2 of the pilots had FAA IRs, one an IMCr and one a PPL. I suspect they all thought that they were applying "a certain level of intelligence, presence and ability to assess situations". To me it illustrates, amongst other things, the seductive danger of making up your own rules because you judge it to be ok.

On the subject of relevance, how is the Milk Float story relevant to Nick's question? What analogy are you drawing between that and a pilot confronted with a solid overcast, as described in his question?

Quote:

---

2 of the pilots had FAA IRs, one an IMCr and one a PPL. I suspect they all thought that they were applying "a certain level of intelligence, presence and ability to assess situations". To me it illustrates, amongst other things, the seductive danger of making up your own rules because you judge it to be ok.

---

Well exactly - the fact that three of them were doing something they were "qualified" to do, didnt help them. Believing that you are displaying intelligence and presence is very different from displaying intelligence and presence. You would be a fool to think any set of rules can protect you from a misplaced belief.

Quote:

---

On the subject of relevance, how is the Milk Float story relevant to Nick's question? What analogy are you drawing between that and a pilot confronted with a solid overcast, as described in his question?

---

421C - now I am worrying about you, isnt it obvious?

Let me put it another way. Nick turns up at his destination at FL45, there is a solid undercast with tops 4,500 and the METAR reports the base at 3,500. He has checked his MSA which is 2,500 for miles around. He is OCAS. His diversion is 40 minutes away and this being France he cant get the weather for his diversion. He has an IMCr, (or he could have a JAA IR, and a FAA 61.8 without instrument priviliges and be flying an N reg aircraft) is very current and wouldnt think twice about making the descent in the UK. In fact he notes there are even bits in the cloud layer where he can just make out the ground. :confused:

Now what would you do? Ah, I know declare a Pan, or maybe even a Mayday, or divert, find there is also the same overcast at your diversion and again declare a Pan, or Mayday, or perhaps you did that before you diverted to make sure you had really got everyones attention? OK, so if that is your assessment of the situation, sure play it that way :) just the same as staying behind the milk float for the three mile stretch.

Let me give you a real life example. Many years ago I did some aero sorties with a BA training captain. His background; well a few years in the RAF, fast jets and all that old boy, how many tens of thousands of hours with BA, I dont recall, well we got ourselves above the overcast through a hole and played around doing some loops but when it was time to stop playing I was horrified to see the holes had all but disappeared. I didnt have an instrument rating. Strangely enough nor did he - well not single crew SEP. I cant recall exactly what we did as we found ourselves at 3,500 feet in 10K vis beneath the base that we had previously been above but then again I wasnt flying at the time. I dont recall the acknowledgement of a Pan but who knows maybe he had inadvertently selected the wrong frequency and didnt get any response so used some common sense and a little intelligence. Whether he was up to the descent of course was questionable.

Quote:

---

My stupidity was brought home very forcefully when faced with the challenge of trying to follow a DCT routing in controlled airspace in a busy TMA to a grass airfield with no navigation or approach aids in solid, turbulent IMC in a rented club cherokee with no autopilot, 1 radio, 1 VOR, no RNAV, no glideslope receiver and no mode C transponder without the faintest idea of how I was going to descend at the end of the flight. Fear of prosecution held me back from declaring an emergency, another highly questionable decision.

---

Sorry to be blunt, but you were stupid.

This has nothing to do with my examples any more than most of the earlier post. You didnt make an intelligent assessment of the situation.

Quote:

---

I made some extremely stupid decisions that day, but I am not normally a stupid person. I posted the story because it is a real life example of how having an IMCr can seduce you into a dangerous spiral of ever-more irrational decision making. Without in any way seeking to condone what I did, the additional pressures of flying single-pilot IFR in a typical club rental aircraft are not conducive to clarity of thought when the difficult choices have to be made.

---

.. and thank you for the post, no criticism intended.

I would add one qualifier. Your post could be construed to relate specifically to the IMCr but (and I appreciate that is the topic we are debating). it does apply to anything. Many of us did some pretty stupid things when we first got our PPL (not involving clouds), or our driving licence or what ever. The IMC rating is no different in what it can and cant seduce you into doing if you allow it to do so.

Some might say it doesnt teach you enough about instrument flying to know your limits and / or it doesnt teach you to fly on instruments but only get out of trouble on instruments (or into trouble :O). Would they possibly be the same people who believe the FAA IR has no place in Europe, or those who would argue that while the IMCr legally enables you to fly an approach to the published minima you have no business doing so or might it even be the same folk that think the JAA IR gives you everything you need to fly IFR around Europe from the off. Are these the same people that would far rather a tiny percentage of GA pilots in Europe held an instrument rating while the rest occasionally killed themselves? Thank God for the wisdom of our own beloved CAA and the FAA on this one and may the Devil deal with EASA in the fullness of time.

Fuji,

Quote:

---

Believing that you are displaying intelligence and presence is very different from displaying intelligence and presence.

---

Wonderful with hindsight. But how do I judge in flight if I am merely "believing" or actually exercising?
I don't know what set of rules you are talking about. The rule I am talking about, the one about not continuing VFR into IMC does protect you from the potentially misplaced belief that it is ok to do so.

I typed it before, but I'll repaste my opinion on Nick's scenario. "Maintain VFR and either go back to get under the layer in VMC or divert to somewhere you can land at within your licence and rating privileges. If you can't, declare an emergency. "

How is this complicated? Nick asked a simple question to which there is a simple answer. Any number of stories about Milk FLoats or BA Captains or Chuck Yeager or the Red Arrows or anything else won't change this.
brgds
421C

It's not inevitable at all, unless you allow your IMCR to lead you into situations that you have no business being in, if you can't legally use your IMCR at that time.

I'm with 421C on this. I've flown on top of clouds on a number of occasions, but never where I couldn't see a way back down.

You need to be able see a way back down. That might be the end of the overcast a few miles off tracks, or it might be holes of sufficient size within view. When your last hole is starting to leave view you have little choice but to turn towards it and use that way out. If you don't then you run the risk of being in a situation that you describe. I don't think many pilots who don't have instrument qualifications but do have VFR on top privlidges will continue on in such a situation.

If they did continue on, then their principal escape route has to be to return to an area of known good conditions, but of course that could have changed by the time that they return to it.

So if you decide to continue on top with no escape route other than "expecting better weather ahead" then you are letting your instrument skills lead you further than you would go without them. The trouble is your instrument skills can't legally be used in France, so of course you can expect to have your decisions questioned afterwards.

As Pace say, you are not likely to be questioned for using your skills to get out of the situation, but more likely to be questioned for how you got yourself into the situation in the first place.

Those talking about forecasts of Sct or Bkn at the destination have gotten too use to instrument flying! No VFR only pilot with any sense will fly over an overcast relying on a weather forecast for a way back down. We all know that they can't be relied on like that.

IO540 said many years ago on a different subject, but is relevant to this...."you must always make sure that you have a way out." Hopeing that the forecast at your destination will prove true isn't having a way out, but rather 'hoping for a way out'.

If your only way out is to use skills that you aren't legally entitled to exercise in that country, then of course you are leaving yourself open to question. If you take that risk then yes envitably you will eventually have to use that skill that you arn't legally entitled to use, but most sensible pilots without such a skill would never have gotten themselves into that situation in the first place.

So...no gray area as far as I'm concerned. 421C has it spot on.

dp

Hello!

That was me with this story and not the guy you repiled to, but it dosen't really matter. I think this story about „my“ airline captain is not such a bad analogy to the IMCr outside the UK: This guy has a valid instrument rating and was flying in a perfectly safe way, but his rating did not apply to the type of aircraft he was flying. Therefore he was prosecuted. The holder of IMCr rating is flying perfectly safe too, but outside the UK his rating is unknown and therefore nonexistent. Therefore he will be prosecuted if he gets caught using it. Simply put (see bolow).

For flying abroad (wordwide!), there is a very simple basic rule that applies to private and commercial pilots/operations: You must comply with the more stringent/restrictive set of rules between your national legislation/privileges and those of the country overflown.

For example: In Germany, flying VFR on top of an overcast is perfectly legal with a private pilots license, provided the ascent above and the descent below the clouds can be performed according to the visual flight rules and the aircraft is equipped for radio navigation. If a "normal" UK PPL does not allow this, then the UK PPL holder can not fly VFR on top in Germany. His more restrictive national rule overrides the foreign one. But if he is allowed to do so with UK PPL & IMCr, then he can also do it in Germany because he complies with national and foreign rules, even if the IMCr itself is nonexistent in Germany.
On the other hand, there is no such thing as instrument flying outside controlled airspace in Germany. Therefore, all other possible uses of the IMCr are banned by foreign rules, because an instrument rating is required for flying IFR _within_ controlled airspace. Simple, isn't it?

Happy landings,
max

Quote:

---

Good. Declare your emergency, tell the controller (I wonder which one you are going to talk to in some parts of France) of your situation and that you have an instrument rating which you cant use in the aircraft or airspace in which you find yourself and therefore you have no alternative to ask him what to do. Mention while you are about it that there is 1,000 foot of undercast with tops way above the MSA and you were thinking about transitioning from VMC on top to VMC below

---

How can you possibly mangle and misrepresent a perfectly plain statement like: "Maintain VFR and either go back to get under the layer in VMC or divert to somewhere you can land at within your licence and rating privileges. If you can't, declare an emergency."
You know exactly what I meant by "declare an emergency". The controller I am going to talk to is the one relevant to this scenario: remember that? The mythical French airport I am flying to from the UK which goes from BKN forecast to actual OVC? Well, most French airports which are customs and provide a TAF have an ATC service (either based at the airport, or a approach service from a nearby airport or both). So if I really do find myself unexpectedly above this layer and without a safe alternative course of action then, of course, I declare that to ATC and either make a request or state my intentions as I judge fit to ensure the safety of the flight - but I will expect to account for my actions and judgement subsequently. Let's be clear, it takes a pretty contrived scenario to get to this point, but if I had written only "Maintain VFR and either go back to get under the layer in VMC or divert to somewhere you can land at within your licence and rating privileges", that would not be 100% complete advice and you'd no doubt have pointed that out.

I do find it extraordinary there is even a "debate" to be had on this.

What Next/Max,
Hi - I was referring to Fuji Abound's anecdote in post #47

Quote:

---

Many years ago I did some aero sorties with a BA training captain...

---

brgds 421C

421C

Clearly we are at cross purposes as I have already said or you are just plain trying to be difficult.

I dont care how unlikely the circusmtances are; the poster asked the question. I have a feeling you have done plenty of touring so I have to add your comment surprises me. I am with IO540 in his earlier post about the real world circumstances of touring, but there it is, your experiences are obviously very different from all (not most) of the people I know.

As to the point at issue, it is only that you would declare an emergency in the scenario given if for whatever reason a diversion did not produce the desired results. Where I in that situation (in the very carefully worded example I gave) and hypothetically if I didnt have an instrument rating which I was entitled to use in that specific circumstance for a purely technical reason I wouldnt take the same course. (and in case you are trying to bate me into an admission of acting illegally of course I have never found myself in that situation :))

So you do it your way and I will do it mine.

The gentleman who asked the question and anyone else will make their own decision.

You have made a pr** of yourself. :) However you began your day if that is something you ended up doing then it has nothing to do with a sensible pilot making an informed decision about arriving above an overcast that was never remotely forecast to be a problem beyond a brief incursion into IMC for the purpose of a visual recovery.

Quote:

---

The difference between descending through a thousand feet of cloud and hand flying for an extended period in turbulent Wx with no visual reference is considerable.

---

Which was why we were not debating this issue. The trick is to read the question which posters on PPRuNe seem to have become very poor at doing. (Oh this is fun today, love a bit pf PPRuNe stirring).

Fuji,

Given your normal good nature, I take it that you're not deliberitly trying to be insulting, and you've just grossly misread my post.

Nowhere in my post did I say that I don't fly when there is a scattered or broken layer.

Nowhere did I say that I won't fly above a scattered or broken layer.

The only mention in my post of broken and scattered layers was:
Anyone who is flying over an overcast relying on a forecast of a SCT or BNK at their destination is going to be regularly disappointed by the forecast. If their plan B for the occasions when the forecast SCT or BKN turns out to be OVC is to make an illegal trip into IMC then they shouldn't be surprised if the authorities start to ask questions about their decision making.

I really can't belive that you can't see that.

I am not sure where a radar service comes into it. You don't need that to get back down, either OCAS on a made-up letdown, or to fly an IAP.

Re your other Q about getting stuck above a layer, of course it can happen; wx is not 100% predictable. What one does is make sure the tafs and metars for the destination are SCT or better. IF this fails (and I don't recall it ever failing for me, largely because most of my long VFR trips were to warn southern countries) the official legal procedure is to declare an emergency and ask for the IAP.

There is an "unofficial option" which is safe at coastal airports where there is a way to descend OCAS over the sea, and then call up the airport when under the cloud, and I believe this very obvious method is a national past-time in countries which don't have the IMCR.

Re the other man's comment, the alleged hostility to the IMCR abroad is far less than claimed. Most GA pilots would give an arm for it. France has just announced its own "IMCR", in a finger-up to EASA. The official resistance to an "IMCR" is simply that it is perceived to undermine the IR which, along with vital capabilities like goolies dangling very symmetrically, has over the decades become the gold standard for "professional pilots". The IMCR is virtually an IR, except for Class A-C and needing 1800m vis, but is much more achievable, and if it became widespread, the airline pilot unions would go berserk because of the perceived undermining of the 14-exam CPL/IR to which their member status has been (inexplicably) nailed. There is no safety case underpinning any of this; the IMCR has a superb safety record.

I don't think you owe your life to anybody in particular. If you have a license privilege, and you are unable to use that privilege, but you feel you need that privilege, then you need to do something about it. The IMCR is just another privilege which, if properly trained and maintained current, allows you to fly any IAP in IMC, and legally so in the UK. Had you got an IMCR but could not do this with it, but somebody passed you on the checkride, you should have asked for a refund :)

BTW you can land at Luton, Gatwick, Stansted, London City today, with an IMCR, as they are all Class D. They just cost about £500, and LCY does not allow GA anyway. Heathrow is Class A so you can't go there (and they don't allow GA also). The 1st 3 are perfectly doable with something like 24hr PPR. The PPR and the £500 make sure these airports are closed to GA even if there is nothing going on.

Dp

I apologise, but you seem to being confusing different aspects of the debate which lead to my comments.

If you meant literally this, then I would agree. I took your comment to be in the context of the debate. In other words the pilot was an instrument rated pilot but technically restricted to VFR because for example he held an FAA IR but the aircraft had a G on the side.

So our hapless instrument rated pilot set out on the basis of a scattered or broken forecast, pitched up at the destination to find a mild overcast (no question of an IAP, no question of undercast any where close to MSA etc), and in any event capable, current and qualified to fly an approach to minima were there only an N on the side and our hapless pilot must decide what to do. (and I have only converted the qualification away from the OP IMCr to an IR because I know some on here let their emotions run away with them at the mention of a IMCr).

If I could remind you that was effectively the question.

421C (assuming he cant find a VMC descent) would have him declare an emergency; I have taken a different point of view.

That is it. Nothing about pilots without instrument ratings bouncing around in severe turbulence and shooting IAP to minima without telling anyone, or pressing on into fog and landing in the side of someones hill, or pitching up at destination being surprised that broken has become overcast.

I do wish we could stick to the debate rather than ply all the usual dribble out (as sensible as it is) about why a non instrument rated pilot should never go near a cloud.

The sooner its got rid of the better. Roll on 2012.

And I answered it with the sentence I've repeated twice so far. You are the one who's then contrived scenarios to suggest that it would be prattish.

I have done about 500hrs and 100 arrivals outside the UK whilst an IMC holder. Probably > 50% of that in France. I have never experienced a surprise "requirement to arrive IMC" contrary to a recent TAF. Not even close. I cancelled many trips in the 24hrs before departure, and I had a handful of times where I had to delay the return home by a day or two; once to abandon the aircraft, return commercially and recover it a week later.

Of course, my utility would have been greatly increased by not having to conform to VFR. But let's not kid ourselves that the weather springs unforseeable surprises that often. It is either poor planning or very bad luck.

My point is I am replying to Nick's question and not your 'carefully worded examples'. I am not trying to bait you into anything. You make your own judgements and do what you will. Nick asked for advice. I gave mine and I dispute the contrary suggestion that might be inferred from your posts in reply to the advice I gave.

What a totally ridiculous and undeserved comment.

If I was making such a comment, suggesting that ripping several thousand pilots of some privilege is somehow desirable, I would feel a moral obligation to disclose the full story about how I obtained my pilot papers, over the years... A pity that one of the most hilarious pilot forum threads ever was deleted (for legal reasons, I assume) after only about 3 days :)

LOL. The bet was on who would rise to the bait the fastest. You or Fuji. I went with you.......

:ok::ok::ok:

To be fair that is not much time at all.

Which is not fair, my example is pretty clsoe to Nick's question.

Indeed you did and I really do respect your point of view. In all seriousness it is one on which we will have to disagree.

I have got news for you that you will not like. :D

I think you will find it will be made public soon. Then again I might be wrong.

The sooner its got rid of the better. Roll on 2012.

I think I have had a run in with this particular misery @ a fuel pump

There is no black and white. If you have an IMCr and you are flying to France, you must ensure you maintain VFR in French airspace. Simple really.

The grey area comes when you have someone with a foreign IR who is very capable at flying IFR, but not allowed to due to their tail letter. Again this is more of a muddy black area as we know that the flight should be, as with a), be planned and executed as VFR, but because they would be rated if a letter was changed, then it is *more* excuseable (but not in the eyes of the law I suspect). Certainly not an emergency though.

However what with the weather forecasts being so !!!!e, I have planned and flown a VFR flight to be confronted by either scud running at 1000 agl for 200 miles, or climb a few thou through to safety on top. Turning back would have meant a whole load of hassle.

I do confess to shooting an ILS in France with the wrong tail letter once upon a time many years ago. It was either that or cross the channel at 400' which another G reg aeroplane, (with JAA instrument rated pilot onboard), did just behind us. Madness if you ask me, their reason for not climbing into the cloud was they "didn't know the procedure". I just asked the controller if I could have the ILS as I was now IFR and he said okdokey.

The thing is that any pilot who can't legally fly under IFR for whatever reason, is a VFR only pilot at that time, whether they like it or not.

A pilot should always have a plan B for when the weather doesn't work out as expected.

If your plan B is to do something that is illegal, then you shouldn't be surprised if the authorities become interested in your decision making.

Doing illegal things should be well down the list of options in routine flight planning!

True. So tell me, how often have you had a current TAF forecast good VFR for an arrival and turned up to require an IFR arrival and/or approach because it was not possible to descend somehow/somewhere to establish VMC below? I think it would be valuable for us to hear about these truly unexpected IMC instances. Note: I am not asking or judging what you did as a pilot in those circumstances, or trying to draw you into anything. I am sure you executed the best safe and legal course of action. I am only interested in the facts about TAFs and actual weather, in scenarios that relate directly to Nick's question - a UK departure to a French destination in a G-reg airplane and holding an IMCr. My modest several hundred hours and 50plus arrivals in this exact scenario has zero such examples, which is why I am eager to learn.

PS. I just noticed IO540's experience is similar to mine: (my underline)

DP,
Whilst this may be sensibly conservative, I don't think one has to be always that conservative as a rule. I can remember plenty of scenarios of being over an overcast layer with no ground in sight. An example might be Bournemouth to Biarritz. Say there is bad weather over NW France. Dinard, Rennes, Nantes TAFS all OVC. La Rochelle a bit better. Bordeaux, Biarritz, Toulouse, San Sebastian all CAVOK or FEW or SCT. You could spend an hour with no hole in sight, but be comfortable that you will see the ground somewhere further south to be able to descend. The advantage of the IMCr in this scenario is the comfort one gets from knowing that if you have (say) an engine problem in the OVC area, the least of your worries is the instrument arrival and approach. You have a legitimate emergency and all the skills necessary to handle the IFR work to get down.

That's not to say any OVC layer is fine as long as there some hope of better weather further enroute. You need a convincing body of weather information to give you a reasonable and high standard of assurance you can complete a flight safely in accordance with your privileges. It's more to say that I don't think it can never be acceptable to be VFR on top of a layer.

421C,

I can see how that might be acceptable depending on aircraft range.

If for example weather in the UK was good, Northern France poor, and Mid and Southern France CAVOK then I can understand how you could justify that. In all fairness in such a circumstance your chances of getting caught out aren't very high.

However often such bands of poor weather can be associated with a front, and your average light aircraft doesn't come equipped with the oxygen system nor performance to climb over frontal system.

But actaully I find the biggest problem with flying on top is airspace. If you fly towards airspace and can't get a clearance through (Damn class A all over the UK! :ugh:) your option of desending to go under is gone because of the undercast. Admittedly that's not such a big problem in France, but can be with militiary areas.

Your average PA28 or C172 has a (safe) range not much more than 4 hours. If you plan a three hour trip and you spend an hour in good weather, an hour over an overcast, and then the clearer weather doesn't materalise for the last hour of your trip, you find yourself in a rather difficult situation. Do you press on hoping that it will get better, or return back while you still have sufficient fuel?

For these reasons I don't believe may VFR pilots will put themselves into a situation where they don't have the option of desending.

I keep asking myself how the conversation would go with the authorities. I can imagine them saying:

"The forecast for your destination was SCT and BKN for the whole day. What was your backup plan if the actual turned out to be a bit worse than forecast and it was overcast?"

If your answer is to make an illegal approach because you knew you could do it safely, I suspect they might not be happy with your reliance on forecasts at the planning stage.

If your backup plan was something more sensible like divert, or return to an area of known good weather, or return to base, then I think they would not unreasonably ask why you didn't execute that plan.

dp

Interesting Canadian Quirk
 

Interestingly the first time I flew in canada I held a PPL/IMC and got a Foreign License Verification Certificate (FLVC) so I could hire over there. On it was the following wording: Provided the foreign license is valid under the law of the issuing State, this Validation Certificate is valid for private recreational purposes on Canadian registered aircraft in accordance with the privileges of the United Kingdom.

I queried this with Transport Canada, explained that the IMC is a sub-ICAO rating and their response was that the wording is quite clear; you can do anything the license and ratings permit you to do in your home State. Go figure!

I have had it happen a few times going to N French airfields.

In the UK one can't do it because UK ATC has a very poor capability for ad-hoc IFR clearances into what is mostly Class A. I have tried it a number of times and always been frustrated by a fairly deliberate "anti" procedure.

On my long trips we normally set a 3-day window and wait for the first technically flyable opportunity, and this applies to both VFR and, nowadays, IFR.

The FAA confirmed to me in writing that the IMCR is valid on an N-reg.

Others disagree but if you get this kind of thing in writing, it is good enough for you.

Absolutely so, which is why an IR, which everybody who has got it busted their gut to get, is so perverse. It is mostly a "CAS ticket" to VMC on top flight, and you fly the exact same route you would fly under VFR if you got easy CAS transits, in accordance with ICAO airspace classification ;)

I have done loads of ~ 15 hour trips where I did not bother to log any instrument time, and I log IT in 5 minute increments :)

I have reflected on our earlier fun and games and a general winding up - or in that spirit I take it. It is fun to see a bit of passion again on this forum.

Perhaps after a while a descent through a shallow overcast becomes such a non event that it is difficult to appreciate why some see it so differently. Blase perhaps, but if I ever was not technically qualified to do what I have suggested then I would go right ahead and do it any way - so there!

As to being caught out I can think of a number of trips which didnt end up as forecast. Could I have diverted some where else - probably, would there have been holes in the overcast at the diversion - maybe, but I never went to find out.

My nemesis for unforecast weather over the years has been Newquay (St Mawgs as it was), Dundee, Southern Ireland and the CIs. Maybe the similarity between the four is coastal weather that can and does change unexpectedly, together with a lack of close diversions that wouldnt be equally effected.

I would never under play how cautious we should all be with the weather. As most of us I have been caught out twice in my career, undoubtedly pushing on when I had no business to do so. As it turned out both were non events BUT they could have proved otherwise, and you definetely learn that frontal weather with any activity is to be avoided unless you are very certain of being able to get over the top.

My worst weather experience by far had very little to do with IMC and everything to do with the wind. The wind was forecast to be around 25 knots from memory but over the course of the flight of about one and half hours became the top end of 40 knots with gusts well into the 50s. All the planning went out the window when it became apparent there was very little available that didnt involve a distinctly cross wind landing.

I have found it fascinating how polarised the views in this debate are and the way in which we can be unswervingly controlled by regulations. Some one said earlier the Germans wouldnt dream of departing from the model citizens, we are probably closer to our German friends than most, hence we form neat and tidy rows unlike our French, Spanish and Italian friends who form disorderly rows and say wvat cloud, I never saw it.

Maybe so. But on the other hand, _if_ they catch you, Italians and Frenchmen are the worst of all when it comes to punishing (I don't know about the Spanish).

Italians are very quick at impounding things (aeroplanes in this case) and if in doubt, you will go home by train and come back next year or the year after to collect your aircraft. The French have the highest fines (fly too close to one of their nuclear power plants and you will leave behind 20.000 Euros in beautiful France!) and the most frequent and rigid ramp inspections anywhere in Europe.

I have never heard of anybody getting done for enroute stuff of this sort.

Yes, the French, and apparently increasingly the Germans, like to harrass N-reg aircraft and check their VAT status, and the pilot's IR if he arrived on an IFR flight plan.

How many people got done 20k euros for busting the nuclear TRAs? The "pilot forum figure" for the fine varies between 10k and 30k euros, with confiscation often included :) But nobody I know has actually got this treatment for a nuclear RA bust. I did such a bust in 2003 and the French went after me 6 months later but it went nowhere after I proved I was under a radar service, with a discrete squawk, the whole time, with their ATC saying nothing at the time. They probably didn't know about the RA, as back then they were not notamed :)
Not really. There is the concept of "apparent authority". It is absolutely not necessary to get a Chief Counsel reply for it to be legally binding on the FAA, in the same way it is not necessary to have some reply from the UK CAA signed by the Secretary of State. Such replies (if legally inaccurate) do not create new law but they remain valid for that individual recipient. And if they become publicly known, the public becomes entitled to a correction from the authority. I got this from a barrister.

What this means is that if e.g. the CAA told you that you can fly a plane under the Tower Bridge, but unknown to you the letter was written by somebody there not authorised to reply or not understanding the legal position (which has happened many times, with both the CAA and the FAA) then you cannot be prosecuted for doing it.

If this was not so, every reply from every corporate or got body to any question whatsoever would be completely worthless!

John Lynch wrote most of the FAR/AIM and he also wrote the FAQ, which was taken off the FAA website c. 2004 because the FAA did not want it to be regarded as law and usurping the authority of the FARs. The bit about the IMCR for an N-reg I got from the FAA personally; it is not in the FAQ.

The sooner the French start this Euro IMC rating the better, now that it is a French idea it should give the Eurocrats no problem with implimenting it.

One inccident that happend to me makes me sure that the IMC has a real safety case...........................

I was making an ILS approach at a French airfield, the weather was 2000m overcast at 300ft with light rain. A very panicy VFR pilot who had got his planning very wrong, he was making position reports that made some sort of sence but then suddenly reported that he was "base leg, turning final".

As I was at about 800 feet on the ILS at the time I had no option but to go around as I could not see him.

When I did get on the ground I talked to the guy and it was clear that he had been totaly out of his depth with the conditions that he was flying in, I am sure you could have sold this guy an IMC rating on the spot but it was not an option in France.

Would it not have been better for this guy to have had the option (and trainning) to abandon any hope of VFR flight long before the "VFR" approach to the airfield and climb into the radar controled enviroment to seek radar vectors to the ILS?

I know that we cant keep politics out of flight safety but least hope that now the EASA IMC is a French idea it will go ahead and then just maybe the rest of Europe will reach the same standards of flight safety that the UK has.

I agree with io.

I have flown pretty extensively in europe both g and n reg and to quite a few of the bigger airports. I have never been ramp checked, heard of a very very few that have been and never heard of anyone being impounded. It is just another of those myths loved on these forum.

Yes, if you have it in writing on faa letterhead i would totally rely on the letter (if you needed to). It is good law here and there.

Don't think the French proposal is an IMCR but an FAA style IR ?
I was always opposed fighting to retain the IMCR and expanding it into Europe for a number of reasons.
Firstly I felt fighting for the IMCR would detract from a greater goal of an FAA style PPL IR.
Secondly an IMCR would not work in Europe.
I still feel that a threatened attack with clout on EASA would work on the exposure that far from meeting their mandate of safety they are killing pilots by their refusal to put onto place an FAA style PPL IR.
There is also enough evidence to expose their political legislation rather than their mandate of safety.
There is enough evidence to justify a court hearing on that fact. I am afraid that EASA will only respond if their own integrity is challenged?
There is a good case with plenty of evidence to question that integrity and to get a result !

Pace

Yeah, we are back to the old "will the crooked liars at EASA really pull off their aggressive proposal for grounding nearly the whole N-reg community in April 2012" question :)

My view has not changed in that I think they won't. I think the chief GA centres in Europe (UK, Germany, France) will implement the 2014 extension option and after that, if EASA has not collapsed amid the general meltdown of the EU around us, they will continue to implement "extensions".

What the smaller countries will do I don't know. On the one hand they are mostly spineless, and the new EU members busily brown-nose every EU official they can get close enough behind, and on the other hand the EU is not going to take any action for disobedience when there are somewhat bigger issues at stake, like the meltdown of Greece, which if it happens will be followed by a meltdown of a few other countries, which if it happens will melt down many EU banks...

As they say, we live in interesting times :)

I have still decided to embark on the JAA IR and have ground my way through 4 exams of near-total bollox so far. 3 more near-total-bollox exams to go :) Then 15hrs somewhere, before April 2012. Then I will write it all up, with various options around Europe :)

I don't know what exactly the French IR will be. It has to be fewer than the present 7 exams otherwise almost nobody will be doing it, as at present. But France will always get its way. From the latest EASA doc they have salvaged their Brevet de Base :) :)