IMC rating in theUK?

[frog_ATC]

Let's compare "Pro" (professionnal pilots) and "Priv" (privates on light airplanes).


When you pass your IR...
- as a Pro you are seated in the right seat of a big plane, with an experienced guy on the left seat that you call "captain"
- as a Priv you are alone the day after your rating, and have to experience everything by yourself

When you encounter icing conditions...
- as a Pro, you airplane is well equipped to fight that ice, and powered enough to climb above these icing conditions
- as a Priv, you are probably not deiced, or poorly deiced (light to moderate icing, not severe), and that TKS is so expensive...

When you fly enroute...
- as a Pro your airplane climbs at high levels where the sun is always shining, ABOVE the bad weather, and you are given great direct routes
- as a Priv your airplane is limited to low levels (because engine, pressurization, non-RVSM...) and you are most of the time IN the bad weather, with icing, turbulence, poor vis... and those damned ATC at Paris Control make your travel longer with a big deviation around Paris !

When your autopilot fails...
- As a Pro you have probably two autopilots, or a copilot
- As a Priv you'll have to control the airplane + read the chart + talk to the ATC + manage the flight (greaaat in turbulences !)

When the ATC calls you...
- As a Pro, your copilot will answer while you are busy
- As a Priv, damn it's always at the bad moment, while you're busy turning outbound, intercepting, preparing your route in the GPS, levelling the plane...

What about your currency requirements...
- As a Pro, you do not care, you do not pay for approach fees, landing fees, airplane annual or whatever... you get paid for flying ! and checked out quite often.
- As a Priv, you try to find an airport where the fee will be low enough to let you enough money to pay for your coffee... Hard to train sometimes, expensive !

What about your documentation...
- As a Pro you are given everything by your ops : approach charts, GPS update, weight and balance... you just check dates & co to make sure it's alright
- As a Priv you pay for that horribly expensive Jeppesen update, you download it on your computer or skybone, upload it in your GPS in the airplane... **** you have two GPS, no discount... And those paper charts to classify each week, drives you mad

What about weather briefing...
- As a Pro : Captain, the ops gave it to me !
- As a Priv : do it yourself, where is the ISO 0° ? How is that front ? What is the forecast? What could be my alternate ?

What about your equipement...
- As a Pro, FMS, glasscockpits, numerous radios and avionics... better than disney channel
- As a Priv, maybe you have a G1000 or an Avidyne, or maybe you have a conventional directional (no HSI), and some good old fashioned avionics...

What about flying across the Alps:
- As a Pro : and so what ?
- As a Priv : where are my canulas ? damned the Oxygen bottle is empty... I'll have to refill.

Etc. etc. etc.....


So yes, flying IFR as a private is really HARDER than commercial, in my opinion, considering only the aeronautical aspect of the thing (the commercial part, handling passengers etc. is something else).

So you can be proud when flying IFR in a small Piper, Cessna or even Malibu, because managing the flight is not so easy.


Frog

[IO540]

When you pass your IR...
- as a Pro you are seated in the right seat of a big plane, with an experienced guy on the left seat that you call "captain"
- as a Priv you are alone the day after your rating, and have to experience everything by yourself

So? Same with a PPL. So, ban the PPL, shall we?

When you encounter icing conditions...
- as a Pro, you airplane is well equipped to fight that ice, and powered enough to climb above these icing conditions
- as a Priv, you are probably not deiced, or poorly deiced (light to moderate icing, not severe), and that TKS is so expensive...

Having the money to spend on a $500k plane is nothing to do with pilot privileges. You could have a debate on legislating for a minimum standard of aircraft, but I think most would strongly disagree.

When you fly enroute...
- as a Pro your airplane climbs at high levels where the sun is always shining, ABOVE the bad weather, and you are given great direct routes
- as a Priv your airplane is limited to low levels (because engine, pressurization, non-RVSM...) and you are most of the time IN the bad weather, with icing, turbulence, poor vis... and those damned ATC at Paris Control make your travel longer with a big deviation around Paris !

Having the money to spend on a $500k plane is nothing to do with pilot privileges. You could have a debate on legislating for a minimum standard of aircraft, but I think most would strongly disagree.

Also I don't think you have ever flown in a decent IFR tourer, like the French made TB20/TB21 which (the 21) can get to FL250 - above nearly all weather except CBs. I fly a TB20 and FL190 is not a problem.

RVSM applies only above FL290. Hardly "GA" territory, short of a TBM850.

The "deviation around Paris" is taken care of with the Eurocontrol routing. Again, I don't think you have thus flown in Europe, otherwise you would know how this works. The routings accepted by the computer take you well away from the busy terminal areas. On a typical long flight across Europe, say 800nm, you may just about get visual with some heavy jets in the far distance.

When your autopilot fails...
- As a Pro you have probably two autopilots, or a copilot
- As a Priv you'll have to control the airplane + read the chart + talk to the ATC + manage the flight (greaaat in turbulences !)

The workload goes up. Not a problem. Read the chart???????? Do you really fly IFR????? You have an IFR GPS - mandatory for FL095+ in Europe (look up BRNAV requirements).

When the ATC calls you...
- As a Pro, your copilot will answer while you are busy
- As a Priv, damn it's always at the bad moment, while you're busy turning outbound, intercepting, preparing your route in the GPS, levelling the plane...

The radio workload in airways is generally low.

What about your currency requirements...
- As a Pro, you do not care, you do not pay for approach fees, landing fees, airplane annual or whatever... you get paid for flying ! and checked out quite often.
- As a Priv, you try to find an airport where the fee will be low enough to let you enough money to pay for your coffee... Hard to train sometimes, expensive !

Comment as above re legislating for pilot budget.

What about your documentation...
- As a Pro you are given everything by your ops : approach charts, GPS update, weight and balance... you just check dates & co to make sure it's alright
- As a Priv you pay for that horribly expensive Jeppesen update, you download it on your computer or skybone, upload it in your GPS in the airplane... **** you have two GPS, no discount... And those paper charts to classify each week, drives you mad

Comment as above. You can get free plates for most of Europe from Eurocontrol. Most weather is free on the internet. File flight plans online via Homebriefing for Euro 37/year. No big deal. And most IFR pilots have a friend (often an airline pilot) who has Jeppview and can get them all the approach plates in the world.

No real IFR pilot buys paper plates anymore. It takes hours to put the new ones in. Use Jeppview and print off those you need.

What about weather briefing...
- As a Pro : Captain, the ops gave it to me !
- As a Priv : do it yourself, where is the ISO 0° ? How is that front ? What is the forecast? What could be my alternate ?

See above.

What about your equipement...
- As a Pro, FMS, glasscockpits, numerous radios and avionics... better than disney channel
- As a Priv, maybe you have a G1000 or an Avidyne, or maybe you have a conventional directional (no HSI), and some good old fashioned avionics...

You have more kit than a 747 would have had 20 years ago, and better than most 3rd world jets landing at Heathrow (or Paris) this morning.

What about flying across the Alps:
- As a Pro : and so what ?
- As a Priv : where are my canulas ? damned the Oxygen bottle is empty... I'll have to refill.

You think people that fly like that (as I do, over the Alps, on oxygen, and with a big bottle in my garage to refill from) are STUPID?????????????

Etc. etc. etc.....

Indeed. You need to make your points more rationally.

So yes, flying IFR as a private is really HARDER than commercial, in my opinion, considering only the aeronautical aspect of the thing (the commercial part, handling passengers etc. is something else).

True. But relevant to exactly what? Only 2-pilot jets should be allowed to fly IFR??

So you can be proud when flying IFR in a small Piper, Cessna or even Malibu, because managing the flight is not so easy.

True. It's called FREEDOM. Even the French should understand that word

[Fuji Abound]

Frog

Fun and games aside you do us all a great dis-service.

You insult the French by pretending to be French and by parodying them in a style reminiscent of Hello Hello,

and you trivialise an important debate.

It is no surprise that EASA and the CAA think most of the GA organisations are a bunch of amateurs that cannot be taken serioulsy.

Shame on you!

You have a few, very few posters who reply. It is not a debate, it is engaging the few of us that care and are unhappy that you should represent the professional guys involved in ATC in this way.

If you existed you had a professional forum only last week at which to present your views and which you could have readily attended.

Please give it a rest now!!

[frog_ATC]

The explanation above was done only to explain that flying IFR as a private is harder than as a Pro, and my conclusion is that Private Pilots do not to have feel ashamed or less competent than professionnals.

My opinon is that we have the right to fly in the same sky as them, whatever they may think.

Have you only read what I write ?
Are you only able to understand it ?

Some other pilots did, and I hope I'll meet them quite soon as we planned.

I've spent more than one hour yesterday reading the IMC rating syllabus, which appears excellent to me, as I said.

But it seems like you are completely unable to understand what I say, and are really aggressive while I'm not.

So... Shame on you !

You should be more openminded and able to discuss ideas without this non-respect that seems to be quite common for you, and have respect for someone else ' s opinion and experience.
May I remember you I'm a professional in Aviation, as Pilot as well as ATC.

I suppose you are not instrument rated, Fuji, and I hope you won't try to because your violence does not cope with the required attitude in a cockpit.

I think you should apologize for your attitude, both IO and Fuji, and your bad comments on the fact that I am French, but I am not sure you are able to do so !

You won't help the IMC rating, nor any fight, with such a comportment.

Frog

[Fuji Abound]

Froggy

We have an organisation here called AOPA, if you were French you would be familiar with AOPA in France.

Martin Robinson who is in charge of AOPA in the UK wants the IMC rating expanded throughout Europe and has told EASA this is AOPA UKs policy.

So far as AOPA are concerned the IMC rating is coming to Europe.

You might like to write to him as I am sure he will be very interested in your views.

[frog_ATC]

I'm already in both AOPA France and US, and I explained above my opinion on how to improve the IMC rating (after having read the IMC syllabus) in order to create a European Private IR.

But you are too agressive to be able to understand what I say !

Frog

[Fuji Abound]

Aggressive - no, just rather disappointed.

One of my best friends is a Professor of English. He spent many years at the Sorbonne researching the teaching of French - English. He is French - or at least his Mum is English and his Dad French.

Years of experience enable you to identify someone who is not what they pretend to be - and you are not what you pretend to be.

Moreover in spite of your poor English, there are many give aways in your posts that you are not involved with AT.

So I think you are at best just as mad as a box of frogs.

Thats my lot on this thread my friend.

The only further contributions from me will to be remind everyone that you are not what you would wish us to think and it is that which makes it impossible to have a debate with you.

(I am off to the Rugby now, France sadly just missed out on the Ellis cup , but it is England and Wales today)

[frog_ATC]

My poor Fuji...

I am what I "pretend" to be, I do not need to pretend anything else than what I am, and Broomstick will soon have a confirmation of that.
+ anybody can contact me via private mail to have confirmation.

Whatever, I think your "instinct" needs improvement, and your behaviour also, dear "Sherlock Holmes"....

What's your telephone number, Sherlock ?
Do you want to hear the frequency direct from the tower, to prove you that you need maybe some psychological help ?

Or maybe that's the only way you find to destroy what I say, which proves you have very poor arguments !

Frog

[Fuji Abound]

OK, OK you are what you are.

The end.

[Contacttower]

Originally Posted by frog_ATC

I'm already in both AOPA France and US, and I explained above my opinion on how to improve the IMC rating (after having read the IMC syllabus) in order to create a European Private IR.

Fuij I think you are being rather unfair on frog...no one on this forum has to "prove" who they are and actually considering we are trying to convince the rest of Europe over the IMC rating she deserves a fair hearing (OK you think she is a fake...but I hadn't picked up on that and I don't think we should judge like that).

I posted the link to LASORS and actually despite what she said before frog had the good grace to read it and actually seems to have changed her tune a bit on this...

Originally Posted by frog_ATC

I've spent more than one hour yesterday reading the IMC rating syllabus, which appears excellent to me, as I said.

[BEagle]

There are a number of issues with instrument flying. Here are some of them:

1. The ability to fly the aeroplane without external references.
2. The ability to navigate and communicate whilst flying without external references.
3. The ability to comply with specific routes and approach procedures.

The first issue is the most essential and often the difficult to assimilate. Which is why this core skill must be attained before any navigation or communication is attempted.

The specific requirements in issue 2 vary for pilots who simply need to fly up through cloud to VMC-on-top and those who need to fly long enroute sectors without the luxury of choice between IMC or VMC. Hence 'proportional' (that much used eurocratic term) levels of training are appropriate.

Pilots who need to fly SIDs, IFR routes and STARs, culminating in CATIII approaches require more training than those who only need radar vectors to an approach with a 4-600 ft DH/MDH. Hence proportional training is again appropriate.

When I learned to fly, I was required to hold a 'Basic Instrument Flying Grading' with about 30 hours total time on the aeroplane - a single engined jet. Then to fly radio navigation exercises (single pilot, no autopilot) with only DF and a very primitive short range DME system with which to navigate. A month later came the 'Advanced Instrument Flying Grading' which included the privilege of flying to lower approach criteria.

This utter drivel about needing 2 pilots, a whole number of autopilots and lots of toys to fly under IFR is rubbish. Just think - the military teach youngsters to fly in formation in IMC. And if the wingman loses sight of the leader, he/she has to follow the lost leader procedure and immediately transfer to instrument flying. With no co-piglet or autopilot to help.

Early RNAV such as the KNS80 made creating your own 'airway' routes relatively simple if you knew how to use it. Early non-IFR GPS did the same, but with much greater accuracy. Modern integrated GPS makes flying anywhere in a light single very much easier.

Ironically, it has not been unknown for airline captains with years of multi-pilot time to fail the IMC Rating Test! The skill sets required to fly limited panel unusual attitude recoveries and to cope with a steam-driven DI on an NDB approach are different to those needed to watch a people-tube flying itself down the approach.

Those who dismiss the IMCR through ignorance of the training and privileges conferred by the Rating are not worthy of debate. However, if the naysayers can make clear what their precise concerns are, those can be reasonably addressed by the EASA group working towards the EU solution. As we have seen, when people such as notre amie la Grenouillette actually take the time to read the IMC training syllabus requirements - and the contents of the Skill Test - some of the more illogical prejudices can disappear.

Of course it goes without saying that anyone flying throughout Europe under IFR will need at least ICAO 4 level English..... I was once waiting for an IR-holding German GA pilot to fly into a UK airport in IMC and was listening out on an airband radio so that I could advise my colleagues when he was due to arrive. He was barely able to communicate with ATC, let alone follow their vectors to the localiser. So I think if there's anything which is going to reduce the number of problems in EU airspace, it's the requirement to hold at least ICAO Level 4 English.

So, the people-tube drivers with their autopilots, TCAS and superior instrumentation will not only be able to see any possible conflict, thanks to Mode C and eventually Mode S, but know that the 'amateur' flying his light aeroplane has been trained and tested properly- and can make himself understood to ATC!

Interestingly, I find the 'playstation generation' are quite good at flying procedural approaches, but when it comes to maintaining situational awareness and air picture with a diverse approach (such as radar vectors to the localiser), they find things more difficult. Whereas those brought up on radar to SRA/GCA approaches can often maintain better situational awareness even without any radio navigation aids!

Vive le RosbIF IMCR!!

[rustle]

Wise words, Contacttower.

Many posters would be surprised at the attitude shown on this thread by FA and it exposes an interesting HF element.

frog_ATC thank you for taking the time and trouble to read LASORS (not the most user-friendly document with its myriad references to other documents) and I hope it has allowed you to understand our IMC rating a little better.

[homeguard]

French Letters

I also regret the Fuji outburst onto Frog. She gave her honest opinion very succinctly. She has a right to her view and appears to be open to reason.

So Fuji please let us debate the IMC vs IR issue and we should all keep away from personal attacks.

Beagle has summed up very clearly in his last post. Further posts should now encourage a much better debate.

[Fuji Abound]

Fuij I think you are being rather unfair on frog...no one on this forum has to "prove" who they are and actually considering we are trying to convince the rest of Europe over the IMC rating she deserves a fair hearing (OK you think she is a fake...but I hadn't picked up on that and I don't think we should judge like that).

Perhaps.

However, having a debate with someone who is not representative of the view of air traffic controllers in France, is disingenuous to these very professional people.

There are very few people on here who are not what they are. I know a few of them. I know the qualifications they claim to have or the positions they claim to hold and I also know they are not telling the truth. I know that one of the regular contributors on here posts under a least two pseudonyms and you would think they are different people.

You must make your own judgement.

However, you will note the link to Frogs aircraft that was for sale has quickly been removed, and you will note that he has not answered any of the questions about what he does and where he is based.

I am suspicious of anyone professional who feels it necessary to go about their business in this way. If they had official blessing for what they have to say then there would be no reason for secrecy and if they do not then they are probably a maverick at best, and certainly not representative of the majority view.

This business is about finding a consensus. There will always be a few who have another agenda.

Personally, I have no issue with anyone who is opposed to the IMC rating IF they are transparent.

If Froggy cares to be transparent then lets debate.

Look at the history of this issue. Look at the rumors that have been spread and are wrong. Consider for a moment what certain people have said on here - and they were wrong.

[frog_ATC]

I just wait for your telephone number, "Sherlock Holmes".

Anyone has the right not to widespread personal life online, especially when you know that in France, ATCs are governemental agents, which means they are not free to give there opinion in public without agreement of their superior (whereas your ATC in UK are part of private companies).

But I already answered by email to several persons, and hope to meet them soon. Some already know me, I recognized one or two UK pilots I know on other topics.

But I think it is useless to debate with you, you'll always find a way to justify yourself, and keep that agressive attitude.

Frog

[dublinpilot]

Frog,

I answered your question....how about answering mine?

Now, to continue the debate

As I understand you, you would be willing to accept an EASA IMCr which had similar flight training requirements to a JAA IR, but with significantly reduced ground school (it's already sounding like your FAA IR)

Now one significant requirement of a JAA IR is 50 hours training (SEP). Lets take that one for a minute. The FAA one has a lower number of hours....IO540 says it's only 15 hours dual training.

How about saying, to get an EASA IMCr (which is an EASA Private IR in all but name....we could even agree to call it an EASA Private IR if it would make you more agreeable ) you don't need any dual training....you just need to be able to fly to the standard required for the test. The examiner can, and should, throw everything and anything at you during the test to make sure that your flying is up to the benchmark.

Doesn't that make sense....after all, why should holder of a foreign IR who has thousands of hours flying IFR in IMC who could pass the flight test without any further training, have do do 50 hours training before taking the test? The test should be the standard, not the number of hours training.

Can we agree that much?

Also can you clarify the position with French residents being able to fly in France on a FAA IR? I read here sometime ago, that the Franch authorities has banned the use of an FAA IR by French residents in French airspace. Is that true?

dp

[Fuji Abound]

Anyone has the right not to widespread personal life online, especially when you know that in France, ATCs are governemental agents, which means they are not free to give there opinion in public without agreement of their superior (whereas your ATC in UK are part of private companies).

Hmm, well you see there is another issue.

You represent yourself as an ATC in France and express an opinion to which you seek to give credibility by virtue of your profession BUT you go behind the backs of your professional colleagues.

Of course a true professional, if he had the concerns you have, would have gone about matters another way.

Moreover, if you are not free to give the views you are, but you have told certain people you are who you are, then there would seem a rather glaring contradiction.

Anyone on top of everything else I am bored with this now.

[frog_ATC]

No that's wrong, you can fly FAA IFR in France.
It's funny because I had read that the Brit had done so in class A
(which is also wrong apparently)

About your question : which question ?

Frog

PS : my poor Fuji....

[dublinpilot]

The one I repeated above.....

[llanfairpg]

Reading the above, its frightening to think some of you are representing the interests of UK pilots.