Campaign for a proper instrument rating
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle - yes, it is remarkably similiar.
I wonder why external consultation did not generat support - does any one know what external consultation took place? Would we support revisiting these proposals?
The instructors rating is very interesting although I do not entirely understand the thinking behind it. It would seem to envisage the possibility of private pilots who have not completed a CPL (which would normally be required to instruct) would be able to qualify as an instrument instructor. The AIC does not seem to deal with precisely what the relevant ground school is, other than it must comprise 70 hours. Is it proposed that the candidate would not have to undertake any of the commercial exams.?
If my assumptions are correct that would mean a private pilot with 200 hours IMC (say), 70 hours ground school, 10 hours flight instruction, 70 hours ground school and a flight test would be able to give instrument instruction for the grant of an IMC and yet not hold an IR in his own right. Of course he might well go and get himself an IR as well!
Whatever was behind this AIC it seems to be very wide of the point so far as the private pilot is concerned and would not seem to address the shortage of instrument examiners and instructors.
In a previous thread the point was raised about the impact of new equipment proposals to operate airways.
The mode S proposals for light aircraft have in fact be deferred until at least 2005 at the earliest.
I wonder why external consultation did not generat support - does any one know what external consultation took place? Would we support revisiting these proposals?
The instructors rating is very interesting although I do not entirely understand the thinking behind it. It would seem to envisage the possibility of private pilots who have not completed a CPL (which would normally be required to instruct) would be able to qualify as an instrument instructor. The AIC does not seem to deal with precisely what the relevant ground school is, other than it must comprise 70 hours. Is it proposed that the candidate would not have to undertake any of the commercial exams.?
If my assumptions are correct that would mean a private pilot with 200 hours IMC (say), 70 hours ground school, 10 hours flight instruction, 70 hours ground school and a flight test would be able to give instrument instruction for the grant of an IMC and yet not hold an IR in his own right. Of course he might well go and get himself an IR as well!
Whatever was behind this AIC it seems to be very wide of the point so far as the private pilot is concerned and would not seem to address the shortage of instrument examiners and instructors.
In a previous thread the point was raised about the impact of new equipment proposals to operate airways.
The mode S proposals for light aircraft have in fact be deferred until at least 2005 at the earliest.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consultation: If you read Mr Jamieson's parliamentary answer regarding AIS and NOTAMs (5/11/02), we were allegedly consulted about AIS briefing changes as well.
Take from that what you will.
AIC: I believe the intent of the AIC is that an IRI can instruct for an IR or an IMC (within the UK), not that an PPL IMC holder can instruct anything.
Mode S: aware of what you say, but AFAIK the extension to 2005 only applies to aircraft operating in UK airspace. Not "G reg anywhere" - Happy to be proven wrong though
Since this whole discussion is about IFR in Europe (or an IMC would suffice) the 2003 deadline may be quite relevant
Take from that what you will.
AIC: I believe the intent of the AIC is that an IRI can instruct for an IR or an IMC (within the UK), not that an PPL IMC holder can instruct anything.
Mode S: aware of what you say, but AFAIK the extension to 2005 only applies to aircraft operating in UK airspace. Not "G reg anywhere" - Happy to be proven wrong though
Since this whole discussion is about IFR in Europe (or an IMC would suffice) the 2003 deadline may be quite relevant
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beware replacing the IMC rating, it has served a useful purpose for many pilots, and is a good basis for self imrovement.
What is needed is a means of pan European IR flying for private pilots, and if this requires a managable addition to the theoretical and flying proficiencies of the IMC rating, this is the way to go without dumping a useful rating step.
What is needed is a means of pan European IR flying for private pilots, and if this requires a managable addition to the theoretical and flying proficiencies of the IMC rating, this is the way to go without dumping a useful rating step.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so seems like you are not going to get an accessible ICAO IR. How disgraceful. So what is another way to get access to the common airspace?
The more I look at this, the more I agree with those who think it is an airspace classification issue. If you had class E airways then it would be easier to move about the UK both with an IMC and if just a plain vanilla VFR PPL. You would be nuts to want to fly IFR to places like Heathrow anyway, even in the States you would never file to LAX, ORD, JFK etc because there are plenty of other Class D airports available. You would also be able to fly at a safer altitude when flying VFR, as Fuji says it is bad to be kept at low levels when crossing the channel.
So make LHR class B, make LGW class C and just accept you cannot fly there on a day to day basis. Class A above 17,999MSL. Class E/G below, all airways class E. Large airports have their feeder routes into/out of the airway system protected by Class B, C, D so no dangerous conflict with VFR traffic who need to be talking to ATC when in such airspace.
Sounds like this is not new, didn't Australia look at airspace and change to the US/ICAO route
Then you just need this JAA IWR to take hold and you can do it over Europe. You would still be better copying part 61 & 91 of the FARS of course.
I think the problem you face with this idea is getting it past the airlines who currently think they 'own' the airspace. I once had the displeasure of working for one of these UK regulatory QUANGOS. Sure, they ultimately answered to HMGovernment as their powers were statutory. In practice though, they were scared of their biggest "regulatorees" who essentially ran the show because they had better lawyers! The smaller "regulatoree" was considered a pain in the butt and always got the short end of the stick. Didn't the head of CAA FCL put his foot in his mouth recently and make his feelings clear about the little boys?
fff, sorry to beat you with statistics, but there is a Class D airport in the LA Basin which is busier than LHR. From my simplistic view, classification of towered fields in the US is not just movement count based. It also depends on the mix of IFR and VFR traffic and the separation issues that come with it. Class B is mainly extremely busy IFR, with VFR welcome. Class C is busy IFR and busy VFR. Class D is busy/extremely busy VFR, with IFR welcome. There are also untowered fields out there in the US that have occasional transport jets flying and ILS to 200ft DH. So LGW thinks and behaves like it is class B, should probably really be Class C, but is actually only a "mere" class D.
rustle, I can see why you (incorrectly I might add) think I did you an 'injustice', you have a very nice organisation there. I do think you should behave more like the brash Yanks if you want things to happen. Brits (of which I am one) are far too reasonable when dealing with these entrenched interests, spend ten years in the States and become obnoxious but learn how to get things done
Cheers
The more I look at this, the more I agree with those who think it is an airspace classification issue. If you had class E airways then it would be easier to move about the UK both with an IMC and if just a plain vanilla VFR PPL. You would be nuts to want to fly IFR to places like Heathrow anyway, even in the States you would never file to LAX, ORD, JFK etc because there are plenty of other Class D airports available. You would also be able to fly at a safer altitude when flying VFR, as Fuji says it is bad to be kept at low levels when crossing the channel.
So make LHR class B, make LGW class C and just accept you cannot fly there on a day to day basis. Class A above 17,999MSL. Class E/G below, all airways class E. Large airports have their feeder routes into/out of the airway system protected by Class B, C, D so no dangerous conflict with VFR traffic who need to be talking to ATC when in such airspace.
Sounds like this is not new, didn't Australia look at airspace and change to the US/ICAO route
Then you just need this JAA IWR to take hold and you can do it over Europe. You would still be better copying part 61 & 91 of the FARS of course.
I think the problem you face with this idea is getting it past the airlines who currently think they 'own' the airspace. I once had the displeasure of working for one of these UK regulatory QUANGOS. Sure, they ultimately answered to HMGovernment as their powers were statutory. In practice though, they were scared of their biggest "regulatorees" who essentially ran the show because they had better lawyers! The smaller "regulatoree" was considered a pain in the butt and always got the short end of the stick. Didn't the head of CAA FCL put his foot in his mouth recently and make his feelings clear about the little boys?
fff, sorry to beat you with statistics, but there is a Class D airport in the LA Basin which is busier than LHR. From my simplistic view, classification of towered fields in the US is not just movement count based. It also depends on the mix of IFR and VFR traffic and the separation issues that come with it. Class B is mainly extremely busy IFR, with VFR welcome. Class C is busy IFR and busy VFR. Class D is busy/extremely busy VFR, with IFR welcome. There are also untowered fields out there in the US that have occasional transport jets flying and ILS to 200ft DH. So LGW thinks and behaves like it is class B, should probably really be Class C, but is actually only a "mere" class D.
rustle, I can see why you (incorrectly I might add) think I did you an 'injustice', you have a very nice organisation there. I do think you should behave more like the brash Yanks if you want things to happen. Brits (of which I am one) are far too reasonable when dealing with these entrenched interests, spend ten years in the States and become obnoxious but learn how to get things done
Cheers
