IMC, IR, EIR - past, present and future?

By Jim Thorpe - a personal view 

The issue of the future of the IMC rating has caused a huge amount of controversy, much of it based on misconceptions. This is an attempt to give a balanced account of the development and future of instrument flying for the private pilot. It’s rather long but this is a complicated and important story. I have tried to differentiate throughout between facts, likely outcomes and personal opinions. The views are my own and are not in any way official.

For simplicity the CAA did not define approach minima for the IMC holders. They recommended an added 300ft to individual airfield minima published in the Air Pilot with a non-precision absolute minimum of 600ft or the visual manoeuvring height, whichever was greater. These published minima were themselves recommendations. You can see how, when minima later became statutory, the current bizarre position emerged. The privileges of the IMC are to fly in exactly the same weather conditions as the IR except for a visibility restriction of 1,800 metres. On the other hand the CAA advice is not to use the privileges granted but rather to treat it as what became known as a ‘get out of trouble’ rating. This advice evolved to adding 200ft to published minima with absolute minima of 500ft for precision approaches and 600ft for non-precision approaches.

Thus pilots with 15 hours training, possibly from an instructor whose own experience is quite limited, are accorded effectively the same privileges within the UK as pilots who are deemed to require about 50 hours of training within an approved organisation. IMC holders operate in the lower levels with worse weather, generally flying a less capable aircraft. They have less comprehensive ATC services and use airfields with fewer facilities. Often they have little chance to stay current and are subject to less frequent renewal checks than holders of the IR.

It is not hard to see that this seems rather irrational if you live anywhere else in the world since no other country has seen a requirement for an IMC like rating. On the other hand it must be said that the IMC has in practice continued to generate few problems and is well liked. It is argued that there is a safety benefit but I can find no credible evidence to support this. The data is pretty inadequate with no record of hours flown and often no record of the licence held by pilots involved in accidents or incidents. One might argue polar opposites. It encourages partly trained pilots to enter conditions that they cannot cope with or it enables pilots to avoid situations which would have been dangerous if they had not held the rating. The CAA itself has been somewhat schizophrenic in its reaction to the IMC. In 1995, after a high profile GA fatality blamed on IMC induced overconfidence, the CAA went public with its concerns. A spokesman said that ‘We came to the conclusion that the IMC rating is not very satisfactory. We did not like the content, testing or revalidation at only 25 months.’ The outcome then was a proposal for the IWR, the Instrument Weather Rating. This was intended to be a 20 hour course with similar, but mandatory, privileges to the IMC. The time would have counted towards the full IR. In the event history repeated itself and this proposal did not find favour.

On the basis of the only two surveys of IMC holders of which I am aware, it is evident that IMC holders do indeed value the rating and that the vast majority use it in the ‘get out of trouble’ mode. A minority, for example PPL instructors, use it to recover in mild IMC to known airfields and only a tiny minority use its full privileges for travelling some distance in IMC intending to land using an instrument approach procedure at a possibly unfamiliar destination.

Much mythology has grown up about this test but what is undoubtedly true is that it is more structured and consistent than most tests worldwide. Not necessarily better or harder, just more consistent. With the advent of the JAA, the IR requirements evolved into the onerous process we have today with extensive theoretical knowledge (TK) exams and 50 hours flying with Approved Training Organisations (ATOs). It is a fact that the JAA system was not based on the needs of an instrument pilot. It represented the training hours remaining after the time for other elements of the full time cadet ATPL course had been allocated. This lead to a perception that much of the TK syllabus was useless to a private pilot, that the dual instruction in an ATO was excessive and that the flight test was archaic and unnecessarily demanding.

The US has always been considered a Mecca for the private pilot leading to more IR myths taking root amongst the facts. Some considered that an FAA IR was like an IMC. Others believed that the FAA IR was entirely comparable to, or even harder than a CAA IR. Almost all believed it was more relevant to the real world of PPL instrument flying. As best I can judge, the truth is that they are comparable but different. The FAA TK is certainly more attainable and relevant, and is offered in convenient ways through distance learning and online exams. While only 15 hours training with an instructor is compulsory for an FAA IR (indeed the ICAO minimum is even less at 10 hours) the reality is that most pilots training in the US take the same 40 or so hours to attain test standards as in the UK. It is true that training and testing standards are far more variable in the US than the UK and while I have come across no evidence of outright corruption, it is almost certainly possible to get an ‘easy’ IR. That said it is definitely currently possible to get an ‘easy’ IR in at least one country in Europe. Variability and laxity seem obviously unwise in an activity with such an obvious potential for disastrous outcomes. Surprisingly, as far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the accident rates of pilots trained anywhere in what one might loosely call the developed world differ greatly. Perhaps fear and a desire for self preservation kick in. This cocktail of myth and reality has meant that a large number of aircraft in Europe are operated on the N register by pilots holding the FAA IR. Again there is no evidence of a measurable impact on safety.

In my view the only convincing arguments the UK could deploy for the IMC relate to the general benefits of additional training and the complexity of the IR. This complexity drives the very large discrepancy between the proportion of PPL holders with an IR in the US and Europe. Data is not good but the proportion is perhaps of the order of 30% in the US and 5% in Europe. This was undesirable and decreased the utility value of light aircraft and the freedom of citizens to travel. Utility is a strong argument in the EEC where free movement of goods and people is a fundamental concept. The UK IMC was a reasonable response to this situation and had produced a rating which was popular and which, at the very least, did not have an adverse impact on safety.

Here it is necessary to outline briefly the make-up of such “expert groups”, as they are known. Keep in mind there are almost 30 countries and numerous sectional interests to balance. Recommendations for membership originate from two EASA standing committees. GA representatives are put forward via Europe Air Sports (EAS) who have a place on one of the standing committees. PPL/IR Europe is the only member of EAS representing powered flight. We lobbied hard since we believed we were one of the few organisations with specialist knowledge. Private instrument flying has always been an activity which has fallen uncomfortably between the wider GA interest and the interests of commercial aviation. Indeed this inability to have our interests represented elsewhere was one of the key reasons why PPL/IR Europe came into being. Being something of an aviation nut, I have acquired a fair portfolio of evidence of pain and expense with a JAA CPL IR, FI, IRI, CRI and a couple of type ratings plus an FAA CPL IR. I operate from a grass strip and have worked in maintenance and engine rebuild companies and held an AOC. This enabled me to fill a few boxes on the CV and I was offered a place. One rather awkward EASA rule is that group membership is personal and substitution is not allowed. This does facilitate the work of groups dealing with complex and detailed topics and it means commitment to spending ten or twelve days in Cologne on unknown dates, up to a year ahead. This made it impossible for anyone in full time employment and, having recently retired, I was able to take on the task.

Of these ten people, eight hold instrument ratings and only one is not a PPL holder. Two are IR examiners and one is an air traffic controller as well as a voluntary instructor and examiner. Several others are instructors. The group is also dealing with another UK anomaly, glider flying in and near cloud, not considered here. It is therefore pretty unarguable that there is a considerable concentration of expertise. Three members are from the UK, two French, three German, one Dutch and one Dane. Overall the representation might be considered quite favourable from a UK and GA perspective. In fact when the group actually met I was delighted to find that every member was open to ideas. There was general agreement that it was unacceptable that so few European private pilots held instrument ratings. There was absolutely no need to argue from first principles as I had expected. Rumour had it that the European professional pilots were very aggressive in defending what they regard as ‘their airspace’; however in reality their French representative on the group, while having real concerns and a different perspective, was very fair and open minded in working towards solutions for each specific issue.

The meetings opened with an invitation to present papers outlining various aspects of the existing situation and any proposals the members chose to bring. The convention is that, once appointed, group members do not represent a sectional interest but act as individual experts. I, perhaps naively, had taken this seriously. When appointed I had arranged to visit the CAA, the LAA, AOPA and the BGA and also held an open meeting in London. My aim had been to be as inclusive as possible and garner suggestions as to how the IMC might fit into the European airspace structure. While there were many expressions of support for the IMC there were absolutely no suggestions forthcoming as to how this might work.

The only people offering to work towards some credible proposals were PPL/IR Europe members. We did a study on the distribution of airspace classes throughout Europe and tried to develop a range of solutions. We wrote several draft proposals and in the event all but one of the IR related papers presented to the first meeting emerged from this work. The CAA argued for something based on the existing proposal for a ten hour basic instrument flight module. This has always struck me as a concept of limited appeal as it carries no privileges and, in effect, is just the first few hours of the current IR syllabus. Consideration was also given to the UK IMC and unsurprisingly it was soon apparent that it was unworkable and unacceptable outside the UK. In the context of designing a new system for PPL access to instrument flying it was obvious that a truly accessible IR on FAA lines was the key issue and the place to start detail consideration.

There was more difficulty with the flying training as the basic EASA concept is to vest authority in approved organisations, unlike the FAA system where individual instructors have authority. A compromise was reached in which the course is a mix of experience, training with a qualified instructor and training within an ATO prior to the initial skills test. The mix is entirely ICAO compliant with the ATO element being the ICAO minimum of 10 hours. Please understand this does not mean that the average person can or should get an IR with 10 hours training as it will still take the vast majority of candidates much longer. However, it will not be arbitrary but related to what is needed to reach the test standard. We felt that the current standards are entirely appropriate to the skills instrument pilots need but they could be delivered in a flexible manner. It is vital to emphasise that this is not some lesser IR. The skill test remains identical for all applicants whether they are commercial or private pilots. There are just various ways in which candidates can acquire the necessary competence.

EASA has few non-negotiable requirements but, as the European legal system builds, later rules and privileges have to be consistent with earlier decisions. This meant that licence privileges could not be defined in terms of airspace classes, and any rating would be valid in any class of airspace, including Class A. The group also considered it desirable that experience and training for the EIR (five hours with an instructor, ten in an ATO) would count should the candidate later decide to carry on and gain a full EASA IR. Partly because of this, the group decided that an EIR would require the same TK as a full IR. The pilots will share the same airspace and need knowledge so nearly identical to the full IR that creating separate exams was not warranted. The benefit is that a pass in TK acquired as part of EIR will, assuming an EIR is issued and kept current, be valid for seven years. This gives pilots plenty of time to decide if they wish to upgrade from an EIR to the full IR so the processes are fully ‘joined up’.

Returning to the ‘EASA level’ it is possible for a national airworthiness authority to make what is known as an equivalent safety case for national variations. The CAA representative on the FCL.008 group commented that such variations would only be possible for those holding an EASA rating such as the EIR and even then only as a transitional arrangement. This is a very important point to understand for those who have mistakenly regarded the EIR as an IMC replacement. Firstly, the EIR is not intended as an IMC replacement and, secondly, the EIR is the only basis on which a safety case might be made for some IMC-like privileges in the UK for existing IMC holders.

There is not the slightest chance of basing any equivalent safety case on the relationship between the IMC and a full IR. Thus only the holder of an EIR could possibly be the beneficiary of any grandfather rights. Whatever its privileges in the UK, the EIR would remain a European rating with Europe wide privileges.

Because of this my personal view is that it would be appropriate for an IMC holder to take the TK exam. The IMC has a limited theory element and what there is has a practical UK focus and is administered at the PPL level within the flying schools. If this is what is decided I don’t expect IMC holders to be pleased but the knowledge is important and the effort required proportionate to the privileges on offer.

As regards flying skills my opinion would be that IMC holders should do an assessment flight in an ATO and subsequent training as determined by the ATO in order to meet the skill test standard. In some cases this might be very little or even zero. In others, the full 15 hours training might be needed. This seems to me unarguable and anyway anything less is unlikely to be acceptable in Europe. For that minority of IMC holders who are highly experienced and have been using their rating for hard IFR flight then my advice is to go for the full IR. The minimum training is modest and the TK requirement identical. Those who are less experienced or who have used their rating more in the ‘get out of trouble’ fashion do not lose out greatly. All the training they take will be valid if, at a later stage having built experience, they go on to the full IR.

The CAA has understandably been unwilling to give any formal statement as to its intentions before EASA publishes the NPA. However it has been very helpful informally in responding to a request for clarification of the legal position. The indication is that the only mechanism available to it is Article 14 of the basic EASA regulation. EASA has given some hints that it would give any equivalent safety case presented under the provisions of this article favourable consideration. To my non-expert eye, using Article 14 to bolt on time-limited IMC privileges to an EIR goes beyond its apparent intent. However I guess anything is possible if the CAA and EASA are in accord. I certainly feel that some method of allowing existing IMC holders to retain their current privileges within the UK while holding a current EIR would take a lot of the heat out of the situation and be a good way of ensuring an orderly transition.

An alternative route involves a process by which EASA accepts a third country - in this case FAA - qualification allowing them to continue to fly N registered aircraft within Europe. The current proposals for the acceptance of third country licences are set out in Annex 3 to the EASA Implementing Regulations which have been in place for some time. This only applies if you are a European resident. If you are a US citizen flying in Europe then you do not have a problem. For all those who think it possible to work round residence rules then I suggest that decades of taxation law has meant that for most people it won’t work. If you swim in the pond and quack, it’s hard to argue you are not a duck. I am sure there will be lots of clever schemes suggested and maybe, if you operate a very expensive aircraft, the cost and effort is worthwhile but I doubt it.

Since I was on the spot, I was asked by the legal department at EASA to give my personal opinion as both the owner of an N registered aircraft and an FAA licence holder. Firstly, I suggested that any acceptance of e.g. an FAA qualification should be permanent and not annual as in the current proposals. Secondly, I suggested that the TK differences could be dealt with by an oral examination as part of a skill test rather than doing some of the exams as presently proposed. There is also a requirement for 100 hours of instrument time which seemed reasonable. One does not want to open up anything which might be seen as bypassing an EASA IR and generating vigorous protectionist opposition from professional pilots. You are more likely to get draft legislation amended if you keep the alterations to a minimum. The above has no status whatsoever. It’s entirely up to EASA how they proceed. All I can say is that I was given a good hearing and the ideas seemed to meet with serious consideration.

A copy of Roger Dunn’s IMC, possibly the first and certainly one of the earliest IMC ratings ever issued is shown. Roger has spent the best part of thirty years representing pilot’s interests in far from favourable circumstances. More recently Paul Draper has spent four or five years building on the foundations laid down by Roger, spreading the influence of PPL/IR Europe through steady work, year after year, on representative bodies in the UK and Europe while these bodies have only gradually became receptive to change. In particular, he represented us with Europe Air Sports and it was this connection that enabled me to gain a place on FCL.008. All the committee and indeed some members have helped in less visible ways but I will mention Vasa Babic with his particular skill in analysis and an ability to get to the heart of lengthy and less than crystal clear documents.

What we need now is for every member to do their bit over the next 12 to 18 months. Take a few minutes to explain the reality to other pilots who believe all the negative rubbish to be found on PPRuNe and elsewhere. These changes have the potential to drive an enormous upsurge in interest in instrument flying. It helps in our negotiations with the CAA, NATS and others. To be fair these bodies are far more open than ever before but if we expect them to do things to help us, we have to show that the volume of users makes their efforts worthwhile. We have to show airfields that there is enough GA usage to make it in their interests to provide decent access and handling services at a fair price. We need you to participate in our future efforts to make mainland Europe more aware of the potential that is opening up.

As a group we have more experience of what is possible than anyone else. PPL/IR Europe will be producing material in several languages and doing lots of practical work to show how a new rating structure could be used to best advantage. Most important of all, when the NPA is published towards the end of 2010, we need to do our best to encourage lots of positive response to balance the inevitable negativity. It is human nature for the dissatisfied to be noisy and the satisfied to remain silent. GA has many opponents in the wider aviation world and we have failed lamentably to speak with one voice or at least to coordinate and minimise our differences. Let’s see if on this occasion we can help EASA steer these excellent proposals through to implementation and make going places IFR a really practical proposition for many more people.

Comparison of knowledge and training requirements for existing and proposed instrument ratings