Rustle, why don't you give up on your private anti IMCR war here. It isn't working, almost nobody (who flies for real) supports the position that only the full IR is good enough, and anyway the war was lost as soon as the wider pilot population discovered what is on the cards.

There has been comment on here about the future of the FAA IR.

Given these developments, and a long history of making it more difficult for the private pilot to gain an IR in Europe, it could be deduced that the commercial operators would far rather there were be no private pilots pottering around in their rubber band SEPs in the airways.

If a very few are able to do so, then I am not sure that is any sort of victory for GA, rather for a small number to see their days out.


I thought the point your were making is any debate about the IMC rating is vulnerable because it does not measure up to perceived safety.

I thought a reasonable counter was that by the same token, a not dis-similar argument could be made for single pilot private IR operations.

I sort to point out that if the argument is not going to be based on the evidence, it is just as valid to argue that ICAO standard or not, a private pilot who operates to very different standards than commercial operators should not be flying around in the same airspace as passenger aircraft.

I am not "anti IMCR" and never have been.

The only point I have ever made in relation to this is that fighting EASA, EAS, or anyone else about retained IMCR privileges in the public domain is not in anyone's best interest.

Not rocket science to see that public opinion would not favour its retention is it?

Putting it in the public domain was misguided and damaging.

If, after all AOPA, PPL/IR and others in the background have done the rating is lost we'll know why...

...and it won't be because any of those organisations weren't behind it 100%.

Ironic or what? :hmm:

If you can point me to any post where I have said the IMCR should be scrapped go ahead.

Even if they knew about it why would they care one way or another? The IMC is hardly the cause of multiple deaths and dismemberments is it?
If Joe Public has a problem with a safety qualification (rating) then they would have a problem with amateurs flying aeroplanes in the first place. It's a rubbish argument rustle. :p

I see no supporting evidence for that strategy.

Public opinion cares about TV, sex, fish and chips. Not sure how that is relevant to flying.

I totally fail to understand the rationale for that statement. The issue entered the public domain all by itself, as soon as it was realised the UK signed up to the relevant treaty, and EASA announced it would plan to scrap national ratings.

What you suggest is a bit like keeping the declaration of WW2 a secret and letting that great hugely experienced and shrewd judge of character Chamberlain to quietly pop over to Berlin and sort it out with the Germans, before the great British public finds out and starts to make a fuss.

Let me just say it is apparent that you are not fully informed about the detailed positions on this issue [specifically on whether there should be any sub-IR instrument privilege] of all the organisations you list above.... however the dirty laundry of some of them has already been out in the open and there is little point in me dragging it out yet again.

I can tell you that this campaign has dragged out quite a lot of people who are in the most influential positions, who are dismayed about this proposal, and who would have not even heard about it had it not been publicised. Almost nobody reads the EASA tomes, written as they are in a manner which needs a magnifying glass to unravel the meaning of each tightly written paragraph.

What is ironic is that if the rating is saved it will be down to all the good work AOPA has done, and if it is lost, then AOPA will still have done the good work but undone by others. That is quite a clever political game, if it were really AOPAs position, which I very much doubt.

I take on board your point Rustle but I agree with eltonioni in that I very much doubt the public understand, know or care. So far as they are concerned if what we do is apporved by the CAA that is good enough for them. I can only assume the CAA has thought the rating fit for purpose for more than the last thirty years, whereas they have actually made the IR much harder to obtain so perhaps they have more concerns about some who held the rating in the past.

A one liner.....

The CAA have been concerned over the IMCR for a very long time. To change it would have required an RIA and they knew EASA was coming so did not bother.

Our working group made some changes to it this year as an interim which are in LASORS 2008.

So please don't assume the CAA have been comfortable with the IMCR.

They have not made the IR harder to attain, they have just fallen in line with the rest of JAA with some gold plating, in reality the IR is no harder to obtain than it has ever been.

What aspects were they concerned with?

On what evidence did they base their concern?

Why do you not consider the abolishen of the 700 hour self improver route did not make it more difficult for the private pilot?

Why do you not consider the original imposition of class room based theoretical content did not make it more difficult?

What about the German initiative with VFR C. Do you see this as presenting the same problems?

You mean some people in the CAA didn't like it. That is normal... there are constant battles within the CAA on all kinds of matters.

I don't like flying at night. It really isn't safe. So what?

I0540

You know I was just thinking about all this again.

Bose says that the CAA had concerns about the IMC rating.

On another thread someone has just written to the CAA and the reply was:

"The CAA is pushing EASA very hard for this (the rentention of the rating) but are one voice amongst 27 so may not succeed."

(I am not saying you are wrong Bose, or that the CAA cant be pushing for its retention on the one hand, but have concerns on the other)

It occurs to me that this is an industry tearing itself apart through disinformation, lack of communication, vested interests, lack of consultation and disingenious comment.

From the point of view of GA, keep the process "secret" leaking pieces of information when it suites you and you will lack any creditability.

I know of no other industry like it.

Why dont people understand that if you were in the process of considering whether on not to spend a quarter of a million pounds on a new IFR certified aircraft you wanted a bit more certainty.

Just because the CAA have concerns over the rating does not mean they want to see it go!

Ever thought that they want to see it improved and retained? Why read something negative into everything. I merely pointed out that from FIRST HAND experience working on the group that those concerns exist and that an attempt was made to address some of them. Something the CAA deserve credit for.

I am not getting into a debate over the IR. I know it needs accessibility improving but I don't think it's any worse than it was in the past.

Bose

I did clearly say the two positions were not mutually exclusive and I was not reading the negative into the CAAs stance.

The point I was making is that it would be helpful to all concerned for as much clarrity as to exactly where the parties stood.

With regard to the IR, nor was I getting into a debate. I was simply responding to your comment that in my view accessibility is worse and explaining why.

difference between accessibility and ease....... the accessibility needs improving but the IR is no more difficult than it has ever been.

The two I mentioned in the context of the quote you used were PPL/IR and AOPA, and I am comfortable with my knowledge on their position.

The only other organisation I mentioned, at the head of my post and unrelated to the comment you quoted, was EAS. I am aware of your views on EAS and how you believe they sold us out on the IFR on LAPL issue.

If nothing else I do you guys the courtesy of reading and understanding your posts (in or out of any particular thread) prior to posting: Quid pro quo? ;)