Why the UK is the only country with the IMC Rating

The IMCR was carefully structured to keep “amateurs” out of the “professionals’ airspace”

But to be a “professional” you need at least a CPL?
You can have a IR without a CPL.
Or a CPL without an IR.

En-route IFR or VFR flying is not hard.
Either way, there’s no justification for all the en-route Class A. :)

James_Chan wrote:

Either way, there’s no justification for all the en-route Class A. :)

There is for CAA. It is their fiefdom.

James_Chan wrote:

I would have thought Canada, Greenland, Iceland and some of the Scandinavian countries with similar climates may have also wanted something similar? Or did they feel an ICAO-complaint IR is enough?

Peter wrote:

But [the IMCr] would not be politically accepted in any country where there is little or no Class A. In Europe, only UK and Italy have lots of Class A.

I think the reason is rather that historically the UK has had a strict division between “airways” and “non-airways” which has not been the case in most other European countries. Certainly not in Scandinavia.

My impression is that not only has the UK IMCr been more accessible than the IR, but the UK IR has been less accessible than in other countries. In other words, the UK used a two-sided approach to keep “rabble” out of the airways, both by making the IR difficult and making the IMCr simple

I did the IR twice, first the (Swedish) pre-EASA IR in 1997 and then the (traditional) EASA IR in 2014. Both training and checkride was pretty oriented towards practical IFR flying and had none of such things as the UK NDB fetish. (The first time I heard of the famous “gate” in flying holds was when I joined PPL/IR. There was nothing like that when I took the IR, even in 2014.)

Airborne_Again wrote:

I think the reason is rather that historically the UK has had a strict division between “airways” and “non-airways” which has not been the case in most other European countries. Certainly not in Scandinavia.

I dont think so.

I think the IMCr came about because there was a never a restriction that prevented pilots operating in IM conditions in the UK. Indeed in the 50s and before this was common I gather. In their wisdom the CAA felt there needed to be some official basis to enable pilots to do what they were doing, so the IMC rating came to pass. Of course it would have been deeply unpopular to take away the privilge entirely, or to replace it with a full IR, which was even by then a step beyond the ability of many pilots (for one reason or another). In short it was a pragmatic solution to some tightening of licencing, without upsetting too many pilots. You also have to remember that back then the CAA actually took account of private pilots who were still very influencial, and, in any event, commercial aviation was still in primary school. I am not sure why it only happened in the UK – perhaps there was less private GA in Europe, or perhaps private GA in Europe rarely operated in IM conditions?

Doubtless some on here will know?

It is not quite true to say the UK is unique. Australia operates a similiar half way house to a full IR, although of course they dont call it as such.

I’d suggest that the reason may be that the UK has the same language and historically closer awareness of FAA practice, in which the IR is intended for anybody, attainable by anybody who needs it, and in which airliners have no priority real or perceived over other traffic. That, coupled with poor weather and lots of light aircraft led to the UK coming up with their own approach to achieve a similar end, while still keeping light aircraft ‘out of the way’ of what was then (in 1969) at least partially a government run UK airline system with perceived priority and the motivation to preserve a reserved system of low level Class A airspace (‘airways‘ in that era) to match.

Peter wrote:

Peter
30-Jun-20 16:14
15

The original Q I posed is worth looking at. Why the UK?

in countries with little GA there is no pressure to do anything in countries with a high level of “social compliance” the ICAO IR is accepted as the “correct way”; also perhaps “VFR in IMC” is frowned upon, while in the UK it is normal in countries with good wx, VFR is good enough, especially if most don’t fly long legs or internationally if your CAA doesn’t care about GA, nothing will happen if most GA is UL, nothing can happen because IFR is illegal anyway

The UK is perhaps the country with

the most cloud a busy GA community a lack of obedience of authority a historically supportive CAA a mostly certified aircraft population

The IMCR arrived in 1969, which is interesting too.

I would suggest it was entirely for the historical reasons I gave in my previous post in so far as the UK was concerned. I think it had more to do with the commonly adopted practice before, which it would then have been difficult to outlaw by insisting everyone had a full IR. Moreover, the UK has a solid history of some form of grand fathering rights, and I think, (but am not sure) there was also grand fathering into the IMCr when it was first introduced. Of course, even back then, grand fathering into a full IR would have been difficult or unachievable with ICAO interested parties. You also needed to recall that back then it was common for GA pilots to fly T and G’s at Gatwick, indeed very different times, although its funny how it comes around, we are back flying into Gatwick for a sensible fee, because they have so little traffic and are delighted for the business.

You also have to remember that converting to a full IR was a great deal easier if you had an IMCr that it is even after the latest changes – which of course are now thought to be radical.

I hasten to add this was before my time (the introduction of the IMCr that is) but I knew a few who were around at that time. The stories are fascinating.

i also seem to recall talk of a cloud rating before the IMCr that involved on a practical assessment.

I wonder if the BIR will become EASA’s IMC rating in practice…

Flat land…

Eh? Really? In all of the UK?

The same as asking why only Switzerland and France have MOU ratings

Italy and Spain and Austria and Germany all had mountain ratings/qualifications before the EASA MOU rating. Arguably, these ratings had and have as much to do with officious control-freakery as local topography.