Future of IMC rating?
 

I've read and heard various things about the future of the UK IMC rating in the last year or so. I've seen this on various threads but didn't want to hijack them so I'm posting this. My question is 'Is it worth doing an IMC or is it going to be ditched sooner or later?'

By 'ditched' I mean replaced with an IR rating of some description. I know a few of you (notably bose-x) are involved with AOPA(?) steering this in the right direction so I'd like some clarification as to what the situation would be for the holders of an IMC in the new system, ie:Grandfather rights (no new IMCs issued but keep what you've got) or a shed load of expensive training required for all IMCR holders.

The reason I ask is that I'm considering doing one (I already have a night rating) but, while no training is ever pointless, I don't want to spend a couple of grand on a rating that's going to be invalid or invalid without more money spent, in a year or two. I don't bother flying when the wx is possibly going to turn crap, I don't push my luck, so don't want to go the whole hog on an IR but appeciate that for safety, an IMC would be nice.

Any comments from the great and the good (in fact, anyone!) with more definative info than the magazines (contradictory) can give would be welcome.

Blue skies to all
Be seeing you...
dB
:)

I don't have any info about the future of the IMC or the new "IR Lite". But my advice would be to go and do the IMC and then use it regularly.

There seems to be two schools of thought on the IMC, one is to keep it up your sleeve and "it will get you out of trouble", the other is that it regularly enables you to fly in poorer conditions. I'm afraid that not using it regulalry WILL get you into trouble. I use my IMC as much as possible. You have to keep current otherwise in twelve months time when it turns a bit horrible, if you are not crisp, that's when the trouble starts.

Secondly, take Cardiff for example, it has numerous VFR routes in and out. Strangley they aim you straight at some very large TV masts but they expect you to be as low as possible. Going to new airfields for the first time, its not always easy to locate all these VFR reporting points. Programming them all into your GPS is an option, but takes a long time. Why not get the IMC and ask for radar vectors to the ILS? This is all done at a very safe height and once under radar control, they line you up with the runway, couldn't be simpler.

Go and do it, you wont regret it.

I think the point in the original question is will the IMC rating still be valid when the "IR lite" comes in to play. What a waste of a few grand if you have to bin the IMC and start again.

1. As we all know the IMCR is a UK national rating. It is difficult to see how EASA could "withdraw" the rating for those who have obtained the rating but I suppose given the current "proposals" regarding the life long CAA license anything is possible.

2. If they do, the "carrot" maybe to give some credit against the PPLIR, and indeed it has been suggested this will be so.

3. In any event the time would be well spent. In my experience the training given for the IMCR is around 50% of what is required for an IR. I know pilots with an IMCR used regularly which has enabled them to achieve the standard of an IR.

Aside, if IMCR privileges are withdrawn from those who already hold the rating it would be scandalous. We should jump up and down and write to AOPA (who wont do anything) and generally create. Exactly the same is true of those who hold a life CAA license. I have already written in this regard to the CAA and will be writing to my MP if I do not receive a satisfactory reply.

EASA will have the power to stop national licenses and ratings. This is what the UK signed up for, and if you don't like it, it's too late.

Whether they will use this is debatable. IMV there is no chance of them blocking it until there is a similarly accessible replacement. To do so would look terrible on the safety front - forcing a few thousand UK pilots to scud run and to do dodgy VFR approaches.

As to when a replacement will come, that's been done to death here recently. I think it's fair to say nobody really knows.

But I reckon that when it does come, previous instrument training will count towards any minimum flying time requirement.

If I was after IFR capability now, I would absolutely definitely not hang around waiting for some "new IR". I would just get on with it. Any kind of instrument rating is seriously hard work, and having say 50-100 hours under under the IMCR privileges is going to make it far easier than doing it from scratch as a pure VFR pilot. The IMCR is really useful for getting about the UK. The full IR is really for European IFR touring (it's great for that) but to do that you need to have an aircraft access deal suitable for taking it away for decent periods, etc.

If you want to fly IFR for real, instrument training will never be wasted. The only thing which is a bit wasteful is training in a plane that's very different from the one you will eventually be flying. Training in a really crappy C152 with crap avionics is not going to be helpful for flying IFR in something modern. Currency on type is what matters.

I suspect you are correct.

However, I have read comment that whilst they will certainly be able to withdraw recognition outside the UK, it may be more difficult within the UK. Mind you I dont know the basis of this comment and I suppose it may turn on whether the CAA retain any authority over the sovereignty of our airspace (whcih you might expect they would). Whilst this is not a lot of help to CAA lifetime licenses (unless you never intend to fly outside the UK) the IMCR was always a national rating and therefore this element of the restriction would remain unchanged.

This is the whole point - the CAA will not retain any authority 'over the sovereignty of our airspace' or any other part of flight operations or licensing. Once competency is assumed by EASA, whatever they decide becomes EU law, which supersedes UK law, and is equally binding on all memeber states. Should EASA decide that the IMC rating is to go or that all instructors will be required to hold 'European' licences then that is what will happen, no matter what you, I or the CAA may think about it.

Watch this space!

I hear that the CAA has just informed the unelected public servants of EASA that it won't take their intention of scrapping National Licences and Ratings lying down. Abolishing 'Grandfather Rights' for the mere administrative convenience of EASA would undoubtedly face legal challenges - and, should EASA then be overruled, they would have a hefty legal bill to face.

There is no mileage for EASA to abolish national licenses. It would achieve exactly nothing and would create an uproar. There are enough hot potatoes for them.

On the same argument there is no mileage in abolishing the N-reg scene.

I guess all this will happen one day but only in the context of a much bigger change, involving a major airspace redesign throughout Europe. At the moment, airspace is a mess.

That is the theory .. .. ..

.. .. .. but wait and see.

I do not see any reason why you shouldn't go for the IR now except money.

You have to many question marks at this moment about a LIR (light instrument rating ?) or MIR (minimum istrument rating?) :)

If you will need to study or train to hard now, i guess you will be happy when your in the coulds sweating your pants off in unexpected bad weather and surviving it due to your intense training.

I myself will immediatly as soon as possible after my PPL go into IR because of the reasons IO540 wrote. Just go for it!

I can't see how EASA could remove the IMC privlidiges for those who already hold the rating, without there being a riot! Has such a thing ever happened wihtout those being affected, being given grandfather rights to something else?

I would say that the three most likely senarios are

1) Those who already old an IMC rating keep the privlidges within UK airspace, but noone new can get the rating, or

2) EASA introduce it's own IMC rating, and UK IMC holders are given a free EASA IMC rating in return for their UK one, or

3) All those with an IMC rating loose the IMC rating and are given a free IR, but with the conditions that it can't be used in class A airspace, can't be used outside the UK and whatever other conditions are required to ensure that it's basically the same as the existing IMC rating.

I think there is plenty of precidents for any of these options, but none for the complete withdrawal of privlidges without any replacement.

If an IMC rating was available to me, I'd do it straight away, and wouldn't be worried about what might happen with EASA. I'd do this because

a) I agree that it would be a good stepping stone to a full IR, and
b) there is a very good chance I'd benefit in some way in the conversion process, and
c) It's an extremely useful rating to have now.

dp

In the thread on pilot drop out, IO540 put links to CAA pilot licence and rating statistics. I was staggered to find that until the JAR PPL training requirements came in in 2000, that new IMC rating issues were running steadily at 1000 per year, about 1/3rd of new PPL issues. This compares with an average of just about 40 pa for PPL/IR. As IO said, everything has gone downhill since then.

Doing a bit more reasearch, I have been told that the CAA have issued about 17,000 IMC ratings. There will always be a significant drop out rate in licences and ratings, but I would expect those going the extra mile for the IMCR will be better 'stayers' than basic PPL holders. This could mean that of the 20,000 PPL(A) with current medical, perhaps 50% hold the IMCR, which is a simar figure to the proportion of US PPLs with IR. Certainly every one of my PPL acquaintences at my home base has an IMCR or IR

All of this shows the IMCR to have been an absolute stunning success.
Other threads have commented that 'see and be seen' just does not work well enough. Since 1990 there has been an average of one mid air every two years involving a Group A aircraft, but all are in VMC. Over the last 30 years (I didn't go back further) there has NEVER been a mid air in IMC in uncontrolled airspace involving a light aircraft .
Statistics show that there are 10 times as many airproxs between 0 and 3000ft, as compared with a similar height band 4000 to 7000 ft, where the quadrantals and LARS reign. But even in clear weather, you should have an IMCR or IR to go up there because of the unpredictable British weather at your destination.
The sheer delight of flying on top in silky smooth 'see forever' conditions, compared with grotty bumpy scud running below, just adds to the benefit of it being much, much safer. Despite the very large numbers of holders, there is no record in all the years I have been reading the CAA qrtly Occurrance Reports of anything unsatisfactory in the IMCR. Just as there is no poor record of FAA PPL/IR flying N reg. We just a lot of what IO540 calls 'slagging off' with absolutely no history to justify it.

The actual stunning success of the IMCR should be blasted about as loudly as possible to counter the 'slaggers'.

Reading a report on the PPL/IR Europe website, the work that Bose X and others have been doing so assidously doesn't seem as if it will produce that much improvement to the PPL/IR syllabus, unless Bose knows more. Nowhere near the FAA one. I even heard the other day from someone 'high up' that there is pressure within EASA to abandon the PPL/IR altogether, and make everyone get a CPL/IR to fly in airways.

20,000 PPL(A) with current medical

I don't doubt this, but where did you get this, Mike? It's not on the CAA website, AFAIK.

I agree the IMCR has been a super success. However, a lot of "traditionally minded" gold plated IR holders don't like the fact that the IMCR gives you essentially the same privileges as the full IR, except Class A.

I even heard the other day from someone 'high up' that there is pressure within EASA to abandon the PPL/IR altogether, and make everyone get a CPL/IR to fly in airways.

This is a standard comment, among many similar ones, coming out of the elitist aviation regulatory establishment which (all around Europe) is stuffed with superior ex air force and superior ex national flag carrier airline types. Most of these people have never flown "IFR GA" and haven't got a clue about it.

A requirement for a CPL for airways flight is utter stupidity. You sit there, FL100-150 or whatever, in a great void with no traffic, and you'd be lucky to spot another plane over a 700nm flight.

Last year I went to an event at the West Drayton ATC centre. Interesting it was, but the usual bundle of prejudices came out. According to them, the CAA will ban all single pilot jets. Clearly they thought that there will be 10,000 VLJs flying out of Luton. The good news is that these are just ATCOs who went to some CAA or NATS presentation, and none of the people involved are the real policymakers. Recently, Germany proposed to require an ATPL for any jet - they would have fun squaring that with ICAO. If however one took all this stuff at face value, one would just push one's plane off Beachy Head and take up knitting.

The Americans call this "FUD" - fear, uncertainty, doubt. It takes only one old ex ATP codger somewhere "high up" to start off a rumour like this.

I wouldn't worry about it :)

IO,
At end 2005 the number was 20458.
Try http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/2005%2...%20Only)p2.pdf

I think you may have missed the past discussions.

I suspect for many the money is actually a long way down the list.

At the top of the list would be the huge amount of pointless theory and the essentially class room based strategy to the theory element. Most PPLs (who are really PPLs and not commercial aspirants) neither have the time nor inclination.

I am not sure if the inference you intend is the pilot with the IMCR will be the one sweating. I dont think there is any evidence at all for this assertion, if that is what you intend. the safety record of those with IMCRs is very good in the UK amoung a group of pilots who I suspect use their priviliges to varying degrees.

Perhaps to go out on a limb flying light aircraft on instruments is a very practical art. All the theory in the world will only help so far. The IMCR holder is only less well equipted because he has less hours in IMC and the standards required of his flying are to a lower tolerance. The fact that he has to understand this is the case is no different than the PPL who has just qualifed and would be at risk if he flew in conditions with which he could only cope when he had a few hundred hours more to his credit.

I have said it before, but I will say it again, if the IMCR is abolished on the back of an IR light that is little removed in achievability from the existing IR avaition safety in this country will have suffered its greatest below yet. The authorities will be culpable, we should all write to our MPs and hopefully AOPA will finally wake up and actually do something about it.

i guess you will be happy when your in the coulds sweating your pants off in unexpected bad weather and surviving it due to your intense training

Hardly. One is only as good as one's recent currency on type.

Training which one got some years ago is almost irrelevant.

IMC
 

Why not go the commonly used FAA IR route and get your IMC on the back of that. The FAA IR seems to be fairly stable, reasonable to achieve in both cost and requirements plus it gives you an additional avenue of use if you so choose

So you mean to say If I add an FAA IR to my FAA piggy backed license I can then get a UK IMC based on my FAA IR :bored:

If thats the case sounds good to me.

Then my next question would be how easy would it be to transfer an FAA IR from my piggy backed FAA PPL to and FAA CPL when I get it?

Faa Ir
 

That is exactlly what I intend to do at the appropriate point in time that I decide to shell out for a JAA medical and revalidate my CAA PPL. For the moment I am happy and able to move around solely on my FAA PPL and $50 medicals.

Assuming you got it attached to your PPL SEL I believe you would have to retest, rather than retrain, the IR anyway for class of aeroplane you are flying (ME for instance) and Licence to which it is added i.e. CPL when you get to that point. Retest if reqd is simple as it requires 3 hours instrument instruction in the preceeding 90 days and an FAA instructors endorsement to sit the test.

The training for the initial IR is more than the IMC :- 40 hours instrument or simulated instrument time, inc 15 hours instruction and 3 of those in the last 90 days. But at US prices I don't think the difference is significant.

Why not go the commonly used FAA IR route and get your IMC on the back of that. The FAA IR seems to be fairly stable, reasonable to achieve in both cost and requirements plus it gives you an additional avenue of use if you so choose

Indeed; the only issue is that for the IMCR you need a valid UK PPL (plus the CAA medical, etc).

You also need an FAA IR IPC in the past 2 years; the CAA reportedly does not issue the IMCR on the basis of the rolling FAA IR currency.

Another thing is that the FAA IR is a reasonable stepping stone to a JAA IR. You "just" have to sit the PPL subset of the JAA ATPL ground exams (about 10 of the 14) and do the checkride. The UK CAA also requires 15hrs of flight training in this case but some/most other JAA states don't.

If you have a FAA PPL/IR and get the FAA CPL, then you immediately have an FAA CPL/IR. This is what I did. There is no IR re-test. The FAA CPL is a VFR-only thing. There would be an IR re-test for ME, of course.

It's only the ATPL which has additional and tighter instrument requirements but that's not too hard to do either - just one written exam. The catch with an ATPL is that you need 1500hrs and this has to include ~ 100hrs at night, etc.

However, there is no practically relevant context in which an FAA CPL/ATPL is of any use in European airspace. Every European country has protectionist legislation banning commercial ops on foreign licenses (or foreign reg aircraft). AFAIK the only use of an FAA CPL in UK airspace is that you can be a paid company pilot, contractually required to fly the company's plane on company business.

In coming to that conclusion, how much are you reckoning for lost income due to spending weekdays in the USA and therefore not earning (compared to zero lost income doing the IMCR in the UK at weekends)?

My inclination, having done the IR in the USA, is to treat the US option as a device for completing the "IR project" and not as some open ended adventure where you learn to fly on instruments.

For a VFR-only pilot, instrument flight is usually quite hard to start with. A monkey can learn to fly straight and level in IMC, but doing other stuff at the same time quickly reaches the brain capacity. I would recommend getting through this stage in the UK first and not going to the USA until one more or less knows what one should be doing. The US is not the place to be doing ground school type of stuff. Then the 2-3wks spent there is mostly a "consolidation" thing, but, trust me, it won't be a walkover.

That may be so but, in the brave new world of EASA, the UK is but one voice among 27, and is the only one that has national licences. Whilst it would be comforting to believe that we have a significant influence in the affairs of the United States of Europe, the fact is that our influence is about as significant as Rhode Island's (or maybe Vermont's) in the affairs of the USA.

By all means, as Fuji Abound suggests, 'wait and see' but, of course, by then it will be too late.

and is the only one that has national licences

I know for a fact (from a friend who has one) that Switzerland is still running a pre-JAA national license. And there are going to be others too.

The UK (CAA) is a powerful player in EASA. France and Germany are others. Most of the rest of the EU barely participates. The UK will have a big say - this is a good thing in this case; it is a bad thing in others because it will hold back modernisation on things like the proposed EU-wide PPL with a possible IR which is scaring the national CAAs to death.

gcolyer,

You need to convert your piggy-back FAA PPL to a standalone first. The piggy-back one will only contain ratings held on your JAR/CAA one at the time of issue, and no further ratings can be added.

Tim

Tim,

That's totally incorrect. A piggy back PPL is a real licence, and you can add FAA ratings to it, just like any other FAA PPL.

dp

You are right, and I sit corrected. Though I am sure I read that somewhere when I got my piggyback FAA licence.

FAR 61.75 (c) states

(my italics)

which does indeed indicate that you can have an IR added to a piggyback license.

Tim

Thanks for all the info chaps, it's pretty much as I'd suspected though, the usual political balls-up/vested interests etc. taking priority. Still I think I'll do my IMC anyway and hope for the best in the future. Also, agree completely with the point a couple of you made about staying current, an instructor friend commented that any IR was very much 'Use it or lose it'.

Continuing VMC to all.
Be seeing you...
dB

IMCR is not the same as IR Lite
 

There is one difference between the IMCR and anything based too heavily on a full ICAO IR (and this also covers the oft-touted FAA IR route too)...

The IR requires good colour vision and the IMCR does not.

It would be a shame if the Eurocrats decide to swap one for the other believing the training to be substantively the same (as if they'd actually care about that) only to discover that some Colour Vision Defective (CVD) pilots are suddenly excluded.

...but I have no doubt that's exactly what will happen.

There will never be an IR "Lite" as long as controlled airspace is the home of CAT. The airlines would ensure that any attempt to allow lesser qualified individuals to inhabit the rarefied air is quashed.

I have no doubt that EASA will attempt to get rid of the IMCR along with other national ratings. This was made clear to us last year and sparked a whole round of debate on here and flyer when I suggested it. However our CAA are committed to keeping the national ratings and will not go down easily so there is still hope.

What we have tried to do and are continuing to work on is a more accessible IR. One that has theory that is valid for flight under IFR in CAS without all of the extra stuff that is type rating specific. To this end a reduction on TK requirements, easier exam access, fewer exams and no compulsory ground school have been recommended. We have proposed a modular training programme for the IR with easier access to testing rather than CAA office hours only and use of the BIF 10hr module to count towards the IMCR and vice versa.

There are other proposals being made around the IMCR that we will be able to discuss in due course.

I do have great sympathy for those with hearing and colour problems, but they are truly in the minority and it is difficult to build changes around such minority needs. Harsh but true.

Whichever way we look at it there are going to be significant changes in the next few years, some good and some bad. Now is the time for us in GA to try and influence our own future.

I have never understood this. If an IR(light) were anything like an IMCR, an IMCR already enables pilots to operate in class D in IMC to the same landing minima as an IR holder. They are as we know excluded from class A.

Were they to be permitted to operate in class A, their operations would all be in the lower airways, which in Europe is rather like marching through a desert, you will not see another sole for hundreds of miles.

So in reality the only points of conflict between CAT and GA would be in the TCA were the traffic is joining class D. For those with just an IMCR the traffic is already there and with a great proven safety record.

If CAT were really that bothered the IR(light) rather than being restricted to airspace class, would be restricted to altitude.

Whether Euro control wants GA causing more delays within the system may be another element.

The fact of the matter is the existing system is seriously flawed. It also seriously degrades the safety of the system for all users. If you are involved with the regulatory policy making, you know it, shame on you for not doing something about it.

Fuji, I could not agree with you more. I merely stated the facts. I know the lower airways are empty, I spend a significant amount of my time in them.

You are not looking beyond the end of your nose I am afraid. You are right the IMCR does allow access to Class D airspace under IFR. However this is in the UK only and in reality that is actually not many places. The vast majority of IMCR flight is outside of CAS.

You may think that the IMCR traffic and the CAT traffic are sharing the same space but in reality this is not the case. There are actually few IMCR pilots who are really doing true IR type Instrument flight and thats because there are so few properly equipped aircraft. The controllers are careful to keep this limited volume of traffic separate and the performance of modern CAT is such that they are out of the Terminal area and into the lower airways very quickly. Following that they are then fed into the jet routes and are gone. If you increase the number of people who can leave a terminal and enter the lower airways you are increasing the risk and this is where the standards have to be kept.

I am looking at the bigger picture and opening up Europe to "IR Lite" pilots is a major concern to the airlines and naturally if they are going to share airspace then everyone has to be trained to the same minimum standard. So what we have tried to do with the working group is ensure that the minimum standards are met to the satisfaction of all, remove the superfluous TK and put it where it belongs in type ratings and make the training more accessible for the full IR. This ensures the airlines have nothing to complain about.

I am involved with the regulatory policy making in representing YOU the private pilot not the airlines or CAA. But I would be a very poor representative if I did not look at all the arguments. The fact is that the average IMCR flies to a pretty shocking standard and is not current. By current I mean has flown approaches with the last couple of weeks to a high standard. I also find that the average IMCR holder is unable to sustain accurate flight on Instruments for long periods or time or is reliant on an AP. When you enter the airways system you are committed to Instrument flight for the entire duration. Further to that the average spam can is just not equipped for airways flight. You need a full WORKING compliment of steam gauges and GNSS capability so a panel mount GPS with current database. I don't see many flying club hacks or even syndicate aircraft to this standard. It is mostly private owners who are serious about IFR flight and they are the ones who go out and get an IR.

What I do see a lot off is people who think they could do an IR but don't really want to hiding behind what they see as onerous requirements. In fact the IR is not difficult to do at all, even in it's current format. There are too many old wives tales and myths spread about around it.

You are correct. The IMCR is a unique rating not understood in Europe. I was not intentionally falling into this trap, merely seeking to demonstrate what many years of experience with the IMCR has shown. If the regulators, airlines or those involved promoting change ignore the evidence they do themselves and those they represent a disservice.

Yes, but that is the point. If the aircraft is not equipped to fly in CAS then it doesn’t matter what rating the pilot has, the aircraft cannot be flown in CAS. Indeed some of the aircraft I fly whilst in theory they could operate in the lower airways don’t have the performance that would make me feel comfortable doing so. On the other hand, with a twin fitted with a G1000 arguably I am better equipped than some CAT, if a bit light on performance!

Sorry, I don’t follow this argument. Firstly, as you have already alluded most GA operates outside of CAS. Their typical missions will continue to between small airports, which if they have any commercial traffic at all will be limited in number. Airway joins would more often than not be well below the operating height of CAS as would their release from CAS.

I appreciate there would be some users who would operate to or from the larger commercial airports. I have spent a reasonable amount of time being vectored around CAS - arguably more demanding on the pilot that arriving off a STAR. AT has no idea whether the pilot has an IR or an IMCR, although they might be able to guess in a few cases by the standard of their RT. In that time I have seen little evidence of the performance of those pilots within CAS in IMC falling below acceptable standards. Of course, the vast majority of that traffic in the UK will have an IMCR.

I recall many years ago a barrister telling me only three things matter in assembling your case - evidence, evidence, evidence.

You ignore the evidence at your peril because in doing so it is easy for those who have other agendas to convince you that what you propose is unsafe.

Ir / Imc
 

As a colour vision defective pilot, at least in the UK, I find that flying VFR in the US my colour vision is much more important in reading charts and spotting beacons than it is in the UK.
Pirateking states that good colour vision is required for an IR. But in my experience flying instruments in the US is that it mattered far less, charts are easier to read, beacons are of less importance etc. Maybe that is why the FAA take a slightly more reasonable view on CVD.

IO540 suggests not doing the ground school in the US and Gertrude suggests that the cost in US does not factor in lost earnings. Both are down to personal circumstances.
I did my PPL and IR in the US and find that the total immersion route is best for me, doing the PPL in 2.5wks and the IR in two weeks from almost zero start. The ground school fills in the gaps as you go along, putting everything into context very easily. Of course any reading you can do is bound to help and if you can get to a level to take the written before you go it is one less stress while you are there. Sportys.com and mywritten.com have good online practice written exams for free.

As for loss of earnings again that is for the individual situation but in my case was effectively zero. Aircraft hire is in any case higher than my hourly rate when I am contracted and so I prefer to extract the maximum value from that by maximising progress and concentrating the learning. May not suit everyone but it works well for me. A further factor might also be the flight test costs $500 inthe US and possibly £700 in the UK. Well that covers the airfare.

As for IR lite - well I think I already have that based upon the fact that I do not have sufficient real world IFR experience to take off into a heavy IFR environment safely and with confidence just as it was for the first few flights after getting my PPL.
Perhaps that is a route to seperate the traffic streams and keep everyone happy with use of controlled airspace and jet airways etc. being based upon experience and currency in IFR. A high level of both being able to open the gates to the other world where presumably both will be at home together. Meanwhile us less fortunate souls still get to pootle around in the murk as needs and experience permit, building confidence and experience but doing so as safely as we able.

I will possibly follow IO540's suggestion and see if I can add the CAA/EASA IR at a later date and with the benefit of some more experience. However I guess that the CVD will prevent that and which will be a shame.

As a recently qualified PPL, already working on the IMC, I've been following this thread with some interest.

Unfortunately I'm colour deficient, suffering from a moderate deuteranomaly, and have failed the lantern tests at Gatwick and therefore been diagnosed CP4.

My understanding is that this only precludes night flying however, and has nothing to do with IFR versus VFR. Both the CPL and IR syllabi both include an element of night flying, and the CAA have already told me that in the case of the CPL that can be done during the day.

I've argued with them that that same precedent should be applied to the iR, and they're wrestling with that right now. In the meantime, I personally know two pilots who have day only restricted IRs.

Am I missing something here?

Fuji, You need to make your mind up, either you want access to the airways or you don't..... If you don't then the IMCR remains a viable option and we have to look at what needs to be done to improve the standard and give fair credit to those who want to go on and do the full IR.

SteveiB1, the problem with trying to restrict an IR to day only is that you start to become a liability to ATC if you hit weather, wind or ATC delays and end up arriving after dark. A good example, last week I flew IFR to Cannes, hit much stronger winds than forecast and as a result ended up nearly an hour later than I expected well into dark. I had to divert to Nice on a procedural arrival followed by vectors to the ILS that took another 40mins. What would I have done if I had a Day only IR? I flew in over the ALPS at FL150 so any diversion would still have seen me arriving well after dark. Sometimes we just have to resign ourselves that we have limitations rather than trying to change the rules. I would love to have been an Olympic sprinter.........

Bottom line is Bose, although I caught the bug fairly late in life (I'm 30), I love to fly. Why should I accept logic like that just 'cause them's the rules?

Useful VFR flight in northern europe is not a realistic proposition (ie going away for the w/e and stading a fair chance of being able to get home when you want).

You would have to trust me not to put myself in a situation where my arrival before nightfall is borderline, the same way my green (brown?!) PPL licence allows me to take several other people's lives in my hands and fly them off somewhere VFR; and not stray into cloud and kill everyone...

A simple answer would be a stipulation that on a day only IR min fuel endurance = at least the time left before dusk. That way, running out of daylight would be the least of my worries!

Not knowing much about IFR flight, I would have thought you'd do the same thing as a VFR day only pilot? Divert as soon as it became apparent that you wouldn't make it in time?

Bose

Forgive me but I follow your argument even less.

My comments had absolutely nothing to do with who should or shouldn’t have access to class A.
I was making the observation that taking the UK model, IMCR holders have access to class D in IMC and operate to the same minima as CAT. (Reduced minima operations and departure excluded).

To suggest that AT treat those pilots in anyway different to IR holders is rubbish. AT have no idea whether the pilot has an IR or IMCR (although I accept in few cases they may have a clue from the initial call up, but equally the call ups I have heard from some CAT pilots have been so poor that I wonder how they ever got their IR.)

In my opinion given your experience of airways operation I do not understand how you can go along with the suggestion that the most difficult segment for an IMCR holder is the STAR. I doubt there is any evidence what so ever to support this hypotheses. From my own experience, and also taking into account what happens in the States where there are large numbers of PPL IRs with varying degrees of proficiency, the vast majority of problems occur during the approach.

With respect, and I really do mean this with the greatest of respect because you have my admiration for taking on the task you have, I think you and many others have been taken in by the whole host of unproven arguments why certain things should not be.

You may well argue you have not, but are engaging the art of the possible not the desirable. Whilst I would accept the rational in that argument there is a real danger that all that results is a whitewash that achieves absolutely nothing other than effectively maintaining the status quo. Sadly you will have wasted your time.

Personally I feel you could not be more wrong.

Why? Well the reality is hardly anyone does a PPL IR in Europe whereas the MAJORITY of pilots in the US have an IR. Moreover those pilots that do have an IR in Europe are likely to have an FAA IR. Do you honestly believe that among the fraternity of European FAA IR holders they would not have undertaken a European IR unless there was a very good reason for their not doing so? Evidence, evidence, evidence as my friend told me.

In short I am seriously concerned that AOPA has no understanding of the needs of GA or of the way in which GA pilots would use an IR.

Why oh why is everyone so intent on rewriting the rule book when there is already a tried and tested model in the form of the FAA IR that works and meets the needs of the private pilot.

You will end up with something so watered down as to be utterly pointless and all the serious pilots will continue to run N reg aircraft on the back of their FAA IR. What a shame.