IMC - what's the latest ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMC - what's the latest ?
Anyone know the latest on the IMC ? Are they still set to scrap it in a year or so ?
Apologies if I'm ploughing a well trodden path ... it doesn't apply to me so I haven't been keeping my eye on it : but I was talking to a guy yesterday about IF who said he'd like to do it, but didn't know if it was still worth it. I know that one or two on here used to be very close to the subject ...
Apologies if I'm ploughing a well trodden path ... it doesn't apply to me so I haven't been keeping my eye on it : but I was talking to a guy yesterday about IF who said he'd like to do it, but didn't know if it was still worth it. I know that one or two on here used to be very close to the subject ...
Quite so, Mike!
Currently the UK IMCR does not form part of EASA part-FCL's NAP17b proposals. However, the EC commissioner responsible for all transport matters is a supporter of the UK IMCR, as is an influential MEP.
So EASA now has a working group with the catchy name of FCL.008 who are looking at the future of instrument qualification requirements in Europe.
FCL.008 includes UK representation, so you'd think that we could be reasonably assured that the future of the IMCR was being well protected....
WRONG!
One of the UK representatives has been advocating a cruise-only IMCR called the 'En-route Instrument Rating'. This requires the same theoretical knowledge requirements as the proposed PPL/IR, but has no approach privileges. The person who dreamed up this lunatic idea considers that there should be 'almost certain' VFR conditions for take-off and landing (whatever that means), so the EIR holder can then go and play airliners without being concerned about going IMC in the cruise.
AOPA does not consider this Chocolate Teapot Rating to be in any way a suitable alternative to the UK IMCR and has asked IAOPA to tell the FCL.008 group that the UK advocate of this EIR does not have the support of the UK GA fraternity - he speaks for himself and for no-one else.
Much is going on behind the scenes to protect the UK IMCR and to ensure that it has a viable future. So if anyone is considering training for the IMCR now, my advice would certainly be to go ahead!
In any case, there's a good chance that EASA will heed the well-deserved handbagging they received from the EC and will remove their attentions from sub-ICAO licences and ratings.
Currently the UK IMCR does not form part of EASA part-FCL's NAP17b proposals. However, the EC commissioner responsible for all transport matters is a supporter of the UK IMCR, as is an influential MEP.
So EASA now has a working group with the catchy name of FCL.008 who are looking at the future of instrument qualification requirements in Europe.
FCL.008 includes UK representation, so you'd think that we could be reasonably assured that the future of the IMCR was being well protected....
WRONG!
One of the UK representatives has been advocating a cruise-only IMCR called the 'En-route Instrument Rating'. This requires the same theoretical knowledge requirements as the proposed PPL/IR, but has no approach privileges. The person who dreamed up this lunatic idea considers that there should be 'almost certain' VFR conditions for take-off and landing (whatever that means), so the EIR holder can then go and play airliners without being concerned about going IMC in the cruise.
AOPA does not consider this Chocolate Teapot Rating to be in any way a suitable alternative to the UK IMCR and has asked IAOPA to tell the FCL.008 group that the UK advocate of this EIR does not have the support of the UK GA fraternity - he speaks for himself and for no-one else.
Much is going on behind the scenes to protect the UK IMCR and to ensure that it has a viable future. So if anyone is considering training for the IMCR now, my advice would certainly be to go ahead!
In any case, there's a good chance that EASA will heed the well-deserved handbagging they received from the EC and will remove their attentions from sub-ICAO licences and ratings.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The person who dreamed up this lunatic idea considers that there should be 'almost certain' VFR conditions for take-off and landing (whatever that means),
They obviously now realise the safety aspect of the IMCR so dont know how to argue away the IMCR.
Hence my concern is a very watered down European IMCR which is no way could be classified as an instrument rating.
On previous postings I have always advocated pushing for an FAA like IR for PPLs as my concen was that pushing for a European IMCR would not get what we want.
My post in that thread feared that offering a very watered down IMCR would get them off the hook of addressing a proper PPL /IR while infact giving us nothing.
My post in that thread invisaged an enroute IMCR with approaches only on a declared emergency this doesnt seem that far away?
The problem is that nothing in flying is black or white VMC or IMC. It is easy to say assured VFR at destination but VFR at destination can easely be minimal VFR in minimal VMC which in no time can change to IMC.
Are pilots expected to be jumping from IFR to VFR just to suit regulations?
Are PPLs expected to add risk to suit regulations? IE is it safer in minimal VFR to approach an airport you dont know in terrain you dont know in minimal VFR or to stay IFR with vectors or a proper procedure.
The answer is pretty obvious. They need to stop playing politics and come up with a sensible PPL IR that is achievable for the working PPL and in the name of safety.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer is pretty obvious. They need to stop playing politics and come up with a sensible PPL IR that is achievable for the working PPL and in the name of safety.
Can you imagine EASA accepting an IR with one ground exam, taken on a computer whenever you want after self study and some ground school from your CFII?
Can you imagine EASA only REQUIRING 15 hrs of instrument instruction, the rest of the "instrument time" made up however you want (safety pilot for ex.)?
Can you imagine EASA giving credit for previous instrument time?
Can you imagine EASA allowing rolling currency requirements?
Can you imagine EASA allowing a lapsed IR to be revalidated by FI and NOT examiner?
If you can imagine EASA allowing this lot then you do have an IR akin to the FAA IR. Unfortunately they would NEVER allow 99% of this and so we will NEVER have an IR akin to the FAA IR.
What really needs to happen is for the Gold Plated JAR IR to be re-hashed and a new ATPL flight test and ground exams introduced at 1500 hrs. That way those of us who don't want to fly a Boeing don't have to meet Boeing standards or requirements.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the UK representatives has been advocating a cruise-only IMCR called the 'En-route Instrument Rating'. This requires the same theoretical knowledge requirements as the proposed PPL/IR, but has no approach privileges. The person who dreamed up this lunatic idea considers that there should be 'almost certain' VFR conditions for take-off and landing (whatever that means), so the EIR holder can then go and play airliners without being concerned about going IMC in the cruise.
AOPA does not consider this Chocolate Teapot Rating to be in any way a suitable alternative to the UK IMCR and has asked IAOPA to tell the FCL.008 group that the UK advocate of this EIR does not have the support of the UK GA fraternity - he speaks for himself and for no-one else.
AOPA does not consider this Chocolate Teapot Rating to be in any way a suitable alternative to the UK IMCR and has asked IAOPA to tell the FCL.008 group that the UK advocate of this EIR does not have the support of the UK GA fraternity - he speaks for himself and for no-one else.
Where is the statement from AOPA to which you refer?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal
My problem is I cannot imagine EASA doing much at all 
I cannot imagine EASA taking on the IMCR in its UK form as a European wide rating or for that matter creating anything that steps on the toes and existing structure of the IFR world that exists at present.
I can imagine EASA looking for a way out from the fact that the IMCR does improve safety in the GA/PPL community.
I can see them offering a gesture as a very watered down meaningless rating with the same name as the IMCR. Then they can turn around and say "there you are a European IMCR so your now happy". The fact that it is a bare ghost of its former self wont matter an iota to them.
I dont know what the answer is maybe just to say " No we need this in the UK on safety grounds and will NOT abolish it in the uk, full stop".
But other than tea and biscuits and appoving burps dont expect anything from EASA like you said i cannot imagine
Pace
Can you imagine EASA
I cannot imagine EASA taking on the IMCR in its UK form as a European wide rating or for that matter creating anything that steps on the toes and existing structure of the IFR world that exists at present.
I can imagine EASA looking for a way out from the fact that the IMCR does improve safety in the GA/PPL community.
I can see them offering a gesture as a very watered down meaningless rating with the same name as the IMCR. Then they can turn around and say "there you are a European IMCR so your now happy". The fact that it is a bare ghost of its former self wont matter an iota to them.
I dont know what the answer is maybe just to say " No we need this in the UK on safety grounds and will NOT abolish it in the uk, full stop".
But other than tea and biscuits and appoving burps dont expect anything from EASA like you said i cannot imagine
Pace
From the latest AOPA Newsletter:
EASA is overwhelmed with problems of its own making, having rewritten huge numbers of aviation regulations and sought to introduce new restrictions without any real reason for them...
...... EASA has received 13,000 objections from industry. Some 40 percent are from helicopter operators ...
The EC’s patience with EASA is running out. Deputy DGTREN director Zoltan Kazatsay wrote an impatient letter urging EASA to stop reinventing the wheel and added: “The Commission believes the time has come to take clear decisions to steer the Agency in a different direction. In this respect it is essential to carefully consider the alternative of going back to the original structure and wording wherever possible of JARs and ICAO requirements, which should be transposed into Community law.”
EASA’s ‘new direction’ is expected to be announced in the next two months
...... EASA has received 13,000 objections from industry. Some 40 percent are from helicopter operators ...
The EC’s patience with EASA is running out. Deputy DGTREN director Zoltan Kazatsay wrote an impatient letter urging EASA to stop reinventing the wheel and added: “The Commission believes the time has come to take clear decisions to steer the Agency in a different direction. In this respect it is essential to carefully consider the alternative of going back to the original structure and wording wherever possible of JARs and ICAO requirements, which should be transposed into Community law.”
EASA’s ‘new direction’ is expected to be announced in the next two months
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA is overwhelmed with problems of its own making, having rewritten huge numbers of aviation regulations and sought to introduce new restrictions without any real reason for them...
...... EASA has received 13,000 objections from industry. Some 40 percent are from helicopter operators ..
...... EASA has received 13,000 objections from industry. Some 40 percent are from helicopter operators ..
think how much money the industry would save without all the quangos beurocrats meddling and wrecking everything at present and at vast costs all round.
Pace
In any case, there's a good chance that EASA will heed the well-deserved handbagging they received from the EC and will remove their attentions from sub-ICAO licences and ratings.
No, it won't. Competence for sub-ICAO matters would be devolved to national authorities under the principle of subsidiarity. The Basic Regulation might need to be amended to support this, however.
There is an alternative strategy should the EASA €urocrats fail to accept the UK IMCR as it currently stands.
The pain problem is that the bumblers at EASA cannot understand that you don't need the same levels of training to operate to IMCR minima as you do to IR minima - and that such IMCR minima are entirely adequate for the vast majority of private pilots.
There is an alternative strategy should the EASA €urocrats fail to accept the UK IMCR as it currently stands.
The pain problem is that the bumblers at EASA cannot understand that you don't need the same levels of training to operate to IMCR minima as you do to IR minima - and that such IMCR minima are entirely adequate for the vast majority of private pilots.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: shaftesbury
Age: 70
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That Rating
so here i am, still none the wiser........
ive already put on hold my imc training... after doing a number of hours already.the impression i got was that easa was going to introduce a form of (light ppl ir) but im not sure exactly where i got that from.......
so whats the general consensus of opinion from you knowledgable people
should i think of booking and continuing my imc or should i wait .......in the hope that easa will slide slowly and painfully into total chaos and therfore somebody in command in whitehall /brussels or wherever these eurocrats reside will suddenly look up from his/her expenses claim form and realise that easa is just a croc of timewasting and expensive paper generating quango upholding cr*p (rant over .....but it felt good )
id love to continue with the rating but im reluctant to spend money that may result in a non rating in a couple of years
thanx for looking
best regards to all
pete
ive already put on hold my imc training... after doing a number of hours already.the impression i got was that easa was going to introduce a form of (light ppl ir) but im not sure exactly where i got that from.......
so whats the general consensus of opinion from you knowledgable people
should i think of booking and continuing my imc or should i wait .......in the hope that easa will slide slowly and painfully into total chaos and therfore somebody in command in whitehall /brussels or wherever these eurocrats reside will suddenly look up from his/her expenses claim form and realise that easa is just a croc of timewasting and expensive paper generating quango upholding cr*p (rant over .....but it felt good )
id love to continue with the rating but im reluctant to spend money that may result in a non rating in a couple of years
thanx for looking
best regards to all
pete
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is rare to find a rating lost without some form of grandfather rights - in fact I dont think it has ever happened. Moreover all those people who have spent £x on a rating and find they have lost their priviliges (if that were to happen) are going to be prettied annoyed. I suspect there would be a rather unpleasant backlash.
Perhaps that helps answer your question.
Perhaps that helps answer your question.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: EGTT
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I share the same concerns as 'pa28r driver'. I'd like to do my IMC some time in the future but am concerned about what EASA are going to do with it. It seems silly that they're making such a hash of things; because I'm sure there are other pilots out there who share the same concerns and thus being put off doing valuable training.
(But thanks for the rational explanation Fuji!)
(But thanks for the rational explanation Fuji!)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London, SW11
Age: 43
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disregarding the regulatory considerations, it has been stated on this forum many times that the skill set provided by good IMC training (and maintained through including IMC sorties with your VMC flying) is something that cannot be taken away from you. It enables you to deal with the obvious - entry (inadvertent or not) into cloud - as well as those conditions where although the conditions are technically VMC, instrument skills give you comfort: water crossings with no apparent horizon, hazy days where the VV is fine but horizontal visibility is terrible.
It's a fun course. Go for it. The ground exam is not difficult (but many people prefer to study beyond the requirements for the theory exam - Air Pilot's Manual Vol. 5 is good for learning about holds etc. that are not required for the IMC skills test).
It's a fun course. Go for it. The ground exam is not difficult (but many people prefer to study beyond the requirements for the theory exam - Air Pilot's Manual Vol. 5 is good for learning about holds etc. that are not required for the IMC skills test).
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who wants to do an IMC rating, but decides to hold back or abandon it due to what may, possibly, sometime in the future happen as a result of EASA is rather stupid IMHO. The skills are invaluable and it will be years before anything happens. If it happens.