IMC rating - press briefing
 

I understand the CAA will be holding a press briefing at CAA House, Kingsway on the 22 January with regards the IMC rating and FCL more generally.

I will add more information shortly.

I wanted to add to my earlier post.

This meeting is a joint initiative by EASA and the CAA and both will be represented.

It is not open to the public, but the briefing will be reported in the public domain - in other words on here.

This briefing may provide the first clear indication of how EASA see a number of key FCL issues paning out, including the status of the IMC rating.

It is important to emphasise that this will form part of the scene setting prior to the public consultation which will follow. Whatever view EASA have at this stage is far from set in stone.

It is terribly important that we are all prepared to respond during the consultation period.

I have now had a reasonable volume of feedback from Europe. I can report that I am in no doubt there is a pronounced lack of understanding of the IMC rating by the majority in Europe involved with this process. It has never been more important to ensure that we educate Europe as quickly as possible.

Fuji,

Do you know which press will be present ?

Yes, all the usual GA magazines and a number of the representative bodies.

I am pleased to be able to tell you that we (the IMCr campaign) will be attending the joint CAA EASA press briefing by very kind invite so we are well placed to let everyone know the outcome.

Well done!!

Good to hear that!

See you there!!

We look forward to hearing about it...well done and thank you again Fuji for your efforts. :ok:

Yes, well done Fuji for bringing the issue to a head. You've brought it to a point, where EASA realise it can't be done away with quietly in a dark cosy office without a backlash. Well done. :ok:

dp

I've posted this on 'the other forum'

Graham Newby (LAA CEO) will be there, also representing the GA Alliance. Graham is on the MDM.032 group with myself.

Eric Sivel, from the Rulemaking Division of EASA, will be speaking for EASA. Eric (Fr) is a fluent English speaker – he was educated in the UK.

The CAA rep on the EASA FCL.001 group spoke in favour of the IMCR at the last FCL.001 meeting 19-20 Dec.

It has been reported to me by a close (mainland Europe) colleague who supports the UK position that at that Dec meeting “it was agreed by EASA, UK and the FCL team that the UK CAA should use the article 10 of Regulation 1592/2002 and file an exemption, to be used for a full four-year transition period, during which the UK IMC Rating would be kept valid, but limited to UK airspace. During that period, the IR Rating will be reviewed, amended to meet the requirements for the PPL level. It should be possible to merge the IR Rating and the IMC Rating, finally granting grandfather rights to the holders of the IMC Rating, hopefully giving them the right to operate in IMC and all airspace, in IMC operating in accordance with IFR.”

A new rulemaking action at EASA is necessary for this, and should be started soon.

Let’s see what is proposed on the 22nd. Unfortunately I shall not be able to attend, as I am away from the w/e.

which suggests that if you've got an IMCr attached to your PPL, if you can wait 4 years, you will get grandfathered into a PPL / IR ?

Yes, but that is meaningful only if there is a reasonably accessible PPL/IR, like the FAA one for example. Accessible to the typical busy professional person who is the most common IFR owner/pilot. As opposed to the young unemployed young men who make up the bulk of ATPL candidates but who would never have the budget to become private IFR pilots.

Currently, you can achieve a training hours credit in a roundabout way:

Get the JAA PPL/IMCR
Get an FAA PPL/IR (credit is given for all UK VFR and instrument time)
Get a JAA IR (flight training goes down from 50/55hrs (SE/ME) to 0-15hrs)

The gotcha is that you still have to sit all the JAA ground exams. These are full of irrelevant crap and are responsible for so few people doing the JAA IR. Well, there is a bunch of other factors which combine to make the JAA route a right pain, and the JAA audiogram is a significant factor for many, but the ground school is the #1 problem.

Recent history (of attempts to do this) suggests that reducing the ground school to something actually relevant is going to be a major major political nut to crack. A recent attempt, shelved in 2007, ran in committee for about two years and managed to reduce it by about 25%...

When you realise the dead obvious solution, which would do away with the whole issue, would be to accept FAA FCL and certification, you can see how steeped in politics this whole game is. This would wipe out the N-reg scene without a single complaint and establish a very good platform for both flight and maintenance/upgrades. This is politically impossible, however.

I think EASA is trying to sell the UK pilots a pup here. Give them 4 years to get used to the idea that the IMCr is going, and all will be fine. :rolleyes:

Does anyone really believe that the IR will be reviewed enough to make it anywhere nearly as accessable as he IMCr?

dp

Other potential gotchas:

1. It may well be that many current RFs will not be permitted to conduct training for the 'EU IR'.

2. Why do they keep saying 'PPL level'? Do they think that, for example, ATPL holders with IR/MPAs will be unable to include a 'EU IR' in their licences?

3. It is unlikely that the death grip on IR testing by CAA Staff Examiners will be loosened. So, whereas for a UK IMCR your friendly local UK/FE(PPL) may conduct the initial test, it is likely that for the 'EU IR' a CAA Staff FE will be required. This will reduce income for many RFs and UK/FE(PPL)s and increase costs for the aspirant 'EU IR' holder.

4. Exams. Currently, UK IMCR trainees can self-study, then take a single exam at their local RF. I really don't see much chance of this under emergent eurocracy - and any change will undoubtedly increase costs to the aspirant 'EU IR' holder.

And presumably instructors will need to be IRIs, whereas (as I understand it) IMCR instructors don't require any training as such, other than holding an IMCR or IR themselves.

Is that right?

Tim

FAR too sensible :rolleyes:

Certainly not and nor should it be!

I'd have thought that after all the thousands of words written on the various threads covering this subject that everyone would have finally cottoned on to the fact that the UK IMCR and ANY form of IR involving IMC flying in Class 'A' airspace are VERY different animals.

'Accessible' shouldn't mean 'easy'. The IMCR requires a certain level of commitment to theory study but I do think that an IR does require a greater understanding and demonstration of that understanding of the subject than is required or needed for the IMCR. With our present system, that means more in-depth study and exams, I can't think of a different way of doing it.

I don't think that Grandfather rights for an IR from an IMCR is appropriate. Decent credit against further training and theory study, absolutely!

TheOddOne

Can we just be clear here Fuji, are you claiming that the press conference is a result of your campaign?

Just curious.

Julian,

That's the most horrible pun I've seen in ages.

TOO

No. I can't instruct for the IMCR, only the basic 1-hour required for the PPL. In order to do IMCR instructing, in addition to holding an IMCR, I need to do a further period of training to teach 'applied instrument flight'. It's on my list, but not near the top at the moment.

If a new EASA IR appears then I would expect that in order to teach it, I'd have to hold the rating myself AND receive appropriate training in how to teach it.

TheOddOne