AAAAArrrrgggghhhhh......who said it was the French? they may not have voted for it (not even sure they were at that particular meeting), but if it had been only the French then it would have passed.
The FCL.001 committee is made up of the following*
*Thanks to Dave Roberts for the information from this thread.

Ian

Ian

Yes, thank you for reminding us.

Are you able to provide some background on each of the members as I suspect everyone would find that very informative?

I'm afraid that I don't have that information at the moment. Like most I'm an observer with a vested interest.

EASA will bring major changes with winners and losers. We need a debate, but that debate should be informed (which hasn't always been the case in many of the threads)

Ian

bose-x said:

Good advice, bose-x; advice that perhaps you too should heed!

The IMC Rating was originally introduced in 1970. The syllabus at that time (10 hours) was biased towards basic instrument flying, with VDF its only let-down procedure. Prior to its introduction, a UK PPL could legally fly IMC OCAS without any instrument qualification. The syllabus was subsequently extended into a 15-hour course at the behest of Ron Campbell and AOPA in March 1981.

I'd have thought at least 3 if not 4 from that list would have voted in favour, unless there was some horsetrading to allow something else to get through ('you vote my way on this issue and I'll vote your way on yours'). Lots of stuff gets changed that way, not seen as particularly immoral by politicians and I'm not saying that it necessarily happened in this case.

It's just that from the outside it can seem terribly unfair.

TheOddOne

I cannot comment on the IMC vs IR ratings that this thread seems to have migrated to, but I do take issue with DFC's words above. The Restricted Microlight licence doesn't require navigation training, but limits flight to a maximum of 8nm from the take off point, in a surface wind of not more than 15kts, and a minimum vis and cloudbase of 5nm & 1000ft. You also cannot carry passengers until completing 25hrs total / 10hrs PIC time. It was conceived back in the days when actually flying 8nm without an engine failure was considered an achievement! Very few pilots fly with with this limitation now.

To get the Unrestricted licence requires navigation training the same as you. The 25hrs needed is simply a reflection of how simple and easy to fly most microlights are. I am well aware that the new breed of "Plastic Fantastic" machines are a different kettle of fish, but I doubt that any instructor is going to send a student solo in a £40k+ aircraft unless he/she is pretty sure it will come back in one piece.

I think that "digital.poets" idea has some merit. I remember finding it quite a jump going from circuits at a familiar airfield, to launching out over unfamiliar territory. A few flights with a local pilot to help out would have been most welcome.

.

You know full well that I was referring to the IMCR in it's CURRENT form which is what all of these discussions revolve around saving. I was also making the point that the rating has not been around for 50 years.

Guess who was the AOPA Chairman in this period....

The IMC rating has been in existence in the UK for over 30 years. According to those involved in the original IMC rating Working Group, it was designed to provide private pilots with enhanced skills and greater confidence when faced with deteriorating weather conditions, by increasing a pilot’s instrument flying knowledge and radio navigation skills, when compared to the limited instrument flying instruction provided under the PPL syllabus.
The rating was originally lobbied for by industry representatives, most notably AOPA, who wanted to see a stepping-stone between the one-hour instrument navigation training provided under the PPL curriculum and the full-blown commercial Instrument rating, used by commercial pilots operating in Class A airspace.

The 15-hour IMC rating course finally settled upon, allows a private pilot to climb through cloud and operate ‘VFR on-top’ before letting down again through cloud at their destination airport on either an Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach or non-precision let down. The privileges are more limited than those afforded to holders of an Instrument rating, but are nonetheless said to enhance safety and prevent pilots "hedge-hopping" at low-level to remain in sight of the ground. Fundamentally, the IMC rating provides pilots with the skills to get themselves out of trouble when faced with deteriorating weather conditions, and was never designed as a ‘cheap’ Instrument rating. IMC rated pilots, for example, are not allowed access to airways, or Class A airspace and for flights within Class D airspace, which includes the airspace around many of the UK’s airports, Minimum Descent Heights (MDHs) allowed for instrument approaches as well as minimum horizontal visibility distances are much more restricted than they are for IR qualified pilots.

Nonetheless, renowned UK aviator, display pilot and ex CAA employee, Barry Tempest, who was involved in the original IMC consultations back in the 1970s, told us that the rating originally came up against heavy criticism from the professional pilot unions, who saw it as little more than a budget Instrument rating which could compromise the safety of their operations. And according to those present at the recent JAA FCL 001 group meeting in Cologne, the same negative reaction by professional pilot unions would appear to have occurred again, albeit this time by unions outside of the UK.

not allowed access to airways, or Class A airspace and for flights within Class D airspace

?

..., which includes the airspace around many of the UK’s airports, Minimum Descent Heights (MDHs) allowed for instrument approaches as well as minimum horizontal visibility distances are much more restricted than they are for IR qualified pilots.

At least quote the whole thing IO - it makes sense if you read it aloud.

But MDH's are not increased? (recommendation only)

Depends whether the AIP forms part of the requirements and/or law or is just something to read to while-away the time I guess :8

Perhaps we can have another IMC-minima thread when all the current hoo-hah has died down...

I'll start the thread on Wednesday ;)

You are correct.

I have it in writing from the CAA - no doubt what so ever.

Semantics.

The quotations refer to the CAA recommendations for more restrictive MDA(H) rather than the law.

You sure about that bosey? ;)

It doesn't look as though you can any longer get copies of the regulation son the JAA website. So when are these changes coming in in the UK?

Drambuster

20 Hours this year you say!
Good luck to everyone with their plight.:ok:

Alright for some. :rolleyes:

How anyone can claim they are current as an Instrument pilot on 20hrs in a YEAR is beyond me.............

Instrument skills are rapidly lost without practice. What becomes critical is the time it takes you to settle down on the clocks. An experience and current IR pilot can do it in an instant because they have been trained for it. The IMCR for the basic user just does not give this.

The safe IMCR pilots are the guys that go out and practice, practice, practice and 20hrs a year is not practice.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I quite agree bose...forgive me stellair but your post sounded just a little condescending.

You are not still on that old kit are you Bosey.

Its all glass these days - not a clock in site - other than the one on your wrist. Tapes are what you need to be looking for.

Its all changing you need to get up yourself up to date. :) :) :)