Where are we really going with the IMC rating?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can convince every pilot in the world. That is not going to make any difference. You have to convince the regulators and the national Governments plus the European comission. Pilots especially just the purely recreational and sport kind i.e. PPL represent very few votes. Think of the airfield closures. How many pilots vote and campaign against those.
I don't feel the need to thump my chest and proclaim my experience to justify the opinions I express.
I don't feel the need to thump my chest and proclaim my experience to justify the opinions I express.
Anyway, I'd rather have this discussion with someone who I know actually flies, and hence is arguing for a reason. Some of the other contributors who like to stir the pot I know don't fly, or fly very rarely and their contributions are designed to stir, cause arguments and not be productive. Even trying to sabotage efforts you could say....
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
If the Government says a new drug is to expensive, and yet the doctors tell the government the new drug will save many peoples' life to whom do we listen?
Sorry to hijack the thread for a moment.
Actually it's a body called the National Insitiute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). This is a panel of doctors and NHS professionals (accountants etc) whose job it is to balance out health benefits with cost to the NHS. There are always howls of anguish when they say a drug is not cost-effective, but unfortunately mostly these screams have the drug companies egging people on from the back (in my view).
Maybe there's a parallel here?
TheOddOne
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know.
The parallel being that on those occasions there is popular demand for a drug to be available the "regulator" takes notice of demand.
In fact if every regulator and government ignored every campaign I guess we would still have the poll tax and the red arrows would not be gracing our Olympic games.
The point is campaigns can be very productive.
Englishal
I agree.
I can think of a few on here since I have been doing this who are kown by others and it turns out they dont fly at all, or hardly at all. Their posts imply other wise.
The parallel being that on those occasions there is popular demand for a drug to be available the "regulator" takes notice of demand.
In fact if every regulator and government ignored every campaign I guess we would still have the poll tax and the red arrows would not be gracing our Olympic games.
The point is campaigns can be very productive.
Englishal
I agree.
I can think of a few on here since I have been doing this who are kown by others and it turns out they dont fly at all, or hardly at all. Their posts imply other wise.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, let me repeat what I said with emphasis;
Quote:
Any IFR flight must be operated on the basis that from entering IMC it may not exit IMC until reaching minima at the alternate.
Quote:
Any IFR flight must be operated on the basis that from entering IMC it may not exit IMC until reaching minima at the alternate.
In otherwords do not gow down the road of a VFR over the top rating and confuse what IMC IFR flying involves.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't agree. A flight must be operated on the basis of the forecast and actual weather conditions
-----------
The pilot is fully IR current because he holds a valid IMC rating
The IMC is not an instrument rating. The holders are not instrument rated. If you want to push forward the idea you need to ensure that such is made clear.
EASA have not "granted a moratorium" and they are not adopting the rating for at least the next four years.
To think such is simply dreaming.
EASA simply pointed out that the whole process is going to have such a timeframe.
People should decide personally if they want to pay for a rating that may not exist in 4 years time and one could argue that shcools sdhould make them aware.
Natural Justice?
It costs me a fortune to drive a 4x4 round inner London (more than the cost of an IMC rating each year. I was able to do it for free. Can I not pay and claim my rights to Natural Justice in infringed?
If Authorities listed to the popular position then GPS would be mandatory fro VFR flights.
If I wanted to strii things, I would make 2 posts - The IMC rating is dead............and in 4 years time - I told you so.
However, if I simply point out what I believe are errors in the way people are going about this then they can have a think about what I say. They may agree or they may not that is up to them.
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IMC is not an instrument rating. The holders are not instrument rated.
It costs me a fortune to drive a 4x4 round inner London (more than the cost of an IMC rating each year. I was able to do it for free. Can I not pay and claim my rights to Natural Justice in infringed?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It entitles the holder to fly on instruments.
No, because you have no good reason to do so. You cause an unacceptable level of pollution and you dont need 4 wheel drive in London. I would ban them completelly.
People would have a field day if you compared a recreation / sport activity to day to day essential business.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
englishal,
Good point - there are pilots who hold both an instrument rating and an IMC rating........but do they exercise the privileges of the IMC rating when flying IFR or the IR?
Regards,
DFC
Good point - there are pilots who hold both an instrument rating and an IMC rating........but do they exercise the privileges of the IMC rating when flying IFR or the IR?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but do they exercise the privileges of the IMC rating when flying IFR or the IR?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have removed this post intentionally.
Hoodie's post below was made before I removed this post, which is why the sequence of events seem strange (entirely my fault, not his). Thus I offer the following explanation.
The post concerned my feelings regarding DFC and his opinions, which he often represents as fact without ever offering any evidence, claiming some "inside track". I presented my reasons for believing him to be a seriously unhelpful fantasist at some length, and challenged him to prove his credentials (which I know well he will not do).
However, on reflection, I considered that by attacking him, my post simply served to add credibility to his position, and so I removed it.
FF
Hoodie's post below was made before I removed this post, which is why the sequence of events seem strange (entirely my fault, not his). Thus I offer the following explanation.
The post concerned my feelings regarding DFC and his opinions, which he often represents as fact without ever offering any evidence, claiming some "inside track". I presented my reasons for believing him to be a seriously unhelpful fantasist at some length, and challenged him to prove his credentials (which I know well he will not do).
However, on reflection, I considered that by attacking him, my post simply served to add credibility to his position, and so I removed it.
FF
Last edited by FullyFlapped; 16th Feb 2008 at 12:57.
FF, thank you. 
For anyone else looking for the source of...
...then check out DFC's contributions to this thread. They're an eye-opener.
(FF, I assume that's what you meant, unless there are other examples - not that I'd be surprised.
)
For anyone else looking for the source of...
Originally Posted by FullyFlapped
And yet, my favourite post of yours over the years was the one in which you claimed that should you ever enter cloud unexpectedly on a VFR flight you would immediately put down in the nearest field, and consider yourself a failure for having to do so ...
(FF, I assume that's what you meant, unless there are other examples - not that I'd be surprised.
)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EnglishAl,
Are you saying that when using the IMC rating and have not declared an emergency, you will operate to IR minima?
-----------
Hoodie
I never said "in which you claimed that should you ever enter cloud unexpectedly on a VFR flight you would immediately put down in the nearest field, and consider yourself a failure for having to do so ..."
I stand by the posts I made in the thred you use as an example and I still say that faced with an unplanned excursion into IMC the precautionary landing will often be a safer option.
Had some pilots followed that then the population of Blackpool pilots would be 2 greather than it is today and also there would not have been the IMC CFIT in North Wales that killed one and ruined the life of another.
Regards,
DFC
Are you saying that when using the IMC rating and have not declared an emergency, you will operate to IR minima?
-----------
Hoodie
I never said "in which you claimed that should you ever enter cloud unexpectedly on a VFR flight you would immediately put down in the nearest field, and consider yourself a failure for having to do so ..."
I stand by the posts I made in the thred you use as an example and I still say that faced with an unplanned excursion into IMC the precautionary landing will often be a safer option.
Had some pilots followed that then the population of Blackpool pilots would be 2 greather than it is today and also there would not have been the IMC CFIT in North Wales that killed one and ruined the life of another.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
Yes with regards to DA MDA....
DA and MDA are the same for IMCr or IR holders as we all know very well. I would feel comfortable taking the aeroplane down to minimums if I had too, as it is withing my personal experience envelope...
You could also say that perhaps they should have climbed higher into IMC and continued on instruments had they been able to?
Yes with regards to DA MDA....
DA and MDA are the same for IMCr or IR holders as we all know very well. I would feel comfortable taking the aeroplane down to minimums if I had too, as it is withing my personal experience envelope...
Had some pilots followed that then the population of Blackpool pilots would be 2 greather than it is today and also there would not have been the IMC CFIT in North Wales that killed one and ruined the life of another.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scoring points off a particular fatal accident is never a good strategy. DFC should know that.
There are books and books and books packed with airliner accidents where two gold-standard trained ATPs piled their jet into terrain and killed some 3 digit # of passengers. If they can do it (and tens of thousands of passengers have died in these accidents) anybody can do it.
There are books and books and books packed with airliner accidents where two gold-standard trained ATPs piled their jet into terrain and killed some 3 digit # of passengers. If they can do it (and tens of thousands of passengers have died in these accidents) anybody can do it.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose,
If you have nothing further to debate then why attack a person?
This is typical of the bully boy attitude often found here - can't argue the point any further so then start describing other posters as "a fool, a liar and cheat".
Unfortunately those comments simply say notihing about Fuji and more about you.
------------
IO540,
You are 100% correct. Was not trying to score a point but was pointing out that I held those views prior to certain accidents such as those described which could have turned out differently if some unfortunates had followed my position on such situations.
---------
EnglishAl,
I was afraid you were going to say that.
The AIP as a legal text is clear with regard to notifications regarding the absolute lowest DA(H) and MDA(H) to be used by IMCrating holders as well as recomended additions.
Do you think that a German regulator will look at such use of IR minima by non-IR holders and say that is a good idea or even say that those pilots are not simply using the rating in an unintended manner and use that as a reason for giving German pilots such a rating.
IMC rating holders need to be on their best behaviour while the debate rages and nothing could be more damaging than giving the detractors some indication that the rating encourages pilots to operate beyond the uses for which the rating is provided.
Regards,
DFC
If you have nothing further to debate then why attack a person?
This is typical of the bully boy attitude often found here - can't argue the point any further so then start describing other posters as "a fool, a liar and cheat".
Unfortunately those comments simply say notihing about Fuji and more about you.
------------
IO540,
You are 100% correct. Was not trying to score a point but was pointing out that I held those views prior to certain accidents such as those described which could have turned out differently if some unfortunates had followed my position on such situations.
---------
EnglishAl,
I was afraid you were going to say that.
The AIP as a legal text is clear with regard to notifications regarding the absolute lowest DA(H) and MDA(H) to be used by IMCrating holders as well as recomended additions.
Do you think that a German regulator will look at such use of IR minima by non-IR holders and say that is a good idea or even say that those pilots are not simply using the rating in an unintended manner and use that as a reason for giving German pilots such a rating.
IMC rating holders need to be on their best behaviour while the debate rages and nothing could be more damaging than giving the detractors some indication that the rating encourages pilots to operate beyond the uses for which the rating is provided.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think that a German regulator will look at such use of IR minima by non-IR holders and say that is a good idea or even say that those pilots are not simply using the rating in an unintended manner and use that as a reason for giving German pilots such a rating.
All pilot licenses and ratings carry priviliges which could be dangerous if used without any consideration for how trained, current and skilled a particular pilot is. Air law can not legislate for every scenario and occassion, and makes pilots accountable for using their judgement. Using judgement and being accountable for one's own actions is probably the reason many of us enjoy flying.
The IMC-R is a special case. It has clear and unambiguous privileges that a holder can exercise, just as the holder of any other qualification can exercise its privileges in full. However, IFR is particularly difficult and unforgiving, and the CAA, recognising that some IMCR holders may lack currency and/or experience, very sensibly make all sorts of recommendations about caution in how the rating is used.
Why this is such a catalyst for a zillion forum-pontificators to say "it must only be used as a get-out-of-trouble rating", "you should always apply the recommended minima addition" etc etc is beyond me. I imagine there is some enjoyment people get from prescribing and pontificating about exctly how pilots should make decisions they have discretion over.
IMC rating holders need to be on their best behaviour while the debate rages and nothing could be more damaging than giving the detractors some indication that the rating encourages pilots to operate beyond the uses for which the rating is provided.
Think of the counterfactual situation, in which the recommended additions had been legally required. That situation would be utterly irreversible. Posters like DFC would claim, I'm sure, that death and mayhem would result from IMCR holders flying to IR minima. However, we are not in that counterfactual world, but one in which some do fly to those minima, and the safety record is a good one.
The legal privileges of a qualification are the final arbiter of what a rating was "intended" for. Everything else is pilot judgement. Why does that concept frighten people?
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, 421C. A little common sense among much noise.
It makes me very sad to see folks throwing rocks at each other when they should be working together.
It makes me very sad to see folks throwing rocks at each other when they should be working together.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was afraid you were going to say that.
The AIP as a legal text is clear with regard to notifications regarding the absolute lowest DA(H) and MDA(H) to be used by IMCrating holders as well as recomended additions
The AIP as a legal text is clear with regard to notifications regarding the absolute lowest DA(H) and MDA(H) to be used by IMCrating holders as well as recomended additions
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
IMC rating holders need to be on their best behaviour while the debate rages and nothing could be more damaging than giving the detractors some indication that the rating encourages pilots to operate beyond the uses for which the rating is provided.
What an odd thing to say. IMC holders need to be on their "best behaviour" because IFR is challenging and they are responsible for their own safety. I actually think it is helpful to the IMC-R case that the descent minima are the same as for IR holders, and that some IMC-R pilots apply those minima. It shows that it is safe, since I am not aware of any IMC-R holder accidents where the application of IR minima has been a factor.
IMC rating holders need to be on their best behaviour while the debate rages and nothing could be more damaging than giving the detractors some indication that the rating encourages pilots to operate beyond the uses for which the rating is provided.
What an odd thing to say. IMC holders need to be on their "best behaviour" because IFR is challenging and they are responsible for their own safety. I actually think it is helpful to the IMC-R case that the descent minima are the same as for IR holders, and that some IMC-R pilots apply those minima. It shows that it is safe, since I am not aware of any IMC-R holder accidents where the application of IR minima has been a factor.
And as for throwing rocks, Keef, I am sorry - truly - that there is discord. However, the guy at my airfield who said to me yesterday that - despite being a perfect candidate for it, in terms of usage and profile - he wouldn't be taking up an IMC because someone he knew had seen on PPruNe that it was definitely a dead duck - makes me angry, and those who propagate this crap deserve all they get ...