FAA IR instead of IMC?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I am well aware that there is a faction who believe that anyone who doesn't do fifteen hours every week isn't current enough to be safe and shouldn't be flying.

The simple truth is that many of us do not have enough money to fly fifteen hours per week.

Currently the authorities do not support your point of view. If they come to do so lots of us will stop flying. Which you, I suppose, might consider to be a Good Thing.

[S-Works]

I am entitled to my point of view just as you are entitled to yours.

Out of interest if you cant afford to fly on a regular basis how can you think you will be safe with an IR

[julian_storey]

BOSE although I agree that you need to be current to fly in IMC conditions safely, you don't need to fly 15 hours a week.

[S-Works]

Julian, I never said that...... It was Gertrude in a fit of petulance that insinuated that I had.....

I merely pointed out that to be safe in IMC you have to be current, to be current you have to fly regularly, to fly regularly costs money. Which ever way uu look at it Instrument flight is not cheap.

If the loss of the IMC keeps the ill trained, ill equipped non current flyer out of IMC conditions then so be it.

But we are talking at cross purposes. I think the loss of the IMCR would be a disaster for British aviation. I just get fed up of the endless tirade against getting a proper instrument qualification and the constant need for short cutting the system.
The Eurocrats are driven by the airlines and the airlines representatives on these committees are usually not a million miles away from these forums. So when they sit at committee expressing there concerns about keeping light aviation away from the fare paying punters they have a wealth of information to back up what they say.

What I would like to see is the IMCR overhauled and accepted as a file difference specific to the UK. Trying to flog it to the europeans as a euro wide rating is a flight of fantasy. Getting the IAOPA to support it is flight of fantasy. The IMCR is a British anomaly that Europe does not really understand.

The UK CAA want to see the rating retained and to that end our working group has carried out a review and revised the IMCR and submitted it.
But I get fed up with peoples attitudes, it always seems that they are looking for a shortcut and that does not put GA in a good light.

I may appear blunt and often writing seems to convey that I have a poor attitude, but this is not the case. There are many on these forums who work with me on these matters and understand who passionately I feel about GA and preserving everything we have. I am also pragmatic and inn politics and bureaucracy everything is a case of give and take. This is unfortunately part of being forced to be European. I hate it the much as the next man and much prefer the US way of doing things. However the US is several thousand miles away, Europe is here or 26m way depending on your view.

[youngskywalker]

I have no objection to having to pass a handful of relevant exams and even to do a 50 hour IR conversion if thats whats required to convert from my FAA Multi CPL IR; it's the 14 ATPL exams and the best part of a years study with mandatory groundschool that put's me off and I suspect many of the other Pilots on here also, not to mention the expensive and much more stringent class one medical, which I failed anyway!

Think I'll pack it all in and go back to flying model aeroplanes...

[tmmorris]

Hear, hear.

(though you don't need a class 1 for PPL/IR, of course, just a class 2 and audiogram)

Tim

[Fuji Abound]

Bose

You mention the attitude of the airlines towards the IMCR and the perceived poor standard of training.

These seems a little a variance given the comment also made that they dont understand the IMCR. It would worry me to have an attitude about something I didnt understand.

Out of interest, do they produce any evidence to supoort their contention in terms of incidents or accidents involving pilots with only an IMCR? Hvae they been asked to produce the evidence or to justify their attitude?

[Guys, plenty of comment here but please dont ignore the sticky. Clearly a lot of you dont agree with this, but you have to read the sticky, add your support, comments etc otherwise it is all a waste of time really - please]

[172driver]

The Eurocrats are driven by the airlines and the airlines representatives on these committees are usually not a million miles away from these forums. So when they sit at committee expressing there concerns about keeping light aviation away from the fare paying punters they have a wealth of information to back up what they say.

One could of course point out the situation in the US where airlines and GA comingle without problems. I would even go further - it is BECAUSE they comingle, that there are no problems! If you learn to fly 'in the system' from day one, then you won't be totally thrown by a controller's instructions, you will also be accustomed to flying in CAS, etc, etc. I gets dangerous where those who never, ever had to deal with anything other than their local airfield (and its quite often very idiosyncratic R/T) start to mingle with the heavy metal.

it's the 14 ATPL exams and the best part of a years study with mandatory groundschool that put's me off and I suspect many of the other Pilots on here also

Count me in

[rustle]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

It would worry me to have an attitude about something I didnt understand.

ROFL

Good one.

[S-Works]

Fuji, you have hit the nail on the head. The airlines can't justify anything because the IMCR has a great safety record for a number of reasons. The holder of an IMC is split into a number of factions. Those that do it as a way of improving skills but have no aptitude or desire for instrument flight.

Those that do it and see it as a get out of jail free card but in reality never actually fly near iMC conditions or even in aircraft that are remotely IMC capable but like having the 'badge' that they are 'instrument' pilots.

Then there are the IMR holders who view it as a serious instrument qualification and spend considerable time, effort and money in consistently improving those instrument skills. I flew for more than a thousand hours using the IMCR.

The final group are the FAA IR holders who have an IMCR on the back of an IR. Again they have proven their dedication to safe instrument flight by making the effort to go out and get an ICAO IR even if 90% of them can't exercise the privileges to the full extent.

So if you look at the typical use of the IMCR the stats stack up very much in our favour.

The big problem in these discussions is that the people are incapable of separating a proper IR (FAA or JAA)from the IMC and the view that the IMCR is as good as an FAA IR and getting the FAA IR is just a top up. i have met very few IMCR pilots who were capable of doing any IR in minima based on their IMC skills. Those that did came from the regular IMC flyer group as mentioned above which in real terms also puts them far above minima as well. I did my JAA IR in exactly the minima including a first pass on the test, was that as a result of a mere 15 hrs of IMCR training or a thousand hours as an IMCR pilot?

[Fuji Abound]

The big problem in these discussions is that the people are incapable of separating a proper IR (FAA or JAA)from the IMC

I agree, and which it was never intended to be.

I may be important to educate them first. Then press them for the evidence - which I dont believe exists.

ROFL

Good one.

You just dont learn - do you?

Everyone else is trying to have a serious discussion about something important. At least on this occasion do try and join in and not spoil it please -leave the fun to an appropriate thread. It is the usual differences and people trying to be clever that means we never achieve anything.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

OK OK, let's be a bit more reasonable ...

I recognise your classification of IMCR holders. I don't know what I'm going to use it for myself, I haven't finished the course.

Mostly I'm doing the course to improve my skills. But the ability to not worry too much about how much cloud there is beneath me, and descend through it on the ILS at my home field if necessary, would widen the choice of days on which I could go for local joyrides. In a rented plane under the club's flying order book rules, which are rather stricter than the priviledges of the IMCR.

I don't know what evidenced case could be made for taking that away from us.

FWIW, at a few hours into the course I'm finding it hard work[#], and I don't expect to finish in 15 hours, and I would absolutely agree that I'm only going to learn how to do a subset of instrument flying not-very-well, and I can quite see that doing fifty hours or so is necessary to be taught the full range of skills to a reasonable level of comfort and accuracy. (It seems to me, for example, that to be comfortable tracking away from an NDB accurately at night with a vacuum failure and insufficient lighting to read the compass is worth a couple of hours on its own, in varying wind conditions, and obviously if you multiply that by everything that needs doing it comes to more than 15 hours.)

So, if the IMCR went, whilst I would regret its passing, I might decide to get some sort of IR by doing "the rest of" the training. What seems unreasonable is

(1) that the training already undertaken won't count
(2) having to pass exams in lots of stuff that isn't relevant to flying a 172 outside controlled airspace (which is all I would want to do with it).

Hence musing about potential "short cuts" which might avoid (1) and (2). Still doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[#] Which is good. People like challenges from time to time.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

You just dont learn - do you?

IMHO it prob 98 isn't me that needs to learn more about airspace, rules, training requirements or EASA.

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

Everyone else is trying to have a serious discussion about something important. At least on this occasion do try and join in and not spoil it please -leave the fun to an appropriate thread. It is the usual differences and people trying to be clever that means we never achieve anything.

"People" aren't trying to be clever but with this thread, the IMC rating disappearing thread, and your other sticky thread, the disinformation and ill-informed discussion about ratings, EASA, airspace and training requirements beggars belief.

...and you want to write to people to influence things with that same disinformation?

If you got a letter and some/most of it was completely incorrect how much value would you place on the rest of it?

File 13 - the round one under the desk.

No wonder bose-x feels like

[englishal]

If there wasn't the ATPL exams (or whatever - we've been through this before, may as well do at least the CPL exams), the Class 1 audiogram, and not the mandatory 15 hour conversion but a flight test and training as required, then I'd convert my FAA IR to a JAA one.

I don't see what purpose the 15 hour "conversion" course serves, other than to milk people for money. If someone is not good enough, they won't pass the IR test, simple! If they are good enough, they will pass wwith flying colours. Why can't the examiners decide?

Realistically I would do some sort of conversion - but I'd do this at my own pace, and probably not with a JAR approved FTO. I have friends in aviation who would help me out.....But it seems like it is "jobs for the boys"...

Offer that, and it may apease a lot of folk

[Fuji Abound]

"People" aren't trying to be clever but with this thread, the IMC rating disappearing thread, and your other sticky thread, the disinformation and ill-informed discussion about ratings, EASA, airspace and training requirements beggars belief.

Well it might be helpuf if you steer us in the right direction then?
I am afraid I have no time for people who take great satisfaction in pointing out how wrong everyone else is, but contirbute nothing.
How about a list of:

a) the elements that constiture disinformation,

b) the elements that comprise ill informed discussion about ratings,

c) the elements that comprise ill informed discussion about training.

If you have nothing useful to contribute other than smart arse remarks I guess most people will ignore you.

If you have something useful to say to help steer us in the correct direction.

I for one would be very grateful to learn.

[Contacttower]

rustle it would be good if you could identify what incorrect info is on all these IMC rating related threads. Personally I do feel rather confused about the whole thing .

[rustle]

Okay, starter for ten.

What, exactly, are you asking for?

Is it:

A) Wichety Grub

A) Retention of the UK-valid IMC rating (as now) as a "national rating"?

B) Creation of a new EASA-wide IMC rating?

If the intention is to petition to retain a national rating after EASA take over all FCL then IMHO you're on a hiding to nothing as one of the "benefits" of EASA is standardisation across FCL.

If the intention is to create a new EASA-wide IMC rating then the next (first of many) question will be how you might handle the French (to name one) lower airway structure which, unlike the UK, isn't predominantly > class D?

Is the expectation that France will suddenly accept 15-hour IF pilots into their airways systems?

Is the expectation that they would "uprate" their airways to C or higher?

Or is the expectation that the EASA-IMC rating would not allow IF in CAS at all (unlike our current which allows IF upto D)?

Fairly basic stuff which needs to be discussed if this is to be a meaningful discussion, yes?

[Fuji Abound]

Rustle

Mmmm, well you have not answered the question .. .. ..

(which was to let us all know the details of the disinformation)

.. .. .. and the idea was to promote constructive discussion.

Of the questions you pose:

a) Is of course just plain stupid,

b) To which your answer is "you are on a hiding to nothing"

c) Which misses the point completely.

In short, this contibutes nothing.

Fair enough, if your position is it is a done deal I reespect your view, even though I dont agree with it.

I promise you only need to tell us once.

If it isnt lets having something more constructive.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

Of the questions you pose:

a) Is of course just plain stupid,

b) To which your answer is "you are on a hiding to nothing"

c) Which misses the point completely.

In short, this contibutes nothing.

Fair enough, if your position is it is a done deal I reespect your view, even though I dont agree with it.

I promise you only need to tell us once.

If it isnt lets having something more constructive.

Frankly I can't be arsed to do all your work for you. If you see no value (i.e. something constructive) in understanding just one of many issues faced then more fool you.

5 years time we'll see where we are shall we, like your last well intentioned but ultimately useless campaign you started some 5 years ago will you still be talking about this in 2012?

Problem is EASA take over before then

Contacttower hopefully you, at least, can see some point in understanding at least some of the basics of that which you are trying to change?

BTW, when was this forum renamed "Fuji's Corner", and the only allowed posters are those who know FA?

[Contacttower]

Contacttower hopefully you, at least, can see some point in understanding at least some of the basics of that which you are trying to change?

Of course I do.

BTW shouldn't this discussion continue on the 'End of the IMC rating' thread rather than this one which was meant to be about the FAA IR?