Fuzzy,
I take it that it was simply a way of making a distinction between "fully trained" IR pilots and those trained ot a lower "IMCR" standard.
As most GA pilots had no need to go to airports that were located in class A Airspace, and generally didn't fly at levels that would bring them into the class A airways, it probably served as a convenient distinction.
Colm
Why is the IMCR pilot banned from the easiest part of IFR flying - the en-route section?
I know the question was addressed to Peter but for the discussion, here is my view:
I think it is because the IMCr training is just about enough either as a 'get out of trouble' rating, or a 'enhance your skills and further your flying' rating, depending on which camp your tent is pitched. I belong to the latter, though appreciate anything you can learn to get out of trouble is a good thing. The training focuses on en route navigation, a little bit of additional R/T and being able to do holds and procedures with the usual collection of Navaids (though not GPS sadly). For me, IMC flying is mostly outside controlled airspace, without a flight plan, though with a radar service(preferably).
IMHO what it doesnt give the likes of me is the knowledge and training to prepare routes and file flight plans based on airways. There is no additional formal R/T exam on top of the basic PPL one so R/T currency might be lacking compared to those with an IR. Additinally I might not want or be able to accept vectors or altitudes required to seperate me from airline traffic.
Some may reasonably argue that the IR (either JAA or FAA) doesnt quite prepare you for that either, and an IMCr could quite easily pick up that knowledge from experienced people here, or at flying clubs, or with extra non-syllabus instructions, but it is at least 30 hours less of practical training, and the theory is basic, and I guess they just dont want us in there with those who parted much more $$ to reap the benefit.
I understand the proposed EASA Enroute Instrument Rating (EIR) may well on one hand give the additional privileges to fly in Class A without a full IR, but take away on the other hand the ability to land via a published approach. This for me is potentialy very interesting, as I would prefer the "easiest part of IFR flying", if that is granted.
It's all historical. There is very little "rational" in all this.
they just dont want us in there with those who parted much more $$ to reap the benefit.
just about sums it up though. The IR (not the CPL or the ATPL) has been used to "mark out" a professional pilot, in Europe.
The full IR doesn't teach you how to
the knowledge and training to prepare routes and file flight plans based on airways
either!
Well, they pretend they do. You sit in a classroom with some airway charts, and work out a route on the chart. The route will usually not be accepted by Eurocontrol, but that doesn't concern anybody because the system is geared to producing airline pilots whose routes will be developed and validated by their ops department. So the fact that most of the stuff you learnt is garbage is of no concern in practice.
The IMCR is a rating which different people can use to the extent which they are happy with. I always used mine fully, flying approaches to the published minima. And it enabled me to legally fly VMC on top outside the UK, without which most of my long VFR trips would not have been even attempted. But some use it just for the occassional bit of IFR; you just need to find somebody to renew it who isn't too picky. Especially if you are renting, in which case it's likely that just finding a plane that "hangs together" enough for IFR can be a challenge.
But it's the same with the JAA IR; few people go out of their way to find an IRE who is going to put them through the tumble dryer on their IR reval flight. The reval is mostly done on autopilot, with a hand flown ILS usually. Currency is not an issue on that because ILS is a popular option anyway, so the reval flight is close to the way you would fly normally anyway.
And in between the checkrides you are only as good as your currency......... and nobody is testing that, except this chap 
An argument which is often advanced for the IMCR being limited to outside Class A is that they don't want poorly trained IMCR holders mixing it with airline traffic. The reality is that you don't get anywhere near airline traffic. The spacing which IFR controllers apply between jet traffic (in terminal areas; elsewhere it is far too high to matter) and light GA is so great that most of the time one cannot tell if it's a 737 or a 747.
The training focuses on en route navigation, a little bit of additional R/T and being able to do holds and procedures with the usual collection of Navaids (though not GPS sadly).
Where does this come from....AFAIK there is no law against doing a GPS approach with an IMCR....I learned in an aircraft with a GNS430W (and current database) but sadly there were no IAPs within about 500 miles!
Where does this come from....AFAIK there is no law against doing a GPS approach with an IMCR....I learned in an aircraft with a GNS430W (and current database) but sadly there were no IAPs within about 500 miles!
When I did my IMCr I was told that the UK had not approved any GPS approaches, so you couldn't train for one...
When I did my IMCr I was told that the UK had not approved any GPS approaches, so you couldn't train for one...
That was also true when I did my IMCR in 2002 but anybody who got a new plane anytime in the preceeding 10 years or so would have had a GPS already installed.
Fortunately anybody with more than half a brain can work out how to use a GPS, without outside help
Actually flying GPS/RNAV approaches may not be trivial, in areas such as waypoint sequencing following a missed approach. But even today very few instructors will be familiar with that. I think most people fly the missed approach "as published", semi manually.
Actually flying GPS/RNAV approaches may not be trivial,
Next for me to try... although I can't do one for real in Germany, until IR sorted, there is one at my home field. Might do it simulated with an instructor for my biannual dual hour.
An argument which is often advanced for the IMCR being limited to outside Class A is that they don't want poorly trained IMCR holders mixing it with airline traffic. The reality is that you don't get anywhere near airline traffic. The spacing which IFR controllers apply between jet traffic (in terminal areas; elsewhere it is far too high to matter) and light GA is so great that most of the time one cannot tell if it's a 737 or a 747.
This doesn't make any sense. So they don't allow you to mix when flying an airway, but they do allow you to mix when flying an approach in all non-Class A CTRs.
Clearly flying an airway en-route is far easier than flying an approach which has higher workload.
Where does this come from....AFAIK there is no law against doing a GPS approach with an IMCR....
I wish I knew, and I wish it would be changed. I did an IMC flight SouthEnd the other week and took a instructor with me simply because I wanted to learn and practise using the Garmin PROC features, which I had not used in the air before. I said to the instructor I wanted to do the whole flight my way - how I would do it in real life. So I had the whole route in the FPL option set, I used GPS/OBS mode for the hold, I used the Garmin as a reference for the ILS procedure (and learnt along the way that the Garmin cunningly does hold both the CAT A,B and CAT C,D procedures seperately, albeit not marked in any useful manner), and just before I reached the end of the decsent from the beacon I flicked the Garmin into VLOC mode and flew the ILS in the traditional way. On the way back, I simply reversed the route in the Garmin. And the really great thing? - we didnt use the ADF once :-) :-)
The whole flight was simple, it was relaxed, it was enjoyable, it went very well, and I suspect the instructor had a great time too. Compare that to the IMCr training methods which AFAIK allow no use of GPS, and large portions of the flight are with sole reference to an ADF coupled with a plane that as Peter succinctly puts it, just about "hangs together".
All very well, but where does it say an IMCR holder cannot fly an RNAV (GPS) approach? Instructors up here certainly encourage the use of the 430 for enroute...and I'm sure they would also encourage (teach) GPS approaches if there were any (up here)....
Of course it is obviously silly (and possibly illegal?) to not get specific training in use of the particular unit to cope with loading/activating approaches, dealing with missed approaches etc, but surely it is available to IMCR holders...
