IMCR numbers going down
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why in the last few years in particular - that's the real question. Pre-2002, the IMCR issue rate was relatively stable.
Now look at them, CT2K, Sky Ranger Ikarus etc on the microlight front sipping Mogas with 152 speeds makes for attractive flying. Permit wise look at the stuff like the Pioneer, the plastic thingy that Rod1 flies, the Glasair, the RV series, these are serious fast tools that people fit kick ass glass cockpits to. the Glassair even comes in a Turbine version!!
Given the option of a 172 on an expensive CofA or a 200kt hotship with a state of the art glass cockpit and able to self maintain I can see why people choose to give up rarely used IMCR privileges for far greater benefit.
If I could fly IFR Airways in one I would give up my Cessna in a heartbeat.
You also have to look at the ever aging rental fleet with ever increasing placards for inop items. Most rental fleets have only one or two IMC capable aircraft and schools are reticent to sign people out for rental in real IMC due to the risk of the aircraft being stranded away etc that it becomes harder for people to actually use the IMCR. So for the average non owning IMC pilot once the novelty wears off they realise in a rental scenario that the IMC does not have a great deal off worth. The sales of IMC capable tourers to private individuals have fallen off as the price of Avgas rises.
It's not difficult to see the reasons.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I probably could find the answer on here somewhere, but to add to this debate:
Can you fly a US 'homebuilt/kit a/c' on N-reg with an FAA license in Europe ? And if yes, can you fly IFR (obviously holding the required FAA license & rating). Truth be told, I'm not even sure if kitplanes are legal for IFR in the US, but....
Can you fly a US 'homebuilt/kit a/c' on N-reg with an FAA license in Europe ? And if yes, can you fly IFR (obviously holding the required FAA license & rating). Truth be told, I'm not even sure if kitplanes are legal for IFR in the US, but....
Question for Bose X
Bose, I'm confused about your statement, "Removing the need for a CPL from the FI rating only currently applies to LAPL training".
I spoke with Peter Moxham recently, who drafted the 'differences' filing concerning the CPL requirement removal for PPL instructors with EU Parliament on behalf of EASA. According to Peter, the removal of the CPL requirement for PPL instructors is not limited to the LAPL, it applies to the JAR-PPL as well.
Interestingly, Martin Robinson agrees with your statement, and I guess he should know. However, Peter is adamant that it is not limited to the LAPL.
Personally I expect Peter is correct (he wrote it after all) and Martin has got the wrong end of the stick, which is presumably where you got your information from. Or do you have access to a draft proposal that states otherwise?
Regards
Jez
I spoke with Peter Moxham recently, who drafted the 'differences' filing concerning the CPL requirement removal for PPL instructors with EU Parliament on behalf of EASA. According to Peter, the removal of the CPL requirement for PPL instructors is not limited to the LAPL, it applies to the JAR-PPL as well.
Interestingly, Martin Robinson agrees with your statement, and I guess he should know. However, Peter is adamant that it is not limited to the LAPL.
Personally I expect Peter is correct (he wrote it after all) and Martin has got the wrong end of the stick, which is presumably where you got your information from. Or do you have access to a draft proposal that states otherwise?
Regards
Jez
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you fly a US 'homebuilt/kit a/c' on N-reg with an FAA license in Europe ?
And if yes, can you fly IFR (obviously holding the required FAA license & rating). Truth be told, I'm not even sure if kitplanes are legal for IFR in the US, but....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Kent, England
Age: 36
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was very interested in doing my IMC later this year, until I saw the cost of ILS training. £58 a go has put me off doing it, so until I can afford an ME-IR, I will stick to the CAVOK days...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£58 where? That is steep even by UK standards. Was that Cranfield, including the landing?
But you can practice in a sim, even a PC sim (FSX etc) until you know exactly how to do it. That's how one should train IFR anyway - know exactly what you will be doing before you get airborne. Schools don't necessarily want to do that, for obvious reasons...
Then you don't need to fly many approaches.
But you can practice in a sim, even a PC sim (FSX etc) until you know exactly how to do it. That's how one should train IFR anyway - know exactly what you will be doing before you get airborne. Schools don't necessarily want to do that, for obvious reasons...
Then you don't need to fly many approaches.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it you mean the Experimental category. Yes but being sub-ICAO you need a permission from every airspace owner.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you wish to digress on how FAR 61.3 requirements might (or not) be met with JAA or EASA pan-EU rules, feel free
Anyway, the FAA does not restrict its Experimental category aircraft territorially. It's entirely up to the foreign airspace what they let you do.
Personally, I doubt EASA will ever allow U.S. Exp Cat planes to fly over here. From personal discussions I've had (at the top, more or less) the whole drift of EASA is to be ICAO compliant. They even plan to file a difference to ICAO on the LAPL, which would make it ICAO compliant despite its GP medical, thus making it potentially usable outside EASA-land. And the US Exp stuff is sub-ICAO.
Now, if EASA introduced an Exp category over here............ that would be something else. I can't see it happening. I can see them doing a 750 kg class and maybe bigger stuff, which will be pretty well deregulated, VFR only. That will probably meet the requirements of most pilots.
In Europe, "IFR" is a 3-letter word which arouses massive emotions among the old fart regulators, which is why the IR has always been as hard as they could make it.
Anyway, the FAA does not restrict its Experimental category aircraft territorially. It's entirely up to the foreign airspace what they let you do.
Personally, I doubt EASA will ever allow U.S. Exp Cat planes to fly over here. From personal discussions I've had (at the top, more or less) the whole drift of EASA is to be ICAO compliant. They even plan to file a difference to ICAO on the LAPL, which would make it ICAO compliant despite its GP medical, thus making it potentially usable outside EASA-land. And the US Exp stuff is sub-ICAO.
Now, if EASA introduced an Exp category over here............ that would be something else. I can't see it happening. I can see them doing a 750 kg class and maybe bigger stuff, which will be pretty well deregulated, VFR only. That will probably meet the requirements of most pilots.
In Europe, "IFR" is a 3-letter word which arouses massive emotions among the old fart regulators, which is why the IR has always been as hard as they could make it.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the main reasons for the decline in IMC ratings is unfortunately the number of pilots willing to operate as IO540 recomends.
Use GPS and ignore the law as well as safety while declaring to be VFR while actually flying IFR in IMC.
The IR is not dificult. Tacking an NDB is not difficult and completing a hold is not difficult. It simply requires training and lots of practice.
If a pilot knows the basics and is willing to spend time with RANT or similar practicing then I can be sure that they will come to find NDB holds easy.
Unfortunately, these days we are stuck in the modern "windows PC" culture - sod reading the manual or doing some training - turn it on and learn by doing. People want to apply the same to flying - NDB holds are too difficult so they should be banned. The GPS is simple to use so it should be mandatory and if you don't have one you are lost.
The simple fact is that many pilots exercise the privileges of the IMC rating without ever having held one or if they did have one they never renewed it. More shocking is that many fellow pilots are aware of the situation and either ignore the situation or wish they did the same or if you read IO540's comments - publicly endorse such actions.
If there were more thorough checks carried out not only would there be more IMC ratings or IR ratings held but there would be more pilot licenses held. Yes! do not for one minute believe that the number of active pilots equals the number of licence holders.
One only has to read the reports - flying in cloud hits hill, flying in cloud hits sea, flying in cloud hits mountain, flying in cloud hits mountain, almost hits red arrows also flying in cloud during a VFR flight, lost control after suction system failure - not qualified for IMC flight.
I have several times been flying IFR just above a solid overcast that covered most of the UK Base 3000 tops 5000. You would (perhaps not) be amazed at the number of home built permit types that pass by........many in IMC at the time!!!
Regards,
DFC
Use GPS and ignore the law as well as safety while declaring to be VFR while actually flying IFR in IMC.
The IR is not dificult. Tacking an NDB is not difficult and completing a hold is not difficult. It simply requires training and lots of practice.
If a pilot knows the basics and is willing to spend time with RANT or similar practicing then I can be sure that they will come to find NDB holds easy.
Unfortunately, these days we are stuck in the modern "windows PC" culture - sod reading the manual or doing some training - turn it on and learn by doing. People want to apply the same to flying - NDB holds are too difficult so they should be banned. The GPS is simple to use so it should be mandatory and if you don't have one you are lost.
The simple fact is that many pilots exercise the privileges of the IMC rating without ever having held one or if they did have one they never renewed it. More shocking is that many fellow pilots are aware of the situation and either ignore the situation or wish they did the same or if you read IO540's comments - publicly endorse such actions.
If there were more thorough checks carried out not only would there be more IMC ratings or IR ratings held but there would be more pilot licenses held. Yes! do not for one minute believe that the number of active pilots equals the number of licence holders.
One only has to read the reports - flying in cloud hits hill, flying in cloud hits sea, flying in cloud hits mountain, flying in cloud hits mountain, almost hits red arrows also flying in cloud during a VFR flight, lost control after suction system failure - not qualified for IMC flight.
I have several times been flying IFR just above a solid overcast that covered most of the UK Base 3000 tops 5000. You would (perhaps not) be amazed at the number of home built permit types that pass by........many in IMC at the time!!!
Regards,
DFC
