Why the UK is the only country with the IMC Rating

gallois wrote:

The logic would then follow that with the UK NPPL a pilot should be able to fly anywhere in the world.
Or a ULM qualified pilot with suitably equipped aircraft should be entitled to fly his/her ULM freely across international boundaries in any weather.

There seems to be a long and proven split of the aviation world into two parts: One part that is globally and/or transnationally harmonized (with all the effort, downsides, etc. that comes with that) and another part that is not (with al the benefits of much shorter/pragmatic decision cycles, etc.)

Mixing those two worlds, however, can’t and should not be done. If a states reserves the right to regulate a certain part of the industry independently and without aligning with any other state, it has to live with the fact that any other state does not agree with that regulation and therefore does not acknowledge such privileges.

gallois wrote:

Being a bit pedantic was there really an IMCR before EASA introduced it recently in order for the UK to defend its IMC rating?
The logic of what seems to be argued here is that an IMCr rating should be seen as the same as an IR to be used worldwide despite the need for a lot less training, either theory or practice.
The logic would then follow that with the UK NPPL a pilot should be able to fly anywhere in the world.
Or a ULM qualified pilot with suitably equipped aircraft should be entitled to fly his/her ULM freely across international boundaries in any weather.
I know many who would be happy with that, but whether many National aviation authorities especially the UK CAA would go for it, I very much doubt.
Incidentally one reason for the theory training must be to learn the ridiculous number of acronyms in the aviation industry. The first three or four pages in all 7 of my IR theory books is taken up with an explanation of these.
One only has to look at many of the posts here to see what I mean. No offence to Ibra but his last post contained 9 acronyms on 2.5 lines of text.

It is a fair point, but there are many sub ICAO exemptions and agreements that are recognised world wide.

Probably the best example is the USA IR which is sub ICAO in terms of theory content, but some would argue requires a higher test standard that the EASA IR. In reality I guess the IRR is not that far removed from the USA IR – the theoretical content would obvioulsy require a little more work, but probably not a lot, and of course the practical side would require more hours and a tighter tolerance. In terms of sheer effort (which does not necessarily equate to any better ulitmate pilot skills) the EASA IR is still a complete PITA compared with the US IR. Of course I dont think there is hardly any country that simply accepts the standard of another, whether or not it is fully ICAO compliant. Try and get the CAA to issue an EASA IR in the back of your FAA IR without doing any more than asking. The reverse is as equally true. The reality is most of these ratings are restricted to use in an aircraft of the State that matches the licence. That is the way it works – for good or bad.

Look no further than the number of pure GA pilots in the US that hold and IR compared with those in Europe. I suspect that tells us all we need to know, and understand before falling into the trap that one system is better than another.

For historical reasons UK had “cloud flying ratings” under BGA and RAF for gliders & military, the IMCr was an extension to that for aeroplanes and approaches, that worked pretty well due to the design of UK airspace

Not sure if other countries had similar “cloud ratings”?

The FAA IR is not sub ICAO in any way. Perhaps FTOs/CAAs with sour grapes may claim this, but it’s not true.

I did hesitte using the term sub ICAO which was not sufficiently precise. It is of course a recognised ICAO IR, as is the EASA equivalent, what I meant is that as they are entitled, countries file ICAO differences and these are often extensive. The differences are departures from the ICAO standard, but are accepted differences. If you look at the lists they are long and detailed.

i am not sure the process for differences being recognised by ICAO, and whether the more influential a member you are, the greater the chances of a difference being accpeted. Doubtless there is a process.

https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/Publications/2019-05-23-AIRAC/html/eAIP/EG-GEN-1.7-en-GB.html

This is just one example.

Fuji_Abound wrote:

If you look at the lists they are long and detailed.

The US differences list is enormous…

My favourite UK difference is that charts are provided flat rather than folded.

Vital stuff!

The US is, which was my point earlier, but the UK and EASA, arent doing too badly.

I have always wondered what it takes to get a difference agreed? Does anyone know?