gallois wrote:
The DGAC here ….. did not consider the UK IMC rating as “enough”
Ah ha!! It was the fault of the French !! 
People often try to equate flying with driving cars or riding motorbikes when discussing safety. The difference to me is that if I die in an aeroplane the chances are its because I screwed up, but if I die on the road the chances are it will be because someone else screwed up. The reason for this is that there are a whole bunch of things you personally can do to mitigate the risks involved in the air or on the roads yourself, but other people may not be doing the same thing on the road.
Regards, SD..
@skydriller yep it was the fault of the French:)
Like you I’ve known many who have suffered various injuries on motorbikes, often in cities with people throwing doors open just as they are driving past.
I’ve never known anyone (touch wood) that had a similar thing happen in flight.
France could have never adopted the IMCR because most CAS is Class D so the IMCR would have been a full IR, usable almost everywhere below FL200 (Class A above that). A French IMCR holder would have full Eurocontrol IFR privileges below FL200 and outside the Paris CAS (which itself is almost inaccessible below FL200).
And same goes for most countries in Europe.
You “simply cannot” dilute the elite pilot qualification called the Instrument Rating (which so effectively separates the men from the goats; essential to prevent pilots stalling Airbuses into the S Atlantic) with something which comes free with a 1kg corn flake packet. The “corn flake” bit is an actual quote from countless anti-IMCR people around the UK; apologies to the countries which don’t eat corn flakes for breakfast as a national institution 
So of course France and most/all other countries would have been blocking (overtly and covertly, by all available means) any ideas EASA might have had to spread the IMCR.
About 2/3 of German car drivers believe that their driving skills are above average
If these Personenkraftwagenfahrer are using the word “average” in a strictly correct sense (i.e.the arithmetic mean, rather than the median or the mode), then they may well be right. In a population of 100, it is possible for 99 to be above (or below) average.
Thanks Jacko for the common sense !
One instructor told me recently that the IMCR has a mandatory 500ft DH minimum.
This rumour has been going around for decades and was always wrong, but has it changed recently to being real?
I know the min vis is 1500m for arrival and departure (was 1800 some years ago). But again this is perhaps moot unless RVR is being reported? What is the actual wording?
One instructor told me recently that the IMCR has a mandatory 500ft DH minimum.
The 500ft DH is a ’Recommendation’ not a legal requirement.
It is perfectly legal to use published minima.
Whether one should if one was not current and competent is another matter.
U.K. ANO 2016:
An instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes) entitles the holder of the licence to act as pilot in command or co-pilot of an aeroplane flying under the Instrument Flight Rules except—
(a)in Class A airspace; or
(b)when the aeroplane is taking off or landing at any place if the flight visibility below cloud is less than 1,500 metres.
The Basic IR will have a legal 500 precision /600 non precision minima.
Worryingly, many IMC holders come out with the 500ft /600ft as a blanket standard – OCH may of course actually drive it higher, and I’ve even had some mess up the height/altitude appreciation which could be particularly lethal.
The Basic IR will have a legal 500 precision /600 non precision minima.
Do you have a definitive reference for this statement?
The UK AIP Aerodrome operating minima that you posted says the "with an absolute minima of 500ft for a precision approach and 600ft for an NPA. The recommendation was surely the additional 200ft
