Pity we do not have the balls of the French more on IR and IMCR
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kent
Age: 61
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm_flynn - don't disagree with anything you've said.
My outpouring was a response to some earlier posts:
I have no objection (indeed fully support) the push for an accessible PPL IR - as long as the IMCR isn't bartered away in the process. I regard it as a shame that the IMCR and PPL IR seem to have become linked - meaning there is now disagreement about what constitutes "victory". It seems to me it would have been much better had:
OC619
My outpouring was a response to some earlier posts:
So what victory retaining the IMCR? To me that would be winning a battle and losing the war
- Getting an accessible PPL IR
- Retaining the IMCR in an acceptable form for existing holders
OC619
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retaining the IMCR in an acceptable form for existing holders
Its what happens after that for new comers that is still in sway.
In light of this I, along with many others, will oppose anything that will remove the IMCR without replacing it with something the provides similar privileges at a similar cost - perhaps the PPL IR folks would like to consider this.
* supports the accessible instrument rating
* supports the CAA's conversion report from IMC rating to IR(R) for current holders (which is what you need OC619, but appear not to have heard about)
* supports the continued existence of the IMC rating as a rating available to new pilots in the UK.
It seems to me it would have been much better had:
* Getting an accessible PPL IR
* Retaining the IMCR in an acceptable form for existing holders
had not been linked in the first place.
* Getting an accessible PPL IR
* Retaining the IMCR in an acceptable form for existing holders
had not been linked in the first place.
Last edited by bookworm; 8th Apr 2013 at 16:34.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM
.
The problem with the EIR is that a number of member states will not accept it on safety grounds.
EASA would never accept the IMCR because it was not enroute to anywhere!
What I mean by that is that they saw the concept of the EIR as being a half way house to a full IR allowed enroute privalages ie part of the full IR package.
The problem with the EIR is having pilots who do not have the skills needed to fly approaches or departures or the legal rights to do so.
It all sounds great! Takeoff VFR climb on top and descend VFR the other end.
Reality is very different. Take off VFR climb on top, find the cloud tops are increasing or a line of thunderstorm and what then?
Have a problem enroute which requires a landing? Cloudbase below 200 RVR 700 Meters and what does the EIR holder do?
Leave the airway before the Star over mountains maybe 30 to 50 miles out and although destination is CAVOK it is not where you are trying to get visual.
You cannot have a safe halfway house with instrument flying hence why many countries oppose it!
They will never accept the IMCR in Europe so at best it will be a local unsupported rating to keep the brits happy and to deflect attention away from what should be an easily achievable FULL IR along American lines with full IFR privalages takeoff enroute and landing!
That is the only way you can do it and there are 11000 FAA IR rated pilot in the EU
But they are linked as the safety objective is to have instrument ability which is a safety angle as proved by the IMCR.
Sadly it will never be accepted Europe wide and hence we should fight for something which will be accepted Europe wide which gives us full departure enroute and landing privalages and not take a massive more effort than getting the IMCR
Pace
3 - Getting the competency based IR, sensible ATO requirements, and maybe the EIR - which would provide for not a lot of extra training the ability to operate IFR all over Europe, a massive safety benefit to non-UK pilots, and the chance for IMCr pilots to upgrade to being able to legally operate IFR into and out of France, Ireland, etc
The problem with the EIR is that a number of member states will not accept it on safety grounds.
EASA would never accept the IMCR because it was not enroute to anywhere!
What I mean by that is that they saw the concept of the EIR as being a half way house to a full IR allowed enroute privalages ie part of the full IR package.
The problem with the EIR is having pilots who do not have the skills needed to fly approaches or departures or the legal rights to do so.
It all sounds great! Takeoff VFR climb on top and descend VFR the other end.
Reality is very different. Take off VFR climb on top, find the cloud tops are increasing or a line of thunderstorm and what then?
Have a problem enroute which requires a landing? Cloudbase below 200 RVR 700 Meters and what does the EIR holder do?
Leave the airway before the Star over mountains maybe 30 to 50 miles out and although destination is CAVOK it is not where you are trying to get visual.
You cannot have a safe halfway house with instrument flying hence why many countries oppose it!
They will never accept the IMCR in Europe so at best it will be a local unsupported rating to keep the brits happy and to deflect attention away from what should be an easily achievable FULL IR along American lines with full IFR privalages takeoff enroute and landing!
That is the only way you can do it and there are 11000 FAA IR rated pilot in the EU
had not been linked in the first place.
Sadly it will never be accepted Europe wide and hence we should fight for something which will be accepted Europe wide which gives us full departure enroute and landing privalages and not take a massive more effort than getting the IMCR
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 8th Apr 2013 at 18:36.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is always the french angle.
Latest I heard is that they are forming a front with the UK and even the Germans. They want to have their IR rating recognized and transferrable. They will support the IMCr and even would consider allowing to extend those priveleges into France.
The strange thing is that everybody always focusses on EASA, however, from what I have heard, EASA was very much in favor for a much more progressive advance. It are member states that block certain advancements.
I can understand that EASA wants one set of rules for all her members.
Latest I heard is that they are forming a front with the UK and even the Germans. They want to have their IR rating recognized and transferrable. They will support the IMCr and even would consider allowing to extend those priveleges into France.
The strange thing is that everybody always focusses on EASA, however, from what I have heard, EASA was very much in favor for a much more progressive advance. It are member states that block certain advancements.
I can understand that EASA wants one set of rules for all her members.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace,
I am fully aware there are a number of people and organisations opposed to the EIR. Notwithstanding that, it is in the current opinion going forward to comitology (spelling and process state may be wrong!). Hence why I said 'maybe' to that part. The key is to try and get this package through with as little dilution as possible. The package is of course, the sensible conversion, the CB IR, the EIR (and I believe cloud flying for gliders) and for AOPA BEagle etc to continue the drive to enable the CAA to issue IR(r)s after 2014, which is a totally separate initiative which I believe is not in anyway linked.
I would certainly agree the CB IR and conversion bits are vastly more important and logical than the EIR.
I am fully aware there are a number of people and organisations opposed to the EIR. Notwithstanding that, it is in the current opinion going forward to comitology (spelling and process state may be wrong!). Hence why I said 'maybe' to that part. The key is to try and get this package through with as little dilution as possible. The package is of course, the sensible conversion, the CB IR, the EIR (and I believe cloud flying for gliders) and for AOPA BEagle etc to continue the drive to enable the CAA to issue IR(r)s after 2014, which is a totally separate initiative which I believe is not in anyway linked.
I would certainly agree the CB IR and conversion bits are vastly more important and logical than the EIR.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if I can get an IR(R) because of my FAA IR (which I do - the CAA give me one), and then later on I am offered an EIR due to the FAA IR or IR(R) (I cannot see a test for someone with a full IR to be able to fly En route....if there were a test it would be the easiest test ever).....then that gives me FULL IR privileges in the UK, other than perhaps fly an IAP into a Class A airport (unlikely to happen anyway).
That would do me
That would do me
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with the EIR (other than the obvious flaw of allowing pilots to fly in instrument conditions in controlled airspace with no means of departing or arriving in IMC - life is rarely arranged in such a convenient fashion) is that the pilots will need to take the full Theoretical knowledge exams to qualify for this rating.
Given that the barrier to achieving a PPL IR has never been the flying per se, but the ludicrously overblown theoretical knowledge exams, I believe that the EIR misses the point of what is needed to change in order to make the IR accesible to the ordinary pilot who has a full time day-job.
If you then consider that with the new EASA licences, an ordinary PPL has the right of "VFR on top" (ie flying in good VMC on top of an unbroken cloud-base), it is difficult to see how the take-up of the EIR is going to add up to much. After all, if the arrival and departure is always going to be a total fudge, why go through the full TK exams to do what you can more or less do under the privileges of an ordinary PPL?
I would be surprised if the new PPL IR & EIR comes into being as proposed. I would not be surprised to see the French PPL IR being adopted in it's stead. I would like to think that the IMCR rating gets adopted by a small sub-group of european countries, on a national basis with mutual recognition treaties.
Here's hoping...
Given that the barrier to achieving a PPL IR has never been the flying per se, but the ludicrously overblown theoretical knowledge exams, I believe that the EIR misses the point of what is needed to change in order to make the IR accesible to the ordinary pilot who has a full time day-job.
If you then consider that with the new EASA licences, an ordinary PPL has the right of "VFR on top" (ie flying in good VMC on top of an unbroken cloud-base), it is difficult to see how the take-up of the EIR is going to add up to much. After all, if the arrival and departure is always going to be a total fudge, why go through the full TK exams to do what you can more or less do under the privileges of an ordinary PPL?
I would be surprised if the new PPL IR & EIR comes into being as proposed. I would not be surprised to see the French PPL IR being adopted in it's stead. I would like to think that the IMCR rating gets adopted by a small sub-group of european countries, on a national basis with mutual recognition treaties.
Here's hoping...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit some of the proposals seem almost too good to be true especially coming from EASA !
More known for manipulations, broken promises and slight of hand ; (
Any lesser IR would have always been a part 1 to a full IR.
Without as you say departure / arrival benefits its a dangerous rating and the IMCR would have been a better choice but not one which would work in many areas if Europe!
Pace
More known for manipulations, broken promises and slight of hand ; (
Any lesser IR would have always been a part 1 to a full IR.
Without as you say departure / arrival benefits its a dangerous rating and the IMCR would have been a better choice but not one which would work in many areas if Europe!
Pace
The problem with the EIR is having pilots who do not have the skills needed to fly approaches or departures or the legal rights to do so.
It all sounds great! Takeoff VFR climb on top and descend VFR the other end.
Reality is very different. Take off VFR climb on top, find the cloud tops are increasing or a line of thunderstorm and what then?
Have a problem enroute which requires a landing? Cloudbase below 200 RVR 700 Meters and what does the EIR holder do?
It all sounds great! Takeoff VFR climb on top and descend VFR the other end.
Reality is very different. Take off VFR climb on top, find the cloud tops are increasing or a line of thunderstorm and what then?
Have a problem enroute which requires a landing? Cloudbase below 200 RVR 700 Meters and what does the EIR holder do?
With an IR I can plan a flight where I depart IFR, find the cloud tops are increasing or a line of thunderstorms are between me and my destination, and all the potential diversions are below Cat 1. What then? To avoid a nasty moment, I make sure that there's always an alternate I can get to that is within my capability and within my aircraft's (Cat 1) capabilities.
Similarly, I would expect EIR pilots to make sure that there's always an alternate they can get to that is within their capability -- it's just that in their case that means VMC below the MSA rather than Cat 1.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I essentially agree with BOOKWORM, but if there is a problem with the EIR it is the inexperienced pilot who creates a problem for himself. Have we all done that? The theory is fine, but the pilot mistakenly thinks he can get through a line of en route CBs, which even for the most experienced pilot can develop more quickly than the experienced pilot might predict, then shows some sound reasoning and diverts, but had not planned all his en route diversion that well and ends up with a diversion where the weather is more marginal than it should be, now without the best reserves of fuel. It happens, it shouldn't. The difference with the IMCr (or IR) holder is they are now better equipped to deal with the "unexpected" approach.
So having reflected at much length on the EIR it is better than nothing, in fact it is a lot better than nothing, in fact I am not opposed to it, but it is not perfect.
All that said I cant say I understand exactly how it will work. I have read the speculation, but that is presumably all it is.
So having reflected at much length on the EIR it is better than nothing, in fact it is a lot better than nothing, in fact I am not opposed to it, but it is not perfect.
All that said I cant say I understand exactly how it will work. I have read the speculation, but that is presumably all it is.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the EIR is going to be a very useful rating for me. It will mean the end of airspace as we know it 
which is great.
I do think though that it should include precision approach capability, ie. just an ILS or GPS LPV approach, so that you could fly into any airport with an ILS or LPV GPS approach. The reason for this is as per Fuji's argument, and to have no approach capability is madness. For myself, it doesn't worry me, I'd just shoot the approach anyway, but if a newly minted EIR pilot hasn't ever shot an approach and then has to do it in anger?!?!
By all means call this an IR(R) in Euroland to differentiate between a "Full IR" and a non full IR. Current UK IR(R) holders could add this rating with no formality - or with an airways flight with FE - and new IR(R) candidates could add by test.
Hey what do you know, I have just solved three problems. 1) Current IMCr holders will be grandfathered, 2) There will be life after the IMCr and 3)This will satisfy those in need of a "cheap", easily achievable IR without all the overhead of the full IR.....
(PS I don't want to fly NDB approaches, and if I did fly one it would be using GPS anyway!)...
which is great.I do think though that it should include precision approach capability, ie. just an ILS or GPS LPV approach, so that you could fly into any airport with an ILS or LPV GPS approach. The reason for this is as per Fuji's argument, and to have no approach capability is madness. For myself, it doesn't worry me, I'd just shoot the approach anyway, but if a newly minted EIR pilot hasn't ever shot an approach and then has to do it in anger?!?!
By all means call this an IR(R) in Euroland to differentiate between a "Full IR" and a non full IR. Current UK IR(R) holders could add this rating with no formality - or with an airways flight with FE - and new IR(R) candidates could add by test.
Hey what do you know, I have just solved three problems. 1) Current IMCr holders will be grandfathered, 2) There will be life after the IMCr and 3)This will satisfy those in need of a "cheap", easily achievable IR without all the overhead of the full IR.....
(PS I don't want to fly NDB approaches, and if I did fly one it would be using GPS anyway!)...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So long as the conversion process doesn't include months of ground study, cost thousands, and I can do the flying in my own aeroplane Considering I fly an N reg, really this whole business doesn't actually give me anything that I don't already have.
Considering I fly an N reg, really this whole business doesn't actually give me anything that I don't already have.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@englishal
you will do it in your Commander.
You will do a refresher for your theory and some specific eu items which should not take more than a good weekend. You will do some refresher flight with an FI so as to refresh ndb and vor approaches, holdings and intercepting odd radials.
and you will do your oral and your skilltest. It should not be very complicated. It will be a good and valuable refresher.
you will do it in your Commander.
You will do a refresher for your theory and some specific eu items which should not take more than a good weekend. You will do some refresher flight with an FI so as to refresh ndb and vor approaches, holdings and intercepting odd radials.
and you will do your oral and your skilltest. It should not be very complicated. It will be a good and valuable refresher.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@pace
that is still the best way forward with one tiny problem.
You need to get you FAA IR .. and then you need to fly 50hrs plus on a ifr flight plan as pic. The window for doing the latter in the eu is now less than a year. After april 2014 this would be impossible as you would need to have a EASA ir.
And to just fly 50hrs ifr in the us after passing is definitely interesting but also a bit crazy.
But if you have the opportunity and you have an n-reg nearby ..go for it!
that is still the best way forward with one tiny problem.
You need to get you FAA IR .. and then you need to fly 50hrs plus on a ifr flight plan as pic. The window for doing the latter in the eu is now less than a year. After april 2014 this would be impossible as you would need to have a EASA ir.
And to just fly 50hrs ifr in the us after passing is definitely interesting but also a bit crazy.
But if you have the opportunity and you have an n-reg nearby ..go for it!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody currently knows whether the FAA IR to CBM IR conversion route will require
- 50hrs IFR time
- 50hrs instrument time
- 25hrs instrument time
All three have been reported as discussed behind closed doors.
The original proposal was 100hrs instrument time! This is all done to stop hordes of ATPL cadets doing the FAA CPL/IR and then converting.
Technically, the 1st could be logged by a plain PPL flying IAW IFR in UK VMC
The other two will strongly encourage copious time in G-BIRO
I suggest nobody bases their planning on something vague and then gets shafted.
- 50hrs IFR time
- 50hrs instrument time
- 25hrs instrument time
All three have been reported as discussed behind closed doors.
The original proposal was 100hrs instrument time! This is all done to stop hordes of ATPL cadets doing the FAA CPL/IR and then converting.
Technically, the 1st could be logged by a plain PPL flying IAW IFR in UK VMC
The other two will strongly encourage copious time in G-BIRO
I suggest nobody bases their planning on something vague and then gets shafted.
Last edited by peterh337; 14th Apr 2013 at 08:51.