difference in IR and IMC rating
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In a dreamworld!
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On various posts for sometime I think DFC has expressed considered arguments, not all that I have agreed with, that been met with practical frustrations by IO540 et al. Let's fetch the personal bickering to a close and find some common ground. Much time is spent on this forum, but no one really cares about opinions. You should get together (I mean in a practical and geographical sense) with the sole aims of devising what are the real aspirations of the British/European instrument flyer, agreeing an appropriate training/examination regime to achieve that safetly and then to lobby for it. I think DFC has influence and inside knwowldege and IO540 has drive - together there's a team!
Who knows, there could be a couple of OBEs or even peerages in it ... particularly if you have spare bob or two (as clearly IO540 has
).
Who knows, there could be a couple of OBEs or even peerages in it ... particularly if you have spare bob or two (as clearly IO540 has
).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mixed up
I would so much like to agree with you but here is a thing.
The GA community has already solved the problem for itself. Most pilots who want to fly instruments in Europe hold an FAA IR. The FAA IR is an ICAO compliant IR which few would disagree achieves an acceptable standard.
For those that do not want to fly instruments in Europe but do want to get around safely in the UK the IMCR provides an acceptable alternative - its only real draw back is the class A restriction but then again flying airways is often more trouble than it is worth.
The real problem is that there are those who would like to put any form of IR out of the reach of private pilots - period. The reason they wish to do so has absolutely nothing to do with safety, and has nothing to do with any “problems” with the system as it presently stands. Consider for a moment some of the posts on this thread and the way in which when the arguments are challenged no analytical evidence is forthcoming to satisfy those challenges. There are those that actually support the present theoretical training regime and will spend the rest of their life defending it, not because they have any evidence at all that it produces a better pilot. It is this philosophy that first has to be shown wanting - there might then be a chance of a JAA IR modelled on the FAA system.
With repsect to DFC I honestly believe he supports the current IR system and would like to see the IMCR become less useful - I dont think he is your man. If, and I repeat IF, the IMCR does not produce a pilot who is adequately trained, improve the training, for goodness sake dont devalue the rating!!
I would so much like to agree with you but here is a thing.
The GA community has already solved the problem for itself. Most pilots who want to fly instruments in Europe hold an FAA IR. The FAA IR is an ICAO compliant IR which few would disagree achieves an acceptable standard.
For those that do not want to fly instruments in Europe but do want to get around safely in the UK the IMCR provides an acceptable alternative - its only real draw back is the class A restriction but then again flying airways is often more trouble than it is worth.
The real problem is that there are those who would like to put any form of IR out of the reach of private pilots - period. The reason they wish to do so has absolutely nothing to do with safety, and has nothing to do with any “problems” with the system as it presently stands. Consider for a moment some of the posts on this thread and the way in which when the arguments are challenged no analytical evidence is forthcoming to satisfy those challenges. There are those that actually support the present theoretical training regime and will spend the rest of their life defending it, not because they have any evidence at all that it produces a better pilot. It is this philosophy that first has to be shown wanting - there might then be a chance of a JAA IR modelled on the FAA system.
With repsect to DFC I honestly believe he supports the current IR system and would like to see the IMCR become less useful - I dont think he is your man. If, and I repeat IF, the IMCR does not produce a pilot who is adequately trained, improve the training, for goodness sake dont devalue the rating!!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HWD,
I wonder who replied to you!
We advise you to not go below 500ft, it is not mandatory but if you do we will consider it reckless. A clear example of what IO540 calls tosh.
How many other things can you do that the CAA say constitute reckless endangerment but are not clearly outlawed?
The reply you got also says that the instructor can use system minima "if the instructor has the required privileges". Since the instructor will have to hold an IMC rating there is no if involved so where does the "if" come in?
Who ever said that simply said that the CAA thinks you can do what you like (we might consider it reckless) but as long as we don't catch you it's OK. Not a very safety concious statement from the regulator.
Head, block, chop!
Regards,
DFC
PS; Julian. Give Atlantic Flight Training a ring and ask them about the IR exams.
I wonder who replied to you!
We advise you to not go below 500ft, it is not mandatory but if you do we will consider it reckless. A clear example of what IO540 calls tosh.
How many other things can you do that the CAA say constitute reckless endangerment but are not clearly outlawed?
The reply you got also says that the instructor can use system minima "if the instructor has the required privileges". Since the instructor will have to hold an IMC rating there is no if involved so where does the "if" come in?
Who ever said that simply said that the CAA thinks you can do what you like (we might consider it reckless) but as long as we don't catch you it's OK. Not a very safety concious statement from the regulator.
Head, block, chop!
Regards,
DFC
PS; Julian. Give Atlantic Flight Training a ring and ask them about the IR exams.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mixed up
This is already happening but, due to EU politics, not in a useful direction.
There is a JAA committee looking into a "reduced burden private IR"; the latest is that they have taken about 20% off the ground school (which isn't going to make any practical difference; a complete FAA-style overhaul is needed) and will allow IMCR instrument training towards the 50hr (55 for ME) flying requirement (which won't make any difference to anybody who can actually afford to fly IFR into Europe, which a full IR is all about.
EASA will take over FCL in a few years' time and various officials have said promising things like they plan to do a swap of an FAA IR for a JAA IR. This is a bombshell of course and is unlikely to happen.
It's however just possible that the increasing N-reg population in member states will push EASA into doing something as sensible as that. They would have to take on board FAA certification also, and that means accepting FAA STCs and not just the present stupid system of enabling the US-based STC holder to apply for an EASA approval (which most US-firms can't be bothered to do).
But I've written all this before...
This is already happening but, due to EU politics, not in a useful direction.
There is a JAA committee looking into a "reduced burden private IR"; the latest is that they have taken about 20% off the ground school (which isn't going to make any practical difference; a complete FAA-style overhaul is needed) and will allow IMCR instrument training towards the 50hr (55 for ME) flying requirement (which won't make any difference to anybody who can actually afford to fly IFR into Europe, which a full IR is all about.
EASA will take over FCL in a few years' time and various officials have said promising things like they plan to do a swap of an FAA IR for a JAA IR. This is a bombshell of course and is unlikely to happen.
It's however just possible that the increasing N-reg population in member states will push EASA into doing something as sensible as that. They would have to take on board FAA certification also, and that means accepting FAA STCs and not just the present stupid system of enabling the US-based STC holder to apply for an EASA approval (which most US-firms can't be bothered to do).
But I've written all this before...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Head, block, chop!"
Dont be so hard on yourself.
"I wonder who replied to you!"
Obviously not the same person who replied to you then!
At least whoever it was (ssssh we shall never know) may have spoken to the same person that replied to Bose, and 540, and me.
Dont be so hard on yourself.
"I wonder who replied to you!"
Obviously not the same person who replied to you then!
At least whoever it was (ssssh we shall never know) may have spoken to the same person that replied to Bose, and 540, and me.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 23rd Mar 2006 at 08:13.
