Does anyone think that other European countries what people flying in the IFR system who do not understand that;

A Metar and TAF only relate to the aerodrome and it's immediate surroundings. The hills to the north are not part of the Metar or TAF - especially if the final approach is not over those hills.

Becoming in a TAF means that you can not be sure of the conditions changing until the end of the period if it is an improvement but it is taken to be the start of the period for a reduction

Cloud Broken 1000ft Becoming 1000 to 1200 Broken 2000ft means that you can not rely on it being BKN 2000ft until 1200 or later.

Cloud Broken 2000ft Becoming 1600 to 1800 Broken 1000ft means that you can expect Broken 1000ft from 1600 or even perhaps slightly before.

One can't complain about the TAF and the METAR when one is expected to make decisions based on both forecasted and actual met.

A wind of 210 at 10 Knots gusting 20 knots is reported (and forecasted as) 21010. The gust is only added when it is more than 10 knots above the mean.

Finally, the UK low level forecast chart was forecasting the following for the middle of England during the period described. (Yes it was amended but that was done during the night);

20 Km. Nil. ISOL 3000m BR/DZ LAN til 10Z

SCT / BKN SC (mod turb) 015/040 ISOL BKN/OVC ST 004-010/015 LAN TIL 11Z

Now I would never call those conditions suitable for VFR. Seems that the METARS show that at the aerodrome it was not as bad as it could have been. Note that the chart gives cloud AMSL but the TAF / METAR are "AGL" at the aerodrome.

So please come up with some rational arguments for the rating rather than trying to make people think that the lot over there should have their licenses taken away if they can't even work out the weather. Even the BBC got the winds right!!

The IMC will never be saved if the only reason for it is that of the very tiny percentage of Europeans that want it, a small percenatge can't work out the weather or the other case being we want to fly to low minima because that matches the weather.

Don't forget that this proposal is for recreational flying. It is not for any form of commercial flying. Recreational flying does not have to be able to get from A to B on a Saturday morning when the weather is bad. They can go play golf and do the fun flying another time.

A flying club does not have to fly when the weather is not suitable for VFR. There are no paying passengers. There is no commercial need. Recreational flying may benefit from a sub - IR qualification. But for recreational flying is it essential?

Those are the walls that are going to have to be climbed over. Lobbing chocolate tea pots full of misunderstood weather over the wall will do nothing to remove that barrier.

I wish you luck because in the absence of anything else you really need it.

Pace, excellent post.

Brendan, you alternate between the irrelevant and the bleeding obvious.

This thread is not about interpreting TAF and METAR and whether people do it accurately or not. For the purposes of debating the IMCr we have to assume that people do.

The thread is about whether or not the IMCr should be kept and, if so, how we go about doing so and if not, what should replace it.

As far as I can tell, most of the educated opinion here (and I vainly include myself in that) is that it should be kept, somehow, and that bEurocrats who know llittle or nothing about aviation should wind their necks in.

Brendan, you last few paragraphs are the ultimate in stating the obvious and preaching a load of clever-sounding total rubbish. Please desist.

SoCal, thanks for that. The problem here is not whether or not people require an alternate, but the licence privileges that would permit flight VFR "on top" with an instrument approach at the end - either to a landing or as a cloud-break procedure to continue VMC on to destination. The situation in the USA is very much easier, since your IR is roughly equivalent to our IMCr.

Brendan, thank you, but with 40 years of flying behind me, I'm pretty sure that I do understand TAFs, METARs and their limitations. The point being that yesterday's TAF was clearly over optimistic and the 'BECMG' never happened during the entire period stated. Which is not uncommon.

As for What complete nonsense. Flying clubs need to teach students the essentials of visual attitude flying. Groping around in the murk won't achieve this; frequently a climb out of the haze layer or through cloud to VMC on top will allow an FI to teach exercises such as EofC 1/2, S&L 1/2, medium turning etc which would otherwise have been impossible. Then at the end of the exercise a quick radar to visual or a quick instrument approach back at base.

Think about gliding activity. With a cloudbase of 2999 ft, a tug pilot can release a glider 'clear of cloud' at 2998 ft. But without an IMCR, if the cloudbase is 3001 ft, then the pilot has to remain in VMC which means releasing no closer than 1000 ft to any cloud - 2001 ft in this case. That will cost the gliding community in the UK £millions. What do they do in Europe? Basically, they lie. They give a gallic shrug of contemptuous indifference to the law and just do what they like.

There may not be 'paying passengers' at flying clubs or gliding clubs, but there certainly are paying students and members. All of whom would be greatly affected by the loss of the UK IMCR and the introduction of this stupid 'EIR' chocolate teapot rating.

Cannot agree with that statement. The FAA IR is equivalent to the UK IR in the flight portion of the training and what can be done with it.
The big differences between the two FAA IR and EASA IR are in the ground studies.
The European IR works its ground studies more like a university degree requiring a lot of time and energy which working people cannot afford while the FAA system is much easier to achieve. Both are equal in other respects while the IMCR is not like either in any respect and does not allow airways flying.

Part of the problem we have is in the name IMCR. Save the IMCR is a bit like save the lesser spotted quagamingo :) The IMCR is a set of flying privalages based on training schedule to a certain standard. That Standard is low.

Can you sell those privalages and standards to the Europeans? The answer has to be NO! Could we sell a low level IR not directed at future airline pilots and RVSM airspace with the resultant lesser ground training requirements then possibly YES!

Could we get the Europeans to let the UK be a special case in keeping the existing IMCR? who knows maybe.

Pace

Brendan,

Yes we do understand what you are saying. It's not the point we are making. It really is nothing to do with our ability to work out the weather. You are clearly having difficulty understanding us.

Taking into account forecasts, and allowing for considerable uncertainty in forecasts, but I don't know how to express it more simply:
Do you understand this? If not, please let me know, and I'll try another way.

This greatly increases the utility (and safety) of an IMC rating.

If you don't think this matters, please explain why you are hostile to the idea that the UK should continue a rating that has been shown to be effective. Never mind the rules of EASA, please give me a moral reason why should the rest of Europe stop the UK doing something which is useful to the UK, and does absolutely no harm to the rest of Europe?

Fredacheck

I would agree with that! The UK is a special case in the fact that we are an island under maritime influence and hence more liable to poor viz and low cloud than many of our European neighbours who have many more VFR days than we do.

In that respect the IMCR is much more needed here and in Ireland than for instance Spain or a lot of the drier continental European countries which are not influenced by maritime airflows and temperatures that we have.

In that respect EASA should allow "special case" allowances for countries which are unusual to the standard and have special needs.

Pace

It's off thread, but I disagree with your disagreeing with me, Pace (if you can follow the convoluted grammar!)The latter part yes, granted, but not the first. As a current holder of both a UK and a USA ATPL/IR and a former holder of an IMCr (back in the days when I was a "mere" PPL), and having trained students under both regimes to all levels, I feel qualified to speak from personal experience, and I maintain that the training and testing standards of the FAA IR are pretty much those of the IMCr.

I should have thought that the tidiest solution would be to 'grandfather' everyone with an IMC rating an Instrument Rating issued with a restriction such that its privileges may be exercised only outside of controlled airspace.

(sic)

No, the standard is NOT 'low'. The IMCR is examined to a specific standard and is not a simple test.

The theoretical knowledge requirements, flight training and testing for the UK IMCR are entirely proportionate for the privileges the rating confers.

julian storey, do you consider Class D airspace to be 'controlled airspace'? Many IMCR holders fly instrument approaches in Class D airspace and do so entirely safely. 'Grandfathering' is unacceptable - the IMCR must continue to be available in the UK to any PPL holder who wishes to include it in his/her licence irrespective of EASA's desire for €urocratic lowest common denominator regulations with disproportionate regulatory requirements.

EASA has yet to deliver anything of any conceivable benefit to the UK GA fraternity.

Captain stable :)

Maybe years ago when you could buy anything in the USA and half the examiners instructors with it, but things are very different nowadays and have been tightened up considerably.

Examine the training requirements and tolerance requirements of both IRs compared to the IMCR and they are no where near the same. What makes the EASA IR harder in flight training requirements than the FAA IR done by the book?

Again off topic examine the major study carried out between the two systems and the resultant ATPs are equal in the safety stats.

Pace

Beagle by low I meant in comparison to an IR hence EASA would see it that way if you tried to sell the IMCR as a Eurpean rating.

EASA would also see it as treading on the IRs feet and a lowering of standards.

Hence I support the retaining of the IMCR but differ to many here in the fact that i cannot see EASA ever accepting it and wonder whether a low level IR for Europe would be more achievable? with maybe a special case IMCR for the UK or individual countries who prove they have a special weather case to need it.

I agree the standards are not low for what the IMCR was intended for.

Pace

Sounds like an excellent idea presuming controlled airspace means A and C, not D

The whole point of the IR is to fly in CAS. To achieve an IR means you are trained to a standard layed out for aquisition of an IR and pass relevant tests to prove your ability in knowledge and flying skills to meet those standards.

How can the few handful of hours hours required and large flying tolerances allowed for the IMCR meet any of the IR requirements?

Reading all the posts in this thread my guess is becoming that the best way to save the IMCR is to argue a "special Case" for the UK due to the minimal VFR days compared to most of Europe and the poor quickly changing weather associated with the maritime influence around our islands.

Anthing more European wise is wishful thinking.

Pace

And this is one of the really big problems the Europeans have with the IMCr. Their airspace isn't sealed off like a water tight drum from IMCr holders like the UK CAT airspace is.

You need to be comfortable arguing the IMCr is an appropriate rating for flying into Heathrow and flying through the London TMA - because that is what we are implicitly asking Europeans to agree with - or to fundamentally restructure their pretty standard use of airspace to match the UK's unique approach to airspace!

---
I know this issue can be dodged by allowing individual states to allow/not allow the IMCr, or for it to be a UK only rating (i.e. the status quo), but this is diametrically opposed to the decisions already made by EASA and implicitly agreed by the British Government (in that they are in the EASA process)

IMC Rating
 

Hello,

Assuming that you can take a couple of weeks off work, you might be better off getting an FAA IR instead.

The cost will be similar, you have FULL IR priviliges in an 'N' reg aircraft and the CAA will 'give' you an IMC on the strength of it (they charge you £80 for the paperwork).

Worth considering! :ok:

Julian

CliffordFW:

1: Don't know about Cambridge but did my IMCr last month and used Southend, I think it was £18 per NDB/ILS approach. (might be that plus VAT - can't recall).

2: TT Vol 5 is very good, also get the IMC confuser too to back this up and make the exam easy. Most of the exam by the way is a flight plan/PLOG affair so brush up your planning and dust off/practice with your whizz wheel if rusty!

Good luck with your IMC, it's not as easy as people (usually those who've never done it....) will have you believe but is very rewarding and your general flying will improve too (accuracy etc).

Clifford, while Julian's idea has merit, I would recommend you wait until EASA have published their Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) for oversight of third-country aircraft/operators (due out at the end of the year), before you undertake an FAA IR.

Rumour has it that this NPA will include new regulation which will effectively ban EU residents from flying N reg aircraft in EASA land. This opens a whole can of worms, not least the fact that FAA IR holders will no longer be able to use their ratings to fly IMC in Europe. This, I suspect, is the real reason FCL008 was instigated - to look into an EASA PPL-biased IR that European FAA IR holders could convert to, and had little to do with saving the IMCr.

Having said that, EASA have been given a severe telling off by their EU political masters recently, who have effectively told the Agency to stop re-inventing the wheel, adopt JAR FCL, and leave the remaining sub-ICAO licences and ratings to national authority oversight.

My hunch is that the IMCr will remain as a UK-only rating, and a European PPL-biased IR will eventually emerge in about five years time.

Rumour has it a new mission statement from EASA is due over the next few weeks.

Regards, jez

Even if this 'N reg ban' does happen and I accept there is a chance that it might, Clifford will STILL have his IMC rating (issued on the basis of his FAA IR), will have been trained to a higher level and will have spent very little more money than if he had just got himself an IMC rating here ;)

Agreed, other than my aversion to giving business to those across the Atlantic at the expense of the UK flight training industry.;)

The alternative of course would be to undertake the IMCr in the UK and then upgrade to an FAA IR. I believe the FAA still recognises the UK IMCr and permits a reduction in the IR training requirement accordingly? The UK CAA, naturally, refuses to acknowledge the IMCr in the same fashion and requires one to undertake the full JAA IR course, irrespective of how much IMC flying experience one has. :ugh:

One would expect no less :*