IMC question

[rich49]

Non pilot question here, be gentle!
I am a bit confused by the privaliges of the PPL, Night, IMC and IR ratings.

A PPL allows you to fly VFR and IFR (but not in IMC) in all airspace apart from A, as long as you are in constant sight with the ground? What happens with a night rating then??? I take it with a PPL you can't fly above cloud?

With an IMC rating this allows you to fly IMC in all airspace apart from A? Can you fly above cloud with an IMC?

What specific privaliges does an IR give you?

Thanks for any help.

[FlyingForFun]

Yep, that's pretty much it.

All of this is specific to the UK, but to clarify a bit, in the UK:

- A PPL will let you fly almost anywhere at all, but only in VMC, and in sight of the surface, and only during the day (we'll leave the definition of "day" for another thread!)

You can fly in Class A, but only Special VFR. And Special VFR only exists in a Control Zone. There are two Class A control zones in the UK where this is useful, London and the Channel Islands. Any other Class A, you won't be able to fly in with a vanilla PPL.

- A Night Qualification extends these priveleges to the night time. Note that there is no such thing as VFR at night in the UK, all flights must be IFR. But if you just have a vanilla PPL/Night then you are still restricted to VMC, even though IFR.

- An IMC rating lets you fly in Class D airspace and below in IMC, or out of sight of the surface (i.e. above the clouds). It is only valid in the UK. Since Class C isn't used in the UK, and class B is only used for the upper airspace, for all practical purposes you are correct in saying that it is valid in all airspace except class A, but that's not how it's actually defined. (And I suppose, theoretically, you might one day fly something which is capable of reaching Class B, in which case there is a practical difference.)

In addition to this, IMC holders have recommended minima for instrument approaches which are much higher than those for an IR. Although these limits are just recommendations, I don't think you'll find any non-IR holders who will ever go below these limits.

- An IR lets you fly in IMC in all airspace. It is recognised internationally. The recommended limits on approaches are also removed, so you can fly the approach to the limits of that particular approach.

That's a brief summary, lots of details missing, but should be enough for most practical purposes. Hope it helps.

FFF
-----------------

[rich49]

Ok thanks for your help. If I held an IMC but NOT a night rating, would I be able to fly at night as well or would I have to hold a night rating?
Thanks.

[strafer]

FFF,

you're always a source of interesting and worthwhile information and very helpful to people who ask questions on this forum - but please stop using the word vanilla.

(Unless of course somebody starts a thread about soft-scoop Cornish ice cream). ;)

[2Donkeys]

The IMC rating does not give night privileges.

[shortstripper]

I must have a Rum and Raisin PPL .... dunno why? but I like flying and I like Rum and Raisin .... so there! :E

[tmmorris]

I think I'm right in saying that you must have a night qualification before starting IMC training.

Tim

[Evo]

I think I'm right in saying that you must have a night qualification before starting IMC training.


I don't think so. If you do, nobody told me... :)

[Fly Stimulator]

That may be a bit of confusion caused by the fact that holders of the old Night Rating "may be exempt from 3 hours of the flying instruction" according to LASORS. I believe that this is because the Night Rating included instrument training which is not part of today's Night Qualification syllabus.

So, it is a potential concession, rather than a pre-requisite, but not even that for Night Qualification holders.

[scottish_ppl]

On a slightly different topic does anyone know what minimum level of equipment is needed in an aircraft do an IMC?

I believe there's no need for a Public C of A to do this rating in your own aircraft?

[Evo]

I believe that there is no restriction on what you can train in (although, for example, if you trained in a permit aeroplane you would have to remain in VMC at all times) - however, there is a minimum equipment list required for the test itself (it's in Standards Document 25, notes for the IMC skills test, in LASORS).

[FlyingForFun]

Strafer, I agree that I'm always a source of information, although I'm not so sure that it's necessarilly interesting or worthwhile! :O

However, point taken about the use of the word "vanilla" - I think it comes from having been working in banking for far too long. From now on, a PPL with no other ratings will be known as "strawberry". And, especially for shortstripper, we'll call it "rum & raisin" once you add ratings to it. Everyone happy now? :D :D :D

FFF
----------------

[strafer]

FFF, it's a good plan.

Strafer (currently Kwik Save own brand Strawberry but wannabe Haagen Daz Double Chocolate).

[Pianorak]

FFF quote: << . . . However, point taken about the use of the word "vanilla" - I think it comes from having been working in banking for far too long.>>

What is the connection between banking and vanilla? Just curious.
And yes, your comments are always interesting and worthwhile. (grovel, grovel ;) ;))

[Keef]

Scottish PPL

There are regulations relating to the aircraft used for training: it has to be on a Public Transport C of A, or you have to be the sole owner if it's on a Private Cat.

It's different again, I understand, for NPPL and microlights but I don't know the rules for those.

For IMC training, it has to have at least a basic IFR fit - see LASORS for details.

I've always been in groups with "airways equipped" aircraft, and wouldn't seriously consider IFR flight with anything less (although the 75 MHz marker receiver doesn't get a lot of use in this country these days).

[Justiciar]

On a slightly different topic does anyone know what minimum level of equipment is needed in an aircraft do an IMC?

If you mean to train, then the answer is ADF, DME, VOR and ILS.

To use the privileges of the rating you need an ILS to do an instrument approach(fairly obviously); if you are in controlled airspace you must have all the above, and they must be FM immune. This means that outside of class D you can fly IFR and do instrument approaches using non FM immune kit. To fly IFR outside controlled airspace you do not need ADF/DME etc but it would be sensible to have it. You must carry Turn and Slip, AI. DI, VSI, Altimeter and a clock with second hand.

[FlyingForFun]

Pianorak - thanks!

The banking connection is to do with the complexity of a trade. A "vanilla" trade is a very basic trade where a client might buy some options. The client will phone the trader, and the trader will read the price off a computer screen. As opposed to an "exotic" trade where they might do a deal involving options in a number of different stocks with some complex interaction between them. For this type of deal, the complexities need to be analyzed and a price calculated based on how much risk is involved. At least I think that's how it works - to an IT person like me it just means I have more numbers to look after for an exotic trade than I do for a vanilla one!

I used to hate the word "vanilla" when I first came across it. Now I find myself using it without even thinking about it. :uhoh:

FFF
-----------

[tmmorris]

Justiciar




To use the privileges of the rating you need an ILS to do an instrument approach(fairly obviously)

Well, not if it's an NDB, VOR, VDF, SRA, PAR or (do they really exist?) MLS approach, obviously...

Tim

[Pianorak]

FFF, thanks – Right, got it now. Like PA28-140 = vanilla; PA34-200T = complex. :ok: :O

[Evo]

Justiciar - to get an IMC you have to demonstrate two approaches, one of which must use a pilot-interpreted aid (i.e you cannot do both a SRA and PAR approach). You don't have to do an ILS approach to get an IMC. The minimum radio-nav fit is in effect one VOR or ADF.

[mr_flydive]

I've had two opinions on teaching IMC on a Private C.o.A a/c

One from my CFI and one from the CAA

Yes you can teach it & charge for it too!. Get out and do it.

If it is ab inito training you can't teach for an IMC rating even if you don't charge (even if you belong to the same group/syndicate), but you can keep pilots current skills up to standard.

You can guess which was which.:hmm: :confused:

[Justiciar]

o get an IMC you have to demonstrate two approaches

In fact you only have to demonstrate one approach - you have to have recorded one other type in your log book - at least thats how my examiner interpreted the rules.

Well, not if it's an NDB, VOR, VDF, SRA, PAR or (do they really exist?) MLS approach, obviously...

In fact, the one piece of equipment specified under Schedule 5 of the ANO is: "Radio navigation equipment capable of enabling the aircraft to make an approach to landing using the Instrument Landing System". This is required when: "making an approach to landing at an aerodrome notified for the purpose of this sub-paragraph". NDB/VOR etc is only required when flying in controlled airspace, which for practical purposes for IMC rated pilots means class D. It is not required in Classes F and G, ie Uncontrolled airspace.

You can train on a group owned aircraft provided it has public CofA since the training comes within the definition of "Aerial Work".
I don't think you can pay to be trained on an aircraft with a Private CofA, because this is still aerial work, which is not covered on the private category.

"Subject to the provisions of this article, aerial work means any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight." S130(1) ANO:ok:

[Evo]

In fact you only have to demonstrate one approach - you have to have recorded one other type in your log book - at least thats how my examiner interpreted the rules.


So that's two approaches then... :rolleyes: ;)

[Justiciar]

So that's two approaches then..

yessssssss.... But only one in the exam:cool:

[foxmoth]

And to exercise the privaleges you do not need ANY radio/nav eqpt. - ie climb up through cloud outside CAS (using your IMC privaleges) and let down the same - If the cloudbase is high enough you do not need to do an approach anywhere, but you HAVE used your IMC rating.:ok:

[IO540]

Are you people sure that there is a requirement for equipment for a plane used to TRAIN the IMC Rating, with an instructor acting as a safety pilot, with the flight taking place in VMC?

I did my IMCR is several planes; one had a working ADF (and was used for NDB holds) but the DME didn't work so if doing an NDB/DME approach the instructor held a handheld GPS (purchased from a camping shop in the USA for $100, he was very proud of it) and called out the numbers. Another had a working VOR so that was used for VOR tracking. None of them had working instrument/exterior lights (the bulbs blew years before) so could not be used for training after sunset.

I finally finished my IMCR in my own plane on which everything worked; the only such plane (out of a dozen or more) I ever flew in.

Also I would speculate that while there is definitely a requirement for IMC flight in CAS (VOR/DME/ADF etc etc) this may not apply as fully for IMC flight outside CAS. A transponder may not then be required for example. Anyone without an XP in IMC is nuts but that's another story...

[foxmoth]

Quite agree, you could even do some in a Tiger Moth for example - but this would be restricted to the limited panel part of the sylabus cos that is all you have got:uhoh:

[noblues]

Anyone know where I can find the limits for an IMC .... both test limits and where IMC recommended minimum are published ?

[2Donkeys]

The 1800m limitation (vis required for take-off and landing) is published in Schedule 8 of the ANO, where the rating is defined.

The ceiling limits are published in the AIP, under the Aerodromes-General section AD 1.1.2. (Section 3.3.2)

Whereas most people are clear about the 1800m rule, the ceiling rules seem to cause confusion, with many people believing they are advisory only.

The advisory aspect is the advice to add 200 to the IR minima for a precision approach. However there is an "absolute minimum" for the DH of 500 feet. Similarly the "absolute minimum" for a non-precision approach is 600 feet.

My understanding is that these "Absolute Minima" are, as the name implies, legally binding.

Hope this helps.

2D

[bookworm]

Since this one just cam up in another place...

3.3.2 says Pilots with a valid IMC Rating are recommended to add 200ft to the minimum applicable DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500ft for a precision approach and 600ft for a non-precision approach.

The COED says 'absolute' means:
1 complete, perfect
2 pure
3 unrestricted, independent
4 not in usual grammatical relation
5 not relative or comparative; unqualified, unconditional

It's pretty clear to me that in the passage above 'absolute' means 'not relative [to the minimum applicable DH/MDH]'. It still appears to be a recommendation.

Additionally, the wording dates from before the days in which any AOM where mandatory for a private flight. The idea that a licence-privilege limitation would appear in the AOM section of the Air Pilot would have been absurd.

Finally, at the risk of seeming even more pedantic than usual, I'd point out that these are DH/MDH calculation, and not 'ceiling minima'. You may have a ceiling lower than this and get in, just as you may well have a higher ceiling but not get visual reference at the DH/MDH.

Single-engine aircraft flown for public transport do have a minimum celing for take-off.

[2Donkeys]

Two points then:

Firstly, my reading of "absolute minima" was of the unconditional flavour - case 5.

The reasons for choosing to read it that way is, as bookworm is aware, the phrase absolute minima has a very clear meaning in the context of landing minima off IAPs. I read this as imposing just such "absolute minima" on IMC-rated pilots, albeit for different reasons. It is inconceivable to me that even the CAA would rely on two different meanings of the phrase "absolute minima" in two such related contexts.

Secondly, I am not convinced that the grammar of the sentence implies that the absolute minima are in some way a recommendation, the use of the word BUT implies a division between the recommendation and the requirement.


This does risk becoming one of those debates along the lines of the IMC rated pilots out of sight of surface outside the UK. Perhaps having lit the blue touchpaper it is time to retire to a safe distance. "The Volunteer" sounds appealing doesn't it bookworm :D:D

2D

[Evo]

I presume that this is an issue that will only be resolved if the CAA clarify the ANO or decide to take an IMC holder to court?

[2Donkeys]

Indeed. Whereas the vis restriction is cut and dried, and might well result in legal action in the event of an investigation, decision height minima do appear to be cloudy :D

[bookworm]

The reasons for choosing to read it that way is, as bookworm is aware, the phrase absolute minima has a very clear meaning in the context of landing minima off IAPs. I read this as imposing just such "absolute minima" on IMC-rated pilots, albeit for different reasons. It is inconceivable to me that even the CAA would rely on two different meanings of the phrase "absolute minima" in two such related contexts.

Interesting point I hadn't considered. Nevertheless, I think the two uses of the phrase do come from very different places, and the one in the AIP predates the other by at least two decades.

The absolute minima term that you're thinking of is not one that occurs in AD 1.1.2 (even in the Approach Ban section), or the ANO, but rather in MATS Part 1 (SI 02/2001). I'm intrigued that it is surrounded by scare quotes there! However, I would still argue that absolute is not, even in this context, equivalent to mandatory. Mandatory minima may be considerably higher than the absolute minima mentioned there. But it does mean unconditional or not relative.

The phrase occurs on another occasion in the AIP AD 1.1.2:

9.1.2 Precision approaches, ILS and PAR, for which the absolute minimum is 200 ft above touchdown elevation, are normally based on a 3 degree glidepath.

Again it's clear that absolute is not equivalent to mandatory, as the mandatory minima may be dictated by the OCH/A.

But as you say, it's a conversation for a beer, particularly for anyone with an IR-SPA-ME :D.

[Phil Rigg]

Apologies for the brief diversion within the thread but my first IMC rating 25-month renewal is due in May 2004 and I wanted to know what is the earliest I can take my renewal flight test and keep my May renewal date? I have looked in LASORS 2004 and it seems to cover everything other than the maximum permitted lead time for a renewal! I know for most other ratings its 3 months but thought it starnge I couldn't find a definitive statement under the IMC rating renewal section.

Thanks,

Phil

[RodgerF]

Phil,

The validity of an IMC rating is always 25 months from the date of test. As it is a national rating the JAA rules don't apply. You can do the test at any time but you will only get 25 months validity. So to reduce your long term expense, do it as close to the expiry date as you can.

R

[IO540]

However many PPLs will prefer to save time and money by doing both their IMCR renewal and their PPL renewal in one flight.

As the PPL lasts 24 months but the IMCR lasts 25 months, one is always going to waste a month on the latter.

[DFC]

The IMC minima are a bit confusing even to many instructors who teach it.

The 500ft precision and 600ft non-precision limits are absolute. The IMC rated pilot when calculating the appropriate minima for the approach can not use a DH of less than 500ft or an MDH of less than 600ft. The minimum visibility in all cases (take-off as well as precision, non-precision and visual approaches) is 1800m.

As well as causing confusion among pilots along with making the calculation of DH/MDH more complicated, the CAA have it seems allowed IMC rated pilots to use lower minima in the more demanding situation.

To explain this - Airfield X is in open level country and the NDB/DME approach has a published MDH of 300ft. The IMC adds 200ft to get 500ft but must add on a further 100ft to get the absolute minima of 600ft - very safe indeed.

However, Airfield Y is located in mountainous terrain with many obstacles and a tricky NDB only approach with an MDH of 800ft. Since this is equal to the absolute minima of 600ft, the IMC pilot can either add 200ft as recomended OR use the IR minima of 600ft.

More dangerous however is the fact that someone may try in error to use 600ft!!

Far far better for the CAA to simply state that IMC rated pilots must add 300ft to the IR minima. Then they can never use the IR minima.

The CAA has also made no allowance for PPLs flying faster aircraft than cat A.

A further gotya is the rule which says an IMC holder can not take-off or land when the visibility is less than 1800m. The VFR minimum visibility in class G for an IMC holder is 1500m. Thus, the IMC holder can fly VFR enroute through 1000 miles of class G in 1500m visibility but can not land at the destination until the visibility improves to 1800m. :sad:

Regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

DFC

I think the absurdity that you point out in calculation of MDH only serves to support the view that "absolute" is used in contrast to the relative or incremental figures in the previous part of the sentence, not as a synonym for "mandatory" in contrast to "recommended".

[bluskis]

IO540

Depends how many engines you are carrying!