IMC Rating - Lobby your MP

[Mike Cross]

The following has been produced by AOPA UK as a suggestion for lobbying your MP, elements of it will also be of use elsewhere.

You can easily find out who your representatives are by clicking here.

SAVING THE IMC RATING – THE SALIENT POINTS WHEN WRITING TO YOUR MP

Explain why you did an IMC Rating and add any personal experiences that you may have had with it.

Include some or all of the points below as well as any you think will help this cause.

EASA does not want to ban the IMC rating. It has worked to obtain a European consensus on it, but some countries don’t agree.

The IMC rating is one of the significant factors contributing to the UK’s high GA safety rate, which is far better than the rest of Europe - France has some 90 fatalities a year, Germany about 80, the UK 20 to 25.

It is designed to save low-time pilots from the consequences of running into bad weather, a greater problem in the UK than in most of the rest of Europe because of our maritime climate.

The abolition of the rating is an unintended consequence of an administrative change. It is not a matter of standards or safety – quite the opposite. It is a matter of bureaucratic tidiness, and it calls for a political solution.

The CAA has been operating the rating for 40 years, during which time it has been audited at least 20 times by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which has never expressed any concern.

There is no credible suggestion that it is unsafe, and there is a mountain of evidence that it makes better pilots and has saved many lives.

The IMC rating is supported by every major aviation organisation in Britain, from the British Air Line Pilots Association to the General Aviation Safety Council and the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators.

While EASA is still discussing the rating, it cannot adopt it without the unanimous agreement of 27 states. An administrative omission currently prevents the UK from offering the rating to British pilots in UK territory. A device must be created to allow this, and this must be arranged through the political process.

[IMCR]

Mike

A very good resume.

However I dont understand why such an important matter would be confined to the AOPA forum.

Shirley this should be posted on the main forum to encourage as many people as possible to write.

Is it worth mentioning the No 10 petition and the response given by our Government to that petition at the time when it comes to asking people to write to their MP. After all, at least for the moment, it is the same Government!

[Mike Cross]

Where, on behalf of AOPA, I want to bring things to the attention of people I post it in the AOPA Forum. That gives it some attribution and helps raise the AOPA profile. This Forum is open to all, it's not restricted to AOPA. As I'm sure you know, AOPA has a vested interest in the IMC Rating and has representation on FCL001 and FCL008

A couple of the threads that have been started here recently, one by me and one by Timothy got transferred to the GA Forum. From a personal perspective, if I'd wanted to place that thread in the GA Forum then that's where I'd have put it.

I'm very comfortable with regulatory issues being discussed on the AOPA Forum. AOPA is heavily involved in the regulatory process and it means that stuff AOPA has an interest in is in one place rather than mixed in with the general miscellany that is the GA Forum.

[Dave W]

A thought: Given the European dimension, it could do no harm to send a version (or at least copy) one's letter to your MEP as well.

"MEP Finder" here.


Mike, regarding the location of this thread: I think that a post on the GA Discussion forum drawing people's attention here would have value, so I'll create one.

[Mike Cross]

Thanks Dave

[IMCR]

Mike

Fair enough, I was trying to be constructive.

I see it has been posted on the main forum anyway.

Fact is that in my opinion a lot of people read the main forum, but dont come here very often.

Glad to see you posted it on the darker side as well.