IMCR - The Petition - Please give your support

[llanfairpg]

I thought Eurocratic law allowed for each country to have its own versions of these types of proposals or are we all going to start driving around roundabouts the wrong way as well.

[S-Works]

As Al points out flying airways is easy, it is one of the best kept secrets in General Aviation, right until the point where it all goes wrong. The dynamic nature of European Airways flying is quite different from the US and when you throw in some very busy terminal airspace and bad weather the potential for disaster looms.

Airways flying should be the remit of the IR qualified pilot and we should not be trying to go down the road of turning the IMCR into a cheap IR. That path will never succeed as I have said before and will do the cause a great disservice.

This year our working group made a number of changes to the IMCR which as I said have been incorporated into Lasors. Changes around EFIS and Glass cockpits, GPS approaches, use of the IMCR in an ME etc. Nothing to far reaching but enough to tidy loose ends up.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by llanfairpg

Till you ice up or have another sort of emergency!

Which is probably even more difficult to manage on your own in the open FIR than when talking to a controller in CAS. Of course out in the FIR you just 'plummet at the nearest school' and don't interfere with CAT

If there is any proposal for a Euro IMCr it needs to make sense in the UK Class A airways, as the Europeans have achieved the separation of PPL/IMC and CAT traffic by not having an IMCr rather than the UK approach of having the very restricted airways system of the UK. (A task I don't believe can be achieved)

My view is the two potential avenues of success are
1 - retention of the IMCr for the UK (or at least a competency based transition to an IR)
2 - an IR rating which is competency based and has an appropriate knowledge set on which competency is based.

Trying to create an acceptable Euro IMCr has too many problems to be achievable (cultural, vested interest, airspace structure, etc)


PS - Bose, How is European airspace more 'dynamic'? Certainly more cases of 'what the h@!! do they have as my flight plan' vs the US who boringly tell you what they are planning to do? But European controllers seem to leave you on whatever STAR/runway they told you on the ATIS vs NY/LAX who seem to juggle it all around till the last second.

[eltonioni]

Wouldn't a more useful approach be to insist on currency?

Regardless of what level of iron-man training purgatory one has to undergo, surely an IR that you don't use is far less use than an IMCr that you do.

[llanfairpg]

I remember a chap in a C172(4 up) flying airways to Le Touquet on a hot summers day (with quite a few Cbs around) from Coventry by the time he finally got into the airway he had already caused mayhem and continued to do so until crossing the coast. He too thought airways flying was simple. well until then he did, he never flew airaways again.

[llanfairpg]

Which is probably even more difficult to manage on your own in the open FIR than when talking to a controller in CAS. Of course out in the FIR you just 'plummet at the nearest school' and don't interfere with CAT

Yes, plummeting isnt part of the recommended procedure in an airway

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by llanfairpg

I remember a chap in a C172(4 up) flying airways to Le Touquet on a hot summers day ... He too thought airways flying was simple. well until then he did, he never flew airaways again.

Was his problem a lack of competence in holding course or level, inability to follow his nav kit, lack of RT fluency (all which an IR should address) or lack of performance to fit into the plan he filed/the controls wanted from him.

[S-Works]

Which is probably even more difficult to manage on your own in the open FIR than when talking to a controller in CAS. Of course out in the FIR you just 'plummet at the nearest school' and don't interfere with CAT

And that is the problem. Managing on your own outside of CAS makes it your own problem. Having the same problem is CAS will cause massive disruption in the system and is why the airlines will block any attempt. If you want to play with the big boys you play by the same rules plain and simple.

Everything else that has been said in terms of training and currency makes sense. But I do not think an IMCR has any place in the airways.

You have to have something that differentiates between trying to get an IR by the back door/easy route and the key benefit of the IMCR which enhanced safety for predominately VFR pilots. The airlines and thus the regulators will block the former but you stand a chance with the latter.

[Johnm]

What we need is a proper IR Lite. From a flying point of view the IMCR doesn't really cover flight planning or holds very well. It also doesn't deal effectively with STARS and SIDs.
However for basic handling and travelling in IMC it's a good start and I and many others have used the privileges in anger many times. It's also pretty good for approaches, but the inability to file IFR makes routine flying of approaches to stay current a bit difficult, though most of us fly them when we can to keep up to scratch as far as possible and I don't get in anybody's way I just take my turn with everyone else.
Ironically I've clearly seen from the right hand seat how much easier flying IFR in airways is than flying VFR or IMCR (my new shorthand for IFR without the benefits)

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by bose-x

If you want to play with the big boys you play by the same rules plain and simple.

Yet the French (and many other Europeans) are happy to have PPLs 'sharing the airways' in the sense that you follow the same lateral track and have only 500 ft separation within the same airspace block. The only thing they ask for is that you are well clear of the clouds so can see and be seen. You don't even have to be able to see your ground features or in many cases even talk with them.

Originally Posted by bose-x

You have to have something that differentiates between trying to get an IR by the back door/easy route and the key benefit of the IMCR which enhanced safety for predominately VFR pilots.

Agreed

[S-Works]

To be fair it's only the French that allow access to the airways for VFR pilots, but you clearly have to be VFR.

What we are talking here was allowing IMCR pilots to fly the airways, ask the French is they would agree to this in IMC conditions and you would get very strong resistance. You also have to remember that the french lower airways system is deserted in the UK it is avery different matter around the concentrations of GA airfields that we all fly from. Most days I am the only GA traffic going across the TMA but it is absolutely heaving with CAT. The last thing the controllers need is a whole lead of poorly trained and poorly equipped IMCR pilots to manage as well. It would cause chaos. I also refer back to my previous comment about how this is funded?

I maintain that we should not be reinventing the wheel. If you want IR privileges do an IR. If you want to enhance your mission capability and general safety as a predominately VFR pilot then do the IMCR.

[llanfairpg]

Was his problem a lack of competence in holding course or level, inability to follow his nav kit, lack of RT fluency (all which an IR should address) or lack of performance to fit into the plan he filed/the controls wanted from him.

His problem started when he walked in to the flying club and did not do any performance planning, the a/c barely made the level and then ATC asked him to go up another 2000ft and had to level several times to gain altitude, with Cbs around he elected to go through some of them as he did not have the confidence to ask for heading changes, he was quite shaken by it all and that had a major effect on his performance as well.

He flew back VFR!

It all starts when somebody says flying airways is easy! Walking a tightrope looks easy to me but after you!

[llanfairpg]

To be fair it's only the French that allow access to the airways for VFR pilots, but you clearly have to be VFR.

I thought the Irish allowed PPL low level airways access as well or is that only under IFR

[llanfairpg]

the IMCR doesn't really cover flight planning or holds very well.

It certainly used to

[S-Works]

The other issue that will bubble out of this is the lack of suitable aircraft for these IMCR's should they be allowed airways access. The average spam can club flyer is illegal as it stands now for IFR flight and does not have the performance to get into anything but the really low airways and the are performance limited when asked to climb. They can refuse of course, but then leads to the controllers trying to find another resolution which all detracts from dealing with the paying customer i.e CAT.

I fly a 172 in the airways but at over 200hp, 18,000ft service ceiling, GNSS and O2 equipped I don't create problems. I am also doing it for many hundreds of hours a year.

So we then go back to currency issues. Rolling currency and reduced revalidation period with a tougher test?

[mm_flynn]

I thought flight along airways (obviously at VFR levels) was possible for a VFR pilot up to FL 195 in many countries (Ireland, Benelux, Germany, Denmark, France, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Czech Republic, etc.) a lot of them may well require Class C and D transits or clearance, but still OK for VFR and that it was only the France around Paris, the UK and Italy that had extensive Class A.

[BEagle]

bose-x, you stated:

This year our working group made a number of changes to the IMCR which as I said have been incorporated into Lasors. Changes around EFIS and Glass cockpits, GPS approaches, use of the IMCR in an ME etc. Nothing to far reaching but enough to tidy loose ends up.

Well, LASORS 2008 isn't yet available, according to the CAA website. And were these changes circulated to industry generally? Or did you mean you've proposed changes which have yet to be published for general consultation amongst industry stakeholders?

What exactly is the remit of 'your working group'?

I'm getting rather annoyed at not being able to speak with the CAA - so many times all you hear is "He's away in Cologne"......

[dublinpilot]

I thought the Irish allowed PPL low level airways access as well or is that only under IFR

Everywhere allows PPL's access to the airways I've never seen a requirement for a CPL or ATPL

I take it you mean allow access to airways under VFR? The answer there is yes. Virtually all airways in Ireland are contained in class C airspace, so there is nothing prohibiting VFR flight on them.

If you mean under IFR in some form of sub IR qualification, then the answer is no. For IMC you need to fly under IFR, which requires an IR.

Incidently, if you feel that it's needed to prevent IMCR's from the airways, then you need to think carefully about how to do it. At present the thing that bans them is the fact that they are in class A airspace, and an IMCR holder can't fly IFR in anything above class D. However when the European airspace move to just three classes (2009) it's likely that class C will replace much of the class A&D in the UK. Therefore IMCR holders will be banned from airports that they currently use. If the IMCR privlidges are upgraded to class C to account for this, then they will also be allowed onto the new class C airways.

If you want to ban them from the airways, it's best to do that explicidly...."IMCR holders may exercise these privlidges on the airway system" would seem to sort it.

dp

[englishal]

I agree that the "airways" should be for IR holders if they remain as they are now. But saying that, some of the airways are pointless - The former N866 for example. Why not make ALL airways D up to 10,000' (and change the transition alt while we're at it) so that a "IRLite" holder can enter them with the appropriate clearance? 10,000' is no problem for any SEP as far as I am aware, I've been to 13,500 VFR, more than enough for the rugged terrain of the UK.....

[llanfairpg]

DP,Yes sorry badly worded

Do Irish PPL's regualrly use the the class C section of the airway.