IMCR - The Petition - Please give your support
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry
I do not think the IMC should be 20 hours on the basis that the cost may put some off.
I see the rating more as an insurance policy or a restriced rating
I do not think the IMC should be 20 hours on the basis that the cost may put some off.
I see the rating more as an insurance policy or a restriced rating
Last edited by llanfairpg; 19th Dec 2007 at 21:49.
llnfrpg - what are you talking about?
There are plenty of places currently available where IMCR holders may fly instrument approaches legally. There is no reason to suspect that these will be denied under a pan-EU IMCR.
Only those CTRs with Class A airspace are denied to UK IMCR holders in IMC. And precious few IMCR holders would wish to land at such places in any case, I would assert.
There are plenty of places currently available where IMCR holders may fly instrument approaches legally. There is no reason to suspect that these will be denied under a pan-EU IMCR.
Only those CTRs with Class A airspace are denied to UK IMCR holders in IMC. And precious few IMCR holders would wish to land at such places in any case, I would assert.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be clear
1. Are you suggesting that you believe a lite IMCr is required with much less than 20 hours training and no IMC approach "rights",
2. but you accept that under "Beagles proposals" and with the appropriate log book endorsements IMC approaches can be flown in class D with access therefore to almost all airports.
1. Are you suggesting that you believe a lite IMCr is required with much less than 20 hours training and no IMC approach "rights",
2. but you accept that under "Beagles proposals" and with the appropriate log book endorsements IMC approaches can be flown in class D with access therefore to almost all airports.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to an earlier question what about the multi single debate.
It seems to me a single IMCr cant translate to a multi IMCr, but for a pilot who has endorsements for both, should he have to renew both in a SEP and a multi aircraft?
Also is the 25 month renewal period sound?
What about FAA IR style rolling renewals for those who have logged adequate currency?
It seems to me a single IMCr cant translate to a multi IMCr, but for a pilot who has endorsements for both, should he have to renew both in a SEP and a multi aircraft?
Also is the 25 month renewal period sound?
What about FAA IR style rolling renewals for those who have logged adequate currency?
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If its going to be credible in the eyes of the other member states then 25 months may have to be reduced. FAA style rolling renewals would be good I think...and also perhaps logging of 'actual' IMC time (as the Americans call it) could form part of maintaining currency.
I think it should be 'retain national licences and ratings until EASA equivalents are available'.... However, EASA seem to have ruled that out.
Rolling validity has already proved a disaster for the NPPL and will be changed next year. I would certainly not support it for the 'EU IMCR'.
However, much as there is a 90-day recency rule for passenger carrying, perhaps there should be an appropriate recency rule for flying approaches in IMC. Although that doesn't seem to be a particular problem at present, of course.
Logging 'actual IMC' is not a current JAR-FCL requirement, they require the flight 'condition' of IFR to be logged. Which, in the UK, can be in gin clear VMC, of course.....
Like much Eurocracy, it is meaningless.
Rolling validity has already proved a disaster for the NPPL and will be changed next year. I would certainly not support it for the 'EU IMCR'.
However, much as there is a 90-day recency rule for passenger carrying, perhaps there should be an appropriate recency rule for flying approaches in IMC. Although that doesn't seem to be a particular problem at present, of course.
Logging 'actual IMC' is not a current JAR-FCL requirement, they require the flight 'condition' of IFR to be logged. Which, in the UK, can be in gin clear VMC, of course.....
Like much Eurocracy, it is meaningless.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not wanting to dash hopes - but the basic structure of an IMCr that excludes Class A airspace just reinforces my view that the European airspace is not compatible with what people are envisaging.
Why exclude A? what is so difficult about IFR in A vs. B-D?
This seems a natural structure to the UK pilot, but the only reason I can think for not allowing IMCr pilots into Class A is because that (slightly simplified) is where are all of the CAT fly.
The iron wall between PPL and Commercial IFR that exists in the UK doesn't exist in most of Europe. I doubt our European GA friends will thank us for making all of the French airways Class A as in the UK. Without that kind of airspace change, the Class A limitation just belies a UK centric mindset.
Why exclude A? what is so difficult about IFR in A vs. B-D?
This seems a natural structure to the UK pilot, but the only reason I can think for not allowing IMCr pilots into Class A is because that (slightly simplified) is where are all of the CAT fly.
The iron wall between PPL and Commercial IFR that exists in the UK doesn't exist in most of Europe. I doubt our European GA friends will thank us for making all of the French airways Class A as in the UK. Without that kind of airspace change, the Class A limitation just belies a UK centric mindset.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I think the suggestions are great for a Euro wide IMCR the chances of it happening are zip. It will never get past the pilot unions to allow pilots with as little as 15-20 hrs of training to mix it with the big boys. In realty I am not sure I would want to be in busy controlled airspace mixing it with those with so little training.
I get great comfort from the fact that when I am sat in the airways and things get uncomfortable due to weather etc that everyone is trained to the same standard and capable of dealing with everything thrown at them regardless of whether they are in a 172 or 737.
The chaos around Europe it would cause with pilots arriving and departing off airways in IMC is an accident waiting to happen.
I think we have a better chance of success if we keep our eye on our own patch and leave the rest of Europe as they are.
I get great comfort from the fact that when I am sat in the airways and things get uncomfortable due to weather etc that everyone is trained to the same standard and capable of dealing with everything thrown at them regardless of whether they are in a 172 or 737.
The chaos around Europe it would cause with pilots arriving and departing off airways in IMC is an accident waiting to happen.
I think we have a better chance of success if we keep our eye on our own patch and leave the rest of Europe as they are.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose - we are agreeing far too much these days, but I would share your view.
From a theoretical point of view mind you I think mm_flynn is correct.
If you have flown airways in typical GA aircraft, the airways part is the most straight forward. Moreover in fact it carries the least risk. At typical GA altitudes even with oxygen the airways are desserts - there is no one esle there. Even if you run into weather and fall to pieces the only person you are likely to kill is yourself.
The point of mixing is where CAT and GA are being vectored off airways into TCAs. In reality even then the mix between GA and CAT would be minimal if the IMCr class A restriction were lifted because very little of the GA traffic would want to use the main airports.
As is so often the case so many of the concerns are ill informed and derive from a lack of understanding about the needs of GA.
The number of people like Bose who are competant and have the need to operate into larger airports are very few and would not change what ever licensing changes were made. If I can I will go out of my way to avoid the larger airports - not only because of the cost but the inevitable hassle associated with every aspect of getting in and out of the airport and usually of getting fuel.
From a theoretical point of view mind you I think mm_flynn is correct.
If you have flown airways in typical GA aircraft, the airways part is the most straight forward. Moreover in fact it carries the least risk. At typical GA altitudes even with oxygen the airways are desserts - there is no one esle there. Even if you run into weather and fall to pieces the only person you are likely to kill is yourself.
The point of mixing is where CAT and GA are being vectored off airways into TCAs. In reality even then the mix between GA and CAT would be minimal if the IMCr class A restriction were lifted because very little of the GA traffic would want to use the main airports.
As is so often the case so many of the concerns are ill informed and derive from a lack of understanding about the needs of GA.
The number of people like Bose who are competant and have the need to operate into larger airports are very few and would not change what ever licensing changes were made. If I can I will go out of my way to avoid the larger airports - not only because of the cost but the inevitable hassle associated with every aspect of getting in and out of the airport and usually of getting fuel.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think thats where the problem lies though Fuji. At the moment the airways are quiet because there are not many people who have access to them. If we were to allow IMCR holders into the airways system they would get a lot busier. Traffic that has to be managed that requires controllers who are already very busy. Who pays for this? It opens a whole can of worms on user charging that I don't think we want to open. Travel in the airways is quiet and easy 98% of the time, but I have come in from europe on big storm cell days where traffic is all over the place and you have to be very on the ball to deal with it. It is those days where I think the number that the proposed training would prove to be inadequate.
The next problem is that the smaller airports you refer to have instrument approaches are all trying to get into the bigger airports game with associated fees. They don't like the little aircraft buzzing around now, what happens when there are more of them?
The solution of course would be to allow GPS approaches to uncontrolled are at least FISO fields, giving GA their own instrument capable bases of operation that does not interfere with the CAT traffic.
I really think that the object here should be to concentrate on keeping the IMCR in it's current form and not be trying to reinvent the wheel. An IMCR that gives access to the airways will never happen as it will be seen as a sub standard IR and the airlines will go to great lengths to block it.
The next problem is that the smaller airports you refer to have instrument approaches are all trying to get into the bigger airports game with associated fees. They don't like the little aircraft buzzing around now, what happens when there are more of them?
The solution of course would be to allow GPS approaches to uncontrolled are at least FISO fields, giving GA their own instrument capable bases of operation that does not interfere with the CAT traffic.
I really think that the object here should be to concentrate on keeping the IMCR in it's current form and not be trying to reinvent the wheel. An IMCR that gives access to the airways will never happen as it will be seen as a sub standard IR and the airlines will go to great lengths to block it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Travel in the airways is quiet and easy 98% of the time, but I have come in from europe on big storm cell days where traffic is all over the place and you have to be very on the ball to deal with it. It is those days where I think the number that the proposed training would prove to be inadequate.
However, as you previously pointed out the IMCr guys are not flying on those sort of days. Whilst the license may entitle you to do something the reality is rather different and nearly everyone with an IMCr is pretty cautious. I think that is part of the reason why the safety record is so good. I dont think that is about to change.
Moreover on the sort of days you mention unless you are completely stupid you are going to have a stormscope at the very least and a reasonably capable bit of kit. That probably eliminates 90% of the fleet anyway.
Again, I think this is an aspect where education is so important.
Unfortunately there are a large number of commercial pilots now who have very little knowledge of GA ops or even for that matter what priviliges come with the IMCr. I hope every effort will be made to educate those that make the decisions.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you have come around to exactly the point I am making, 90%(or more) of pilots won't use the IMCR for the type of flying that is actually being proposed in earlier posts. So why push to add more privileges rather than just keeping what we have?
So keep the IMCR to the UK only where it fits in with our airspace better, do not try and push for airways access, refine the rating (which we do last year, take a look at LASORS 08) and leave it there.
This way you are not going head to head with the airlines who will win every time.
So keep the IMCR to the UK only where it fits in with our airspace better, do not try and push for airways access, refine the rating (which we do last year, take a look at LASORS 08) and leave it there.
This way you are not going head to head with the airlines who will win every time.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as IMC examiners are not directly employed by the CAA you will never get airways access and quite rightly so too.
Refinement as Bose suggests is the best way forward, it seems some are trying to turn it into an IR. Cost for the student must be a consideration too.
Refinement as Bose suggests is the best way forward, it seems some are trying to turn it into an IR. Cost for the student must be a consideration too.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who cares about the airways? Anyone can fly in them in the USA, from a PPL student to a 747 captain....There is no problem.
Flying airways is EASY. There is nothing to it. The hard part comes on reaching the IAF.
I do think that some sort of "IFR clearance" should be required though. This would also open up to possibilty of Tracon style approaches - i.e. cleared for a GPS into Old Sarum by London "Approach"
even though the field is non towered.....
Anyway, good one beagle
Flying airways is EASY. There is nothing to it. The hard part comes on reaching the IAF.
I do think that some sort of "IFR clearance" should be required though. This would also open up to possibilty of Tracon style approaches - i.e. cleared for a GPS into Old Sarum by London "Approach"
even though the field is non towered.....Anyway, good one beagle
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying airways is EASY. There is nothing to it.
(sorry BP its another one liner but honestly I have read the thread and from my own personal experience this statement contributes to Es comment)
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would also open up to possibilty of Tracon style approaches - i.e. cleared for a GPS into Old Sarum by London "Approach" even though the field is non towered.....
even though the field is non towered.....
So keep the IMCR to the UK only where it fits in with our airspace better