the above to your own needs.

At the end of the day, I no longer care, you know why? Because I can go where I want and do what I want. It's you thats losing because you can't concentrate on the job in hand rather to busy trying to stick the knife into me.


You are quite right, things are changing..........

You are not still on that old kit are you Bosey.

Its all glass these days - not a clock in site - other than the one on your wrist. Tapes are what you need to be looking for.

Its all changing you need to get up yourself up to date.

[rustle]

Ignore her, bose mate: She ain't worth it.

[Contacttower]

Oh dear is all I can say....

I started this thread attacking EASA...who are kind of enemy number one at the moment...and yet despite this the thread still manages to descend like all the other threads on this topic.

It wouldn't suprise me if some EASA people were reading this...and laughing...a lot.

[Fuji Abound]

Well I am not going to give up, so for those who dont like it, get out the fire.

I would sign up if it was not factually incorrect.

If you want to get support for something you need to state the facts correctly......

So there you go, you have got the whole post this time.

Let me sum up what I am trying to get over.

The IMCr is really important. It is worth fighting for because I really believe it makes for a safer pilot. I dont care if you have an IR and IMCr or neither it is worth fighting for. In my view sign the petition because you believe in what it seeks to achieve. Who really cares if the IMCr is 50, 40 or 30 years old.

I am really glad to see a lot already have. Is everyone who has signed - wrong? Should we have preferred to see no names on it because of a single inconsequential error?

and on the AOPA issue, I personally think AOPA have done a bad job on this issue. The reason I go on saying so is because I think it is important to examine the evidence and decide whether we should leave this to AOPA. I honestly believe I and many others have set out the evidence.

To repeat myself if many of your members are raising the said same issues on your own bulleting board I personally think their comments should be taken serioulsy. I would expect to see evidence of that, and I havent - sorry again, but that is the way I feel. Show me the evidence and I will change my tune - happily I might add!

You may disagree. It makes me no less of a friend of yours because you do.

[S-Works]

you ain't my friend thats a fact.

you are truly as mad as a hatter.....

[Fuji Abound]

As I said on the other thread -

clearly we disagree, so I am going to leave it at that.

[The Flying Pram]

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.

DFC, From the "Microlight Pilot's Handbook" (the U.K. "bible" for microlight students):

Types of Group D Licence

Restricted - A minimum of 15 hrs flying instruction of which 7 hrs must be solo. The solo hours must be completed within the 9 month period prior to applying for the licence.

Unrestricted - In addition obtain a further 10 hrs flying time of which at least 5 hrs must be navigation training under instructor supervision.
Complete 2 solo X country flights of at least 40nm over different routes.
During each flight an out landing must be made at least 15nm from the take off point.

[wsmempson]

I haven't read all of this, but it looks like a bloody good punch-up; Has Sternone been posting again???

[Contacttower]

Has Sternone been posting again???

No, these guys make sternone look like an angel.

[DFC]

Flying Pram,

Long time since I heard anyone talking of the group D licence.

Thanks for confirming that there is absolutely no dual training required to remove the restriction. A few hours solo with a few short hops to and from nearby fields get the ticket.

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with it, but others should not complain that they will have to share the sky with pilots who have very few hours training before obtaining a licence.

--------------------------

Getting back to the EASA situation.

The UK industry has so many holes in it's foot thatit is about to fall off.

Isn't the UK industry the one and same one who said that no one wanted a JAR-PPL and everyone who was not going to fly professionally would only want an NPPL....to which you can not add an IMC rating or Night qualification.

If the IMC is so essential for safety among the UK pilot population then why has the UK industry with the backing of AOPA decided that not only does the NPPL not need an IMC rating they should not be allowed to get one.

Is the UK weather different in some way when NPPL holders are flying?

The biggest growth area in the UK recreational pilot flying is microlight flying which of course is limited by both the NPPL and the aircraft certification to Day VFR.............is the weather diferent when flying a microlight along at 120 to 140 Knots?

AOPA UK have in this case to deal with people who do not recognise the old boy's squadron tie brigade and who know a thing or 20 about flying. try telling someone from Ireland that the UK has worse weather or someone from Switzerland, Norway, Sweeden, Iceland etc etc etc.

Regards,

DFC

[Crash one]

Do forum members have to buy arse kicking boots or can they be rented like ice skates?

Edit:
DFC
I agree with that, It is also not possible to get a seaplane rating on a NPPL (A) but is allowed on a NPPL (Microlight)

[Fuji Abound]

AOPA UK have in this case to deal with people who do not recognise the old boy's squadron tie brigade and who know a thing or 20 about flying.

I am not certain of the point you make?

try telling someone from Ireland that the UK has worse weather or someone from Switzerland, Norway, Sweeden, Iceland etc etc

I am not sure whether you intend this as a critcism of the UK seeking to maintain the IMCr? I do know that there are many pilots in Europe who are envious of the IMCr. I also know of some pilots who do not understand its purposes. When they do they join the ranks of the envious.

Surely better to have a rating pilots can obtain than to use France as a better example where the number of pilots with an IR is equally small but those with out fly in IMC regardless?

In a perfect world perhaps anyone ever wanting to fly in cloud would have an IR, would fly a minimium of 50 hours a year, and would be ramp checked every month. We live in an imperfect world. It is knowing where to draw the line. The fact that the safety record of the IMCr is so good, would suggest it is a pretty good place to draw the line.

Why is it in this debate so few people turn to the evidence? So much is based on those who would say it is inherently unsafe. Why? My gut tells me so, or if I spend £X on an IR then it must be unsafe. Demonstrate that it is unsafe by reference to the evidence accumulated over the last 40 years - in short put up or shut up.

On your issue of the weather I dont think the weather has anything to do with it.

I think the IMCr has a lot more to do with the foresight of those that recognised the need for the rating and its value. It just happens to be lucky that it was our CAA who decided to adopt the IMCr.

The biggest growth area in the UK recreational pilot flying is microlight flying which of course is limited by both the NPPL and the aircraft certification to Day VFR.............is the weather diferent when flying a microlight along at 120 to 140 Knots?

No but it would seem to be contrary to the whole concept of a microlight that you would fit it with IFR kit costing the best part of £40,000.

If the IMC is so essential for safety among the UK pilot population then why has the UK industry with the backing of AOPA decided that not only does the NPPL not need an IMC rating they should not be allowed to get one.

That's a good question. The NPPL is perhaps ideally not seen as an end in itself. If you want an IMCr or an IR why not remove the restriction by converting to a PPL?

Is the IMCr so essentail to the safety of UK pilots?

Probably not - but, safety from weather is assured if you are selective about the conditions in which you fly, but if you are this hugely restricts the days on which you can fly. Weather forecasting by definition is not an exact science and nor is pilot judgement. Fly on days when the forecast is CAVOK and hopefully the weather will never be an issue. Fly on days when the weather is broken at 2,000 and it might be.

Pilots that comlete an IMCr course should be able to safetly demonstrate to the examiner that they meet the requirements of issue.

Much is made that the standard of training and examination is poor. If that is so dont use that to attack the rating, rather deal with the poor standard amoung professional pilots.

[Contacttower]

AOPA UK have in this case to deal with people who do not recognise the old boy's squadron tie brigade and who know a thing or 20 about flying. try telling someone from Ireland that the UK has worse weather or someone from Switzerland, Norway, Sweeden, Iceland etc etc etc.

Ah well, I suppose you are sort of right DFC, but that doesn't stop me hating the whole EASA project. The CAA in this country, despite how much we complain, is a good organisation which while hasn't done a great job as far as promoting GA is concerned is thoroughly fit for purpose as far as maintaining standards in safety...I don't believe EASA are...hence why I started the thread.



It was good while it lasted....

[Islander2]

Bose-x said:

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?

I was merely observing that the IMCR safety case is primarily one of reducing CFIT and loss of control accidents, and in that respect the entire 38 years history of the rating is relevant.

But you raise an interesting question.

Amongst the people actively involved with the authorities on this subject, you are by no means alone in appearing to believe it's already a lost cause. It seems likely, from what's been 'reported', that 1) the airline pilot lobby will prevail in preventing an EASA-wide IMCR (which is presumably a controlled-airspace issue, first and foremost); and 2) the objectives of the 'European Project' will prevail to prevent any national variations.

If the IMCR is otherwise to be lost, do you know if consideration been given to a fall-back position corresponding to the 1970-1981 IMCR, whereby the holder of the rating gets IMC privileges OCAS and special VFR privileges in controlled airspace? Maybe that's something the airline-pilot lobby would be more likely to accept, and could form the basis of a European-wide rating? Not ideal, from a UK perspective, but nothing like as disastrous to UK GA as the loss of the rating in its entirety. Does this have any merit?

[DFC]

Fuji,

Surely better to have a rating pilots can obtain than to use France as a better example where the number of pilots with an IR is equally small but those with out fly in IMC regardless?
............

in short put up or shut up

Go on then..........tell us that there are French VFR pilots flying IFR in IMC.

With microlights, it is more a case of we can fly on as many days as we want to as recreational pilots and we would rather have the fuel making up the max weight.

Have a look at these $3500 units - http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/...ts.html#eflite

Even the UK CAA was going to be having a long look at the IMC rating but EASA maye have helped it save face. Do you think that the CAA were going to keep the IMC rating while the Daventry CTA was made class D and much of the current class A was designated D or even E?

Have a vote among the UK recreational pilot population........would you prefer to retain the IMC rating and have large expansion in Class A airspace or would you prefer to have lower controlled enroute airspace mainly class D and E?

I can see what all the glider pilots, the NPPL holders, the hang glider pilots, the powered parachute pilots, and so on who make up the vast majority would vote for.

Not knocking AOPA but one must remember that they represent only a very small portion of UK recreational pilots.

I also struggle to reconcile "recreational pilot" with "I use my PPL for business and the IMCr helps when the weather is poor". Perhaps in the UK business is the new recreation?

------------

ContactTower,

If "Safety is no accident" then are incidents just bad luck ?

Regards,

DFC

[Contacttower]

If "Safety is no accident" then are incidents just bad luck ?

Perhaps you should ask the CAA?

[Fuji Abound]

Have a look at these $3500 units

They are not approved.

Even the UK CAA was going to be having a long look at the IMC rating but EASA maye have helped it save face. Do you think that the CAA were going to keep the IMC rating while the Daventry CTA was made class D and much of the current class A was designated D or even E?

Yes

I also struggle to reconcile "recreational pilot" with "I use my PPL for business and the IMCr helps when the weather is poor". Perhaps in the UK business is the new recreation?

I dont know where the term recreational has come from - PPL are not recreational pilots they are private pilots.

Some interesting points, but I dont think they stack up.

[S-Works]

Explain why you don't think they stack up then?

[DFC]

They are not approved.

Do you believe that the majority of aircraft used for IMC training and by those that use their IMC ratings are fully IFR approved according the the full EASA requirements?
I can say that most schools in the UK use non-FM immune aircraft to train for IMC ratings and most pilots exercising the privileges of the IMC do not fly FM immune aircraft. Never mind that, there will be many flying round in cloud with no mode S long after it is required.
You might also like to look up the requirements for equipment on home-built or microlight aircraft to be approved...........none.
I may have been round for a long time but at the end of the day I am simply a pilot and do not have the argumentative skills and the backing of serious research and legal teams such as the NAAs do but I can fairly well rubbish much of the pro-imc rating arguments and plant plenty of doubt about the benifits of having it. If I can do that, what hope is there in using those arguments...........better arguments are required if there is to be any hope of success.
Regards,
DFC

[Fuji Abound]

Do you believe that the majority of aircraft used for IMC training and by those that use their IMC ratings are fully IFR approved according the the full EASA requirements?

What has that got to do with the IMC rating?

I can say that most schools in the UK use non-FM immune aircraft to train for IMC ratings and most pilots exercising the privileges of the IMC do not fly FM immune aircraft. Never mind that, there will be many flying round in cloud with no mode S long after it is required.

Again, what has that got to do with the IMC rating?

I can fairly well rubbish much of the pro-imc rating arguments and plant plenty of doubt about the benefits of having it.

Well I don’t believe you have presented any arguments that fit that requirement.

I am never the less interested to see if you can, because if there are any effective arguments these need to be addressed.

As you know the IMCr is an instrument rating. In itself it has nothing to do with the aircraft. An entirely separate issue is whether or not the aircraft complies with the legislation for IFR operations. I know of a number of pilots with IRs who operate Cirius - the aircraft concerned are not fitted with either a DME or NDB receiver. The rating does not secure any more or any less a commitment from the pilot to operate aircraft that are EASA IFR certified.

The key question is whether the training is adequate to enable pilots with an IMCr to use the rating safely within the constraints of the privileges. The best evidence for this is the safety record of pilot's with a current IMCr.