Campaign for a proper instrument rating
 

Campaign Private Pilot IR!
The lack of an available instrument rating for the private pilot has been a common theme on this forum.

It would seem most agree that the JAA IR does not provide a wholly relevant theoretical framework for the private pilot. Moreover, the renewal requirements would seem unnecessarily onerous for the private pilot.

The IMC rating provides a reasonable alternative, but its national status and restriction to national territorial boundaries would seem contrary to a pan European licensing system. Moreover the holder is unable to operate in the lower airways.

In consequence many have chosen to hold the FAA IR and re register their aircraft on the N reg., arguably demonstrating that it is safe to operate a privately owned single with lower airways capability on a license that is realistically obtainable and maintainable by a private pilot.

It seems to me that the GA fraternity should be a powerful lobby both in the UK and through out Europe. Moreover in one way or another we pay for much of the airspace infrastructure. Surely if the GA community want and can justify a European IR aimed at the private pilot with a sufficiently vigorous campaign it may be achievable, or are we as a group just too disorganised or lacking in a sufficiently representative body?


.........

I have added this edit because it would be interesting to see what we would wish changed in the PPL IR. My own views at this stage would be:

1. A single examination using the multiple choice approach for which the study could be entirely undertaken at home. Why? The rating we need is a private rating not a professional rating like the current IR. The theoretical training therefore should be concerned with assessing whether the applicant has the technical knowledge to operate a light piston aircraft within European airspace in an IFR enviroment. The CAA believes that is achievable with the present IMC rating theory test within the UK . What would change is access to the lower airways and European airspace in IMC so deal with the theoretical knowledge required for this access in the same way,
2. I see know reason to change the in flight training required. Around 40 hours seems not unreasonable, possibly with some exemption for existing IMC holders,
3. Instructors able to provide IR training are few and far between. Instructors presently qualified to provide IMC training and testing should be permitted to provide PPL IR training and testing,
4. The curreny requirements should be based on the FAA model.

Fuji Abound

Yes, we probably are too disorganised at the moment - but we shouldn't let that be an excuse. Let's get organised and start lobbying.

In a few years from now, if GPS approaches are accepted, it will become increasingly practical to use private aircraft for business travel between small airports with limited infrastructure. So pilots are not the only interested parties in this debate - it's in the interest of aircraft and avionics manufacturers, airfields and training organisations, among many others. If we have a coherent message, it should be possible to get a lot of support. (I'm having an optimistic day today!;) )

If we campaign, we'd need to be clear on what we are campaigning for. Is it a JAA version of the IMC rating, designed to be accessible to private pilots while keeping them nicely separated from most commercial traffic, or a "full blown" IR? My vote would be for the latter - accepting that it would still be hard to obtain (and retain) and cost many thousands of pounds.

May I suggest a poll just to see how many here would be interested in a PPL IR, and maybe how much they would be willing to pay?

I for one agree we should have a JAA PPL IR, or be able to use an FAA IR with G reg. A/C

Regards,
LF

editied 'cos the G Reg said N Reg ..... fool :p

LF:ZAP!!

Both your wishes are granted Long Final.

There is a PPL IR available under JAA

AND

You CAN use an FAA IR with an N reg. A/C

How's that for starters :p

Damned good idea.

At present the IR is clearly designed to allow a huge range of aircraft to be operated, in virtually any conditions.

Strikes me that in the same way JAA have effectively made PPL/CPL/ATPL modular, the same might be the way ahead for an IR.

For the sake of argument, lets say there were three levels, which I'll term IR1, IR2 and IR3. One could perhaps peg them:-

IR1 - non air transport use, not above FL100 / 140kn, 500 ft local cloudbase during let-downs.
IR2 - commercial use, not above FL249, 250ft local cloudbase during let-downs. P2 to an IR3 holder.
IR3 - unrestricted instrument flying, subject to limitations of the aircraft.

Peg the experience, training and exams against each, level, and set it up so that it's possible for the holder of each level to simply do the next chunk of work for the higher rating if required.

I'd have thought in general, IR1 would probably correspond to an IMC but include lower airways, IR2 to an FAA IR, and IR3 to a JAA IR.

I disagree with Fuji on one point, I think that exams should be properly supervised, otherwise the risk of abuse and consequent loss of credibility is too high. But, no reason that the necessary exam(s) can't be administered in the flying school.

G

Rustle's point is all very well but:-

(1) Not everybody wants to have to run a foreign registered aeroplane, particularly when French customs will keep trying to charge import duty on it.

(2) Whilst JAA permits a PPL/IR, it's the full IR and even holding an FAA IR gets you no credit at-all unless you've got at-least 1500 hrs P1.

G

I'm definitely all for this.

However, it would need to be, at the very least, JAA-wide, if not ICAO-wide. The UK CAA can introduce as many ratings as it likes, but unless other authorities recognise these ratings they're no use outside the UK.

Is there an international lobby who could push for something like this?

Out of interest, does anyone know why the CAA make it so hard to get a PPL/IR? I assume the reason is a combination of a) our crap weather meaning everyone wants to fly IFR, and b) being a small country with a dense population limits the amount of airspace. Combine these two together, and if the PPL/IR were as easy to get as the FAA PPL/IR, I suspect the TMAs would be too crowded for the airliners to get up into the airways. Does anyone know better? Or can anyone confirm if there's any truth to my theory?

FFF
------------

Rustle - one point I would like to clear up so it does not detract form the thread is this - whilst you are correct, the point is the existing PPL IR under JAA is to all intensive purpose inaccessible to the private pilot. Why - you still have to complete an onerous and in part college based theoretical course, which includes study material relevant to commercial IR operations in aircraft other than light singles. I may be wrong but the average private pilot simply does not have time in a busy career to devote to this. Now let their be no misunderstanding, I am not proposing a new rating should be easier just so we can achieve the rating and go and kill ourselves or worse, someone else. I am proposing the theoretical training should be relevant AND manageable. After all even the old CAA PPL IR enabled you to complete the study material entirely at home. Secondly, the rating must be renewed annually at a cost of around £400 combined with the problems of finding and booking an examiner with which to do the renewal. Yep - flying is not cheap and nor is safety, but is there a shred of evidence that the American model for the PPL IR results in a less safety pilot.

And finally - yep we can of course do an FAA IR and reregister our aircraft on the N reg. My point is why! Why be put to the cost, why endorse the FAA system when we are English / British / European, and all to do something which in fact with different paperwork (an FAA IR and an N reg aircraft) we could legally do with an FAA IR in European airspace.

GtE,

"(2) Whilst JAA permits a PPL/IR, it's the full IR and even holding an FAA IR gets you no credit at-all unless you've got at-least 1500 hrs P1. "

WRT your point 2 copied above, please have a read of this:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_fcl_gid15.pdf

See page 8 in particular, where there is a really neat chart showing the requirements under various circumstances.



The other day someone on this forum said they couldn't find this on the CAA website.

It took about 10 nano-seconds for the search engine, provided by CAA, to find exactly the right document :rolleyes:

Genghis

Isn't the difference between non commercial and commercial use adequately catered for by attaching the IR to either a PPL or CPL?

In my opinion, if PPL/IR holders are to fly in controlled airspace in instrument conditions, they need the same level of instrument flying proficiency as CPL/IR holders.

Your IR1 proposal is quite similar to a UK IMC rating, but without the UK's over-restrictive use of class A airspace. In France, most airways are class E up to the flight level where you are realistically likely to encounter commercial traffic.

If the JAA could combine French airspace definitions with a UK IMC rating, we would achieve the desired result. That would involve fighting a battle on two fronts, though (airspace and licensing) and is not likely to happen.

I think the issue is less to do with the privileges of an IR, but more the accessibility of it.

• The technical exams need to cover what is relevant and required.
• It should be possible to get IR flight training at a sensible cost (although it would probably cost a fair bit more than PPL training), and at more than the current handful of training establishments.
• An IR examiner probably doesn't need to be a CAA employee....
• Etc.

Something like the old "non-approved" training, but with a minimum number of hours training, and without the 700hrs total time entry requirement.

Gengis

What a complicated and beaurocratic mess :) There is a perfectly decent, safe and proven model for all this, where to fly in clouds you need an ICAO IR, and that's about it. Unfortunately it's 'over there' so in the eyes of many must be inferior.

I guess you are saying an IR3 (airline pilot) is better than an IR1 (warrior pilot). Do you think that a 737 pilot who never flies a PA-28 is going to be better/safer at flying a PA-28 to 200ft DH than an IR1 who does that every other day? It's not so! Type ratings are the way to introduce this IR1, IR2, IR3 complexity. Insurance companies are also effective at mandating training for the IR2 type of plane, as would be actual testing of IR skills on a multi engine plane before you could fly it.

Interesting thread...

FFF,

your theory is shocking. For starters, the TMA's are already full, as are the airways feeding them - hence slot times and height capping.

Don't you read your NOTAMs? ;)


Fuji Abound,

The "old" CAA PPL/IR theory course was able to be done by distance learning (aka home study) but there was a mandatory classroom element. Surprise, surprise, the exact same rules apply to the JAA version. (FTR, this also applies to JAA ATPL theory, but the classroom elements are longer)

Yes, you are required to fly an IR-renewal annually. Good! I do mine with my MEP annual renewal - hardly onerous...

My comment about the FAA IR use in N reg was purely an answer to LF's request - tongue-in-cheek :rolleyes:

Couple more comments

Airways conjestion - The airways are conjested however lets me honest, effectively preventing the private pilot from using the airways may well be a sound political expedient but I am not sure any more valid from preventing some road users using the motor way because they arent rated to do so. Moreover I suspect few private pilots will be operating above FL120 much of which may become deregulated anyway under the new European airspace proposals.

Renewals - doubtless there are a multitude of opinion on what is required to remain safe on instruments and for that matter in VMC. However surely what matters is the evidence. Consider the American model for the FAA IR and their renewal proceudure and then consider their safety record in terminal airspace at least as conjested as ours.

Moreover you can fly an approach in IMC in every terminal control zone in the UK other than Heathrow with an IMC rating - it works. and it has worked for a very long time.

Finally, and I think this the most significant point, there are many FAA PPL IRs operating in Europe. They hold a valid ICAO license that most countries accept, they fly the same aircraft as the rest of us - the only difference is they have painted an N on their aircraft. Are they less safe - I doubt it. I for one would however prefer to be regulated by our good old national authority and not by the States (as much as I like Americans!)

You get my vote Fuji...

EA;)

rustle

For starters, the TMA's are already full, as are the airways feeding them - hence slot times and height capping.

Are the airways and TMA's in the UK really full? According to 2001 movement figures, LHR is the 15th busiest TMA in the world. ORD, ATL, DFW, LAX, PHX, DTW, MSP, LAS, DEN, STL, MIA, IAH and PHL are all busier and allow PPL IFR traffic in as a matter of routine. Maybe the TMAs are not full, but the supporting infrastructure is slightly over-stretched.

As I said, there is a model out there which proves what is possible. It's attitude which prevents it happening.

Fuji

I for one would however prefer to be regulated by our good old national authority and not by the States (as much as I like Americans!)

Very nice, but a bit old fashioned :) Like it or not, the UK has handed it's ultimate sovereignty to Brussels by treaty. So the relevant question now is whether you would rather be regulated by the EU or the US?

Well, as far as aviation matters goes, IMHO the UK would be better taking the FARs, photocopying them and renaming them the ANO, and then becoming an FAA region. Of course you would also have to persuade the UK government that tax on Avgas is to be ring fenced and used for the direct use of the person paying the tax, sort of how the US looks at it. That would require a governmental culture shift which will not happen.

In another thread ATC people are saying that BA pays for radar services so GA should shut up. You see it's all about attitude, GA needs the clout to point out that AvGas taxes are for the benefit of GA, and ATC should be lucky they have VFR traffic to control :D A bit too much like the attitiude 'over there' I'm afraid. :) But at least I have a high quality and safe IR which was cheap to get, cheap to maintain, and respected by even the superb controllers at the busiest TMAs in the world.

Reading the previous posts with interest, it appears the most desirable outcome to any campaign would be the reintroduction of the non aproved route to an IR, as suggested by Aerobatic Flyer.

However the biggest obstacle to the UK achieving this is that it would have to be part of the non JAA licence as far as I can see, so there would remain the difficulty of getting legal recognition of the rating in other countries.

The worse outcome would be to lose the IMC rating in any review of the licencing regulations.

Ghengis's shot at describing alternatives is interesting, but fraught with detail problems. For instance his IR1 speed would be too slow for a lot of light twins, his height is lower than France allows VFR airways, etc,etc.

Yes non approved, training as necessary to reach the standard, theory by distance learning, accessable annual examiners all good ideas, but perhaps the phrase non approved needs a rethink.

slim_slag, you do me an injustice - I would have thought my comment about TMAs being "full" was clearly tongue in cheek, in the same manner as FFF's original question surely was.

Maybe my irony, like my CAA PPL/IR, doesn't travel across the pond :)

As for BA paying and GA not - two points about that old chestnut which I have discussed in 'ATC Issues' previously.

In the UK - fly an aircraft over 2 tonnes, you pay if you file IFR;
In the UK - fly an aircraft over two tonnes AT NIGHT, you pay. (because night = IFR)

Based on that discussion it's very clear most people don't actually know who pays for what :(

Continuing the discussion (and emphasising that all I was doing was throwing an idea in the pot for people to play with):-

- The CAA/JAA IR is ICAO compliant. So is the FAA one. Should we instead find out what the minimum ICAO standard is and campaign for that.

- I proposed 140/100 because that lines up with the switch in the VMC/IMC definition and the switch to pressurised aircraft. Opinions on that? Can somebody who can afford a 200kn twin also afford a bit more training?

- Type ratings, makes a lot of sense to me. Lets say you were to have a minimum ICAO compliant IR/SEP, then type ratings for IR/MEP, IR/type etc. Similar currency requirements to the main license, and cost and complexity will automatically follow the cost and complexity of the aircraft type.

G


(N.B. Most aircrew licensing is a beaurocratic mess, you wouldn't wish me to be inconsistent would you Slim_Slag ? ;) )

Rustle,

No, my question wasn't tongue in cheeck actually!

LHR may only be the 15th busiest airport in the world, but none of the others mentioned share their TMA with Gatwick, Luton, Standstead and City! Although I don't know for sure, it wouldn't surprise me if the airspace really was close to being full.

I don't think there's an issue with the actual airways. As others have pointed out, the average PPL going for a £100 hamburger in his PA28 will not be at the same leves as PA28s. But arriving and departing heavy jets on SIDs/STARs will be at the same level as the average PA28, and I'd guess that trying to vector all us guys around the heavies, in IMC, in a TMA which already serves 5 international airports, would be a complete nightmare. And our weather means that pilots will invariably be in IMC more often than they would be at many of the airports slim_slag has listed.

I may be completely off the mark here, I don't know. But it was a genuine question :)

FFF
-------------

rustle

No injustice meant, I was just being matter of fact, apologies if I came over badly. Irony is not well transmitted via these new fangled methods. I just hear a lot of people say London is the busiest place in the world (and I am sure it is if you define busiest narrowly enough) and we cannot fit more planes in. I don't think that is true.

fff

Again just being matter of fact here, I have no axe to grind, just throwing out food for thought. LGW is a "mere" class D and doesn't even rank in any 'busiest airport in the world' list I can find. I am using movements not passengers as I think that is more relevant for looking at traffic flow and airspace usage.

I took the figures for the primary airports in the TMA. Look at the airports within the TMA of any of the US airports I cited. You will find plenty of Class D airports and even plenty of class C, and even the occasional class B. The London TMA is nothing compared with NY Approach, Chicago Approach, SOCAL Approach, Bay Approach, Atlanta Approach....... In all these TMAs you will find PPL IRs mixing it with the big boys, to a greater or lesser degree. I'm not saying you will not be vectored around a bit if heading for a reliever airport, or even have to hold a bit if you are foolish enough to want to land at the primary airport, but these TMAs handle a lot more big and small IFR traffic than London.

As for weather, America is a big place and it's not all desert. There is pretty extreme weather to be found where people put airports.

Gengis

Indeed, the beaurocracy might even be desirable to some regulatory authorities :). I think you are correct in asking what is the minimum requirement for an ICAO IR and just use that. Unfortunately ICAO Annex 1 is only available if you cough up the dough. If a US IR fits, then that should be good enough. Unfortunately we now have to ask the French whether it's OK to have a CAA ICAO IR.

Surely the point is that if you and your aeroplane are both ICAO compliant, and registered in the same state, you can fly freely in any ICAO state?

Equally, surely somebody in here has access to a copy of Annex 1 and can enlighten us all as to what the minima are?

Incidentally I just did a search on this, and at http://www.iaopa-eur.org/jipolctd.htm IAOPA have a policy that "States should use only the requirements for issuance of an instrument rating listed in ICAO Annex 1 in an effort to promote universal acceptance of instrument ratings and pilot certificates by all contracting States" Which sound awfully like what we all just said !

G

Can I prompt the discussion back a step.

My concern is do we want an obtainable JAA IR for the private pilot?

I have found the comments so far very interesting. It prompts me to ask who would want a PPL IR and why? It occurs to me that within the GA community, and I exclude by design commercial pilots who may fly privately, there are a reasonable number of us with current IMCs and far far fewer of us with IRs. Of the latter, it would be interesting to know how many JAA PPL IR holders there are compared with PPL FAA IR holders who fly in Europe. Of all those I beg to suggest that many with IMC ratings do not use the rating in earnest. That leaves a small group with IMC ratings or IRs who use the rating occasionally or regularly. Those who use the rating are unlikely to be operating into or out of any of our major airports regularly (not least because of the expense, but often because there are more convenient local airports to our destination). However, there are occasions when we would like to have the flexibility and security of operating in the lower airways and operating in Europe in IMC.

I suspect to be realistic that is not going to have an enormous impact on the airways infrastructure. Moreover let us not forget if the JAA or the GA community do nothing, more will migrate to operating on the N reg., thus putting the same number of movements into the system.

It seems to me that the number of private pilots who operate on the N register is proof enough that the JAA PPL IR is unduly restrictive – if that were not true why bother to pursue the FAA route which presents its own problems.

Should we be allowed into this hallowed airspace? It seems to me two themes emerge. There are those who would say that is the preserve of the commercial operators. Well, it is if we let it be. I still believe we contribute more than our share to the Government coffers who ultimately are responsible for operating the airspace – so if we can prove we are safe to be there let it be so.

And are we safe. It seems to me the old elitism enemy now sets to work. The argument seems to be we need a tougher IR than the rest of the world to keep the private pilots out! Who are you kidding? There has been much discussion on this web about the merits of the FAA IR compared its JAA counterpart. I detect there is little if any evidence to suggest a JAA IR holder is any more or less competent that one with an FAA IR.

THERE IS ONE BIG DIFFERENCE HOWEVER. PRIVATE PILOTS IN EUROPE AND IN THE STATES ARE PREPARED TO UNDERTAKE THE FAA IR TRAINING BECAUSE THEY SEE IT RELEVANT, REALISTICALLY MAINTAINABLE AND AFFORDABLE. I BELIEVE WE SHOULD AS A COMMUNITY SEEK TO HAVE INTRODUCED A JAA IR FOR THE PRIVATE PILOT THAT WOULD PERSUADE THE GA COMMUNITY TO HOLD A EUROPEAN RATING AND NOT AN FAA RATING.

Finally whilst the idea of various types of instrument ratings has merit the danger is again unduly complicating the issue. Airspace is used by two groups of operators – the private pilot and the commercial airline. We each have different needs. I suggest this should be recognised so have a pan European PPL IR for the private pilot modelled on the FAA IR – in other words a theoretical exam that cover what is necessary and relevant the syllabus for which can be covered by home study, flight training that is accessible for most, and renewal requirements that at least recognise a current pilot is as safe as any.

I totally agree with you Fuji. The problem seems to be that anything beyond PPL level in the UK and Europe seems to be aimed at Commercial wanabee's. Take the ME rating. The currecny requirements are stated in "route sectors". I don't know about other people out there, but I don't fly "route sectors". I fly from A to B because I want to.

The IMC rating is a good rating, BUT it has been limited to disallow a holder into certain airspace. The UK authorities seem terrified at the idea of a PPL holder anywhere near "busy TMA's". An IR now de-restricts this PPL, and hence in order to keep PPL's out the IR has been horribly blown out of proportion. There is no real difference between the JAA and FAA IR's. If there was, then Billy Bob Jr. wouldn't be allowed to fly his United 777 into LHR.

One big difference in obtaining the FAA IR is that allowance is made for previous instrument time. I'm sure that out there there are many very capable IMC holders with loads of hours 'actual'. However in order to qualify for a JAA IR, they are required to undergo a full JAA course [bar a few hours]. The FAA on the other hand would take these hours in to count, and your 'minimum' requirements would be reduced. You need a written authorisation to take the knowledge exams, and then another to state you standard is good enough to take the skills test.

It seems crazy to me that although we are all in the ICAO, I cannot fly a G registered aircraft, IFR to France, or let alone anywhere near Heathrow, yet should I be in an N reg then I would be perfectly legal......

Cheers
EA:)

So get that FAA IR and enjoy the freedom it gives.

Only problem at the moment is that there are not yet many N registered mounts available either for hire or as syndicated aircraft.

However the longer this JAR lark carries on the more people will see the light and go that route.

Currently not many replies to my earlier posting in which I ask if anyone knows any N machines for hire. :(

Never mind, I will keep putting those pennies away.

FD

Flying Dutch

You hit the crux of the post on the head.

Why should we on this side of the atlantic have to duck and dive by getting American qualifications.

Why can not GB,, if not Europe as a whole, readjust the regs so that they who want to do not have to enrich the coffers of the US to do what they can do if they want to. (enrich the coffers of the US)

Sorry about the sentence construction, regard it as a challenge.

fuji

My concern is do we want an obtainable JAA IR for the private pilot?

That is the real question. From where I sit, I see the IMC as a pragmatic real world solution for PPLs who live in a a cloudy country with barely the ATC infrastructure to support airline operations. Given the low esteem that GA is held by commercial operations in the UK, I actually think the CAA should be applauded for having an IMC. I guess the airlines etc go along with it because you are kept outside of 'their' airspace.

It prompts me to ask who would want a PPL IR and why?

OK, let me stick my head out. Why do PPLs get an IR in the US? Several reasons come to mind, I am just throwing this out and there may be others.

1) Rating collection. People get bored drilling holes in the sky, and a new rating provides another reason to fly. Also means you don't need a BFR :) FAA encourage it as it improves your piloting skills (though you have to re-teach people to stop looking at their instruments while flying VFR). You get the rating but never use it in anger.

2) Actually need it to get from A->B. This is probably the same reason as the IMC is needed in the UK. Plenty of places in the US have cloud most of the year. Even places like CA have marine layers which might only be a few hundred feet thick, but you need an IR to punch through them.

3) Need it for your commercial certificate and you need your commercial certificate because you want to teach. You might also want your commercial ticket because you are collecting ratings.

4) Need it for insurance purposes to fly a twin or something.

Of course in the US, it is a very obtainable ticket. There would be no point in doing an IMC for the same reasons there is no point in most people getting a recreational licence. You may as well get the 'real thing'.

FWIW. For me it was (3) because I wanted to get my CFI so needed a CPL. I had no need to get an IR because I either lived in a part of the world where clouds mean level 5 thunderstorms, or in a part of the world where the MEA means supplemental oxygen :). An IR is definitely a 'use it or lose it' type ticket, no point in spending money on it when you could spend it on something useful like a taildragger. If I lived elsewhere I would get it for (2).

If I wanted to fly in the UK I would probably be happy with an IMC. I would object strongly to the fact that getting an IR was made unreasonably unattainable by what appears to be bloody mindedness by the powers that be to keep the PPL out of airspace which is owned by all. I think you should have the option of getting an FAA type IR in Europe if you want one.

People who want to travel. Granted, the IMC rating lets you do this within the UK (although personally I don't think my IMC training was up to much...), but forces you to be at low altitude in uncontrolled airspace most of the time. Outside the UK, you're stuck without an IR. Any trips need to be planned on the basis that you may not be able to fly home.

Without an IR, a PPL is just for fun. With an IR, you can use your PPL for private and business travel. (Or can you....? If I'm honest, I'd have to say I'd rather sit in the back of a Boeing than fly myself home after most business trips.)

Hi slim_slag,

Your reason 3 doesn't apply here. You can do a CPL and become a paid instructor without an IR.

I also don't see this "bloody-mindedness" you refer to.

I thought the "problem" was one of cost which, except for the initial IRT, is nothing to do with the CAA.

Bluskis,

You do not have to go stateside to get an IR, and nor do you have to "enrich the US coffers" - this is a myth.

Turned into an interesting debate.

For me Fuji just about summed it up, not only is the JAA IR an unrealistic rating to obtain due to the cost implications but once you have got it its bloody expensive to keep! I knew I needed the IMC experience under my belt in case things got hairy one day and looked at the IMC Rating, when I realised for a few quid more I could get the FAA IR and get GIVEN the IMC Rating when I passed I thought why not.

It opens up a completely new aspect of flying once you do get it. I have just spent 3 weeks flying round California and the weather could have been describe at best as absolute crap!! It was IFR in and out of LGB most of the time and for a lot of the time I was there the PPL students were grounded, one guy had been there 5 wks and managed 30hours flying due to bad weather.

Its interesting about the point of view that certain areas in the UK are hallowed ground for the big boys, finding yourself in lower airspace and stuck there is pretty poor really. The US has a completely outlook on it - the sky is there for everyone who has the appropriate rating, if you have an IR you can use it pretty much where you want. Anyone who has flown in the US will know its not uncommon for them to hold up a full passenger carrying flight for you in your PA28, everyone in an aircraft is treated as an equal. I fly SOCAL quite a bit and with quite a dense cluster of airports around (Long Beach, San Diego, John Wayne) and Los Angeles not far away the traffic routing can get very busy. The SOCAL staff hold it all together pretty much impecably though with you rarely orbiting and very rarely going into the hold.

Im with Gengis, a basic IR rating for the PPL and then bolt on ratings if you want to use for anything more, such as an ME IR. Revalidation through currency firstly and option to recertify through a IR INSTRUCTOR rather than an examiner if you bust your currency requirements.

Another myth
 

Can we kill off this ridiculous assumption that the airspace in UK/Europe is "reserved" for commercial traffic.

IT ISN'T.

If you and the aircraft you're flying are rated/certified for IFR in CAS then you can fly IFR in CAS. If not, you cannot. Simple.

Maybe there is a view that there's too much Class A in the UK, but that's a different argument :)

Something else, conveniently forgotten at present:

What are you going to do in 2003, when to fly IFR in Europe you require Mode S. (FAA IR and N Reg. or not.) More expense.

What about vertical expansion of 8.33 - all ready to pay for new avionics? It will come, it will affect lower airways. N reg or otherwise.

By 2008, the cost of getting your JAA IR will be dwarfed by the costs of keeping your aircraft IFR-ready. (N reg or otherwise)

(Who will be first to tell me that the money you would save doing an FAA IR could be used to buy all this kit ;) )

rustle
I don't suppose anyone will.

However, if a European IR was accessible to PPL holders in a similar way to an FAA IR, there would be a bigger market for sale of compliant avionics, and the cost might come down!

I've now had two consecutive optimistic days.... something must be wrong!:)

The CAA needs to liase with the JAA and get the "IMC" rating recognised throughout Europe. Class A floors need to be raised and then a new system of low level class D airways, say up to 12,000' could be introduced allowing IMC holders to fly airways...including class D airway 'corridors' through Class A TMA's. Allow 'IFR certified' GPS to be used as primary nav in light aircraft, have a mode S dispensation (how much are these BTW? a few grand?) for private flights below 12k'. Now we've got an affordable Private IR in Europe....

Ah, the only problem I can see is a complete shake up of the European ATC system. Oh well, back to the drawing board ;)

Cheers
EA:)

Perhaps the real issue here is we cant really agree amongst ourselves what changes are needed (if any), although I detect some good support for a revised PPL IR, and even if we could, we don’t think our views will be taken seriously, so we are not prepared to do anything about it. In short, we have no united point of view to put forward, and so despite GA being a huge part of the aviation industry, changes will continue to be made like the introduction of mode S, reduced frequency spacing, more TMAs., etc all of which will impact on us. Am I too cynical?

I think this is one on which the Americans have got it absolutely right; GA is strongly represented and, on the whole, speaks with one voice.

I suppose it is out with the black paint. N - - - - -

Actually, the problem is even clearer.

With respect:

You asked the question on November 20.

Most of the posters to this thread have agreed with you.

I have tendered about 2% of the arguments likely to be put to your request by JAA/CAA/EASA etc.

Less than 24 hours later, you're giving up on the idea.
(you posted the edited question at 13:41 yesterday)

Fuji

Disagree, this time. I think there's fairly good agreement what we want.

A means for PPL holders to fly IFR, not just in the UK, that would enable us to use light aircraft as a serious means of transport.

To get that, there are 5 options:

1. Get a JAA PPL/IR.
Issues: inaccessible, classroom study, few training establishments for private piltos, etc.
2. Try to negotiate a more accessible JAA IR.
Issue: difficult negotiation, various entrenched views or vested interests to overcome, ec.
3. Try to negotiate a JAA-wide version of the UK IMC rating.
Issues: can't use class A airspace, would be valid in JAA countries only, needs probably even more negotation than option 2, etc.
4. Get an FAA PPL/IR, and operate an N-reg aircraft.
Issue: we shouldn't have to, some countries have the French attitude to N-reg aircraft, you're subject to decisions taken in the US (imagine if after some future event, operation of N-reg aircraft was restricted to US citizens or residents.... we'd be stuffed), etc.
5. Try to negotiate Genghis' multi-level IR.

I vote for option 2.

The IMC goes some way to address the PPL IR situation, but it has limitations, though I do feel sorry for some folk abroard who don't even have this option. Why not have a 'cut down' version of the IR, allowing a holder to file IFR here and in Europe, but say capped to 12,500' or so, limited to Private flights only? Call it the IR(restricted) or something, and have a self certification process similar to the FAA IR. During training, previous instrument time should be taken into account, so a previous IMC holder with 50 hrs actual instrument could obtain this rating fairly easily and cheaply.

It has to be accepted at least Europwide and allow flight through Class A TMAs, and airways which shouldn't be a problem. Whether this is done by using 'airway corridors' [IFR prefered routes] through the TMA's or allocating the lower sections of airways as Class D is not for me to say. I think if changes like these were made, then maybe people would be more inclined to spend their hard earned money in Europe rather than take it to the States.

....or maybe Europe sees GA as a pain in the arse and would frankly prefer to see the back of us;)

Cheers
EA:)

Rustle - well said!

Actually I really do believe in what I have said and really would like to see GA campaign for a JAA IR achievable and useable by private pilots. So if there is wide spread support for the idea - which I believe their is - how do we achieve it? Of course my last comment was provocative but it seems to me without being provocative in our debate and determined in our ambition we definitely haven’t got a hope. I guess GA got through the NPPL legislation though, and I do get the impression that the CAA fight our corner reasonably well.

So I havent given up!

Ah Rustle,

You wouldn't believe how ones English suffers when one spends several years surrounded by people who cannot speak it :D I use the definition "stubbornly obstructive and unwilling to cooperate" (per dictionary.com), which when you see how GA in the UK is treated from my position, might not be as inaccurate as you think.

I think that regulators have a financial impact on the market which goes further than the IRT. Regulation of the IR pilot in the UK tend to be more onerous (unreasonably so), and this costs money. All that expensive extra equipment required just to fly in an airway at a few thousand feet, Mode S and 8.33kHz would be an example. These cost money, which is why they would never be imposed upon the GA community in the US without "unobstructive consultation". The FAA will have one hell of a fight on its hands if it wants people to put this kit it in their warriors because they want to fly through a layer over southern california. But the logic of imposing 8.33kHz AM spacing when digital is here is another subject ;)

I think Aerobatic Flyer's last post sums the situations up perfectly. We all want a convenient way of flying IFR in Europe. What we can't agree on is the best way of achieving this - there are lots of suggestions being thrown around, some of which are more achievable than others, but all of which are valid.

FFF
--------------

At this point in the discussion perhaps someone from the CAA could step in and give some pointers as to a likely route to success.

They would surely know the impossible and the possible, and the ajenda's hidden or open, of the other European states, for it is they, (the other European states) who will be required to agree to what ever is finally proposed.

I hope they,(the CAA) are interested enough in aviation to be Pprune readers.

This is one of the most interesting threads I have had the pleasure of reading on this board or any other for that matter.
As a UK trained PPL of Dutch nationality I am currently training towards my IMC. All I ever want, if it would be legal, is to use the same IMC in Europe. I am not too interested in airways. I want to be able to do a let down in continental Europe legally in exactly the way I am being trained to do it in the UK. Even being able to go above on a return journey and land in the UK would already be a great help.
As this is not legal at the moment all I can practically do is gain experience once I have gained my IMC and eventually go down the FAA route.