Saving the IMC. Did we do enough? Can we do more?

[Fuji Abound]

Bookie - exactly.

Without meaning to be pedantic I would only quibble with the word "easy". I know what you mean but it may send the wrong message.

The key is exactly as you write - easy to do from the standpoint of schooling being supplied at a point convenient to the average PPL who has a day job and four weeks holiday a year. Inevitably a PPL IR is not "easy" and it shouldn't be - but the training should be totally relevant with as much emphasis as possible on practical training and much less emphasis on unnecessary and bloated theory the majority of which is simply irrelevant to the needs of a PPL IR holder.

[Pace]

I agree with Bookworm. The FAA IR is every bit as good as a JAA IR But if you offered the IMCR as a sub FAA IR to the Americans no body would bother with it.
Why because the FAA IR is designed to achieve a standard which is sensible, cost effective and does not require months of study.
This is what I hope EASA are doing and will continue to do up until the real date of 2016 not 2014.
By september november they should have completed their study of the FAA system and JAA system to complete their ideas on PPL FCL before moving onto a similar study on commercial licences but the driving force is to simplify not complicate.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

The more I think about it the more I wonder whether we need a more clearly defined separation between private and commercial pilots? The training world (beyond the PPL) is controlled by relatively few commercial operators who doubtless exercise considerable influence throughout Europe. They clearly have vested interests and the last thing they want is a "simpler" IR. However the number of private pilots they tutor is miniscule. We all know how few private pilots in Europe have an EASA IR. They would not be bothered to loose the few private pilots that past through the system each year

We accept a PRIVATE pilots license and we dont restrict how a pilot with a PPL shall operate - VFR into the largest hubs is entirely acceptable. Flying IFR is no more difficult with the correct tuition, and it seems logical that an IR attached to a PRIVATE license should be a PRIVATE IR. With that distinction it would enable the rating to be far better designed around the needs of the private pilot without compromising safety.

It is not on the road map, and its not going to happen, but fun to muse.

[peterh337]

I wonder whether we need a more clearly defined separation between private and commercial pilots?

The risk with that, which I believe is real in Europe's highly politicised aviation regulation / ATC union / airline pilot union dominated climate, is that that would result in "private IR" holders being excluded from a lot of airspace or airports.

They are already excluded (by pricing) from many airports which are not busy, just for the manager's laugh, and airspace issues would be a disaster.

If it wasn't for ICAO, GA would be dead in nearly all of the world including most of the "civilised" world, except a few countries which have a long history of private flying (USA, UK, Germany, France basically). We must stick to ICAO licenses and ratings, or face extinction of GA and especially IFR GA.

[Fuji Abound]

I am not convinced for the reasons given.

I see no reason why the private IR couldn't be an ICAO license - after all the FA IR is ICAO compliant without the bloated theory content.

Moreover as I said earlier the PPL is ICAO compliant BUT is a private license without commercial privileges.

If airports want to exclude private flights they will do so anyway - either using pricing or as we are seeing in Belgium - other means. Realistically how many private light singles or twins go into Gatwick at the moment and for how long has this been the case?

No, I don't think yours is a reason for not developing a private rating, but, as I said earlier, this is all dream world, its not about to happen so what I think is irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

The problem might/will be 'who is qualified to teach', as debated in other Threads by the flying instructors and examiners?

Even if the proposals you suggest were viable, the provision of instructors to teach the IR are not it seems.

The question might not be 'I want to do an IR', but 'do you have any instructors to teach an IR'?

KR

FOK

[bookworm]

The more I think about it the more I wonder whether we need a more clearly defined separation between private and commercial pilots? The training world (beyond the PPL) is controlled by relatively few commercial operators who doubtless exercise considerable influence throughout Europe. They clearly have vested interests and the last thing they want is a "simpler" IR.

You might envisage that. However, it doesn't tally with the fact that FCL.008 was chaired by the IAAPS nominee, and that the training industry has been extremely supportive of the CBM-IR. Thus I suggest we cross that particular bridge when we come to it.

[Silvaire1]

The FAA IR is every bit as good as a JAA IR But if you offered the IMCR as a sub FAA IR to the Americans no body would bother with it.

Yes. All that's needed is to make the existing European IR suited to its purpose, private or commercial. Obviously at the moment its too complicated and has a great deal of content that's irrelevant for both. Then air transport pilots get (oddly enough ) an ATP. There is no logical linkage for licensing between meteorological conditions during the flight and whether the pilot is being paid or not.

Some guys in the hangar next to mine share a 182 and are all getting their FAA instrument ratings. Their instructor is an AA check pilot and its great for me too - I get a smattering of free ground instruction from being in the hangar next door!

[Pace]

The more I think about it the more I wonder whether we need a more clearly defined separation between private and commercial pilots? The training world (beyond the PPL) is controlled by relatively few commercial operators who doubtless exercise considerable influence throughout Europe. They clearly have vested interests and the last thing they want is a "simpler" IR

.

Why not? Surely if there was a simpler IR and I presume we are talking about the extensive ground exams then there would be a much higher demand for training rather than the few sponsored by mum and dad into a career in aviation!
Making the process more streamlined and as you put it "simpler" while achieving the same end result will mean that the training industry will have far higher influx of students both commercial and private into the training industry.

There was an extensive study carried out between FAA trained ATPs and JAA trained ATPs the conclusion was while both took different routes to the qualification they both achieved the same quality of pilot at the end of the process.
Complex does not mean better nor does it mean more trade for the training industry! I would suggest the opposite is the case.

Hence the present study of the two systems to see where there is common ground and where simplification can be achieved without loss of safety.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Bookworm

I dont understand your point.

I know you will be aware of the proposed CBM-IR fees - why wouldn't the training industry lap up these proposals. I know you will also know the cost of the FAA IR theory. There is no proven case that the theoretical content for private pilots is necessary or justified and the bloated costs add insult to injury. It is unjustified day light robbery. I wouldnt mind if it could be justified on safety grounds.

[Silvaire1]

There is no proven case that the theoretical content for private pilots is necessary or justified and the bloated costs add insult to injury. It is unjustified day light robbery. I wouldnt mind if it could be justified on safety grounds.

It is equally unjustified daylight robbery for any pilot, no? The relatively simple, attainable-for-all FAA instrument rating does not distinguish between private and commercial pilots for instrument rating... because the distinction makes no sense.

Yet another stratification of the irrational and over-complex does not seem like any kind of solution - it actually reinforces the problem.

[Level Attitude]

Thread Drift

I do not care whether the IMC survives, or not, in it's exact current form.
But I do want a Rating that gives essentially the same privileges, for about
the same amount of training and will be valid for longer than 1 year.

Responses to my original Post started with knocking EASA (understandable,
but not helpful) and seem to have moved on to a discussion on how to make
an IR easier to obtain (discussions which, unlike for the IMC, are not time critical).

If we end up losing the IMC then, at least, I would like to ensure that
all ideas/avenues/approaches had been tried.

We should never assume that "the great and the good" have already
thought of everything. I note that BEagle states he is a director of AOPA,
so any ideas, that might just tip the balance, would be seen if posted here.

So far only Fuji (Post 16) has suggested anything, unfortunately his suggestion
is very much like the idea for an "Instrument Weather Rating" of a couple of
years ago - rejected because it gave full IR privileges on a sub-ICAO IR.

People must have some other ideas, suggestions.................

[Fuji Abound]

So far only Fuji (Post 16) has suggested anything, unfortunately his suggestion
is very much like the idea for an "Instrument Weather Rating" of a couple of
years ago - rejected because it gave full IR privileges on a sub-ICAO IR.

Thank you - but I don't support the idea of a sub ICAO IR, nor did I say otherwise.

That said even ICAO is not quite what it seems - have a look at the various ICAO licenses for which exemptions have been filed - they are ICAO licenses, well to all intense purposes, or are they?

The variation I proposes was to distinguish between a commercial rating and a private rating in much the same way the distinction exists between a private pilot's license and a commercial pilot's license - both ICAO licenses. The private IR would, as Bookworm suggests, create a license designed to meet the training needs of a pilot unable to fund the cost of a commercial license or the additional time to learn a deal of theory that is irrelevant to private operations. The license would never the less be ICAO compliant.

Lest we forget over 50% of private pilots in the US have an IR, less than 5% of EASA private pilots have an IR. The goal should be to achieve at least the same percentage of IR rated pilots in Europe because we know it makes for safer pilots. There is nothing in the current proposals likely to achieve this. If the IMCr is lost in the UK it will only make matters worse.

If I had just one wish, it would be that the bureaucrats learn the lessons of history; if the IR embodies bloated theoretical content that is both costly and impractically difficult to access and if the training is not widely available then the up take will be almost zero.

[Pace]

If I had just one wish, it would be that the bureaucrats learn the lessons of history; if the IR embodies bloated theoretical content that is both costly and impractically difficult to access and if the training is not widely available then the up take will be almost zero

Hence why the training industry should welcome simplification to encourage more students commercial or private through their doors.
It is not just Private pilots who are scarce taking up full IRs but also would be commercial pilots who unless funded by wealthy parents struggle to raise the £60K plus needed!
a few years ago in these forums I was against trying to preserve the IMCR and for putting all our efforts into Getting EASA to create an FAA like IR rating.
I really hope that the information being bled to me is accurate that EASA are indeed looking at both FAA and JAA and trying to find common ground with the idea of simplification and unification of FAA and EASA where safety allows and this is not yet another trick of hand for a more sinister motive.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace - yes but a few training organisations have a strangle hold on the IR at the moment, and guess what, as Bookworm indicated earlier, those few are far more influential than your and my local FBO.

Commercially the last thing that is wanted is a cheaper IR or for that matter any form of cheaper commercial license training. That is fair enough - it may be wrong, but it is not an issue for this forum, which after all is concerned with private pilots.

As I said earlier, in my theoretical world there would have been a chance of distinguishing between commercial and private licenses because, I suspect, the commercial organisations wouldn't see the loss of the private punters a significant enough issue.

It is the art of the possible, and I feel their were opportunities, but they haven't been taken.

[Pace]

Fuji

But these larger training organisations already subcontract out to the USA for a large portion of the flight training because its a lot cheaper there than here!
Second does it make more business sense to sell a lot at a cheaper price or a little at a large price?
Any supermarket will give the answer to that
Looking at 50% of PPLs with IRs in the USA compared to 5% in Europe gives a huge potential market for selling simpler IRs to European pilots to these training organisations.
I would think that any training organisations with half a brain would encourage a simpler cheaper option???

Pace

[abgd]

And any craftsman or self-employed instructor will give a very different answer from the supermarkets.

[Pace]

And any craftsman or self-employed instructor will give a very different answer from the supermarkets.

Hence why craftsmen are a dying breed working niche markets and instructors do not make money.
Went into a furniture store beautiful oak all made by machine and computers for the mass market but very passable.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

There arent a lot of trainee pilots to go around. Super markets sell a lot cheap because we cant control either ourselves or our stomachs so we produce more people with ever larger stomachs and the supermarkets are happy.

The airlines control the supply and demand for pilots. There are a roughly fixed numbers of commercial students each year. Making it cheaper / easier will only create more unemployed pilots. There is nothing in your model for commercial fly training setups so they neither want to make "their" product cheaper or easier. In fact more expensive would suite them.

Of course i dont dispute the airlines would like cheap pilots, but the beaucrats arent about to slow down the gravy train because they have their own vested interest.

No but the chink in the armour is the private pilot. Lets face it other than the fbos everyone sees them as a bit of a nuisance, the sort that dont fit the model. Too be fair they dont fit the model and that is why their needs should be provided for in another way.

[Pace]

Fuji

We could go into a long political discussion on why the USA has always been pro GA while Europe NOT!

The USA because there was often hundreds of miles between cities and GA offered a cost effective means of travel.

Europe is fairly new! a mix of individual countries many from left wing backgrounds with little or no GA preferring to keep their citizens in people carriers!

All air travel confined to state controlled carriers and not to individuals with money to buy such aircraft or move freely in our skies.
Hopefully GA will increasingly be seen as a viable business tool

Pace