Just as an aside I remember reading on some thread ages ago about a BA captain who failed an IMC rating test...apparently he had forgotten how the basic DI worked. :=

Fuji,

What does anyone need an ATPL for if they are not going to use it.

Is it a "I've got an ATPL so I look down on him", I'got a CPL so I look up to him but I look down on him" .......

If they have 10,000 hours then they have 10,000 hours. They may be a great pilot, they may be reckless idiots but PPLs, CPLs and ATPLs are simply bits of paper that entitle pilots to perform certain functions.

I know many PPLs who are far more experienced and far more capable than me. It is the experience, knowledge and capability I respect, not the piece of paper in their hand.

----------

If I was earning my living from doing something I would want to excell in that field and if the way ahead was to complete some simple exams after a bit of study the I would and I would not expect someone to feel sorry for me over a dacade after I ignored the oportunity to do just that simply because my past failure to act is now coming home to roost.

Microlight instructors earn more than JAR-PPL instructors. I would have been teaching microlights with a PPL and reaping the rewards that many have tapped into over the last 20+ years rather than moaning that someone should help me out because I did not help myself when the time was right.

20,000 hour pilots should not have a problem with a few exams and a test.

Two pilots were in the bar talking.

I bet I can make that crusty old CFI laugh and cry within a minute said one.

Go on said the other.

The first walked over to the CFI and shouted into his ear "I've got more hours than you"................to which the CFI burst into laughter.

They then opened their logbook and showed it to the CFI........

One mans vast experience is anothers learning to walk phase.

Regards,

DFC

The point I was trying to make is that their career maybe over. They may have flown the airlines all their lives, but now are retiring, and wanting nothing more than to be able to enjoy flying around for their own pleasure. They'd have no need for airways, and be happy with the limited privlidges of the IMC rating to simply allow them to get home when the weather turned.

dp

When I am working, I have to cope with all those hassles.

When I fly for pleasure, the last thing I want to do is fly IFR. If I make a serious mistake and the weather turns (as you put it), I will remain VFR and if really stuck land close to a nice pub where I can weather the storm.

Most retired ATPLs I know prefer the piper cub, luscombe, microlight type of simple sunny afternoon wafting along flying.

WE do enough racing round at 500Kt and flying in weather with approaches to minima at work. That is not recreational flying.

Recreational flying is setting off when the weather is good enough to ensure a pleasurable relaxing flight not a working office job in a more cramped environment.

Since I need minimum 1000ft ceiling above everything within 10nm of the destination when IFR and no published approach........is there any way that I can arrive there IFR if I can't arrive there VFR?

Regards,

DFC

Just back from Cologne after two days of MDM.032 meeting.
There is a lot of factual information re FCL, FAA, LAPL, IFR, IMCR etc debate I need to provide updated information on but it is quite late….
I’ll construct an accurate and measured response to this thread this weekend (after another meeting Sat a.m. and Xmas shopping, domestic brownie points etc).
Some commentators on this thread over the last week, especially Justiciar, are closer to the truth than most. Politics are playing a close hand as is the dominance of ex JAA interests including airlines and the associated unions on FCL group, which outnumber the GA experts who have done their damndest (? spelling) for our (UK) interests. There are many trade offs-involved between an ICAO complaint FCL/PPL and the LAPL. Airspace access in the EU context is a major factor to take into account and EASA’s objective (I believe), as well as that of ‘industry’ as we are called, is to have licences that prima facie are not limited to particular classes of (EU) airspace.
Remember one thing though – the EU agenda (which EASA as an agency of the Commission is obliged to implement) is standardisation, not harmonisation.
And before we all sound off about EASA and the FAA on future licence issues, bear in mind that a bi-lateral is required between the EU and the US Govt. Not there yet and guess where (who) the problem is? Not where you might immediately think if you are “EASA-bashing”.
Some of us are trying to find a satisfactory outcome through this whole situation as we go along, but it ain’t easy.

David,

Thank you for the feedback here; very useful.

I don't quite get this. Can you be specific as to the area where there is a problem?

Currently, the FAA accepts FAR (no pun intended) more JAA stuff than JAA accepts FAA stuff.

For example, you can convert a JAA IR to an FAA one with just a written exam. Or a JAA ATPL to an FAA ATPL with just a written exam. The FAA accepts all JAA (or any ICAO for that matter) flight training towards any of its licenses/ratings.

OTOH, JAA accepts none of the above from the FAA. No credit for flight training, no credit for exam passing. A 10,000 hour FAA ATP pilot with 9,000 hours on a C172 would have to do a JAA PPL from scratch as if he had never sat in a plane at all. Exams, 45hrs training, the lot. In a C172 if you like.

The FAA accepts any ICAO license for an N-reg, automatically, so long as it is issued by the country owning the airspace you are flying in. With the exception of the UK CAA, an FAA license is worthless in an EASA-reg; some countries do paper validation, but grudgingly e.g. France does it only for non-French pilots - a blatent restrictive/protectionist practice. And JAA itself limits member states to 1 year max for the validation of any foreign (which obviously means FAA) IR - another blatent restrictive practice.

Then we get onto certification. This is less clear but the vast majority of "avionics stuff" is US made and comes with US certification anyway. The vast majority of non-US-made stuff comes with US certification - because the USA is the major market. It is EASA that is hard on this, not accepting FAA STCs. It was joining JAA that killed the CAA-FAA mutual STC recognition treaty which I remember reading myself a few years ago. And now we have a stupid situation where you can have a product with an FAA STC but EASA won't even look at it unless the application for the EASA STC comes from either the manufacturer (who already did the work for the FAA!) or a design authority (4 digits+).

I'd like to know what EASA is complaining about? Is it FAA's refusal to implement some EASA ADs? There is a recently kicked off EASA-FAA AD harmonisation process anyway; I have the reference for it.

I completely agree with your post above. EASA have chosen to couple all the crew licensing issues that affect us with various other politics that don't. My vague understanding is that the area the FAA are being tough in is to do with Maintenance organisations in Europe and oversight. This is a guess and may be wrong, but I think an example might be of European maintenance organisations that might work on a US airliner whilst it is positioned here (eg. develops a fault) and what direct oversight the FAA requires of such an organisation.

It is a purely political decision, the EASA stance to say "well we can't possibly have mutual recognition of crew licensing and STCs unless we have a bilateral treaty on X,Y,Z". Interestingly, I think relations with Canada and Australia are better, and don't have this barrier. We may more readily have total mutual recognition with those more easily. So it may be a roundabout route whereby an FAA STC becomes a Canadian STC which then can be recognised under EASA. And any FCL regime has to be better than JAR-FCL.

All the above based on scraps of info, I am sure someone who knows more will post soon. Caveat again, I may have got this wrong.

That is your choice. There is no reason to ban ATPL's from holding an IMC rating simply because you would not choose to use it. :)

You might also like to consider the position of an airline pilot who holds a Multi Crew MEIR, who wants single pilot IFR privlidges when flying their light aircraft. Again an IMC rating may make more sense to them.

dp

Especially seeing as they can apply for it without taking a single exam, and without taking a single flight test...just as I do....It is essentially free.

And after its two year period, it can be revalidated automatically and re-applied for by anyone who has taken any sort of IR "test" (multicrew IR reval for example).

This is what I do...I have never sat an IMC exam in my life, and never done an IMC renewal flight in my life, but have held an IMC rating for about 6 years.

Removing the IMCR would immediately strip out at least 90% and probably 95% of UK private IFR traffic.

This would pave the way to elimination of ATC in many places and a gradual sinking of many airfields into Elstree-type decrepitude.

Rubbish, you only have to bee airborne on an IMC day to realise how few people really use the IMC as IFR traffic.

englishal, no longer is the IMCR available as a 'freebie' to people holding IRs on MPAs - the CAA did away with that a year or so ago.

In 2004, the rule was:

The holder of a JAR-FCL professional aeroplane
licence with a valid multi-pilot IR(A) is not
automatically entitled to fly using the privileges of
an IMC Rating in single-pilot aeroplanes. They will
be required to obtain a separate IMC Rating
endorsement on the basis of their most recent
multi pilot IR proficiency check or skill test. In this
case, the IMC Rating will be valid for a period of 25
months from the date of the IR(A) skill test and will
not need to be revalidated if the IR remains valid. If
the IR(A) lapses an IMC revalidation flight test is
required.

However, in 2005 this was changed (with neither consultation nor publicity) to:

The holder of a JAR-FCL professional aeroplane
licence with a valid multi-pilot IR(A) is not automatically
entitled to fly using the privileges of an IMC Rating in
single-pilot aeroplanes. They will be required to pass a
IMC Flight Test and apply to PLD for a separate IMC
Rating endorsement.

So, nowadays the airliner driver who wants to do a little instructing on his/her occasional day off - including the ability to teach in 'VFR above cloud' conditions must, as a holders have any single pilot IMC privileges.

The CAA introduced this without any RIA. I was in the course of fighting it - until a colleague went and failed his IMC test....:rolleyes: His day job was a BA jet captain. So I no longer had any real case....:hmm:

No it does not make sense to anyone I know to spend money obtaining and maintaining a rating that provides limited IFR privileges with higher minima when for the same money, one can revalidate a single pilot IR and not be so restricted.

However, I stand by my point that most profesional airline pilots who fly for pleasure on their days off don't want the hassle of IFR and simply want to waft arround or do some aeros or something else recreational.

BEagle has pointed out that in the UK, there is the question of pilots being limited by the local laws to flying in sight of the surface and thus an ATPL could be so limited in regard to instruction flights however, if that restriction was removed........as it will be along with the 10Km SVFR requirement and the 3Km class G minima, one big reason for having the rating disapears.

Regards,

DFC

Interesting Beagle.....:(

That is a bit pointless really, anyone with an ATPL who has any sort of IR should be capable of flying "IMC".....It is odd that other countries don't have a MPIR - in IR is an IR in many places......

I know of a number for who that is certainly not true. Not necessarily because the thrust of what you say is incorrect, but often to get anywhere when you want to may involve some IFR. For example I know of two commercial pilots who enjoy going to fly ins for their type of aircraft around the country and in Europe.

I was interested how one managed it given that he had mentioned some time before his SEP IR had lapsed many years earlier - hmm he said, just before departing through a frontal system with the cloud on the deck, I will just have to stay clear of the cloud I suppose.

It's most certainly not the same money. Even if the test fees are the same, their SPIR will have to be renewed annually, while the IMCR will be renewed only half as often.

dp

Dublin Pilot,

If you knew the system you would see that the 25 month renewal period is simply a red herring.

If I have an IMC rating and an MEP rating, I must complete the MEP renewal every year and I must also complete the IMC renewal every 2 years.

If I have a SPIR, I replace the MEP renewal with a combined SPIR/MEP renewal which takes the same time and thus I save the IMC test fee every second year.

If I am only flying SEP then I combine the IR renewal with the SEP revalidation requirements and it costs no more.

For a person who has held an SPIR rating within the past 5 years it does not make sense to downgrade to the IMC because one is so restricted by the rating.

----------

Fuji,

I am sure that they did so as well.

Idiots who risk their career by reckless flying in their spare time are very much in the minority of professional pilots.

Regards,

DFC

DFC,

You are not thinking this through.

If our airline pilot is renewing his MEP, he will be doing it as part of a multicrew, and hence renewing his multi pilot IR. Hence he will need a seperate renewal for his single pilot IR, which is what lead us to suggesting the IMCR would suit him better in the first place! Keep up! ;)

dp

DP.

Sorry mate but DFC is correct you are not.

MEP = Multi Engine Piston, how do you think an MEP rating is renewed as part of a multi crew renewal?

I renew my SPA-ME-IR each year and my MEP as a single flight test. My IMCR is also signed off at the same time just for legacy sake.

The whole issue of making a European IMC rating available for ATPL holders is a bit of a red herring, they could be included just for the sake of completeness...but they need not be if DFC doesn't approve...;)