Saving the IMC. Did we do enough? Can we do more?
If you're selling a commodity it makes sense to sell a lot with very low margins. This means big organisations with a highly paid CEO and lowly paid minions.
A set of oak bookshelves is a commodity, and in the days of CNC that's true even for a made-to-measure set. There are still things that aren't though.
I don't quite know where flying instructors are on the scale of things, but mine (in a busy school) seemed to do quite well - certainly better than the average supermarket employee.
A set of oak bookshelves is a commodity, and in the days of CNC that's true even for a made-to-measure set. There are still things that aren't though.
I don't quite know where flying instructors are on the scale of things, but mine (in a busy school) seemed to do quite well - certainly better than the average supermarket employee.
Flight Training 'Organisations' are an unnecessary government creation, forced into existence because they can pay licensing taxes without making it obvious to the student that he's actually paying them (indirectly). They should have zero influence on regulators... but their tax revenue buys them a vote which works against the interests of the flight student and aircraft owner. I assume they also collect VAT from the student (at no charge) which obviously no two individuals doing business between themselves would do. So they become an entrenched part of the tax machine.
Its illegal for the FAA to charge licensing taxes of that nature, and there is no sales tax on labor in any state. So economics being what they are, few of the 100s of private pilots I know were instructed through commercial and ("full") IR by anybody other than a part time instructor with a 'real' job doing something else. That's what the real market supports, that plus European students doing their 45 day zero to hero stuff in local schools that nobody local actually uses. At least they keep the aircraft movement count up.
Much of the local US instruction (especially instrument ratings) is done in the students own aircraft, which I think must be the best way to do it.
Its illegal for the FAA to charge licensing taxes of that nature, and there is no sales tax on labor in any state. So economics being what they are, few of the 100s of private pilots I know were instructed through commercial and ("full") IR by anybody other than a part time instructor with a 'real' job doing something else. That's what the real market supports, that plus European students doing their 45 day zero to hero stuff in local schools that nobody local actually uses. At least they keep the aircraft movement count up.
Much of the local US instruction (especially instrument ratings) is done in the students own aircraft, which I think must be the best way to do it.
Last edited by Silvaire1; 26th Mar 2013 at 02:27.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Flight Training 'Organisations' are an unnecessary government creation"
Yes I've often thought that. I can't see why if the instructor is appropriately qualified and the aircraft is suitably equipped why they simply can't teach a student? As at the end of the day they all have to demonstrate the appropriate standard to the CAA approved examiner.
And as for information that is required to get FTO approval such as the number of rooms, the size of the CFI office and the number of toilets. Well for the life on my I can't see what relevance it has.
An example of this is I split my time between a FTO and a rf. During the week I could be offering CPL training and at the weekend I could be instructing at the rf in exactly the same aircraft from exactly the same airfield using exactly the same briefing room.
Yet at the weekend I'm not allowed to offer CPL or BIFM training.
The only difference I can see is one organisation hasn't paid the CAA a wodge of cash and produced a load of utterly irrelevant manuals.
And as far as I am aware I don't deliver a lower standard of instruction at the weekends. There is one difference however. The added cost of all the manuals, audits, visits etc adds an extra 62 quid per hour onto the hire cost for the FTO.
Yes I've often thought that. I can't see why if the instructor is appropriately qualified and the aircraft is suitably equipped why they simply can't teach a student? As at the end of the day they all have to demonstrate the appropriate standard to the CAA approved examiner.
And as for information that is required to get FTO approval such as the number of rooms, the size of the CFI office and the number of toilets. Well for the life on my I can't see what relevance it has.
An example of this is I split my time between a FTO and a rf. During the week I could be offering CPL training and at the weekend I could be instructing at the rf in exactly the same aircraft from exactly the same airfield using exactly the same briefing room.
Yet at the weekend I'm not allowed to offer CPL or BIFM training.
The only difference I can see is one organisation hasn't paid the CAA a wodge of cash and produced a load of utterly irrelevant manuals.
And as far as I am aware I don't deliver a lower standard of instruction at the weekends. There is one difference however. The added cost of all the manuals, audits, visits etc adds an extra 62 quid per hour onto the hire cost for the FTO.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't quite know where flying instructors are on the scale of things, but mine (in a busy school) seemed to do quite well - certainly better than the average supermarket employee.
Perhaps at a very busy school in a good weather year an instructor might be able to scrape out a meagre living, but they would almost certainly do better at ASDA.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, forget about instructors making a mint. They don't. In fact given their skill, expertise and the time taken to gain the qualifications they are substantially under paid. However it reinforces my earlier point - most private pilots cant and wont pay a reasonable commercial rate, just as most people have to run their hobbies on a shoe string. After all for most it is a hobby. That is why I put forward my argument that the sooner private flying is separated from commercial ops. the better - no compromise on safety - just a different way of going about things. In fact get the majority of private pilots instrument rated and you will improve the record enormously, you will increase the revenue contribution from GA (because more flights will take place) and their will be less "unpleasant" interaction between GA and commercial ops. because pilots will be much less likely to infringe.
Simple really.
Are we getting good at missing the obvious?
Simple really.
Are we getting good at missing the obvious?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
Not sure what you mean by seperating private flying from commercial ?
Joe Bloggs flying his Cirrus in the airway or on an approach is mixing it with Mr EasyJet and has to be trusted to fly with accuracy!
An instrument rating can only be one standard and tha standard should be more akin to the American system instead of being a major hurdle for the working man with family commitments to achieve.
There has been study after study and both FAA and JAA IRs are equal so the rest in the JAA rating has to be needless junk!
I really do hope that EASA will grab the opportunity and make courageous steps in freeing up the industry from all the overloading and strangulation which is suffocating it!
Maybe elaborate on what you mean ?
Pace
Not sure what you mean by seperating private flying from commercial ?
Joe Bloggs flying his Cirrus in the airway or on an approach is mixing it with Mr EasyJet and has to be trusted to fly with accuracy!
An instrument rating can only be one standard and tha standard should be more akin to the American system instead of being a major hurdle for the working man with family commitments to achieve.
There has been study after study and both FAA and JAA IRs are equal so the rest in the JAA rating has to be needless junk!
I really do hope that EASA will grab the opportunity and make courageous steps in freeing up the industry from all the overloading and strangulation which is suffocating it!
Maybe elaborate on what you mean ?
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joe Bloggs flying his Cirrus in the airway or on an approach is mixing it with Mr EasyJet and has to be trusted to fly with accuracy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a more serious note the FAA IR and the IMCR are poles apart in my opinion in terms of both effort to achieve and practical use, if only we had a world IR rating similar to the FAA IR that would surely serve all purposes.
How do you make a £400 loss? I know people who have to pay for some twin time to keep their MEIR valid and other costs, but I have seen people make a reasonable living in a busy school.
I agree about the ATOs.
I agree about the ATOs.
Last edited by abgd; 28th Mar 2013 at 07:53.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
Not sure what you mean by separating private flying from commercial ?
Joe Bloggs flying his Cirrus in the airway or on an approach is mixing it with Mr EasyJet and has to be trusted to fly with accuracy!
Not sure what you mean by separating private flying from commercial ?
Joe Bloggs flying his Cirrus in the airway or on an approach is mixing it with Mr EasyJet and has to be trusted to fly with accuracy!
In short leave us to do our own thing because I don't think we need to put private pilots through the same needless treadmill suffered by our commercial brethren.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
I am not fighting you on that as I agree with what you are saying
but I also do not agree with commercial pilots being put through anymore of a treadmill than say an FAA ATP.
The quality of both is the same proved time and time again so why 14 exams for a JAA ATP.
I do not think this has anything to do with separating Commercial and private but in looking at all training and slimming down the whole process from junk food to something more akin to the FAA system on private or ATP level.
Pace
I am not fighting you on that as I agree with what you are saying
but I also do not agree with commercial pilots being put through anymore of a treadmill than say an FAA ATP.The quality of both is the same proved time and time again so why 14 exams for a JAA ATP.
I do not think this has anything to do with separating Commercial and private but in looking at all training and slimming down the whole process from junk food to something more akin to the FAA system on private or ATP level.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - yes you are right and I agree with you. Your and my opinion has little sway and it is not going to happen. I was just lamenting that there was more chance it happening were private and commercial licensing segregated because the Eurocrats will never give up their hold on the commercial training industry but might give up their hold on a private wing because there is neither enough money nor sufficient vested interest at work - cynical - yep, guilty.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 26th Mar 2013 at 22:49.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
My contact in the EASA negotiating team says otherwise! A major study of both FAA and JAA working on PPL FCL to be concluded by Sept/Nov this year, then moving to the same on commercial licences! An acceptance that nothing will happen in 2014 so a delay to 2016.
Another BASA this june.
The principal is to bring FAA and JAA (to be EASA regs) closer together with a simplification of cross licencing.
Lets wait and see genuine efforts and thinking or a big con exercise to leave us all with eggs on our face!
I will still takes bets on nothing major happening in 2014 to anyone who wants a bet
My contact in the EASA negotiating team says otherwise! A major study of both FAA and JAA working on PPL FCL to be concluded by Sept/Nov this year, then moving to the same on commercial licences! An acceptance that nothing will happen in 2014 so a delay to 2016.
Another BASA this june.
The principal is to bring FAA and JAA (to be EASA regs) closer together with a simplification of cross licencing.
Lets wait and see genuine efforts and thinking or a big con exercise to leave us all with eggs on our face!
I will still takes bets on nothing major happening in 2014 to anyone who wants a bet
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F900EX
A simple conversion route between licences was achieved between the USA and Canada!
There is no sensible reason why the same cannot be achieved between the FAA and EASA.
More so with ATPs who hold current type ratings and more than 1500 hrs.
That category are of little interest to the training world other than through type renewals or initials.
Neither would ATPs be used as a back door to achieving easy EASA commercial licences for the same reason
Pace
A simple conversion route between licences was achieved between the USA and Canada!
There is no sensible reason why the same cannot be achieved between the FAA and EASA.
More so with ATPs who hold current type ratings and more than 1500 hrs.
That category are of little interest to the training world other than through type renewals or initials.
Neither would ATPs be used as a back door to achieving easy EASA commercial licences for the same reason
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 27th Mar 2013 at 10:18.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F900 EX
You cant really take part in a discussion if you have followed the discussion, can you?
I have said countless times it is not going to happen, we all know we are on a different track, we were debating what could have been.
As to "getting around the system" that is the last thing the debate is about. The system is ridiculous, because it has totally failed in its prime objective to promote safety, but that is a different matter.
Finally, I dont know who you have flown with but I guarantee you I have flown with pilots with an IMCrating that I would far rather be with than some pilots I have flown with who have an IR. The practical component of the IMCr is less than an IR and the training standard more variable. By definition a student will not complete the IMCr as well trained. However with a good instructor and an additional 20 hours the obtained standard is every bit as high.
You cant really take part in a discussion if you have followed the discussion, can you?
I have said countless times it is not going to happen, we all know we are on a different track, we were debating what could have been.
As to "getting around the system" that is the last thing the debate is about. The system is ridiculous, because it has totally failed in its prime objective to promote safety, but that is a different matter.
Finally, I dont know who you have flown with but I guarantee you I have flown with pilots with an IMCrating that I would far rather be with than some pilots I have flown with who have an IR. The practical component of the IMCr is less than an IR and the training standard more variable. By definition a student will not complete the IMCr as well trained. However with a good instructor and an additional 20 hours the obtained standard is every bit as high.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until the FAA IR is done by check instead of rolling experence requirements to keep it current there will be no crossover.
Apart from that there is still the problem that alot of the tolerances are tighter for the european IR.
I think heading is +-10 FAA EU its 5deg
They are aloud 3/4 scale deflection we are half scale.
And speed they are 10kts and EU is 5knts.
Then there is the theory requirements.
Which is why it was only ever acredited IMC rating.
Where as the European IR is the same what ever flavour of license you hold.
Apart from that there is still the problem that alot of the tolerances are tighter for the european IR.
I think heading is +-10 FAA EU its 5deg
They are aloud 3/4 scale deflection we are half scale.
And speed they are 10kts and EU is 5knts.
Then there is the theory requirements.
Which is why it was only ever acredited IMC rating.
Where as the European IR is the same what ever flavour of license you hold.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
f900EX.
I was never even two years ago keen on the idea of saving the IMC rating preferring every effort was put into getting a more achievable IR
50% of FAA private pilots hold FAA IR s
5% of European private pilots hold IRs
the French have an atrocious VFR safety record we have a much better record put down to our IMCR which demonstrates that some instrument training and approach capability is a big plus to the private VFR pilot.
Many studies have been carried out comparing FAA IR safety records compared to JAA IR safety records !
conclusion ? There is no difference
the only difference is the ease of achieving one against the other
Private pilots tend to be working people with family commitments who do not have the time or inclination to spend months studying exams.
Hence a IR based on the FAA system would encourage pilots into proper IRs which in turn would lead to better safety levels in Europe.
this would also lead more students to the doors of the hard hit training organisations so win win all round.
My problems with an FAA ATP and type ratings are different if the requirement for dual licensing came into force without a sensible conversion route for me!
But that is a different problem to this thread
Pace
I was never even two years ago keen on the idea of saving the IMC rating preferring every effort was put into getting a more achievable IR
50% of FAA private pilots hold FAA IR s
5% of European private pilots hold IRs
the French have an atrocious VFR safety record we have a much better record put down to our IMCR which demonstrates that some instrument training and approach capability is a big plus to the private VFR pilot.
Many studies have been carried out comparing FAA IR safety records compared to JAA IR safety records !
conclusion ? There is no difference
the only difference is the ease of achieving one against the other
Private pilots tend to be working people with family commitments who do not have the time or inclination to spend months studying exams.
Hence a IR based on the FAA system would encourage pilots into proper IRs which in turn would lead to better safety levels in Europe.
this would also lead more students to the doors of the hard hit training organisations so win win all round.
My problems with an FAA ATP and type ratings are different if the requirement for dual licensing came into force without a sensible conversion route for me!
But that is a different problem to this thread
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe one of the problems with the French VFR record is the fact they are currently allowed to go VFR on top and use it to boot.
Which the IMC training very sensibly got you to a level which you could still get down safely if the cunning plan turned into a what the hell do I do now plan.
And to be honest it doesn't matter how you have been trained until you have go a shed load of experence under your belt you are a danger to yourself with any form of instrument rating. The training could be 100 hours and it still wouldn't make any difference.
Which the IMC training very sensibly got you to a level which you could still get down safely if the cunning plan turned into a what the hell do I do now plan.
And to be honest it doesn't matter how you have been trained until you have go a shed load of experence under your belt you are a danger to yourself with any form of instrument rating. The training could be 100 hours and it still wouldn't make any difference.
Last edited by mad_jock; 27th Mar 2013 at 11:46.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IMC rating is just an IR with 15 hours of the training.
Therefore it's absurd to have an IMCR that is essentially an easy-IR with approach privileges and just 15 hours of training; and then an overkill IR with 50 hours training and crazy reading material which just gives you the additional ability to fly in such airways.
IMHO the IMC rating shouldn't have given pilots ANY privileges when it was created. It remains a good course though. The invaluable skills taught by the course should be used by VFR pilots in an emergency to get them safely back down to the ground.
What's good news is the FCL008-IR coming soon. It should have been there some 30+ years ago.
Last edited by soaringhigh650; 27th Mar 2013 at 12:00.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IMC rating previously was just a get out of trouble rating, a good grounding in Applied Instument Flying. However as it gave no ability to fly IFR in Special Rules Areas B which comprised the major airports which had radar and an ILS, it was of no value in planning to fly cross country IFR unless there was a reasonable chance of a visual approach at the other end. I think the only ILS which was available in IMC was at Stornoway.
The change came when IFR was permitted in the Class D airspace into which the SRZs had changed. Thus it was now possible to fly across the country IFR and make approaches, all with no Flight Plan and no fuss, as long as one remained clear of Class A. I appreciate the continuing informality of UK cross country IFR but I also think that the real answer is an easier to achieve and maintain IR and await the next text from FCL 008 with interest.
The change came when IFR was permitted in the Class D airspace into which the SRZs had changed. Thus it was now possible to fly across the country IFR and make approaches, all with no Flight Plan and no fuss, as long as one remained clear of Class A. I appreciate the continuing informality of UK cross country IFR but I also think that the real answer is an easier to achieve and maintain IR and await the next text from FCL 008 with interest.