[SteveC]

I think you have missed what Bookworm is saying. Those who are actively involved in the fight to make the IR more accessible are already IR holders so have no vested interest.

[nickwilcock]

Well, today is supposedly the last meeting of FCL.008.

One hopes that they have noted the gathering frustration and dissatisfaction with their efforts in regard of the UK IMCR expressed on this website - and the far from unanimous appeal of the so-called 'EIR'.

Put simply, all most people probably want is a rating which entitles them to fly an aircraft under IFR and in IMC in departure, en route and arrival phases of flight in airspace approved for such use by national airspace authorities. Theoretical knowledge, language proficiency, medical requirements, flight training and testing should be proportionate for a rating which would require 600ft cloudbase and 1800m visibility for take-off, landing and at an alternate with approach minima no lower than 'IR minima' +200ft for precision and +250ft for non-precision approaches.

Call it what you like - Class 2 IR, Intermediate IR, IMCR.....or, to slightly mis-quote Vinny Jones "You can call it Susan if it makes you happy".

[Flyin'Dutch']

Put simply, all most people probably want is a rating which entitles them to fly an aircraft under IFR and in IMC in departure, en route and arrival phases of flight in airspace approved for such use by national airspace authorities. Theoretical knowledge, language proficiency, medical requirements, flight training and testing should be proportionate for a rating which would require 600ft cloudbase and 1800m visibility for take-off, landing and at an alternate with approach minima no lower than 'IR minima' +200ft for precision and +250ft for non-precision approaches.

That is called an Instrument Rating.

The purpose of lobbying and being engaged in the current process is to make that a more easily achievable goal.

Most folks involved in trying to achieve that are current IR holders as they know what the gains are of having this rating.

An IMCR with limited geographical use is no good and it would have been a lot lot better if in the old days the objective of getting an accessible IR had been achieved rather than settling for an IMCR.

[nickwilcock]

So what if it is an Intermediate IR?

Do the restricted course / test and get the restricted privileges.

Do the full IR course / test and get the full privileges.

Your choice - what's wrong with that?

Incidentally, I don't think that EASA will for one moment accept any reduction in the current PPL/IR requirements due to pressure from airline unions etc.....

[bookworm]

Theoretical knowledge, language proficiency, medical requirements, flight training and testing should be proportionate for a rating which would require 600ft cloudbase and 1800m visibility for take-off, landing and at an alternate with approach minima no lower than 'IR minima' +200ft for precision and +250ft for non-precision approaches.

The problem is that your "restricted privileges" don't reflect the "restricted course" that you're proposing. They're arbitrary. The way weather works doesn't change in the last 200 ft of an ILS. Nor do the failure modes of your instruments. Nor does the the need to understand instrument procedures and work with ATC. Nor does the controller speak a different language. Nor do the medical demands on the pilot.

If you're saying that you can turn out some pretty good instrument pilots in 15 hours of IF training, I'd agree. You can turn out some pretty respectable VFR pilots in 15 hours of ab initio training too. But we don't, and we shouldn't, based on their ability to do a first solo circuit in CAVOK, give them a "restricted privileges" PPL which allows them to go and do the hardest things that VFR pilots have to go and do, as long as they stick to the arbitrary restriction of flying only on days with an 'r' in them.

If you can do the things that an instrument pilot needs to be able to do, to the standards an instrument pilot needs to be able to do to stay alive, you should have an IR. The best thing that FCL.008 can do for us is push for a competence-based approach to instrument flying and the IR, not an arbitrary second-class Susan.

[peter272]

I've been looking at this thread and getting confused.

I am a VFR-only pilot with Night rating. Over the years I have had a number of 'close-calls' which were weather-related and have become convinced that I need to have the ability to move (temporarily) into IMC to save my bacon.

As it is, I have found myself in situations which were unexpected and with limited options. One particular situation was due to a sudden and unforecast incursion of sea fog in the time between my getting into the aircraft and arriving 20 miles from my destination.

I am not rich enough to do an IR (or, at the moment an IMC) but an affordable starting point is definitely required and the vested interest should accept that.

I now do an occasional flight in IMC (with an instructor) just so I don't get panicky if and when I get caught out again.

[nickwilcock]

I didn't actually state what the proposed course should consist of. But since you ask:

The training course shall consist of a minimum of:

10 hours Basic instrument flight training, common to the IR training course,

10 hours procedural instrument flight training, to consist of:

Module 1: 4 hours training in take-off, departure, en-route navigation and holding.

Plus any 2 of the following 4 modules:

Module 2: 3 hours training in precision approaches with pilot-interpreted guidance.

Module 3: 3 hours training in non-precision approaches with pilot-interpreted guidance in azimuth only.

Module 4: 3 hours training in precision or non-precision radar approaches, with guidance provided by an external controller.

Module 5: 3 hours training in approved RNAV/GNSS approaches.

If privileges are sought on multi-engined aeroplanes, the following additional training module shall also be required:

Module 6: 4 hours training in one-engine inoperative procedures relevant to all phases of flight (take-off, departure, en-route, approach and missed approach).

This is all in my Comment Response to NPA17b, incidentally.

[bookworm]

The training course shall consist of a minimum of:

Looks like an ICAO IR to me, except that you're requiring 20 hours of instrument flight training instead of 10. I imagine we would agree that 20 hours is the practical minimum. I can't think why anyone with that level of training shouldn't take and pass an IR flight test, can you?

[GrahamB]

You can turn out some pretty respectable VFR pilots in 15 hours of ab initio training too. But we don't, and we shouldn't, based on their ability to do a first solo circuit in CAVOK, give them a "restricted privileges" PPL which allows them to go and do the hardest things that VFR pilots have to go and do, as long as they stick to the arbitrary restriction of flying only on days with an 'r' in them.

Probably a bad analogy, given the likely EASA adoption of the Brevet de Base.

[Keef]

To me, it's very simple. If the Brevet de Base is safe and should remain, ditto the IMCR.

If the fine folks working on FCL.008 can persuade EASA to deliver an achievable IR - say, no more bureaucratic and no more "requirements" than the FAA IR, I'll be amazed. One can hope, but one isn't optimistic.

My bet is that the Brevet de Base and the Qualification Montaigne will remain, and the IMCR will go. And I'll have my opinion of the whole process confirmed.

The EIR sounds like a kipper of very russet hue.

[derekf]

What frustrates me is that it's those who already have IRs that are fighting hard to make the IR more accessible and facing such entrenched opposition from those who may have the most to gain from such a change. And so far, that's the only opposition there is...

Totally contrary to the way I view it.

Many with IRs are fighting to make it HARDER to get one, not wanting the great unwashed ever to be able to achieve their skygod status.
Those with IMCr, generally, would love an achievable IR.

That's completely opposite to my experience where people with IRs would love to provide a more achievable IR and have more PPL pilots with IRs over here.

[KNT754G]

My comment about IR holders making it harder was based on the majority of IR holders being airline pilots and the fact that airlines and pilot unions want the process made more difficult.

I have no quarrel whatsoever with the members of PPL/IR Europe (as an example) who are striving hard on our behalf for no personal gain.

[peterh337]

IME, the only IR holders who want to make the IR harder are a proportion of JAA/CAA IR holders who are instructors. These form most of the "elite" opposition. Of course, they have a commercial interest.

I also guess that fresh graduates of the JAA ATP training machine would have inherited a similar view - having sat through 14 exams etc etc. and been mixing with the above mentioned instructors.

But I've never met a real currently serving (by that I mean not one who has retired and is serving on some rulemaking committee) airline pilot who wanted to make the IR harder. I think most airline pilots have met plenty of FAA ATPs and realised they are every bit as good as themselves.

[Dave Phillips]

Having done the 14 JAA 'ATP' exams I'm not sure I would be a supporter of this level of theoretical knowledge. I also hold (and use) a UK IMC rating on a regular basis and would welcome some form of IR-Lite; I really don't think it is necessary to complete 50hrs of training. However, if EASA were to develop an IR-Lite (which is looking unlikely), I think it imperative that they require a sensible set of currency criteria. The UK IMC is sorely lacking in this area - fancy doing only two IAPs every 25 months?

[Keef]

Agree totally. Trouble is, the ideal model - 6 IAPs in 6 months, plus an airways sector etc - was invented somewhere else and is therefore not possible here.