IMCR - The Petition - Please give your support
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, that should have been "anyone with everyday, practical experience of the Rating and its uses........"
I realise that the thousand hours I spent mooching around in the clag before the IR does not give me any practical understanding of everyday use of the rating or that Pam Campbell who along with her late husband have nearly 40 years of direct involvement with it.
Such is life.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Bose probably has a very good understanding of the issues.
What is less clear is:
how well the issues were presented,
what evidence was provided by the representative bodies with regard to the strength of feeling amoung their members,
what efforts were made to educate those involved (for example only one of the 32 members of the ECA probably has any understanding of the IMC rating).
It may be idealistic, but transparency and accountability are virtues, the lack off makes it impossible to assess the quality of representation and inevitably leads to doubts.
If that can not be seen by the numerous comments here and elsewhere then I suspect you need to get the eye content of your medical reviewed.
What is less clear is:
how well the issues were presented,
what evidence was provided by the representative bodies with regard to the strength of feeling amoung their members,
what efforts were made to educate those involved (for example only one of the 32 members of the ECA probably has any understanding of the IMC rating).
It may be idealistic, but transparency and accountability are virtues, the lack off makes it impossible to assess the quality of representation and inevitably leads to doubts.
If that can not be seen by the numerous comments here and elsewhere then I suspect you need to get the eye content of your medical reviewed.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
It may be idealistic, but transparency and accountability are virtues, the lack off makes it impossible to assess the quality of representation and inevitably leads to doubts.
Have you actually read your UKIMC website?
Where on that will I find out (transparently, naturally) what you are actually going to do about the IMC rating?
There is a link to a petition (my views on that folly are already known), and there is some "information" about the IMC rating - but other than a request to "join the campaign" there is precious little information (transparent or otherwise) about what the campaign is, what its aims are, what it is going to do (other than whine a lot) to achieve those aims, or anything else for that matter.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a link to a petition (my views on that folly are already known),
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Browsing through Pilot today and their short piece on the IMC rating was very pessimistic, it's difficult to believe some NAAs could be so stupid ...but to be fair when several EU countries don't even allow IMC outside CAS I can kind of see why they don't care for it.
Europe.
...but to be fair when several EU countries don't even allow IMC outside CAS I can kind of see why they don't care for it.Europe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle
Ah yes,
that would be bringing the attention of this issue to many thousands of pilots,
stimulating a huge amount of interest and debate,
providing a forum for people to register their support, and even more importantly, to help us co-ordinate the campaign
providing relevant links to those concerned with this issue.
and, bearing in mind the campaign has hardly being going for a month, a lot more to come.
I am so sorry we have not achieved more in the first month.
Never the less, I shall thank those good folk who have given their time and put their hand in their pockets for nothing, and everyone who has emailed us pledging their support, thanking us for bringing this matter to their attention and asking how they can help.
Thank you.
Ah yes,
that would be bringing the attention of this issue to many thousands of pilots,
stimulating a huge amount of interest and debate,
providing a forum for people to register their support, and even more importantly, to help us co-ordinate the campaign
providing relevant links to those concerned with this issue.
and, bearing in mind the campaign has hardly being going for a month, a lot more to come.
I am so sorry we have not achieved more in the first month.
Never the less, I shall thank those good folk who have given their time and put their hand in their pockets for nothing, and everyone who has emailed us pledging their support, thanking us for bringing this matter to their attention and asking how they can help.
Thank you.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, interest and debate was happening here and at FLYER.
I say again: Where on the UKIMC website will I find out (transparently, naturally) what you are actually going to do about the IMC rating?
Not rhetoric about what others may or may not have done, but what you (your "campaign") are going to do.
Not what you "have achieved in a short period of time"
What you are going to do
Er... Thank you.
I say again: Where on the UKIMC website will I find out (transparently, naturally) what you are actually going to do about the IMC rating?
Not rhetoric about what others may or may not have done, but what you (your "campaign") are going to do.
Not what you "have achieved in a short period of time"
What you are going to do
Er... Thank you.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Contacttower
...but to be fair when several EU countries don't even allow IMC outside CAS I can kind of see why they don't care for it.
I assume you mean they don't allow IFR outside CAS?
An observation from the cheap seats
Originally Posted by bose-x
You put yourself forward as an (the?) AOPA UK representative in the fight to maintain the IMC-R, but the majority of your pronouncements:
(a) Show barely concealed disdain for the rating, as well as those that make full use of it.
(b) Actively hinder a well-intentioned campaign that has raised the profile of the threat far higher, and far faster, within the GA community than any of the formal organisations have achieved.
(c) Snipe from the sidelines about the campaign's methods, but add zero constructive suggestions about how to achieve the desired results more effectively. Whilst at the same time suggesting that only AOPA knows how best to deal with the threat, whilst simultaneously declining to explain HOW you/they will actually do this.
(d) Are juvenile and disrespectful in your attitude to others who have the same aims that you supposedly claim.
Please, either be helpful and constructive or put a sock in it.
Other posters (and I don't mean those just registered - or the troll that is 'rustle'):
If I'm off-beam with this viewpoint, you will let me know, won't you?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle
1. We have the support of two Euro MPs who are closely involved with this matter. We will be working with them to ensure that we present a strong case for the retention of the rating. We will also be working with them to ensure we are able to keep people abreast of the consultation process and what they can do to ensure their views are taken into account,
2. We are in correspondence with the ECA who it would seem have objected to the retention of the rating with a view to better understanding their objections and their understanding our position,
3. We are working with a post graduate at Cranfield with a view to producing a paper which will examine the safety arguments in support of the IMC rating,
4. We are in correspondence with on of the largest GA aircraft manufactureres in Europe who are strong supporters of the IMC rating and for whom the UK is a very important market,
5. We have the support of a number of the UK GA magazines and we have already worked with one of these magazines who will be featuring this issue shortly.
As time, energy and resources permit I have no doubt we will cast the net as far as we can.
1. We have the support of two Euro MPs who are closely involved with this matter. We will be working with them to ensure that we present a strong case for the retention of the rating. We will also be working with them to ensure we are able to keep people abreast of the consultation process and what they can do to ensure their views are taken into account,
2. We are in correspondence with the ECA who it would seem have objected to the retention of the rating with a view to better understanding their objections and their understanding our position,
3. We are working with a post graduate at Cranfield with a view to producing a paper which will examine the safety arguments in support of the IMC rating,
4. We are in correspondence with on of the largest GA aircraft manufactureres in Europe who are strong supporters of the IMC rating and for whom the UK is a very important market,
5. We have the support of a number of the UK GA magazines and we have already worked with one of these magazines who will be featuring this issue shortly.
As time, energy and resources permit I have no doubt we will cast the net as far as we can.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So for exactly the same thing you criticise AOPA and others; you are guilty of failing to mention any of that on your website.
I know some dickheads on here are too stupid to understand, but I'm glad that by asking a couple of questions I now understand some of what you might actually be doing.
Thanks for answering
One day you'll thank me and bose for asking awkward questions here before you have to answer them elsewhere - trust me on this.
I know some dickheads on here are too stupid to understand, but I'm glad that by asking a couple of questions I now understand some of what you might actually be doing.
Thanks for answering
One day you'll thank me and bose for asking awkward questions here before you have to answer them elsewhere - trust me on this.
Last edited by rustle; 10th Jan 2008 at 21:18.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle
I think there is a difference already mentioned - we have been at this for just over a month - Christmas has come and gone in between. As you know it takes time and effort to have come this far. It is to be regreted we came to it so late.
Keeping everyone informed of what is taking place is terribly important, however less than a month is very little time in which to move these issues forward.
Never the less, I think you will find we already have more on the web site than any of the representative bodies.
I will thank you and Bose, and any one else for that matter, for asking awkward questions.
It is unfortunate that here, and elsewhere, there are posts which appear to have an alternative motive.
Hodie is right to draw attention to this and I think reflects the views of many.
There is a fine line been constructive comment, awkward questioning and what else has taken place.
I the first, and 
the second.
I think there is a difference already mentioned - we have been at this for just over a month - Christmas has come and gone in between. As you know it takes time and effort to have come this far. It is to be regreted we came to it so late.
Keeping everyone informed of what is taking place is terribly important, however less than a month is very little time in which to move these issues forward.
Never the less, I think you will find we already have more on the web site than any of the representative bodies.
I will thank you and Bose, and any one else for that matter, for asking awkward questions.
It is unfortunate that here, and elsewhere, there are posts which appear to have an alternative motive.
Hodie is right to draw attention to this and I think reflects the views of many.
There is a fine line been constructive comment, awkward questioning and what else has taken place.
I
the first, and the second.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose-x, you do realise, I suppose, that your attitude to the IMC-R in these public forums actually brings AOPA UK into disrepute (As well as yourself)?
You put yourself forward as an (the?) AOPA UK representative in the fight to maintain the IMC-R, but the majority of your pronouncements:
(a) Show barely concealed disdain for the rating, as well as those that make full use of it.
(b) Actively hinder a well-intentioned campaign that has raised the profile of the threat far higher, and far faster, within the GA community than any of the formal organisations have achieved.
(c) Snipe from the sidelines about the campaign's methods, but add zero constructive suggestions about how to achieve the desired results more effectively. Whilst at the same time suggesting that only AOPA knows how best to deal with the threat, whilst simultaneously declining to explain HOW you/they will actually do this.
(d) Are juvenile and disrespectful in your attitude to others who have the same aims that you supposedly claim.
Please, either be helpful and constructive or put a sock in it.
You put yourself forward as an (the?) AOPA UK representative in the fight to maintain the IMC-R, but the majority of your pronouncements:
(a) Show barely concealed disdain for the rating, as well as those that make full use of it.
(b) Actively hinder a well-intentioned campaign that has raised the profile of the threat far higher, and far faster, within the GA community than any of the formal organisations have achieved.
(c) Snipe from the sidelines about the campaign's methods, but add zero constructive suggestions about how to achieve the desired results more effectively. Whilst at the same time suggesting that only AOPA knows how best to deal with the threat, whilst simultaneously declining to explain HOW you/they will actually do this.
(d) Are juvenile and disrespectful in your attitude to others who have the same aims that you supposedly claim.
Please, either be helpful and constructive or put a sock in it.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh god..... I don't know why I bother....
Thanks for your destructive input hoody, you have just done to me exactly what you were deriding me for....
I have never claimed the job should be left to AOPA. I have repeatedly stated that my views are my own and not of AOPA. If I viewed the rating with the disdain you claim I would not have bothered to do anything to save it.
You have not bothered to read my posts or understand the reason why Rustle and I have pushed so hard to have the campaign explained.
I have explained the AOPA stance and even published against my better judgement part of the AOPA case.
A few pages on an anonymous website and a useless petition do not a campaign make. AOPA sit on the committees and provide direct input something as a member I am satisfied with.
Fujis campaign has lacked substance and I have merely questioned the direction. It has slowly illicited responses and I have publicly wished him well with it's success.
So I would respectfully suggest you crawl back into whatever hole you popped out of and keep your opinions about me to yourself. After all entering into a fight with me will just detracted from Fuji's campaign and you would not like to do that would you?????
Thanks for your destructive input hoody, you have just done to me exactly what you were deriding me for....
I have never claimed the job should be left to AOPA. I have repeatedly stated that my views are my own and not of AOPA. If I viewed the rating with the disdain you claim I would not have bothered to do anything to save it.
You have not bothered to read my posts or understand the reason why Rustle and I have pushed so hard to have the campaign explained.
I have explained the AOPA stance and even published against my better judgement part of the AOPA case.
A few pages on an anonymous website and a useless petition do not a campaign make. AOPA sit on the committees and provide direct input something as a member I am satisfied with.
Fujis campaign has lacked substance and I have merely questioned the direction. It has slowly illicited responses and I have publicly wished him well with it's success.
So I would respectfully suggest you crawl back into whatever hole you popped out of and keep your opinions about me to yourself. After all entering into a fight with me will just detracted from Fuji's campaign and you would not like to do that would you?????
Originally Posted by bose-x
You have not bothered to read my posts
Originally Posted by bose-x
So I would respectfully suggest you crawl back into whatever hole you popped out of and keep your opinions about me to yourself.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose
I think it is important, as you suggest, to fairly reflect each others views.
You feel that a web site and a petition do not make a campaign.
However, I have said previously, that many of the changes "proposed" by EASA have not been sufficiently well publicised, nor has any measure been taken of the views of private pilots.
If it achieves nothing more, this campaign set out to bring this issue firmly to the attention of a great many pilots and other interested parties, and has demonstrated the strength of support for retaining the IMC rating.
I believe this lends a great deal of credibility to those involved with the committee proceedings in terms of their ability to demonstrate the extent of the support among those they represent for retaining the IMC rating.
I have made no bones in the past that in this important regard I believe we have been let down by some of the representative bodies involved in this process. In terms of their ability to present the case for retaining the IMC rating I find it difficult to judge how effective they are because of the limited amount of information they appear willing to share. For that reason I think we all find it very difficult to judge whether we are in “safe hands” or not.
I appreciate this is a difficult perspective for you, because you are so closely involved with the issues that you have a far better appreciation of what is taking place than the rest of us. That is the danger of looking from the inside out - a danger of which I trust you are aware.
We all need to listen to the views of the private pilot community - the community of which we are apart. We may not like what they have to say but after all it is they we represent. If the message is that we need to communicate better then I believe it is well worth heeding that message - after all, we are all in this together - arent we?
I think it is important, as you suggest, to fairly reflect each others views.
You feel that a web site and a petition do not make a campaign.
However, I have said previously, that many of the changes "proposed" by EASA have not been sufficiently well publicised, nor has any measure been taken of the views of private pilots.
If it achieves nothing more, this campaign set out to bring this issue firmly to the attention of a great many pilots and other interested parties, and has demonstrated the strength of support for retaining the IMC rating.
I believe this lends a great deal of credibility to those involved with the committee proceedings in terms of their ability to demonstrate the extent of the support among those they represent for retaining the IMC rating.
I have made no bones in the past that in this important regard I believe we have been let down by some of the representative bodies involved in this process. In terms of their ability to present the case for retaining the IMC rating I find it difficult to judge how effective they are because of the limited amount of information they appear willing to share. For that reason I think we all find it very difficult to judge whether we are in “safe hands” or not.
I appreciate this is a difficult perspective for you, because you are so closely involved with the issues that you have a far better appreciation of what is taking place than the rest of us. That is the danger of looking from the inside out - a danger of which I trust you are aware.
We all need to listen to the views of the private pilot community - the community of which we are apart. We may not like what they have to say but after all it is they we represent. If the message is that we need to communicate better then I believe it is well worth heeding that message - after all, we are all in this together - arent we?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find some of the posts on this thread very disappointing and reminiscent of a school playground. Whatever the truth of all the hard work and effort that goes on in committee meetings and behind closed doors, with regard to this thread I find myself in agreement with hoodie.
Hoodie, you are indeed correct.
Bose-x, I'm afraid you are losing all credibility with your intemperate rants.
I have very good feedback from the last EASA meeting on 21-ish Dec and was disappointed at the IAOPA level of input towards the UK IMCR.
Re. the IMC outside CAS, that is precisely why I've used the term 'permitted' airspace, since that is not the same across all of Euroland.
Keep up the good work, Fuji!
Incidentally, bose-x, upon which AOPA Committee do you sit? Instructor Committee, FTPG or which?
Bose-x, I'm afraid you are losing all credibility with your intemperate rants.
I have very good feedback from the last EASA meeting on 21-ish Dec and was disappointed at the IAOPA level of input towards the UK IMCR.
Re. the IMC outside CAS, that is precisely why I've used the term 'permitted' airspace, since that is not the same across all of Euroland.
Keep up the good work, Fuji!
Incidentally, bose-x, upon which AOPA Committee do you sit? Instructor Committee, FTPG or which?
