IMCR - The Petition - Please give your support
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great stuff but little to do with the IMC rating
Try a subscription to Private Eye you will understand me and my politics much better
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys are still missing the point. Just because the rating is worth saving does not make the means that are being pursued correct.
Being black and white with the attitude that you must sign if you support( even if you don't agree with the method) and if you don't sign you don't support it is very blinkered.
This is exactly the bureaucratic process that has gotten us into the situation in the first place. No preparation to find the middle ground.
Being black and white with the attitude that you must sign if you support( even if you don't agree with the method) and if you don't sign you don't support it is very blinkered.
This is exactly the bureaucratic process that has gotten us into the situation in the first place. No preparation to find the middle ground.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: northants
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graham Hill has signed it (posthumously I assume)
The Graham Hill I know is indeed well and still flying.
All this bickering about the IMCr, are we all on the same side I wonder.
Apart from this petition, if anyone has another way of saving the IMCr then please inform us.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this bickering about the IMCr, are we all on the same side I wonder.
GA in the UK does my head in sometimes....there is so much criticism, back stabbing, whispering behind peoples backs, that it is a wonder anyone ever gets a licence here......Oh well, perhaps it is time to apply for that Green Card....Bush will be gone soon......
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's that thing they say about committees?
I appreciate that there are people active within the AOPA, but I can't find hide nor hair within General Aviation magazine or the AOPA UK website of what's actually being done rather than 'it's at risk'.
I'm in the middle of doing my IMCr with the intent of using it in anger and maybe doing an IR later, but the organisation that I belong to doesn't seem to be telling me directly what they are up to if anything. I considered joining PPLIR but they don't seem any better either which is a surprise considering that the IMCr is the stepping stone for many people.
I'm in the middle of doing my IMCr with the intent of using it in anger and maybe doing an IR later, but the organisation that I belong to doesn't seem to be telling me directly what they are up to if anything. I considered joining PPLIR but they don't seem any better either which is a surprise considering that the IMCr is the stepping stone for many people.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rugby
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is exactly the bureaucratic process that has gotten us into the situation in the first place. No preparation to find the middle ground.
The only middle ground at the moment is that the IMCR will cease. ie: there is no middle ground or compromise on offer. so yes petitions, and letters to MP, MEP, EASA, CAA and pressure wherever it can be brought to bear until there is a reasonable option. To me the UK only IMCr is the middle ground.
I'm pretty sure if there is a chance of a Euro IR Lite that just isnt called the IMCr anymore but works elsewhere, that would work for a lot of people, but to compromise, surely it's necessary to understand what the compromise might be.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is amazing isn't it? It is like a school playground...."I'm not joining your petition, because you don't like mine, nah nah"........."I'm cleverer that you, you don't know what to write, I wouldn't have done it like that, I told you so"......etc....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree totally. Last week I asked the main protagonists to stop their bickering in public, and as I was posting it, I though......"This must be what school teachers feel lik
Similar but they get assaulted as well!
So, would this suit people as a 'Euro IRlite':
Objective:
1.0 To enable pilots to cope safely with non-VMC weather in EU airspace.
Privileges:
1.1 To fly IMC/IFR in permitted airspace (other than Class A).
1.2 To navigate the aircraft by sole reference to instruments under circumstances which require mandatory compliance with defined routes.
1.3 To fly instrument approach procedures for which they have logbook endorsements to instrument approach minima +200 ft for precision approaches and +250 ft for non-precision approaches.
Specific Exclusions:
2.1. No multi-pilot IMC rating – multi-pilot ratings must include an IR by default, as is current JAA practice.
2.2. No CAT II/IIIa/IIIb/IIIc approaches permitted.
2.3. No flight in Class A airspace which requires mandatory compliance with IFR.
Training:
3.1. At least 10 hours Basic Instrument Flight Module, common to the modular IR training.
3.2. At least 10 hours procedural instrument flight training, to consist of:
Module 1: 4 hours training in take-off, departure, en-route navigation and holding.
3.3. Any 2 of the following 4 modules:
Module 2: 3 hours training in precision approaches with pilot-interpreted guidance.
Module 3: 3 hours training in non-precision approaches with pilot-interpreted guidance in azimuth only.
Module 4: 3 hours training in precision or non-precision radar approaches, with guidance provided by an external controller.
Module 5: 3 hours training in approved RNAV/GNSS approaches.
3.4. All instrument approach flight training modules shall include:
3.4.1 Missed approach and go-around training.
3.4.2 Visual circuit flying under simulated conditions of low cloud and reduced visibility (600 ft cloudbase and 1800m horizontal in-flight visibility).
3.5. Additional training will be required if the test is to be undertaken in a multi-engine aircraft:
Module 6: 4 hours training in one-engine inoperative procedures relevant to all phases of flight (take-off, departure, en-route, approach and missed approach).
3.6. Training to be conducted:
3.6.1. By either:
3.6.1.1. A FI authorised under JAR-FCL or EASA-FCL whose privileges include instruction in applied instrument flying; or
3.6.1.2 An IRI authorised under JAR-FCL or EASA-FCL;
3.6.2. At an RF or FTO;
3.6.3 In suitably equipped aeroplanes or, as specified in para 3.7., an FNPT2 or FFS.
3.7. Of the required hours procedural instrument flight training, the following synthetic training may be conducted in FNPT 2 or FFS:
3.7.1. 2 of the 4 hours of Module 1; and
3.7.2. 2 of the 6 hours of Modules 2-5 .
Skill Test:
4.1. Skill Test shall be conducted by a FE or IRE authorised under JAR-FCL or EASA-FCL to include:
4.1.1. Full Panel Instrument Flying.
4.1.2. Limited (or Partial) Panel Instrument Flying.
4.1.3. Use of radio navigation aids for position fixing and en-route navigation.
4.1.4. Let down and approach procedures, to include one precision and one non-precision approach, of which at least one shall be pilot-interpreted and of which at least one shall be concluded by a missed approach and go-around.
4.1.5. Bad weather circuit.
4.1.6. Flight with asymmetric thrust (multi-engined aircraft only).
Objective:
1.0 To enable pilots to cope safely with non-VMC weather in EU airspace.
Privileges:
1.1 To fly IMC/IFR in permitted airspace (other than Class A).
1.2 To navigate the aircraft by sole reference to instruments under circumstances which require mandatory compliance with defined routes.
1.3 To fly instrument approach procedures for which they have logbook endorsements to instrument approach minima +200 ft for precision approaches and +250 ft for non-precision approaches.
Specific Exclusions:
2.1. No multi-pilot IMC rating – multi-pilot ratings must include an IR by default, as is current JAA practice.
2.2. No CAT II/IIIa/IIIb/IIIc approaches permitted.
2.3. No flight in Class A airspace which requires mandatory compliance with IFR.
Training:
3.1. At least 10 hours Basic Instrument Flight Module, common to the modular IR training.
3.2. At least 10 hours procedural instrument flight training, to consist of:
Module 1: 4 hours training in take-off, departure, en-route navigation and holding.
3.3. Any 2 of the following 4 modules:
Module 2: 3 hours training in precision approaches with pilot-interpreted guidance.
Module 3: 3 hours training in non-precision approaches with pilot-interpreted guidance in azimuth only.
Module 4: 3 hours training in precision or non-precision radar approaches, with guidance provided by an external controller.
Module 5: 3 hours training in approved RNAV/GNSS approaches.
3.4. All instrument approach flight training modules shall include:
3.4.1 Missed approach and go-around training.
3.4.2 Visual circuit flying under simulated conditions of low cloud and reduced visibility (600 ft cloudbase and 1800m horizontal in-flight visibility).
3.5. Additional training will be required if the test is to be undertaken in a multi-engine aircraft:
Module 6: 4 hours training in one-engine inoperative procedures relevant to all phases of flight (take-off, departure, en-route, approach and missed approach).
3.6. Training to be conducted:
3.6.1. By either:
3.6.1.1. A FI authorised under JAR-FCL or EASA-FCL whose privileges include instruction in applied instrument flying; or
3.6.1.2 An IRI authorised under JAR-FCL or EASA-FCL;
3.6.2. At an RF or FTO;
3.6.3 In suitably equipped aeroplanes or, as specified in para 3.7., an FNPT2 or FFS.
3.7. Of the required hours procedural instrument flight training, the following synthetic training may be conducted in FNPT 2 or FFS:
3.7.1. 2 of the 4 hours of Module 1; and
3.7.2. 2 of the 6 hours of Modules 2-5 .
Skill Test:
4.1. Skill Test shall be conducted by a FE or IRE authorised under JAR-FCL or EASA-FCL to include:
4.1.1. Full Panel Instrument Flying.
4.1.2. Limited (or Partial) Panel Instrument Flying.
4.1.3. Use of radio navigation aids for position fixing and en-route navigation.
4.1.4. Let down and approach procedures, to include one precision and one non-precision approach, of which at least one shall be pilot-interpreted and of which at least one shall be concluded by a missed approach and go-around.
4.1.5. Bad weather circuit.
4.1.6. Flight with asymmetric thrust (multi-engined aircraft only).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow--you are obviously retired!
I cannot see the value in teaching approaches that the average PPL will never do. Why not concentrate on what the average PPL will do to fly enroute in IMC and return to a base or a diversion airfield.
The rating has to be affordable, 20 hours is too much
I cannot see the value in teaching approaches that the average PPL will never do. Why not concentrate on what the average PPL will do to fly enroute in IMC and return to a base or a diversion airfield.
The rating has to be affordable, 20 hours is too much
Last edited by llanfairpg; 19th Dec 2007 at 13:08.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would suit me fine BEagle...the only thing I'd say though is that I can imagine what the other member countries who are against the IMC rating might say:
(if the suggested IMC course is too short) 'that's not good enough, it will just cause people to do things they can't really handle' or if it's too long...'what's the point? They might as well do the IR.'
A balance has to be struck (and we all know that) and the IMC rating as it stands does need some alteration (as DFC, rustle, bose and all the others have said). For example if it is taken in a single...it shouldn't be valid in a multi.
I like BEagle's proposed syllabus.
(if the suggested IMC course is too short) 'that's not good enough, it will just cause people to do things they can't really handle' or if it's too long...'what's the point? They might as well do the IR.'
A balance has to be struck (and we all know that) and the IMC rating as it stands does need some alteration (as DFC, rustle, bose and all the others have said). For example if it is taken in a single...it shouldn't be valid in a multi.
I like BEagle's proposed syllabus.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, I take a different view to llanfairpg - 20 hours certainly isn't too much. If candidates can't afford to obtain a usable skillset at a suitable standard, then then that's unfortunate. 20 hours is generally achievable, that's the main thing.
Approaches are required, naturally, otherwise what practical use would a rating be?
Some explicit commonality with the modular IR is an excellent suggestion, laying the ground for an upgrade path. A delta for ME is also good to have included from the outset.
Thank you for taking the time to develop that suggestion - not just for its inherent merit but also as a beacon of light in a thread that had otherwise lost its way!
I've a lapsed IMC, so am not competent to comment on the proposal in detail, but in summary I have to say it looks good to me.
Approaches are required, naturally, otherwise what practical use would a rating be?
Some explicit commonality with the modular IR is an excellent suggestion, laying the ground for an upgrade path. A delta for ME is also good to have included from the outset.
Thank you for taking the time to develop that suggestion - not just for its inherent merit but also as a beacon of light in a thread that had otherwise lost its way!
I've a lapsed IMC, so am not competent to comment on the proposal in detail, but in summary I have to say it looks good to me.