Where are we really going with the IMC rating?

[ThePirateKing]

However, within recent days we have all read the posts by a French ATCO who had personally handled a number of instances where IMC holders had quite illegally entered French airspace in serious IMC and had then become a serious problem for French air traffic control staff by reason of lack of skill, currency or judgement. She was adamant that she wished to see the IMCR scrapped, and as soon as possible.

What a ridiculous position to take. I'm sure we all know people who "quite illegally" drive their cars too fast. Let's just ban driving for everyone shall we?

[poss]

Now whilst I understand that there is a want for standisation over europe, why should our country have to lose a perfectly safe rating that many have because a few countries don't want it. Personally I feel if it was to be implimented for the rest of Europe. the pilots in those countries been free to get it if they want, they would finally understand it's use, get one and it would be the greatest rating ever then.
Most, if not all of the private pilot community in the UK is screaming out for this rating to be saved, surely we shouldn't have to fight to keep it as there is nothing to fight about. It's been around a long time and the facts speak for themselves. It's clear that someone doesn't want to do an extra bit of paper work and are using other countries rejections as the grounds upon that. Perhaps the only way to save the IMC rating is to elect our own IMC board to deal with the issuing of IMC ratings?

[S-Works]

Posted on Flyer. This will be my last post on here on this. For more information visit flyer or the AOPA forums.

AOPA have always been clear on their position on the IMCR rating. They have worked tirelessly for this for over a year. This may not have been communicated clearly enough for some unfortunately.

AOPA fully support retention of the IMC rating in the UK. We believe that the work that AOPA, the CAA and PPLIR have been undertaking to bring the rating up to date should continue. AOPA will continue to lobby the appropriate people within government and EASA towards this aim. This will include trying to convince the Europeans that the IMC has great benefit to pilot safety. The AOPA philosophy is to 'keep our powder dry' when it comes to letter writing campaigns and involvement of MP's. There will be an election before all of this comes to a head and as such we prefer to continue to work existing channels.

We will continue to work with the regulator towards a more accessible IR.

We will not be trying to convert the IMC to a mini IR or try to get adopted as a European wide rating. We will continue to make representations towards having full and justifiable credit given to IMC holders towards an accessible IR.

I am not getting into a debate with you on this. I have offered an olive branch and am prepared to work with you. If you just want to continue to dig at AOPA you do yourself and your cause no justice.

[BEagle]

"We will continue to work with the regulator towards a more accessible IR."

"We will not be trying to convert the IMC to a mini IR or try to get adopted as a European wide rating. We will continue to make representations towards having full and justifiable credit given to IMC holders towards an accessible IR."

Actually 'we' will rule nothing out. And yes, 'we' will indeed work with CAA/EASA to ensure that a pan-EU IMC level rating is available.

[S-Works]

I am not getting into a fight with you either Beagle.

Martin was asked to clarify the position at the MWG meeting at White Waltham yesterday. I have repeated his response. His view did not contain the statement that a Pan European IMC rating was the priority. If it came about as a result of the representations to save the rating then all well and good.

Feel free to take it up with him. But then perhaps you should have paid more attention.

[Fuji Abound]

We will not be trying to convert the IMC to a mini IR or try to get adopted as a European wide rating.

Is that AOPA's official position?

Lets be clear - no Euro wide IMC equivalent rating?

If the UK is not granted a national "exception" - that is the end of the IMC rating, so far as AOPA is concerned.

Is that what AOPA asked EASA for?

[BEagle]

As usual, you have to throw in a stupid final remark, bose-x.

You really aren't helping the cause with your attitude, I'm afraid.

[S-Works]

Beagle. I am sorry but your constant know it all digs do your cause no good either. I made a statement that was the AOPA position as outlined to me and minuted in the MWG minutes. Ask Mandy for a copy or better still come to the MWG meetings. I will be coming to the Instructor group meetings staring 9th April.

You chose to try and make some sort of a point by attacking me as usual. You choose to dig endlessly. If you are so close to AOPA policy then why not out your self? I know who you are, perhaps you will do others credit.

Fuji. AOPA asked EASA for nothing. They presented a case and they will continue to do so. Who knows what the future will hold.

I have refrained from making comment about your campaign as I said I would, you clearly have an issue with AOPA for whatever reason. Chipping away to try and score points does you no credit.

AOPA do not think that the IMC in it's CURRENT format will be accepted by the Europeans. However if in the course of convincing them there is a case to allow it to stay for the UK others choose to adopt it then all the better.

[Fuji Abound]

I have refrained from making comment about your campaign as I said I would, you clearly have an issue with AOPA for whatever reason.

Bose

You are a good fella, but you are deluding yourself by constantly suggesting I have an issue with AOPA as such.

I cannot support any representative organisation that had ample opportunity before Christmas to ask pilots what they thought about the loss of the IMC rating but failed to do so. I cant support any representative organisation who allowed this to go to the wire. I cant support any representative organisations on whom it has suddenly dawned that a survey of their members and the wider audience might all of a sudden be a good idea when that should have been done many many months ago.

Do you honestly believe it was AOPA that achieved a four year moratorium on the rating at the joint EASA / CAA briefing - or might it have been because, 2,000 odd pilots, all the GA mags, and a couple of Euro MPs took time out to point out what we were about to lose?

[S-Works]

We are done on this subject. All I hear is another anti AOPA rant.

Good luck.

[derekf]

Fuji,

I have posted this here as well as Flyer forums as we seem to have threads going on in both places and you've been cross posting so I felt I'd better do the same for this specific post as I think it's fairly key.

Please take this as a constructive post as I have been giving this some thought.

I do see you having an anti-AOPA position from all your posts questioning the work that has been done. This may well not be the case, but this is the way it comes across - rightly ot wrongly.

I do support your aims to keep the IMCR, but can I please suggest that if you really are serious about doing this then you should look to get all the heavyweight backing you can to get financial assistance and also access to the appropriate people in EASA.

I would suggest, in my simplistic view of the world, that you take up Bose's 'olive branch' and get together and meet AOPA.

There's no reason why you and the rest of the ukimc.org team cannot continue working together, but why not do it with/under the auspices of AOPA.

You would be able to get their financial backing and access via IAOPA to the appropriate meetings / people in EASA.

You may believe that AOPA have not done enough, but surely if you were to get together with them and discuss this then you could find a way of moving forward with the passion you obviously have but under a large body already recognised by EASA and the NAAs

Whatever you may think of the AOPA efforts to date I believe you would be doing yourself, ukaopa.org, and all of the pilots you claim to represent if you didn't take up this opportunity and have a round table discussion as opposed to trying to do this in this forum or over on PPRUNE. I feel you need all the help you can get and as a number of other posters have put it, to get a single voice coming across would add weight to the campaign - and if it was AOPA (and IAOPA) then that's got to be good.

So please, for the sake of the IMCR, get together with AOPA, sit down, discuss your joint aims and what you've done and what you plan to do, and see if you can't do something together.

Derek...

[Fuji Abound]

Copy of my cross post reply

Please take this as a constructive post as I have been giving this some thought.

I take every post as constructive, unless past experience is inclined to make me wary. Yours are always constructive.

I do see you having an anti-AOPA position from all your posts questioning the work that has been done.

It depends what you mean by anti AOPA.

Yes I am anti AOPA on this issue because I dont agree with what has taken place - that is why I started this campaign. Before Christmas so far as the pilot community were concerned AOPA had been almost silent on this issue. If AOPA represents you and me I believe they have a responsibility to clearly tell us what they were proposing and why. I also believe they had a responsibility to conduct their surveys then. They attended the joint EASA CAA briefing as we did. So far as I am aware this is the very first meeting concerned with this issue on which they have written a detailed report. Sadly their report is as far removed from being an accurate account of what took place as to make one wonder if they were really at the same meeting.

I cant escape the evidence that it all appears to be too little too late at best.

I had a decision to make. Did I feel I trusted AOPA to represent me on this. It would have been a great deal simpler to say actually I dont care, but it seemed sufficiently important that I believe totally in our campaign and I believe another way had to be found.

So, your observation in isolation is accurate, but is it so wrong to point out that sometimes our representative bodies may have got it horribly wrong not for reasons of a silly vendetta but in the belief that if you do nothing the rating will be lost and we will all be the worse for that.

I know what I am told by AOPA members and others in emails. I know what has been written on AOPAs own forums by well respected members of our community such as Irv Lee.

The people involved in the UKIMC.org all have plenty better to do - I guarantee you, and they dont get paid, they dont get expenses, so you can guess we all feel some one needed to do something about protecting the IMC rating.

For example our expert web designer has spent all week end working on our new web site.

There's no reason why you and the rest of the ukimc.org team cannot continue working together, but why not do it with/under the auspices of AOPA.

I could not agree more.

I wrote to both Bose and AOPA expressing my wish that we co-operate.

I am afraid they (and I mean AOPA not necessarily Bose) saw things differently.

[DFC]

If the UK is not granted a national "exception" - that is the end of the IMC rating, so far as AOPA is concerned.

Is that what AOPA asked EASA for?

I hope not because it would be rather stupid to set out on a programme to properly harmonise pilot ratings and licensing requirements across the EU and get rid of the major flaw with JAR-FCL - local interpretations and local differences only to insist on establishing local differences.

Everyone has to remember that national aviation authorities are not swayed by the number of pilots wanting to do something.........they will dig their heals in and not budge until they can be assured that safety and thus their credibility as a regulator is not going to be comprimised.

AOPA and others should have plenty of experience of that position - there are thousands of pilots in the UK with the same ideas on GPS as IO540. If the popular position was what regulators went with then we would have had mandatory GPS and GPS approaches in the UK years back.

That is an example of where sheer numbers of pilots requiresting something does nothing to speed change. The same thing applies with the IMC rating. Other national aviation authorities are going to look at what would happen if they had IMC rating holders active in their airspace and more importantly the posibility of something happening and their public / government minister turning round and saying that the introduction of the rating was a bad idea while beating them round the ears with ICAO Annex 1, the FARs or whatever comes to hand.

The proposal has to be European wide and has to be a rating that will ensure safe enroute IFR flight in all classes of airspace. The idea that the flying instructor getting on top to teach a lesson needs only limited IFR training is not a credible position because they can find that when they wish to descend the weather is below minima and they have to divert.........and they may have to divert to a major international airport in Class A airspace.

First question from a foreign NAA regarding the IMC rating is........if it is so safe why do you not permit IFR flight on the airways and at a major international airport?........What happens when Heathrow is the best available IFR alternate?..........If the Airways are there for enroute IFR flight why are enroute IFR flights excluded and even discouraged from flying along the alignment but just below the base?

One also has to overcome the simple position that most NAA's (including the FAA) as well as the ICAO standard position is that an IR is the minimum qualification for IFR IMC flight. That is the wall that is going to have to be broken down. Claiming that the safety benifits of the trainng will not work because the training can be provided to anyone without them having to be given some poor man's IR - they simply get the safety benefits. How do they then keep current? - ask the majority of IMC rating holders and the answer is they don't.

It is unfortunate that this is on the table at the same time as a growing case for the rethinking of the IMC training element of the PPL course. I remember the arguments across Europe when it was implemented and the agruments that it would give the basic PPL too much confidence in IMC flight and that the simple - enter cloud and you'r dead message will be lost are still ringing in my ears. The heli guys have gone down the road of removing the IMC training element and chances are that the fixed wing position will change slightly.

Now if pilots and NAA's across Europe are starting to push for the 180 deg turn in cloud requirement to be removed from PPL trainig then how can you expect that the safety benifits of the IMC rating will sit with their thinking?

Regards,

DFC

[Fuji Abound]

Everyone has to remember that national aviation authorities are not swayed by the number of pilots wanting to do something.........they will dig their heals in and not budge until they can be assured that safety and thus their credibility as a regulator is not going to be comprimised.

25,000 IMC ratings issued,

40 years experience,

No evidence of issues with problems with commercial traffic,

One case of CFIT in 40 years.

I think that is a pretty solid case. Of course we and they could ignore the evidence. Fortunately they have not.

[englishal]

Unfortunately, I believe that unless we can get a Eurowide "mini IR" (Call it eIMCr or IWR) then the IMCr is gone.

My feeling is that we stand virtually no chance of getting an exemption to allow it to be used in the UK only, so it has got to be expanded to the rest of Europe in some form or another, with European support. And unfortunately it appears AOPA and PPL/IR do not support a Eurowide rating because they believe (or at least some in their executive committees) that it will undermine their attempts at an "easily obtainable" IR. They will of course support retaining the UK rating, if they didn't they couldn't justify taking our money in subs....but I suspect they know full well that there is not much hope.

Cutting a bit of ground school does not make the IR obtainable, especially with Euro training prices (cost is the real issue). The only REAL way to get an obtainable IR is to cut costs, which means having a 2 stage process with reduced hours for the first stage, upgradeable when required.

I'm not sure why AOPA are running and "IMC usage" survey? Why do they need to do that, why not just look at the statistics and see how many were issued?

[FullyFlapped]

Bose,

Since the start of this debate, I have wanted a clear understanding of the AOPA position. You say :-

AOPA fully support retention of the IMC rating in the UK. We believe that the work that AOPA, the CAA and PPLIR have been undertaking to bring the rating up to date should continue. AOPA will continue to lobby the appropriate people within government and EASA towards this aim. This will include trying to convince the Europeans that the IMC has great benefit to pilot safety. The AOPA philosophy is to 'keep our powder dry' when it comes to letter writing campaigns and involvement of MP's. There will be an election before all of this comes to a head and as such we prefer to continue to work existing channels.

We will continue to work with the regulator towards a more accessible IR.

We will not be trying to convert the IMC to a mini IR or try to get adopted as a European wide rating. We will continue to make representations towards having full and justifiable credit given to IMC holders towards an accessible IR.

So thanks for that. Now, will you please tell me how this position was arrived at ? Was it via a vote of members ? Because (as a member) I don't recall being asked about any of this ?

Apologies if you've covered this elsewhere !

[S-Works]

FF. AOPA is not parliament. It is a company that provides a service to a membership just like a Gym for example. It is not a members owned organisation like leicester aero club for example or others.

It has a number of working groups that are made up of members, the MWG, the Instructor Committee, the schools etc. All AOPA members and with few exceptions all VOLUNTEERS.

Discussion and solution planning are worked on by committee and subject to vote. Martin then acts on this on our behalf, with the support of the various working groups. He is not some lone cannon deciding what he is going to do unilaterally. He sets great stock on what we the members have to say.

If anyone is unhappy that a committee of members is acting on there behalf then they are welcome to volunteer at any stage to participate. We are actively seeking volunteers to act as airfield reps. This role is to be a focal point for the AOPA membership feeding views and opinions back into the organisation. So if you want to be asked about something personally rather than be represented by your peers then please feel free to volunteer your services. We would be delighted to have you onboard. 1 volunteer being better than 10 pressed men and all that.

I hope this helps.

AL, the reason we are running a survey is to gain real statistics on what is a very emotive subject. There have been 25,000 IMC issued. 10,000 of those to PPL. But we do not know how many are current and the CAA can't get the information. It is all well and good saying that there are 25,000 issued of which 23,000 have medicals but how many are actually valid and in current use. 1 or 1,000 or 10,000? Carrying out the survey allows us to put REAL statistics across about the number of current IMC's, the type of flying they are being used for. This will help create a case that can be put across at European level based on fact not emotion.

[Fuji Abound]

It is not a members owned organisation like leicester aero club for example or others.

Who owns AOPA?

If anyone is unhappy that a committee of members is acting on there behalf then they are welcome to volunteer at any stage to participate.

Who decides who is put forward to the commmittee, and who elects the committee?

[rustle]

Originally Posted by bose-x

AL, the reason we are running a survey is to gain real statistics on what is a very emotive subject. There have been 25,000 IMC issued. 10,000 of those to PPL. But we do not know how many are current and the CAA can't get the information. It is all well and good saying that there are 25,000 issued of which 23,000 have medicals but how many are actually valid and in current use. 1 or 1,000 or 10,000? Carrying out the survey allows us to put REAL statistics across about the number of current IMC's, the type of flying they are being used for. This will help create a case that can be put across at European level based on fact not emotion.

Good post bose.

If you need any assistance collecting or collating this data give me a shout: I'm always happy to assist a worthwhile initiative, not so keen on helping folk on their ego trips

[S-Works]

Quote:
It is not a members owned organisation like leicester aero club for example or others.
Who owns AOPA?

Quote:
If anyone is unhappy that a committee of members is acting on there behalf then they are welcome to volunteer at any stage to participate.
Who decides who is put forward to the commmittee, and who elects the committee?

AOPA is a Limited Company.

All current issues that are facing aviation where known are put towards the relevant committees and discussed. Members write to AOPA with issues, government and regulators interact continuously with the organisation. AOPA have been operating in this way for many decades.

The 'committee' is not elected. Any member may volunteer and sit on any of the working groups if they have relevant skills to offer. The membership of the working groups is fluid as members commitments change.

If anyone wishes to become involved with the MWG please contact me. It is an open forum and new members are welcome.