En-route instrument rating - how's it supposed to work?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
Fuji, you damage your cause with bogus statistics
From the latest 10 year safety analysis published by the CAA.
AAIB Bulletin No: 4/2002 Ref: EW/C2001/2/5 Category: 1.3
Aircraft Type and Registration: Rockwell Commander 114, G-LIMA
Aircraft Type and Registration: Rockwell Commander 114, G-LIMA
AAIB Bulletin No: 1/2000 Ref: EW/C99/4/3 Category: 1.3
Aircraft Type and Registration: Mooney M20J, G-BIWP
Aircraft Type and Registration: Mooney M20J, G-BIWP
AAIB Bulletin No: 9/99 Ref: EW/C99/2/3 Category: 1.3
Aircraft Type and Cessna 172M, G-BXLJ
Aircraft Type and Cessna 172M, G-BXLJ
So there are three fatal accidents in the last 10 years with IMCr pilots, in the UK, with the rating current, reasonably in IMC conditions - 2 of these are basic accidents - 1 of had the engine failure contribute (which in detail appears to have resulted in a slow decay in airspeed, the trim running to hold altitude until the aircraft spun in)
So the recent fatal rate is either 2 or 3 /10 years. Which is 8-12x Higher than you are claiming Fuji.
You are just giving the anti- IMCr argument on opportunity to discredit your safety argument by showing you are grossly wrong on the fact (1 in 40 years is clearly not true).
A much stronger argument is - there are no approach accidents involving IMCr holders (there is only one approach accident in the entire 10 year period within the UK -that was a CPL/IR continuing descent into the water ).
An even more relevant argument is there are lots of CFIT/LOC accidents that kill people who only have a standard PPLs after inadvertent encounters with IMC and the IMCr seems to make this rate much lower in the UK than the rest of Europe. I am not against the IMCr (I think it is a sensible answer for the UK), just don't build an argument on demonstrably false numbers.
Last edited by mm_flynn; 1st Dec 2009 at 19:14.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM_Flynn
Your argument is sound and your observation about accidents during an approach is very relevant.
G-BIWP
The aircraft had climbed through the cloud and was in VMC above a cloud layer.
G-BXLJ
The pilot who hired the aircraft had not flown since 28 November 1998; consequently the AFI accompanied him in order to satisfy the operator's 4 week currency requirement. The AFI not surprisingly was recorded as the Commander and he also held a CPL. It is not known whether the aircraft was above the tops or not.
G-LIMA
I understand this is the accident referred to by the CAA.
Italics = quote from the AAIB report.
I am not sure your assessment of these accidents is quite as sound for the above reasons. Unless there are any more of which you are aware perhaps the CAA are correct.
Your argument is sound and your observation about accidents during an approach is very relevant.
G-BIWP
The aircraft had climbed through the cloud and was in VMC above a cloud layer.
G-BXLJ
The pilot who hired the aircraft had not flown since 28 November 1998; consequently the AFI accompanied him in order to satisfy the operator's 4 week currency requirement. The AFI not surprisingly was recorded as the Commander and he also held a CPL. It is not known whether the aircraft was above the tops or not.
G-LIMA
I understand this is the accident referred to by the CAA.
Italics = quote from the AAIB report.
I am not sure your assessment of these accidents is quite as sound for the above reasons. Unless there are any more of which you are aware perhaps the CAA are correct.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too think some of those accidents should not be counted, but really one is splitting hairs trying to dig up a few deaths incurred during IMCR-privilege flights, against the vastly greater number of deaths incurred during "VFR" 
flights, many of which ended with some "IMC event" leading to less than controlled flight to somewhere below the ground level.
It is also pointless to argue this because Europe is not going to accept the IMCR, no matter what. France possibly might be OK (their extensive low level Class E is perfect for it) but nobody else.
The real argument is whether the requirements of the IR can be set much lower than they are.
There is no doubt they can be...
Unfortunately that line is a total loser for private IFR because any competency differentiation between the 'professional IR' and a 'private IR' would most likely lead to a ban on private IFR in a lot of places. The greatest weapon private IFR has against the gold plating elitists is "we passed the same IR checkride as the ATPL flying your 737".
Never forget that much of Europe has virtually zero GA (not counting people with lawn mowers strapped to their back, and the microlight scene) and its regulators couldn't care less for GA. They are, almost to a man, ex military (remember that most of the world is run by military dictators, actually or de facto), or ex ATC and these are highly elitist and rule-based professions.
Yet we want to be able to fly there, and overfly it.
So the only options for making the IR more accessible (like the FAA one is in the USA) are
- reduce the theory content (this is reportedly happening in the EASA IR)
- reduce the minimum dual training time i.e. go for demonstrated competence; ICAO is a friend here with its 10hrs min requirement (this is also reportedly happening in the EASA IR)
- take the IR flight training out of the professional school arena which is currently mandatory (I am not sure any progress has been made on this, due to FTO industry protectionism)
- take the IR theory training out of the professional school arena which is currently mandatory-attendance (this I believe will be in the EASA IR i.e. self study permitted)
- take out the Class 1 audiogram and go for Demonstrated Ability which is what you get anyway on all medicals after the Initial one
(this is not going to happen because medical departments in the CAAs rule more or less absolutely)
Give it a few years and then see.
In the meantime, get the FAA PPL/IR, buy an N-reg plane and enjoy at least a number of years of freedom
That's what I have been doing, along with a few thousand European pilots.
flights, many of which ended with some "IMC event" leading to less than controlled flight to somewhere below the ground level.It is also pointless to argue this because Europe is not going to accept the IMCR, no matter what. France possibly might be OK (their extensive low level Class E is perfect for it) but nobody else.
The real argument is whether the requirements of the IR can be set much lower than they are.
There is no doubt they can be...
Unfortunately that line is a total loser for private IFR because any competency differentiation between the 'professional IR' and a 'private IR' would most likely lead to a ban on private IFR in a lot of places. The greatest weapon private IFR has against the gold plating elitists is "we passed the same IR checkride as the ATPL flying your 737".
Never forget that much of Europe has virtually zero GA (not counting people with lawn mowers strapped to their back, and the microlight scene) and its regulators couldn't care less for GA. They are, almost to a man, ex military (remember that most of the world is run by military dictators, actually or de facto), or ex ATC and these are highly elitist and rule-based professions.
Yet we want to be able to fly there, and overfly it.
So the only options for making the IR more accessible (like the FAA one is in the USA) are
- reduce the theory content (this is reportedly happening in the EASA IR)
- reduce the minimum dual training time i.e. go for demonstrated competence; ICAO is a friend here with its 10hrs min requirement (this is also reportedly happening in the EASA IR)
- take the IR flight training out of the professional school arena which is currently mandatory (I am not sure any progress has been made on this, due to FTO industry protectionism)
- take the IR theory training out of the professional school arena which is currently mandatory-attendance (this I believe will be in the EASA IR i.e. self study permitted)
- take out the Class 1 audiogram and go for Demonstrated Ability which is what you get anyway on all medicals after the Initial one
(this is not going to happen because medical departments in the CAAs rule more or less absolutely)Give it a few years and then see.
In the meantime, get the FAA PPL/IR, buy an N-reg plane and enjoy at least a number of years of freedom
That's what I have been doing, along with a few thousand European pilots.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-BIWP
The aircraft had climbed through the cloud and was in VMC above a cloud layer.
The aircraft had climbed through the cloud and was in VMC above a cloud layer.
G-BXLJ
The pilot who hired the aircraft had not flown since 28 November 1998; consequently the AFI accompanied him in order to satisfy the operator's 4 week currency requirement. The AFI not surprisingly was recorded as the Commander and he also held a CPL. It is not known whether the aircraft was above the tops or not.
The pilot who hired the aircraft had not flown since 28 November 1998; consequently the AFI accompanied him in order to satisfy the operator's 4 week currency requirement. The AFI not surprisingly was recorded as the Commander and he also held a CPL. It is not known whether the aircraft was above the tops or not.
My point is not to debate the details of exactly what should or should not count - more to provide some facts for others to judge the 'only 1 accident in 40 years claim'. I find it surprising that the only accident the CAA are aware of happened in the most recent 10 year analysis - particularly as contributor Pace says his IMC rated friend died in IMC in the previous 10 year analysis. I have not analysed accidents in the period 10-40 years ago.
I do overall agree the IMCr in the UK is not dangerous, is overall a benefit to pilots and the European training requirements for an IR are excessive.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone please explain to me something, minus all the mud-slinging. Under the proposed EIR:
1.) At the time of takeoff your METAR at departure and TAF at destination look VMC so you're legal
2.) Enroute you hit IMC and using your swanky EIR skills manage to continue.
3.) The weather takes a turn for the worse and your destination and alternate are under cloud but above the IMC mimuma. With your old IMCr your would have had the skills to peform and ILS etc.....
.....What do you do with the EIR???? Make up your let down OCAS without an approach aid?? Decsend into VMC outside the ATZ and maybe under the range of radar coverage???
1.) At the time of takeoff your METAR at departure and TAF at destination look VMC so you're legal
2.) Enroute you hit IMC and using your swanky EIR skills manage to continue.
3.) The weather takes a turn for the worse and your destination and alternate are under cloud but above the IMC mimuma. With your old IMCr your would have had the skills to peform and ILS etc.....
.....What do you do with the EIR???? Make up your let down OCAS without an approach aid?? Decsend into VMC outside the ATZ and maybe under the range of radar coverage???
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a nonsense offered to appease the IMCR holders in the UK and badly thought out.
Our best bet is a PPL IR based on the same flight test as the existing IR with streamlined ground studies and grandfather rights which allow you to go for a pre test test to determine if you are up to flying a full test.
The same with the ground exams.
IMO that is what we should be directing our attention to not a FOB OFF IMCR look alike in name only.
Pace
Our best bet is a PPL IR based on the same flight test as the existing IR with streamlined ground studies and grandfather rights which allow you to go for a pre test test to determine if you are up to flying a full test.
The same with the ground exams.
IMO that is what we should be directing our attention to not a FOB OFF IMCR look alike in name only.
Pace
marioair
Let's change the scenario a little.
1.) At the time of takeoff your METAR at departure and TAF at destination look VMC so you're legal
2.) Enroute you hit IMC and using your swanky IR skills manage to continue.
3.) The weather takes a turn for the worse and your destination and alternate are under cloud. But unfortunately, there is no ILS, nor any IAP at your destination
What do you do with the IR???? Make up your let down OCAS without an approach aid?? Descend into VMC outside the ATZ and maybe under the range of radar coverage???
I have a cunning plan: let's put that question on the TK test, shall we?
Let's change the scenario a little.
1.) At the time of takeoff your METAR at departure and TAF at destination look VMC so you're legal
2.) Enroute you hit IMC and using your swanky IR skills manage to continue.
3.) The weather takes a turn for the worse and your destination and alternate are under cloud. But unfortunately, there is no ILS, nor any IAP at your destination
What do you do with the IR???? Make up your let down OCAS without an approach aid?? Descend into VMC outside the ATZ and maybe under the range of radar coverage???
I have a cunning plan: let's put that question on the TK test, shall we?
Bookworm,
The answer to your question "What do you do with the IR????" (or IMCR, for that matter): you plan an alternate that does have an instrument approach, and you check that the TAF predicts weather that's comfortably within your capability.
Simples!
However, it can't be that simple or you wouldn't have asked the question. As with Fuji, I've also probably missed some subtlety in your question!
The answer to your question "What do you do with the IR????" (or IMCR, for that matter): you plan an alternate that does have an instrument approach, and you check that the TAF predicts weather that's comfortably within your capability.
Simples!
However, it can't be that simple or you wouldn't have asked the question. As with Fuji, I've also probably missed some subtlety in your question!
