Where are we really going with the IMC rating?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course I know the terms of reference, I was present. The terms are simple, as any working group is a living process that the output is not made public until it has been reviewed and all parties sign off the content. This no different from any working group in my day job.
You can't change the terms of reference to suit your self, they are stated at the start, if you don't want to participate you loose your place at the table. It's not complicated.
The question asked by 421C was not theoretical it was an accurate reflection of the situation and based on fact. So answer the question.
Offering to assist you is nothing to do with not playing by the rules. I am perfectly within my remit to communicate with you and take that communication back into Martin for decisions. If you think that I am not high enough up the chain then fair enough but there are no rules being broken. It is perfectly clear to me that you are looking for excuses not deal with AOPA but rather concentrate on rubbishing them. Notwithstanding I will leave the offer open.
You can't change the terms of reference to suit your self, they are stated at the start, if you don't want to participate you loose your place at the table. It's not complicated.
The question asked by 421C was not theoretical it was an accurate reflection of the situation and based on fact. So answer the question.
Offering to assist you is nothing to do with not playing by the rules. I am perfectly within my remit to communicate with you and take that communication back into Martin for decisions. If you think that I am not high enough up the chain then fair enough but there are no rules being broken. It is perfectly clear to me that you are looking for excuses not deal with AOPA but rather concentrate on rubbishing them. Notwithstanding I will leave the offer open.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Jersey
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
Please please please, for the sake of the IMCR, swallow your pride and see if you can't get somewhere by having a meeting with Bose (and/or whoever else at AOPA) to see if you can't get this working.
It really does look like schoolground "my gang is better than yours" which does all sides no good whatsoever.
If you really care about saving the IMCR then put personal feelings behind you and sit down and talk (and I do mean sit down as opposed to any online discussion initially where things can be taken out of context).
PLEASE !
Please please please, for the sake of the IMCR, swallow your pride and see if you can't get somewhere by having a meeting with Bose (and/or whoever else at AOPA) to see if you can't get this working.
It really does look like schoolground "my gang is better than yours" which does all sides no good whatsoever.
If you really care about saving the IMCR then put personal feelings behind you and sit down and talk (and I do mean sit down as opposed to any online discussion initially where things can be taken out of context).
PLEASE !
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course I know the terms of reference, I was present.
until it has been reviewed and all parties sign off the content.
I am perfectly within my remit to communicate with you and take that communication back into Martin for decisions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Derekf
I really do care.
If a member of AOPA's committee wish to 'phone me, or they wish me to phone them they only have to say so. Martin has my email address and we have already exchanged correspondence.
I really do care.
If a member of AOPA's committee wish to 'phone me, or they wish me to phone them they only have to say so. Martin has my email address and we have already exchanged correspondence.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Jersey
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
If that's the case why don't you take up Steve's offer of talking about this to allow him to feed back to AOPA as a way of getting to them?
Surely it's got to be worth a go if you really do want to use (or try to use) all possible resources in your campaign.
What have you got to lose?
If that's the case why don't you take up Steve's offer of talking about this to allow him to feed back to AOPA as a way of getting to them?
Surely it's got to be worth a go if you really do want to use (or try to use) all possible resources in your campaign.
What have you got to lose?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
derekf
I have. I have not yet received a reply.
I have said on many occasions I would welcome working with any other organisation. Inevitably each needs to establish where they stand. I think we have been quite clear. This debate had been useful in trying to establish where AOPA stand. However they are a large organisation.
As Bose has quite properly said on a number of occasions he is entitled to express his own personal views on this forum - and he very much is, as well as AOPA policy. Which is which, is sometimes not clear.
AOPA are reported here to not be pursueing the wider adoption of the IMC rating in Europe. However, elsewhere it is reported that their CEO has "asked
that the rating be retained and expanded throughout the European community". Now both cannot be true.
AOPA policy may well have changed over the last few months, but if you support the former, but it is not longer the case as we are now told, is it not unreasonable that you should be aware that AOPA do not support expansion of the IMC rating throughout Europe?
We are campaigning for its wider adoption throughout Europe.
If that's the case why don't you take up Steve's offer of talking about this to allow him to feed back to AOPA as a way of getting to them?
I have said on many occasions I would welcome working with any other organisation. Inevitably each needs to establish where they stand. I think we have been quite clear. This debate had been useful in trying to establish where AOPA stand. However they are a large organisation.
As Bose has quite properly said on a number of occasions he is entitled to express his own personal views on this forum - and he very much is, as well as AOPA policy. Which is which, is sometimes not clear.
AOPA are reported here to not be pursueing the wider adoption of the IMC rating in Europe. However, elsewhere it is reported that their CEO has "asked
that the rating be retained and expanded throughout the European community". Now both cannot be true.
AOPA policy may well have changed over the last few months, but if you support the former, but it is not longer the case as we are now told, is it not unreasonable that you should be aware that AOPA do not support expansion of the IMC rating throughout Europe?
We are campaigning for its wider adoption throughout Europe.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Jersey
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
I'm glad you've said you will meet with Bose and look forward to him replying to you and setting that up.
This does appear slightly different to your original ideas (or what I thought htey were) and the header on your website "The Campaign to Save the UK IMC Rating".
If you have expanded your ideas I personally feel that's the wrong thing and that you should focus on the UK rating, however that's up to you to decide.
But, your top priority must be to save the UK IMCR and any expansion ideas should be secondary IMHO
I'm glad you've said you will meet with Bose and look forward to him replying to you and setting that up.
We are campaigning for its wider adoption throughout Europe
If you have expanded your ideas I personally feel that's the wrong thing and that you should focus on the UK rating, however that's up to you to decide.
But, your top priority must be to save the UK IMCR and any expansion ideas should be secondary IMHO
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
typo
In the words of that famous telegram...
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP
It seems to me that a few heads need knocking together, and a few ego's deflating - no names no pack drill. Squabbling between people who are trying to achieve the same thing is a simple yet pointless waste of energy so can I try to move it on a bit?
Bose, does the CAA really have no way of knowing how many new IMC's or revalidation's it has issued in the last 25 months?
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP
It seems to me that a few heads need knocking together, and a few ego's deflating - no names no pack drill. Squabbling between people who are trying to achieve the same thing is a simple yet pointless waste of energy so can I try to move it on a bit?
Bose, does the CAA really have no way of knowing how many new IMC's or revalidation's it has issued in the last 25 months?
Last edited by eltonioni; 11th Feb 2008 at 17:59.
eltonioni, they will know the number of new issues but not the number of revals or renewals - but if they REALLY wanted to know they could always ask the examiners because we are required to keep records.
HFD
HFD
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm genuinely flabbergasted that they don't require FI's / examiners to inform them. I assume therefore that they have no idea how many active (or at least potentially active) pilots there are in the UK?
Does no portion of the revalidation fee go to the CAA?
Does no portion of the revalidation fee go to the CAA?
They presumably get the info about active pilots from medicals and the type/rating/class form - it's just the IMC renewals that they don't get notified about.
(And I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that the CAA should start charging for processing renewals and revals
)
HFD
(And I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that the CAA should start charging for processing renewals and revals
)HFD
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eltonioni, there is no revalidation fee for an IMC. Any money you pay over is for the examiner. No records are sent to the CAA for a revalidation.
Contacting the examiners may be one way but it one hell of an exercise to reconcile the examiners records with the CAA records and one could ask if there is motivation on the part of the CAA to that sort of exercise.
The AOPA survey is probably going to be the best route for this data gathering.
Contacting the examiners may be one way but it one hell of an exercise to reconcile the examiners records with the CAA records and one could ask if there is motivation on the part of the CAA to that sort of exercise.
The AOPA survey is probably going to be the best route for this data gathering.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA had hoped that they could convince the rest of Europe to not only allow the IMCR to exist but to even expand it to other European users. This is unlikely to happen so AOPA are concentrating on the preservation of the IMC rating for British pilots and a fully accessible IR for all.
I am now aware of the communication that Fuji has had with the CEO and it has been agreed that he will contact Fuji and ask him to coordinate with me as the official representative. I am fully prepared to do so as I have stated.
As I am now going to be handling this in a representative capacity it will be wise for me to no longer enter into debate with Peter over the activities of AOPA or debate my personal view on the issue. I would therefore request that if he genuinely wishes to work in a collaborative manner he refrains from further AOPA trashing.
AOPA represents it's membership, if that matches the needs of non members then they are getting something for free, if it does not then so be it. If the membership wish to makes changes to policy they just have to contact the CEO, any member of the executive or a member of the working groups and the matter will be reviewed.
I would like to thank everyone for there patience in staying with frequently has amounted to garbage but can assure that AOPA are acting with the best interests of the AOPA membership at heart.
I am now aware of the communication that Fuji has had with the CEO and it has been agreed that he will contact Fuji and ask him to coordinate with me as the official representative. I am fully prepared to do so as I have stated.
As I am now going to be handling this in a representative capacity it will be wise for me to no longer enter into debate with Peter over the activities of AOPA or debate my personal view on the issue. I would therefore request that if he genuinely wishes to work in a collaborative manner he refrains from further AOPA trashing.
AOPA represents it's membership, if that matches the needs of non members then they are getting something for free, if it does not then so be it. If the membership wish to makes changes to policy they just have to contact the CEO, any member of the executive or a member of the working groups and the matter will be reviewed.
I would like to thank everyone for there patience in staying with frequently has amounted to garbage but can assure that AOPA are acting with the best interests of the AOPA membership at heart.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contacting the examiners may be one way but it one hell of an exercise to reconcile the examiners records with the CAA records and one could ask if there is motivation on the part of the CAA to that sort of exercise.
Every examminer who tests for the IMC can check their logbook for the previous 25 months and list the IMC renewals they did which were passed.
Add to that list the initials they passed and there is the total IMC population.
Ask those holders for deatails from their logbooks of IMC flights and imstrument approaches in the past 4 or 8 weeks and you have the list of current IMC rating holders.
-----------
As many people as possible should join AOPA. That ensures that if there is an expensive legal challenge to the end of the IMC rating taken all the way to the European courts where it fails, the more members there are that can share the financial guarantee that every member is liable for the better.
How much of your savings are you betting on the IMC rating? AOPA may be betting more than you would like if you are a member.
Ask Dublin Pilot what happens to AOPA when they get involved in stupid legal battles.
Regards,
DFC
Fuji
I wish to contest the following...
Surely, CFIT indicates a navigation or spatial-awareness error rather than a lack of skill to fly in IMC? I propose that there have been very few IMC holders that have lost control of their aircraft whilst flying IMC - I count 1 accident over the past 30 years excluding a couple of accidents involving pilots operating "illegally" on the continent. I propose that this illustrates the safety benefits better.
By the way, both you and Bose-X need to stop bickering as you're playing into the hands of the "jumbled message" brigade!
LJ
I wish to contest the following...
One case of CFIT in 40 years
By the way, both you and Bose-X need to stop bickering as you're playing into the hands of the "jumbled message" brigade!
LJ
Bose: "Contacting the examiners may be one way but it one hell of an exercise to reconcile the examiners records with the CAA records and one could ask if there is motivation on the part of the CAA to that sort of exercise."
Why would you or the CAA need to do any reconciliation? It would be a very simple matter for either the CAA or AOPA to contact the relatively small number (guess: around 150?) of FEs and get accurate info about IMC tests; a voluntary survey will take longer and is unlikely to produce accurate data.
Presumably all you need to know is the date and CAA reference number for all IMC tests performed over the last 2-3 years.
The only thing an FE survey wouldn't catch are the people using UK CPL privileges, but your proposed survey is unlikely to catch them either.
HFD
Why would you or the CAA need to do any reconciliation? It would be a very simple matter for either the CAA or AOPA to contact the relatively small number (guess: around 150?) of FEs and get accurate info about IMC tests; a voluntary survey will take longer and is unlikely to produce accurate data.
Presumably all you need to know is the date and CAA reference number for all IMC tests performed over the last 2-3 years.
The only thing an FE survey wouldn't catch are the people using UK CPL privileges, but your proposed survey is unlikely to catch them either.
HFD
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A problem with asking pilots is that an unknown percentage are going to lie.
A fact of aviation life unfortunately. Ask a pilot if they hold a current IMC rating and they will answer Yes. Check their logbook and in many cases you will find that the last proper IMC flight was their renewal test.
Getting the data from the examiners is the only 100% credible answer.
If this is going to take years to come to a head then the CAA can bring in a paperwork requirement for renewals which will track holders of the rating and record the amount of IMC time, instrument approaches etc logged since previous renewal. Can't see any examiners objecting if they actually support the IMC rating idea.
---------
Spoke with a French pilot this morning. His opinion was that if the UK made all the lower enroute airspace class E and D thus allowing the IMC rating holders access it or removed the airspace class restrictions from the rating it would look better in places like France where those are the lower airspace classes. Otherwise it is seen as a "we want you to take on our rating that we don't let people use in our system."
Regards,
DFC
A fact of aviation life unfortunately. Ask a pilot if they hold a current IMC rating and they will answer Yes. Check their logbook and in many cases you will find that the last proper IMC flight was their renewal test.
Getting the data from the examiners is the only 100% credible answer.
If this is going to take years to come to a head then the CAA can bring in a paperwork requirement for renewals which will track holders of the rating and record the amount of IMC time, instrument approaches etc logged since previous renewal. Can't see any examiners objecting if they actually support the IMC rating idea.
---------
Spoke with a French pilot this morning. His opinion was that if the UK made all the lower enroute airspace class E and D thus allowing the IMC rating holders access it or removed the airspace class restrictions from the rating it would look better in places like France where those are the lower airspace classes. Otherwise it is seen as a "we want you to take on our rating that we don't let people use in our system."
Regards,
DFC