Imc Before Cpl?

[blagger]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but.... I am not too far away from completing my CPL groundschool and thinking of finally getting around to getting my IMC rating done. However, reading LASORS it seems that you could do the CPL course then do another 5hrs training + flight test and get CPL and IMC that way. Would save 10hrs training, but I'm thinking it is still better to do IMC first to get the experience/standards up before CPL anyway. Any thoughts anyone?

(ps. I'm aiming for CPL+FI+IMC eventually)

[FlyingForFun]

Where in LASORS does it say that? Can't find it anywhere, and haven't heard it before.....

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

[blagger]

It's in Section E3.4 - page 12 of section E in 2005 LASORS under bold heading UK National Professional Aeroplane Licence Holders (is another heading JAR-FCL ...... just down from that one but I think they forgot to put that in bold).

[BEagle]

blagger, that refes to the old UK CPL which had IMC Rating privileges included. The UK-issued JAR-FCL CPL(A) does NOT include those privileges - you will need to pass the IMC Rating Flight Test if you wish to add a national IMC Rating to a UK-issued JAR-FCL CPL(A).

Another casualty of eurocracy, I'm afraid!

[crap pilot]

Couldnt you use the instrament time done during CPL(10 hours IIRC) as credit towards the IMC?

[no sponsor]

It all depends on what type of flying you want. The CPL is a out-dated and waste of time course, and as long as you've had a good grounding in the PPL, you should pass it fine. The CPL is all about looking out of the window.

IMCs are dangerous, and can be taught by people with little or no real instrument flying. If you do it, remember that it is merely a extra safety rating, and should not be used to play at airliners or flying IFR everywhere.

A CPL without a real IR is a bit of a waste of time, since you are limited on the aircraft you can fly, and the distances you can fly them if using your CPL. (I.e. carrying pax).

So, it all comes down to what you want to do with the CPL.

[FlyingForFun]

No Sponsor,IMCs are dangerous... If you do it, remember that it is merely a extra safety ratingThe thing which is dangerous, IMHO, is people who get an IMC rating and then don't use it - then, when they find themselves in IMC, think that their 23-month-old IMC rating will get them out of trouble. Far better to use it, and use it regularly, whether in light IMC, or in VMC with a safety pilot. I know several IMC-rated pilots who regularly fly in IMC, and are very safe and competent instrument pilots due to their regular practice.IMCs... can be taught by people with little or no real instrument flyingTrue, but so can the IR.A CPL without a real IR is a bit of a waste of timeTrue for transport... but Blagger said right at the start of the thread that he wants to do CPL+IMC+FI, not public transport. The IMC rating is an excellent rating for an instructor to have, since it allows him to teach Ex 19 in actual IMC, or to go on top of a layer of cloud to carry out an exercise in visual conditions - not to mention the possibility of going on to become an IMC instructor once he has gained the appropriate amount of experience.

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

[aztec25]

Exactly FFF -

Let's not re-open the "IMC is only a 'get out of trouble' rating" debate. Like you I know a number of pilots in our group (including myself) who use it regulary, obviously in a suitably equipped aircraft. As you say keeping current and in practice is the key.

Az

[LFS]

This was the first time I have heard of this as well. However having looked in Lasors it appears blagger is right "The holder of a JAA-FCL professional aeroplane licence without a valid IR(A) who wishes to obtain an IMC rating must complete the following:

1) 5 hours of applied dual instrument instruction in accordance with the IMC Rating syllabus and;

2) pass an initial IMC Rating Flight Test."

Seems quite reasonable after the JAA making people do 10 hours instrument training in the CPL but not giving you any instrument priviledges.