Sadly I can't use it where I currently fly from
I dont know when, but when the Enroute Instrument Rating is available, that would give you some privileges you dont have outside of the UK.
Genghis,
It is kept quiet because the IMCR does not have the training or testing requirement of a full IR, so the authorities want to give the impression that safer DH and MDHs must be used, whereas it's only that they should be.
I guess that the idea is that if someone gets far enough into the game as an IMCR holder they will find out. You could argue that simply being a member of this forum, or PPL/IR Europe, demonstrates a measure of involvement which makes it safe for you to have that magic knowledge.
My understanding of the changes to the IR is that they only directly apply to PPLs. It is therefore not much of a staging route to a Frozen ATPL, as you will have to pass the full TK and meet the training requirements for that.
We in PPL/IR Europe have great hopes for the CBM IR. It was effectively our invention, and we have taken it through EASA and EU Comitology to where it is now.
If you are interested in European IFR (whether by the EASA or FAA route) please join us. We advise on training, act as a sort of advisory Ops Department, represent, lobby and suggest to EASA and also provide encouragement and goals for IFR pilots.
(Oh, I should mention that we are moving server this evening, 11th Dec, so we will be down for half an hour at some point; if you can't get through, try again 30 mnutes later.)
My understanding of the changes to the IR is that they only directly apply to PPLs.
Unless something has changed recently, the above is not correct.
The CBM IR is a full ICAO IR. Only the training process has changed compared with the existing JAA IR. And the test at the end is the same as the existing JAA IR test.
In other words, the CBM IR is not restricted to a PPL. A CPL holder can do it just the same. This was done to avoid the risk of some country deciding, one day, that the CBM IR is a "lower grade" IR and let's ban CBM IR holders from Airspace X, Airport Y, or whatever.
The price paid for eliminating that risk is that the FTOs, when they eventually wake up, will not be happy that a percentage of their customers (a small percentage IMHO, as I wrote elsewhere, but they may not see that) is going to spend a lot less money with them.
A savvy customer (probably a very small %, if my time in the GA training machine is anything to go by) could get himself a PPL, an IMCR, log 30hrs instrument time in his logbook (though I read today that somebody in EASA has replied to a query on this by saying it can be IFR time which can be in VMC i.e. on a plain PPL!!!!!), get a competent IFR mate of his to teach him the ropes and the JAA IR test protocol, and then if he really did his homework, turn up at an FTO and get the IR in 10hrs. A really well advised person could do that. And most ATPL cadets are skint, so the huge cost saving is going to be very interesting... the FTO will make a bit more out of the CPL training but that is just a load of VFR hacking, with DR nav to within 0.01 second at each waypoint, with loads of stuff like having to use an exact type of plog paper with the FTO's name on it, etc.
Yes the CPL/IR route will still involve the same 14 ATPL exams as at present but the FTOs don't make much money out of those anyway. Typically, an FTO makes a bit over £1000 out of a dedicated motivated swatter, maybe a bit more from those who need a lot of classroom time.
And this is mostly about money, not safety, because the FAA IR is just as safe as any gold plated European version.
Genghis,
It is kept quiet because the IMCR does not have the training or testing requirement of a full IR, so the authorities want to give the impression that safer DH and MDHs must be used, whereas it's only that they should be.
I guess that the idea is that if someone gets far enough into the game as an IMCR holder they will find out. You could argue that simply being a member of this forum, or PPL/IR Europe, demonstrates a measure of involvement which makes it safe for you to have that magic knowledge.
My understanding of the changes to the IR is that they only directly apply to PPLs. It is therefore not much of a staging route to a Frozen ATPL, as you will have to pass the full TK and meet the training requirements for that.
We in PPL/IR Europe have great hopes for the CBM IR. It was effectively our invention, and we have taken it through EASA and EU Comitology to where it is now.
If you are interested in European IFR (whether by the EASA or FAA route) please join us. We advise on training, act as a sort of advisory Ops Department, represent, lobby and suggest to EASA and also provide encouragement and goals for IFR pilots.
(Oh, I should mention that we are moving server this evening, 11th Dec, so we will be down for half an hour at some point; if you can't get through, try again 30 mnutes later.)
I'm sure that everything you say is true, and I'm very grateful to PPL/IR for the work you've obviously done to achieve this much needed extension which to me as a CPL/IMC holder, is of considerable value.
The problem I have is: where do I stop joining things? I'm a member of...
RAeS (Fellow) - as I'm a senior chartered aeronautical engineer, which including Aeronautical Journal, is around £400pa
IMechE (Fellow) - something similar, around £170pa (cheaper 'cos my Engineering Council fees are paid through the RAeS and I don't take any of the IMechE journals)
SETP (Member) - as I'm a Test Pilot, US$110pa
SFTE (Member) - as I started my career and still function sometimes as a Flight Test Engineer, US$55
BMAA (Member) - as I fly microlights and am an inpector and check pilot, £67pa
LAA (Member) - as they do a lot for my community, and I occasionally get involved in stuff like test flying, £48pa (would be more, but I don't own an LAA aeroplane)
So that's around £800pa in memberships - a bit of which I'll get back against tax, but not that much.
I'd love to also be a member of GAPAN and PPL/IR, but have the issue that (a) I have to draw the line somewhere, and (b) I'm not convinced that I do proper justice to my existing memberships - probably only 3 of those 6 (RAeS, SFTE and BMAA) do I really engage with the association as much as I'd prefer.
Which is why, with enormous regret, I won't be joining PPL/IR right now. But certainly not for any lack of regard for its excellent work. (And ditto GAPAN which I've had regular recommendations to join also).
A different conversation really, but as you raised it.
The USA does this a little better, as much of this comes under various branches of AOPA, but realistically, only a little better as SETP and SFTE are American and distinct from the larger AIAA, the USA still has the USUA.....
G
