Where are we really going with the IMC rating?
 

I thought, since I started it here I should post here to keep the IMC rating in the headlights and make it clear that we need everyones continuing support with our campaign.

It is very easy to think the battle has been won, when so far there has only been a minor skirmish.

On the positive side, it would seem EASA will protect the IMC rating during a transition period of up to four years, from 2008.

On the negative side, the survival of the IMC rating will ultimately depend on the degree of support for the rating here and in the rest of Europe.

Unfortunately, it is far from clear what position each of the UK representative organisations take on this matter. Sadly, their web sites contain very little information on which we might form a view. They have represented us during the early committee stages but a veil of secrecy has been drawn over those meetings. Many people have asked for copies of the minutes, or at least a summary, but nothing has been forthcoming.

You might expect to a man they would support the European wide retention of the IMC rating, given the view of the vast majority of British pilots. However, if they do, they certainly have not been very quick to nail their colours to the mast. This, in my opinion, is a great shame. We would all be better served if we could co-operate on such a key matter.

Whatever happened to open representation?

There is a growing suspicion that some of the representative organisations are selling out the IMC rating in the belief that a more acceptable IR is achievable.

Unfortunately this presupposes that most pilots want to commit time and money to an IR, when the IMC rating already provides everything they need.

Moreover, the evidence is that any “concessions” in the IR syllabus will comprise little more than tinkering with the theory content, and would in any event presumably result in a two tier system divided between the "commercial IR" and the “private IR”.

There is a growing suspicion that the representative organisations think they know what is good for us, but forgot to ask us along the way.

Now I fully appreciate it will appear that I am running them down and ignoring all the work they do for us.

That would be wrong.

I am concerned that in this process none of us make any assumptions. It would be a great shame to believe our representative bodies support our own view on this issue when they hold another.

It seems not unreasonable that we should know how we are being represented, so that we can make intelligent choices about whether we agree with the way we are being represented.

My concern extends to the rest of Europe as well.

It is widely reported the French are opposed to the IMC rating.

It is widely reported the European Commercial Pilots Association is opposed to the IMC rating.

Why is the average French pilot opposed? I don’t know the answer. I am not even certain anyone has asked them. Are they opposed because no one has bothered to explain the rating to them?

The CAA say that there is no evidence what so ever of problems associated with IMC rating pilots mixing with commercial traffic. Does the European Commercial Pilots Association know better? In fact I have written to their secretary on three occasions to ask them to set out their position. I have yet to receive the courtesy of an acknowledgment of my correspondence, never mind an informative reply. Does this mean that they are above the democratic process? Does this mean if their own members write to them they will also not be given the privilege of a reply? Perhaps some one on here who is a serving commercial pilots might like to try? Who in fact do they actually represent?

Why would you pay good money for someone to represent you and not have a clue whether they are representing your views or their own? BALPA say they support the IMC rating - good news indeed. Are they really a lone voice in the rest of Europe's commercial world? Is the commercial world so blinkered as to not examine over forty years of evidence gathered in the UK or has no one bothered to provide them with the evidence?

Lots of questions unanswered.

So far as our campaign is concerned, we are going to try an get some answers. We are going to try and honestly engage anyone and everyone.

Very shortly we will be “rolling out” our new web site, which will be carried in a number of other languages. We are going to work hard on continuing to drum up support here and in Europe. We have one or two other initiatives that we think will be helpful.

For the time being please continue to register with the campaign at www.ukimc.org

I apologise for the long post.

However, there is a very real danger we each and everyone don’t support the campaign through lack of time or because we fell we can leave it to others. If you believe in preserving the IMC rating which is all that we stand for, we need your support. If you are clear on the position of any of the representative organisations to which you may belong by all means give them your support as well and ask how you may demonstrate your support.

You can support our campaign by simply registering on our web site. We will suggest to you when it is a good time to contibute further as matters progress through the consultation phase.

For the avoidance of any doubt our campaign is solely concerned with preserving the IMC rating in the UK and for its wider adoption by EASA. We are not in the business of compromise - and the loss of the IMC to be replaced with some other form of IR is not on our agenda.

Finally, I am aware there has been some criticism of “our” No 10 petition. The petition has demonstrated the extent of the support. I believe this was needed. I accept there is a danger that those who have signed don’t now support the campaign. That is one further reason for my asking now for you to register to with us.

IMCR Misbehaviour
 

Hi Fuji,

Let me say at the outset that I am in favour of the IMCR and want to see it retained.

However, within recent days we have all read the posts by a French ATCO who had personally handled a number of instances where IMC holders had quite illegally entered French airspace in serious IMC and had then become a serious problem for French air traffic control staff by reason of lack of skill, currency or judgement. She was adamant that she wished to see the IMCR scrapped, and as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, although French ATCOs do report the actions of these people to the French authorities, somehow this has not resulted in contact between DGAC and CAA with a view to prosecution, so the misbehaviour has continued.

Under these circumstances, it is surely no surprise that the French at least are against the IMCR. We have no way of knowing how these same people behave in other countries of the JAA participating countries. Perhaps these people are doing the same thing in Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and elsewhere. So no wonder other countries are against the IMCR.

If we want to get other countries to support the IMCR, then this needs to be the first thing we attend to, as even the best of campaigns such as your own are going to fail if our own people are, in effect, 'shooting us in the foot'.

If the IMCR is to achieve support from other countries, then the holders of the rating have got to secure a reputation for being both competent and responsible.

Broomstick.

Broomstick - I can assure you that anything serious notified to the DGAC does get pursued back to the UK. A few years ago I busted a TRA in France (in the days when the French IGN charts did not yet show their nuclear power station TRAs, and the ais.org.uk notam system did not yet carry the info either). I was under radar contact with a special squawk issued; French ATC said nothing at the time but asked me for the pilot name, his inside leg measurement, etc. 6 months later I heard from the CAA who were asked to prosecute on behalf of the DGAC. The radar trace (which I got a copy of) proved the special squawk and made everybody wonder why ATC did not tell me about it at the time but that is another story...

So I think if we did see the alleged huge numbers of Brit pilots flying illegally in France, there would be a lot of cases heard of over here of people getting done. The GA rumour mill would make absolutely sure of it. Yet, nothing, zero, zilch has been heard. I reckon that if some cases were suspected there was no proof and no action was taken.

It takes only a few cases of French police pick on an N-reg pilot and turn his plane over checking his VAT certificate and the words "instrument pilot" on his plastic card, for the word to get right around.

Would the French still be against an IMC rating (to keep it's old name) even if it were valid in France? Surely this would eliminate supposed problems of people illegally using an IMCr in France. I wonder how may incidents out Irish neighbours get?

Despite what some short sighted people think, the no. 10 petition does one thing really well.....acts as a key indicator to everyone what level of support the IMCr has. I don't really care if Gordon B writes back a standard "of course we will review this..." letter, becuse it lets us know what the PEOPLE think.

Of course if the "people" can't be arsed with the IMCr then that is another matter. I suspect also that no one has really asked the other European pilots if they want an IMCr...My mate is German and did the JAA PPL (UK) so he COULD add and IMCr to it.

A sub-IR IMC privilege would work well in France.

Put a limit of FL110 on it, that keeps it below the major Class D base but would allow transit of the Class D airport zones.

Presently, VFR traffic is completely routinely allowed to pass through all this airspace which is for the most part devoid of traffic.

There are just a few mountainous areas where FL110 would not be enough, but not many.

And FL110 is a reasonable level for which (or below which) one could file meaningful IFR flight plans.

Mode S would be mandatory of course, together with BRNAV above FL095.

One voice !
 

There is nothing that a goverment department likes more that an industry that speaks with more than one voice, they use this as an excuse to do nothing by saying that they are getting mixed messages from the industry.

So what ever happens if the IMCr is to be saved then ALL of UK GA must speak with one voice on the subject.

Personaly I think that the IMC is doomed because a "not invented here" attitude seems to persist in EASAland but as a tool to get a Europe wide class two IR the current campaign is in the forefront of putting pressure on EASA to act on this issue that they want to leave on the back burner.

The work that is being done to save the IMCr has my full support and I will be writing to my MEP but the thrust of my letter will be to in effect extend the IMCr to the whole of Europe, on safety grounds alone this is a good idea but I know that to sell it to the other states in Europe the name will have to change.

What I do find baffeling is the attitude of the European commercial pilots association, the safety issues are clear but still they stick to an intreched position dispite the evidence, unfortunatly this attitude is not suprizing to me at the moment in the UK motorcycle groups are campaigning to use bus lanes on safety grounds, reseach has shown a dramatic drop in accidents (45% drop in motorcycle /pedelcycle accidents) and yet it is the pedel cycle groups that are strongest opponents of motorcycles using bus lanes.

The only way to deal with groups with intrenched veiws is to keep using good reseach data and eventualy there position will become untenable.

"A sub-IR IMC privilege would work well in France.

Put a limit of FL110 on it, that keeps it below the major Class D base but would allow transit of the Class D airport zones"

Precisely why I advocate referring to 'permitted' airspace for individual states to decide, rather than an universal one-size-fits-all decision imposed upon them!

We had this for military low level flying - the rules were different for Belgium, Holland and Germany. I once had a low level flypast to do in Belgium, but we had to approach from the east close to 'Dreilandenpunkt'. So 3 different sets of rules to adhere to in the space of 5 minutes! Not hard, just took careful preparation.

That is the problem...The reason Fuji started his campaign in the first place was because it was clear that GA was not talking with one voice.

I suspect some people in other organisations are not really interested in the IMCr as it may undermine their "available IR" campaign, and so don't want to become involved. The flying helmet and goggles brigade don't really care, and no one has asked our foreign neighbours their opinion...

The only way to speak with one voice as far as I can work out is to sign up to www.ukimc.org. It must be getting some weight behind it, when the CAA on asking some advice, advise you to visit this website for the answer!!!!

You have answered your own question there Fuji. About half the French pilots at my club here have heard of the IMCR, mostly because there is a Brit (me) who has spoken about it at their club!! When I have asked the active pilots who like to fly places (ie not the brevet de base type) most wish they could have one here in France as a Full IR is unatainable now.

So, to sum up : Alot of French PPLs probably havent heard about the IMCR and Im sure no-one has asked the French PPLs if they think its a good idea. I recall someone posting that UK-AOPA has been in contact with French AOPA, but I dont know anyone at our club thats heard of AOPA either - The FFA is the organisation representing PPLs here in France because all Club PPLs are members of the FFA in order to fly at aeroclubs!!

Regards, SD..

Skydriller

Did you get my email in response to yours of a week or so ago?

Some excellent points.

I agree.

However, I think equally we should be cautious of accepting the anecdotal comments of a single contributor. As IO540 comments it seems hard to believe if there are this many bad eggs DGAC and the CAA would not have taken more action. I can only reiterate IO540s comments that a friend of mine (it really was him not me!) infringed a military zone in France and he received his letter from the CAA within the week!

I also agree.

However, their only members that are probably even remotely familiar with the IMC rating is BALPA. I suspect the real issue is that no one has bothered to properly put across the case to each of their members for the IMC rating. If we can get the grass roots support of GA in the main member states behind the rating they will in turn persuade their representative organisations of the wisdom of this campaign.

This is as much about education as anything else, something which I dont think any of our representative organisations have even considered.

It is all very well to have a 5 minute say at some committee meeting but as Skydriller comments if no one is a member of AOPA in France you might just as well stand on the end of Dover pier and shout, hoping that you might be heard the other side of the Channel. :D

I am not convinced.

EASA want harmonisation - and rightly so!

We dont fly across America having to worry about the regulations changing just becasue we cross a line drawn in the sand. No more should we in Europe otherwise EASA is a waste of space.

I would forget all the old ideas - I think EASA fully intend to sweep that all aside from my idscussions with them and rightly so as long as they have the support of pilots who know what they want and can prove the safety case.

IMC rating access to all classes, except class A, and anythong below FL110 is simple to understand and ensures the minimium of interaction between CAT and GA. Moreover, with cross border radar services and hand offs in many parts of Europe I cant believe it helps the zone services either.

It is beyond me as to why some pilots would deny themselves access to a poor mans instrument rating that has clearly been of great aid to private pilots that have this rating. It rises situational awareness and gives you a special get out of trouble card. The skills taught in the IMC rating are definitely very valuable and I know a couple of pilots that have used this rating to its full to act appropriate and safely in fast weather changing conditions. I know from a recent airfield meeting that the rating is safe for pilots that already have it for another 4 years, in which they will be allowed to practise the privileges of the rating but past that is deemed uncertain (information from the CAA). My flying club will still offer the IMC course after this point, even if it isn't a recognised rating, as they feel it is a great assest to a pilots skills/knowledge.
Perhaps people in these other countries, as someone has previously said, just don't understand what the IMC rating is nor what it can do for safe flying. Clearly EASA have safety in mind if they wish to bring in that French basic PPL were students can take passengers up at 20hours!! (where is the logic in this I ask you!?)
I've signed the petition and have forwarded it onto everyone I know.
:ok:

Fuji,

You have mail, Delayed due to work!!

SD..

All this talk of educating the pilot population outside the UK who do not seem to know what the IMC rating actually does is a total waste of time.

The only people who you have to convince are the national aviation authorities and their representatives at EASA level plus a few pilot organisations. Convincing a pilot from Bordeaux will make no difference but if you can convince the French licensing officer then it is unlikely that French pilots are going to object.

Unfortunately, those people know what the IMC rating is and remember the JAR-FCL negotiations and why the IMC rating go it's special paragraph in JAR-FCL. One has to agree that any national aviation authority would have grave concerns with letting pilots having as little as 5 hours IMC flight training in the aircraft loose in their IFR system.

The CAA privately also can not see a way forward for the IMC with the future european airspace and IFR operation that is comming to the UK.

Statements saying that the IMC is a poor mans IR make the position worse.

The best way forward is to accept that the IMC rating is gone. Far better to work on a PPL-IR (a qualification suitable for flying IFR anywhere) and more importantly, credit for the IMC rating holders towards obtaining that IR.

Regards,

DFC

There are 2 distinct camps developing:

1. Those who wish to keep the 15 hr UK IMCR, albeit called something else, and work to get it accepted by the rest of the EU.

2. Those who wish to kill off the UK IMCR and make the 50 hr IR somehow 'easier' to attain.

Well, sorry but I cannot fall in with the second camp. Who seem to be the well-off types of the PPL/IR world, in the main. The only real way forward with Europeans is to use their own rules back at them. Such as 'proportionality' of requirements....

IMCR/Class2IR and IR should have the same core IF skill requirements. Nothing to do with navaids or airways, I mean the basic stick and rudder skills to fly in IMC following ATC`instruction as required.

However, the rest of the training must be 'proportionate' to the needs of the end-user. So, for example, an FI, who just wants the IMCR privileges to climb up to VMC on top in order to teach basic lessons, does NOT need the same en-route training as the dedicated long distance IFR cruiser.

As for holders of other ICAO IRs? They should be accepted for direct conversion to EASA IRs with no formal requirements beyond issue fee and ICAO level 4 English.

Unfortunately you are wrong.

In the UK there is hardly a pilot who would not like to see the IMC rating retained.

Most thought AOPA UK, PPL IR and the other rep. organisation would back them to the hilt.

We were all wrong on that count.

In fact the UK pilots have so far been backed by the UK IMC campaign (www.ukimc.org), the CAA and EASA - how is that for a turn up for the books.

EASA have fully taken on board the ground swell of support in the UK thanks to our campaign, all credit to them and the CAA for doing so.

In Europe the European Pilots Association didnt back the IMC. Why? Who knows, they dont reply to correspondence. BALPA support the IMC rating but they are only one member.

French pilots I feel want the IMC rating - they certainly do once they understand it.

So, Europe is a bit like here, the pilots will want the IMC rating once they know what it is about. Fortunatley many of the European pilots association will also want the IMC rating. They arent the problem. The issue is people like the EPA but if they dont even have the courtesy to reply to correspondence it will ultimately be us, the pilots, that let EASA know the IMC rating is a very good thing for Europe.

I am currently working on an IMC use survey on behalf of AOPA. I will publish links to it here as soon as it goes live and would appreciate a link on the IMC campaign site.

No personal data is being collected. It will look the IP address to ensure there are no duplicate entries but otherwise will be looking at the type of flying, currency and status of IMC holders. This will enable us to build a proper case on the use and value of the IMC.

I would appreciate if this can be propagated in due course to the widest audience possible to facilitate accurate data collection.

I will post the official AOPA position on the situation shortly once I have had the wording approved.

Bose

As per my post on Flyer we have already put together a survey which will also be concerned with the views of pilots in Europe - it is multi langauge and will come out with our new Euro web site.

You might like to share the data rather than asking everyone to complete two surveys - it would be far more productive.

We also have a really first rate web designer on the team.

www.ukimc.org

I am more than happy to share data. We will still carry out our own survey as an AOPA initiative but cross validation will be beneficial.

Bose

OK

Not looking to score points, but it is hardly an AOPA initiative, but as long as we achieve what we are seeking, who cares.

Given all the discussion on the AOPA forum

http://www.joinaopa.com/forum/viewto...er=asc&start=0

has AOPA actually decided what it is they are supporting?

What a ridiculous position to take. I'm sure we all know people who "quite illegally" drive their cars too fast. Let's just ban driving for everyone shall we?

:yuk:

Now whilst I understand that there is a want for standisation over europe, why should our country have to lose a perfectly safe rating that many have because a few countries don't want it. Personally I feel if it was to be implimented for the rest of Europe. the pilots in those countries been free to get it if they want, they would finally understand it's use, get one and it would be the greatest rating ever then.
Most, if not all of the private pilot community in the UK is screaming out for this rating to be saved, surely we shouldn't have to fight to keep it as there is nothing to fight about. It's been around a long time and the facts speak for themselves. It's clear that someone doesn't want to do an extra bit of paper work and are using other countries rejections as the grounds upon that. Perhaps the only way to save the IMC rating is to elect our own IMC board to deal with the issuing of IMC ratings?

Posted on Flyer. This will be my last post on here on this. For more information visit flyer or the AOPA forums.

AOPA have always been clear on their position on the IMCR rating. They have worked tirelessly for this for over a year. This may not have been communicated clearly enough for some unfortunately.

AOPA fully support retention of the IMC rating in the UK. We believe that the work that AOPA, the CAA and PPLIR have been undertaking to bring the rating up to date should continue. AOPA will continue to lobby the appropriate people within government and EASA towards this aim. This will include trying to convince the Europeans that the IMC has great benefit to pilot safety. The AOPA philosophy is to 'keep our powder dry' when it comes to letter writing campaigns and involvement of MP's. There will be an election before all of this comes to a head and as such we prefer to continue to work existing channels.

We will continue to work with the regulator towards a more accessible IR.

We will not be trying to convert the IMC to a mini IR or try to get adopted as a European wide rating. We will continue to make representations towards having full and justifiable credit given to IMC holders towards an accessible IR.

I am not getting into a debate with you on this. I have offered an olive branch and am prepared to work with you. If you just want to continue to dig at AOPA you do yourself and your cause no justice.

"We will continue to work with the regulator towards a more accessible IR."

"We will not be trying to convert the IMC to a mini IR or try to get adopted as a European wide rating. We will continue to make representations towards having full and justifiable credit given to IMC holders towards an accessible IR."

Actually 'we' will rule nothing out. And yes, 'we' will indeed work with CAA/EASA to ensure that a pan-EU IMC level rating is available.

I am not getting into a fight with you either Beagle.

Martin was asked to clarify the position at the MWG meeting at White Waltham yesterday. I have repeated his response. His view did not contain the statement that a Pan European IMC rating was the priority. If it came about as a result of the representations to save the rating then all well and good.

Feel free to take it up with him. But then perhaps you should have paid more attention.

Is that AOPA's official position?

Lets be clear - no Euro wide IMC equivalent rating?

If the UK is not granted a national "exception" - that is the end of the IMC rating, so far as AOPA is concerned.

Is that what AOPA asked EASA for?

As usual, you have to throw in a stupid final remark, bose-x.

You really aren't helping the cause with your attitude, I'm afraid.

Beagle. I am sorry but your constant know it all digs do your cause no good either. I made a statement that was the AOPA position as outlined to me and minuted in the MWG minutes. Ask Mandy for a copy or better still come to the MWG meetings. I will be coming to the Instructor group meetings staring 9th April.

You chose to try and make some sort of a point by attacking me as usual. You choose to dig endlessly. If you are so close to AOPA policy then why not out your self? I know who you are, perhaps you will do others credit.

Fuji. AOPA asked EASA for nothing. They presented a case and they will continue to do so. Who knows what the future will hold.

I have refrained from making comment about your campaign as I said I would, you clearly have an issue with AOPA for whatever reason. Chipping away to try and score points does you no credit.

AOPA do not think that the IMC in it's CURRENT format will be accepted by the Europeans. However if in the course of convincing them there is a case to allow it to stay for the UK others choose to adopt it then all the better.

Bose

You are a good fella, but you are deluding yourself by constantly suggesting I have an issue with AOPA as such.

I cannot support any representative organisation that had ample opportunity before Christmas to ask pilots what they thought about the loss of the IMC rating but failed to do so. I cant support any representative organisation who allowed this to go to the wire. I cant support any representative organisations on whom it has suddenly dawned that a survey of their members and the wider audience might all of a sudden be a good idea when that should have been done many many months ago.

Do you honestly believe it was AOPA that achieved a four year moratorium on the rating at the joint EASA / CAA briefing - or might it have been because, 2,000 odd pilots, all the GA mags, and a couple of Euro MPs took time out to point out what we were about to lose?

We are done on this subject. All I hear is another anti AOPA rant.

Good luck.

Fuji,

I have posted this here as well as Flyer forums as we seem to have threads going on in both places and you've been cross posting so I felt I'd better do the same for this specific post as I think it's fairly key.

Please take this as a constructive post as I have been giving this some thought.

I do see you having an anti-AOPA position from all your posts questioning the work that has been done. This may well not be the case, but this is the way it comes across - rightly ot wrongly.

I do support your aims to keep the IMCR, but can I please suggest that if you really are serious about doing this then you should look to get all the heavyweight backing you can to get financial assistance and also access to the appropriate people in EASA.

I would suggest, in my simplistic view of the world, that you take up Bose's 'olive branch' and get together and meet AOPA.

There's no reason why you and the rest of the ukimc.org team cannot continue working together, but why not do it with/under the auspices of AOPA.

You would be able to get their financial backing and access via IAOPA to the appropriate meetings / people in EASA.

You may believe that AOPA have not done enough, but surely if you were to get together with them and discuss this then you could find a way of moving forward with the passion you obviously have but under a large body already recognised by EASA and the NAAs

Whatever you may think of the AOPA efforts to date I believe you would be doing yourself, ukaopa.org, and all of the pilots you claim to represent if you didn't take up this opportunity and have a round table discussion as opposed to trying to do this in this forum or over on PPRUNE. I feel you need all the help you can get and as a number of other posters have put it, to get a single voice coming across would add weight to the campaign - and if it was AOPA (and IAOPA) then that's got to be good.

So please, for the sake of the IMCR, get together with AOPA, sit down, discuss your joint aims and what you've done and what you plan to do, and see if you can't do something together.

Derek...

Copy of my cross post reply



I take every post as constructive, unless past experience is inclined to make me wary. Yours are always constructive.


It depends what you mean by anti AOPA.

Yes I am anti AOPA on this issue because I dont agree with what has taken place - that is why I started this campaign. Before Christmas so far as the pilot community were concerned AOPA had been almost silent on this issue. If AOPA represents you and me I believe they have a responsibility to clearly tell us what they were proposing and why. I also believe they had a responsibility to conduct their surveys then. They attended the joint EASA CAA briefing as we did. So far as I am aware this is the very first meeting concerned with this issue on which they have written a detailed report. Sadly their report is as far removed from being an accurate account of what took place as to make one wonder if they were really at the same meeting.

I cant escape the evidence that it all appears to be too little too late at best.

I had a decision to make. Did I feel I trusted AOPA to represent me on this. It would have been a great deal simpler to say actually I dont care, but it seemed sufficiently important that I believe totally in our campaign and I believe another way had to be found.

So, your observation in isolation is accurate, but is it so wrong to point out that sometimes our representative bodies may have got it horribly wrong not for reasons of a silly vendetta but in the belief that if you do nothing the rating will be lost and we will all be the worse for that.

I know what I am told by AOPA members and others in emails. I know what has been written on AOPAs own forums by well respected members of our community such as Irv Lee.

The people involved in the UKIMC.org all have plenty better to do - I guarantee you, and they dont get paid, they dont get expenses, so you can guess we all feel some one needed to do something about protecting the IMC rating.

For example our expert web designer has spent all week end working on our new web site.



I could not agree more.

I wrote to both Bose and AOPA expressing my wish that we co-operate.

I am afraid they (and I mean AOPA not necessarily Bose) saw things differently.

I hope not because it would be rather stupid to set out on a programme to properly harmonise pilot ratings and licensing requirements across the EU and get rid of the major flaw with JAR-FCL - local interpretations and local differences only to insist on establishing local differences.

Everyone has to remember that national aviation authorities are not swayed by the number of pilots wanting to do something.........they will dig their heals in and not budge until they can be assured that safety and thus their credibility as a regulator is not going to be comprimised.

AOPA and others should have plenty of experience of that position - there are thousands of pilots in the UK with the same ideas on GPS as IO540. If the popular position was what regulators went with then we would have had mandatory GPS and GPS approaches in the UK years back.

That is an example of where sheer numbers of pilots requiresting something does nothing to speed change. The same thing applies with the IMC rating. Other national aviation authorities are going to look at what would happen if they had IMC rating holders active in their airspace and more importantly the posibility of something happening and their public / government minister turning round and saying that the introduction of the rating was a bad idea while beating them round the ears with ICAO Annex 1, the FARs or whatever comes to hand.

The proposal has to be European wide and has to be a rating that will ensure safe enroute IFR flight in all classes of airspace. The idea that the flying instructor getting on top to teach a lesson needs only limited IFR training is not a credible position because they can find that when they wish to descend the weather is below minima and they have to divert.........and they may have to divert to a major international airport in Class A airspace.

First question from a foreign NAA regarding the IMC rating is........if it is so safe why do you not permit IFR flight on the airways and at a major international airport?........What happens when Heathrow is the best available IFR alternate?..........If the Airways are there for enroute IFR flight why are enroute IFR flights excluded and even discouraged from flying along the alignment but just below the base?

One also has to overcome the simple position that most NAA's (including the FAA) as well as the ICAO standard position is that an IR is the minimum qualification for IFR IMC flight. That is the wall that is going to have to be broken down. Claiming that the safety benifits of the trainng will not work because the training can be provided to anyone without them having to be given some poor man's IR - they simply get the safety benefits. How do they then keep current? - ask the majority of IMC rating holders and the answer is they don't.

It is unfortunate that this is on the table at the same time as a growing case for the rethinking of the IMC training element of the PPL course. I remember the arguments across Europe when it was implemented and the agruments that it would give the basic PPL too much confidence in IMC flight and that the simple - enter cloud and you'r dead message will be lost are still ringing in my ears. The heli guys have gone down the road of removing the IMC training element and chances are that the fixed wing position will change slightly.

Now if pilots and NAA's across Europe are starting to push for the 180 deg turn in cloud requirement to be removed from PPL trainig then how can you expect that the safety benifits of the IMC rating will sit with their thinking?

Regards,

DFC

25,000 IMC ratings issued,

40 years experience,

No evidence of issues with problems with commercial traffic,

One case of CFIT in 40 years.

I think that is a pretty solid case. Of course we and they could ignore the evidence. Fortunately they have not.

Unfortunately, I believe that unless we can get a Eurowide "mini IR" (Call it eIMCr or IWR) then the IMCr is gone.

My feeling is that we stand virtually no chance of getting an exemption to allow it to be used in the UK only, so it has got to be expanded to the rest of Europe in some form or another, with European support. And unfortunately it appears AOPA and PPL/IR do not support a Eurowide rating because they believe (or at least some in their executive committees) that it will undermine their attempts at an "easily obtainable" IR. They will of course support retaining the UK rating, if they didn't they couldn't justify taking our money in subs....but I suspect they know full well that there is not much hope.

Cutting a bit of ground school does not make the IR obtainable, especially with Euro training prices (cost is the real issue). The only REAL way to get an obtainable IR is to cut costs, which means having a 2 stage process with reduced hours for the first stage, upgradeable when required.

I'm not sure why AOPA are running and "IMC usage" survey? Why do they need to do that, why not just look at the statistics and see how many were issued?

Bose,

Since the start of this debate, I have wanted a clear understanding of the AOPA position. You say :-

So thanks for that. Now, will you please tell me how this position was arrived at ? Was it via a vote of members ? Because (as a member) I don't recall being asked about any of this ?

Apologies if you've covered this elsewhere !

FF. AOPA is not parliament. It is a company that provides a service to a membership just like a Gym for example. It is not a members owned organisation like leicester aero club for example or others.

It has a number of working groups that are made up of members, the MWG, the Instructor Committee, the schools etc. All AOPA members and with few exceptions all VOLUNTEERS.

Discussion and solution planning are worked on by committee and subject to vote. Martin then acts on this on our behalf, with the support of the various working groups. He is not some lone cannon deciding what he is going to do unilaterally. He sets great stock on what we the members have to say.

If anyone is unhappy that a committee of members is acting on there behalf then they are welcome to volunteer at any stage to participate. We are actively seeking volunteers to act as airfield reps. This role is to be a focal point for the AOPA membership feeding views and opinions back into the organisation. So if you want to be asked about something personally rather than be represented by your peers then please feel free to volunteer your services. We would be delighted to have you onboard. 1 volunteer being better than 10 pressed men and all that.

I hope this helps.

AL, the reason we are running a survey is to gain real statistics on what is a very emotive subject. There have been 25,000 IMC issued. 10,000 of those to PPL. But we do not know how many are current and the CAA can't get the information. It is all well and good saying that there are 25,000 issued of which 23,000 have medicals but how many are actually valid and in current use. 1 or 1,000 or 10,000? Carrying out the survey allows us to put REAL statistics across about the number of current IMC's, the type of flying they are being used for. This will help create a case that can be put across at European level based on fact not emotion.

Who owns AOPA?

Who decides who is put forward to the commmittee, and who elects the committee?

Good post bose.

If you need any assistance collecting or collating this data give me a shout: I'm always happy to assist a worthwhile initiative, not so keen on helping folk on their ego trips ;)

AOPA is a Limited Company.

All current issues that are facing aviation where known are put towards the relevant committees and discussed. Members write to AOPA with issues, government and regulators interact continuously with the organisation. AOPA have been operating in this way for many decades.

The 'committee' is not elected. Any member may volunteer and sit on any of the working groups if they have relevant skills to offer. The membership of the working groups is fluid as members commitments change.

If anyone wishes to become involved with the MWG please contact me. It is an open forum and new members are welcome.