IMC priveledges

[MikeJ]

Bose,
I really am delighted if someone as experienced as you, normally flying light aircraft, is directly contributing to the debate within the CAA.
But I must agree with IO that the points you make re accessible PPL/IR, in itself a most highly desired objective, does nothing constructive re the IMCR.
You state that flying airways is simpler than Class G IFR. Within the UK this is generally wrong. I know for a fact that typical air taxis with ATPL pilots would not dream of filing airways for, say, a trip from a West London airfield to, say Exeter or Plymouth, neither end being linked with the airways system. When you think of time to file Fl.Plan (min 1 hour), your customers may arrive 25 mins late (or early) and want to go immediately, and you have excellent RAS from LARS stations all the way, and can fly direct track ....

For the PPL, wanting to get home to White Waltham from a day out at Sandown when the weather has gone more crutty than the forecast (typical UK), provided he is in current practice as emphasised by IO, an IMCR really is as good as anything he could want. Talking about airways flight for this is ***** (choose your word!).

[Fuji Abound]

Bose

Firstly, brilliant to learn of the initiative taken,

but the lack of cunsultation is a disgrace.

What is the point of developing proposals in what appears to be such a clandestine way? Why on earth would any regulator roll out proposals without consultation with the users? I have a great deal of time for the CAA, I have no view yet on EASA, but the fiasco over mode S need only remind us all of the utter pointlessness of rolling out proposals withour proper consultation.

I shall look forward to having the opportunity to comment!

[Islander2]

But I must agree with IO that the points you make re accessible PPL/IR, in itself a most highly desired objective, does nothing constructive re the IMCR.

This appears to imply that, by attempting to achieve a more accessible PPL/IR, bose-x is helping to sound the death knell of the IMCR. With aviation at the leading edge of 'The European Project', I'm not sure anyone can foresee with any certainty how GA will look in ten years time. If the IMCR goes, however, I for one doubt it would be fair to place that on bose-x's doorstep! The reality is that we very much need to retain the UK IMCR, and we are crying out for a more accessible European PPL/IR ... they are not mutually exclusive, neither is the success or failure of one likely to impact on the success or failure of the other. The only certainty, it seems to me, is that there is zero prospect of extending the IMCR throughout Europe - so I'm not sure what you suggest needs to be done that would be 'constructive re the IMCR'. Bose-x and the others involved in working for a more-accessible PPL/IR are to be congratulated, IMHO, not presented with implied criticism.

For the PPL, wanting to get home to White Waltham from a day out at Sandown when the weather has gone more crutty than the forecast (typical UK), provided he is in current practice as emphasised by IO, an IMCR really is as good as anything he could want.

I held a current IMCR for 13 years before getting my IR ten years ago, and I agree completely. I also agree that the London to South West routing is best done off airways. But potentially, those are a small section of the picture. Consider the following, which constitute a significant part of how I use my aeroplane:

a) Midlands to Scotland - in any weather, airways provide by far the most expedient and least stressful routing. If you do this journey regularly, you really will appreciate an IR.

b) Midlands to Channel Islands - for a large portion of the year, IMCR means an undesirable low-level cross-sea journey; on a good number of days the cloud base across the sea is <600 ft and it means no go for an IMCR. I've been doing this for many, many years, and journey reliability has gone up dramatically since gaining the IR.

c) Midlands to continental Europe - leaving aside the VFR on-top debate, an IMCR means you need to avoid IMC for flights outside of the UK, and this is highly restrictive. Further, notwithstanding how enjoyable VFR flying in Europe can be, it is undeniable that airways IFR flight offers massive benefits if you are trying to use your aeroplane as a serious form of transport.

Finally, and I recognise this will vary according to individual, training and currency, it wasn't until I went through the significantly more rigorous IR training regime that I actually felt comfortable with flying on serious IMC days.

All power to your elbow, bose-x, I hope you succeed.

[S-Works]

You seem to be doing just fine at commenting! We have just kicked off this initative and I am started to collect views. So I can't see how you see how there is any lack of consultation. It has long been known that the IR needs to change to make it accessible and I have listened to the comments over the years and am taking them forward. I see nothing clandestine about this at all.
However if ANYONE has any comments that they want to formally introduce then please forward them into PPL/IR and AOPA. We are representing the GA flyer. If you are not a member then it is time to join. If you don't want to join then feel free to write directly to the PLD at CAA.
Everyone please lets not get sidetracked around the IMCR in these discussions. Our remit is not to review the IMCR it is to make the IR accessible to all. But as a point, if you hold an IR then you can do everything you do on an IMC with regards to flight outside CAS.
Airways flight is easier but equally valid are the comments about a lot of destination not being worth flying airways. Having an IR does not take away the ability to fly direct it just opens up more options.
What amazes me about you lot is you complain endlessly about how you wish you could get an IR, the JAA one is to hard, blah blah blah and then one of US (or a group of US actually) goes and tries to do something about it you complain about clandestine work and unconnected stuff.
It is little wonder nothing happens because I can se how easy it is to become demoralised at the lack of support and the views that change with the wind.
If you think you can do it better then join the organisations that represent you and volunteer to join these "clandestine" working groups.
The regulator wants to deal with a representative and thats what PPL/IR and AOPA do. Imagine the size of the meeting room if every one who wants to comment turned up......

Bose
Firstly, brilliant to learn of the initiative taken,
but the lack of cunsultation is a disgrace.
What is the point of developing proposals in what appears to be such a clandestine way? Why on earth would any regulator roll out proposals without consultation with the users? I have a great deal of time for the CAA, I have no view yet on EASA, but the fiasco over mode S need only remind us all of the utter pointlessness of rolling out proposals withour proper consultation.
I shall look forward to having the opportunity to comment!

[Fuji Abound]

I support this initiative.

OK, firstly and apology to Bose.

Bose I hugely respect everything you have said on this thread (and for that matter usually others). I think this initiative is extremely important. IMHO everyone reading this thread should give you and the other proponents all the support we can. We may wish to comment on the detail of the proposal but we should start our post with "we support this intitiative."
I also agree that the IR and IMCR are entirely separate issues and should not side track the debate.

I am a PPL IR member. I don’t belong to AOPA because having been a member for a number of years I became increasingly disappointed with what appeared to me to be their complete lack of ability to campaign for issues such as this on our behalf. When I emailed them on two occasions to ask what they were doing on a couple of issues and they couldn’t even be bothered to reply to my emails I decided I couldn’t be bothered to renew my membership.

I haven’t seen a suggestion form the CAA, PPL IR or elsewhere that the development of a PPL IR is as far advanced as you suggest. I also wansnt aware that the PPL IR had canvassed its members views (but I accept I may well have missed their doing so, if this is the case, sorry).

My point remains that I still feel if proposals are about to be rolled out as early as you suggest (3 months?) then I would have thought all parties would benefit from consultation. I don’t want to go round the mode S debate again, but the CAA failed to consult on this one, and any progress is now bogged down in petitions et al. That wont happen with the PPL IR because the numbers effected and the way in which they are effected is quite different, but some form of simple consultation along the lines of "this is what we propose, we invite your views and comments" might result it some beneficial contributions and could be used to demonstrate how much support there is for the changes proposed.

So I may have misunderstood your earlier posts which gave me the impresion matters were relatively advanced. You say in your last post "we have just kicked off this initiative". If matters are not as advanced as I had inferred I would suggest that the PPL IR and AOPA should write to its members setting out the changes they propose, inviting comment as quickly as possible and get these changes before the CAA in the certain knowledge that they have the support of the whole of thier membership.

[FREDAcheck]

Everyone please lets not get sidetracked around the IMCR in these discussions. Our remit is not to review the IMCR it is to make the IR accessible to all. But as a point, if you hold an IR then you can do everything you do on an IMC with regards to flight outside CAS.

With the greatest respect for what you are doing boxe-x, one can't ignore IMCR. It is likely that, with an accessible PPL/IR (undoubtedly a good thing) that there will be pressure to drop IMCR. I believe (despite what you say about how useful airways are) that for most PPLs, IMCR provides all they need. So an accessible PPL/IR will be seen by many as a retrograde step if it means that IMCR goes.

So please be careful not to damage the interests of the many for whom a full IR is of no value in order to make IR accessible to the relatively few for whom it's useful. For most PPLs, an IR with reduced privileges would be much better if it reduces the training, currency and medical requirements.

As I said before, I'll bet an IMCR for NPPL would benefit far more pilots than an IR.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

It is little wonder nothing happens because I can se how easy it is to become demoralised at the lack of support and the views that change with the wind.

If you think you can do it better then join the organisations that represent you and volunteer to join these "clandestine" working groups.

Yup, that's how it is - welcome to public decision making.

(Actually I'm sure you are perfectly familiar with this, but there are plenty who do not understand how most public decisions in this country are made, and the frustrations that face the volunteers of one sort or another who make many of them and contribute to most of the others.)

[S-Works]

OK, let me make this clear. The CAA have been working on this for some time. This year we started working on it with them as a working group. The moves are well advanced and with any luck we will see the results this summer.

I, and the other members of the working group are representing AOPA and PPL/IR who in turn are representing YOU. We have listened to the comments and views of OUR members for a long time and we are passing these views into the process. We are representing YOU not the CAA and we are trying to make it easier not harder to gain an IR. There is going to be compromise, we have no choice, we are dealing with a regulator and an industry driven by the airlines. Out of the process there will be some things that you don't like, this is the nature of compromise. However there will be a lot more that you do like and the IR will be more obtainable to the average person.

The IMC rating IS NOT part of our remit. We CANNOT take any comments about it to the table. We are working on a European change and the IMCR is a UK only rating. I do not know what will happen to the IMCR in the future. Do not berate me about loss or change to the IMCR as it is not part of our remit. If any of you want to do something about it why not ask for a review, sit on the working groups and do something about it?

My personal view is that the IMCR will disappear under EASA licensing and there will not be a euro wide IMCR. This is the primary reason I became involved in the IRWG so that if the IMCR does go we ALL have access to a method of regaining those privileges on a European and world wide basis as well as a whole host of enhanced privileges.

[englishal]

I am a PPL IR member..........I haven’t seen a suggestion form the CAA, PPL IR or elsewhere that the development of a PPL IR is as far advanced as you suggest. I also wansnt aware that the PPL IR had canvassed its members views (but I accept I may well have missed their doing so, if this is the case, sorry).

I am also a member of PPL/IR and have been for some years. I am a member of AOPA but the US AOPA.

To be honest, this is the first I have heard about the changes to the IR as well. Maybe it was hidden on some web site somewhere and it is my fault for not seeing it, I don't know but whatever it was not well advertised. BUT if someone had come to me and said, "Hey Al, can we have your views on an achievable IR" then I would have suggested my list above.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying the "1 hr flight" thing. This certainly means that two bird could be killed with one stone as long as the IR renewal is done in the second 12 months....

[rustle]

Originally Posted by englishal

This certainly means that two bird could be killed with one stone as long as the IR renewal is done in the second 12 months....

The IR renewal would be done every 12 months, so job done.

[Fuji Abound]

Yup, that's how it is - welcome to public decision making.

That is just about the most pointless contribution I have seen in a long time.

in response to:

It is little wonder nothing happens because I can se how easy it is to become demoralised at the lack of support and the views that change with the wind.

If you think you can do it better then join the organisations that represent you and volunteer to join these "clandestine" working groups.

As I hope I made clear it is not:

a) A question of thinking you can do it better,

b) or of demoralising those trying,

c) or of views changing with the wind,

d) or not volunteering to join groups seeking change

BUT

if in spite of belonging to these organisations they cant be bothered to tell their own members (never mind the wider audience) that they are developing proposals and would be interested in their members views, and would be interested in their members supporting these working groups, then it is hardly surprising their members, never mind everyone else, have no idea what is going on, cant volunteer their support and cant offer to join the working groups.

For that reason ALONE I referred to these "clandestine" groups.

To be honest, this is the first I have heard about the changes to the IR as well.

Since this topic came up I know that Englishal and I are not alone.

Frankly I get fed up with the pervading attitude that we made these changes (whatever they my be) because we know best, we know you will like them and you should be grateful we did so. Actually if you are representing me I would like to be involved and not learn about them for the first time on an anonymous forum! I REPEAT it is not that I am opposed to the changes, quite the reverese, but I am not happy with the way these changes are being developed.

Come on chaps involve your members in such an excellent initiative, get the wider audience involved, dont just roll out proposals and express surprise that people should say "well thats all come as a bit of a surprise - did you think of .. .. .."

[englishal]

The IR renewal would be done every 12 months, so job done.

Right, that's what I meant....as it would fall into the second 12 months then as you say job done . You could though in theory let it lapse for a year and then renew in the 2nd 12 month period ....until they stipulate that the Biennial flight must be VFR

[High Wing Drifter]

Every second IR revalidation can be done in an FNPT2.

[IO540]

Can I therefore clarify: is this a project between PPL/IR and AOPA UK, with an objective to make a proposal to the CAA, which will then propose it to JAA?

Even if the CAA is already involved, they will need to get JAA on board to get it ratified.

[Three Yellows]

bose-x, please forgive me as I can tell from your previous posts on many other topics that you are a 'real' aviator - not just an expert on FS2004. But, again I apologise in advance if I have missed something, but please could you explain (or PM me) who exactly the "we" are you refer to in your post? You seem to imply that you perhaps work for the CAA? How did you come to be one of the "we" working on this? Not that I doubt you. I'm just curious that you seem to speak with such authority on this long overdue idea.

regards,

TY

[S-Works]

Can I therefore clarify: is this a project between PPL/IR and AOPA UK, with an objective to make a proposal to the CAA, which will then propose it to JAA?
Even if the CAA is already involved, they will need to get JAA on board to get it ratified

NO! This is a CAA initiative, driven by the CAA and hosted by the CAA. They have enlisted the help of PPL/IR and AOPA to bring the whole thing to fruition as a collaborative effort. EASA are onboard with this. For a change our regulator is taking a proactive approach and actually consulting with the people that it effects.
There is no case of us making changes because 'we know better", we are taking the views as members of the regular flying fraternity to the regulator based on years of listening to you all bitching about how tough the IR is.
AOPA has FREQUENTLY requested for its MEMBERSHIP to become involved with various things like this. You are all quick to bitch about how crap AOPA etc are at doing anything but not very quick to step up to the mark to do something about it. AOPA is a MEMBERS organisation as is PPL/IR and is driven by the MEMBERS. If you have something to say then contact them. I am perfectly happy to discuss by mail or in person with anyone who thinks they can add something to the debate.
For gods sake quit winging and actually stand up and be counted!! ANYONE can contact PPL/IR and AOPA to volunteer to stand on these working groups, they asked for volunteers and I took it up, so don't give me you never know what is going on. I am just a member and worked out help was needed.
Three Yellows: I am a member of AOPA and a member of PPL/IR. AOPA formed a working group after criticism that it was out of touch with the people it represents. A number of us from the general membership VOLUNTEERED to stand on the working group. This includes a number of people from this forum both AOPA and PPL/IR. As a result of being involved in this the CAA asked for suitably qualified representatives of these bodies to work on the IR Working Group. I have worked my way through the JAA IR system as a private flyer with no desire for an airline job, flying 2000 hrs in the last 5 years alone. This gives me what I hope is a representative view of being a private pilot and being suitably qualified to talk about IR issues.
I don't know if I speak with any authority but I am involved with the issue and hope in someway I can contribute to the betterment of us all.

[Three Yellows]

Marvellous

.. thanks.

As I've said earlier, I can't wait for a more realistic IR for PPLs.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by bose-x

I am perfectly happy to discuss by mail or in person with anyone who thinks they can add something to the debate.

For gods sake quit winging and actually stand up and be counted!!

bose, those two sentences don't sit very comfortably together at all.

If this is the first anyone has heard about IR changes you should expect some robust questions to be asked and not "go off on one" every time one is posed.

I don't think anyone is trying to piss on your chips, I think (based upon my reading here and elsewhere) that people are trying to understand.

Chill, and you might get some more positive feedback.

HTH

[S-Works]

Rustle, I am not going "off on one" I am however trying to prevent the usual drift and irrelevance that seems to come into every discussion on here.

All of this stuff has been in the public domain for a long time. How do you think I became involved?

[Fuji Abound]

All of this stuff has been in the public domain for a long time.

The PPL IR web site is much better than it use to be.
Infact, they have a "current issues" section which anyone can follow. It covers all this and last year.

http://www.pplir.org/index.php?optio...=106&Itemid=73

Now that would be a really good place to mention these proposals.

It might even be a bit more important than "Establishment of Offshore Safety Areas".

Unless I have missed it - it is not there.

Then there is the section about getting an IR. That would be a good place to tell people to hang up, we are working at making it easier.

No mention.

There is even latest news - its got to deserve a mention there surely?
http://www.pplir.org/index.php?optio...id=197&Itemid=

Cant see it.

Any way I said my bit -

Good luck to you Bose, sincerely thank you for your work, and I shall doubtless look forward to hearing more about this through the appropriate official channels in the fullness of time.

Perhaps if you want some contribution from the wider audience around here it would be worth starting a new thread, that makes it clear in the title what it is about, sets out the proposals, and asks for comment Probably some will have plenty to say, some will be irrelevant and some might frustrate you even more, but some useful views might surface as well .