1st IMC lesson

[Humaround]

I had my first IMC lesson today, and guess what, most of it was in real IMC! I had the hood over my face for most of the time (about 50 minutes in a 1hr 10min flight), so couldn't see anyway, but the instructor told me to look round it a couple of times and it was definitely foggy out there!

I got on OK, really enjoyed it but had the strong sensation that the aircraft (Robin 400) was climbing and turning left most of the time, whatever the instruments said! We did turns, climbing and descending turns, full and partial panel, and some unusual attitudes at the end. It was so claggy at the end we were down to 1000' in driving rain, joining left base for 09 and not really able to see the runway until the last mile and 600' agl.

I might do some more but not sure I'll do the full IMC Rating as many reckon it's so-so whether it will be usable after 2012. In any case I fly Permit types, so it's academic at present - i'm mainly interested in developing a potentially life-saving skill. Good fun and quite reassuring that it's not magic.

:)

[White Otter]

Sounds like a couple of weeks ago when I did IFR trainning for my PPL. Stratus clouds from 600ft up and when we were at about 3000ft up my instructor told me to make a left turn to intercept a radial for the Trent VOR (TNT) and I looked over my left shoulder to check nobody was there out of habbit (only to see nothing but grey obviously). Personally I really enjoyed it and I just wish that the IMC rating future was secure becuase I'd definetly be doing it then.

I too thought that the airplane was turning to the left for quite a while and its preety difficult to resist turning to the right to compensate.

I'm looking forward to my IR now (while off obviously) but good luck if you do decide to continue with the IMC course.

P.S. on the car drive home did you find yourself going to look for instruments like in the plane (I did)?

[Keygrip]

Humaround - did you cover PFL's in IMC as well?

If you *do* go for the IMC rating (and, personally, I would) - don't count that first hour ten (it's not in accord with the syllabus).

[Pace]

I too thought that the airplane was turning to the left for quite a while and its preety difficult to resist turning to the right to compensate.

This is quite a common sensation as is actually turning left. Dont know why :) Concentrate on the instruments and if in doubt cross reference. If the D1 is steady compass is steady AH is level and turn and slip is also level believe the instruments.

Instrument flying can be the most challenging and satisfying form of flying.
What is difficult when you start instrument flying becomes second nature especially when you start to bring in other aircraft operation tasks to purely flying the instruments.
I always think of it as riding a bike or skiing. At one point you never think you will get the hang of it and then you end up riding your bike while reading a book (some do :)

I hope you continue even if you own a non IR aircraft as you never know when you will need those skills.

Pace

[IO540]

I would definitely finish it.

It will be good to 2012 and by then there will be a strong political pressure for some solution to be worked out. And the skills will be priceless.

[steveking]

I'm hoping to start the IMC myself in the next couple of weeks. I also fly a permit aircraft. The instructor sat down with me the weekend and spent 45 mins running over the syllabus with me, I found it very interesting to have an understanding of how the course will run although the reality of some serious training is starting to sink in.

Don't forget even when flying VFR the IMC rating lifts a lot of restrictions, my excuse for doing it anyway :ok:

[Keygrip]

You shouldn't need a "hood" on lesson 1 - and certainly no IMC conditions.

[Humaround]

Keygrip...

"If you *do* go for the IMC rating (and, personally, I would) - don't count that first hour ten (it's not in accord with the syllabus)."

Why's that then? My log book says "Ex 19, Full and Limited Panel" and is signed by the Instructor... 1hr 10min flight, 50min Instrument Flight...

Obviously I understand that the 15/10 hours are the minimum requirements.

And yes, of course I would benefit from the possibility of VMC on top in my Permit banger.

[Oldpilot55]

I started my IMC rating a while back and find it very satisfying. Its hard work and after an hour you feel that you have achieved something. I particularly liked the non-precision approaches and popping the foggles off at 600 feet. I haven't done precision approaches so that thrill awaits.

[IO540]

#1 rule in instrument flight:

Never get airborne to fly any procedures unless you have practiced them in a sim on the ground beforehand.

Otherwise you are wasting your time and money. If you don't know what to do in your armchair at home, learning it in the air is pointless.

Get a copy of FS2004 or FSX, a cheap (£10) joystick - no need for the fancy yoke - and practice the procedures.

[Laroussi]

Good piece of advice IO540.

[Pace]

Get a copy of FS2004 or FSX, a cheap (£10) joystick - no need for the fancy yoke - and practice the procedures.

I will second that FS is an excellent sim which can be quite addictive.

You do need a fast computer to handle it. I would not recommend the standard aircraft which have poor flight dynamics but do look at some of the addon companies who make models for download which have a far better feel.

You can fly your procedures in realistic weather and break out at minima.

I was heavely into FS at one time as well as in the development side and loved it. Now in London I only have a lap top so havent used FS for a couple of years.
Some people go the whole hog and have multi engine controls some even more than that but above all it is an excellent training device and useful for keeping you current.

Pace

[BackPacker]

You do need a fast computer to handle it.

If all you want is procedure training you can dumb down the scenery generation to the point of no existence, and even simplify the flight model (autorudder comes to mind). This greatly reduces the CPU/memory requirements. Reducing the resolution also helps a lot in getting good performance.

[Say again s l o w l y]

#1 rule in instrument flight:

Never get airborne to fly any procedures unless you have practiced them in a sim on the ground beforehand.

Otherwise you are wasting your time and money. If you don't know what to do in your armchair at home, learning it in the air is pointless.

I agree that it is better to learn in a sim first, but as an IMC instructor I wouldn't want you teaching yourself in a flight sim before hand.

I have taught many people how to fly instrument approaches without the benefit of a simulator, it isn't impossible, though of course using a proper sim is very preferable. If you have a decent fixed base sim available, then you would be an utter fool not to use it.

In 15 hours as long as the student isn't a total donkey, you have plenty of time to teach ILS's, NDB, SRA etc. The important thing is that at the beginning you get their basic instument flying up to speed before you go anywhere near an approach. Once people start to "get the picture" then you can move on.

Once you have been taught the principles, then practice them.

[IO540]

OK let me rephase it a bit.

A sim is not essential.

What is totally essential is to work out (somehow) on the ground exactly what one should be doing in the air.

This is true for VFR, too, though not as much.

In my IMCR training, I used to get silly stuff like a load of vectors and stuff; I had no idea where I was or what I was supposed to be doing, and only just before landing did I realise we were supposed to have been flying an NDB approach. I can do all the stuff now but spent the first 10-20hrs being totally baffled. You cannot waste the student's money like that. One needs a thorough ground briefing, with "to do" points written down, and understood, and only then should one go flying.

[Pace]

Backpacker.

Of course you are correct you can dampen out all the detail. The problem is when you get into simming you start wanting all the detail so that it is close to the real aircraft experience and for that you need a powerful computer.

You want the clouds to look like real clouds. The terrain so detailed that you can fly VFR as in the real world and the aircraft to look and feel like the real thing.

That is why there is such a huge market of addons for the sim covering anything imaginable to make the experience as close to reality as possible.

There was one development going with online flying. where two pilots in different parts of the world could join and communicate with each other both seeing the same displays.

That would have been an amazing development. An Instructor and a student both in their own homes giving on line instrument flying lessons real time although miles or even countries apart.

As Say Again Slowly said You cannot teach yourself very well in a sim but you can practice what you have been taught in your last lesson at a much lower cost than in the real aircraft.
It was so much easier learning NDB tracking at home where you could stop the sim and refly the pattern until you understood it.

As far as I remember there were specialist programmes as addons that taught you and gave you instrument challenges to fly and be marked on.

Pace

[Piper.Classique]

One needs a thorough ground briefing, with "to do" points written down, and understood, and only then should one go flying.

Agreed. However, the UK ppl does include some basic handling on instruments, so it may well be a good idea to do an "assesment" flight so that a) the instructor can see what the student can already cope with, based on his/her previous training as part of the ppl, and B) so the student can get some idea of the mental effort required on their part. And as it is a legitimate exercise I don't see why it can't be logged.

I think flight simulators are a great idea, but nothing beats actually being in real weather.

Next flight I would expect a full briefing and debriefing, however.

[Pace]

In my IMCR training, I used to get silly stuff like a load of vectors and stuff; I had no idea where I was or what I was supposed to be doing, and only just before landing did I realise we were supposed to have been flying an NDB approach. I can do all the stuff now but spent the first 10-20hrs being totally baffled. You cannot waste the student's money like that. One needs a thorough ground briefing, with "to do" points written down, and understood, and only then should one go flying.

10540

That is a very valid point. Aircraft are very expensive to fly add the extra stress of being in a real aircraft and its easy to get confused. In the relaxed atmosphere of a sim especially at home the benefits are huge.

It is true that you need to practice in your mind. Watching aerobatic pilots make manouvres with their hands for their own routines and that in itself is a sim of sorts.

Pace

[Say again s l o w l y]

What is totally essential is to work out (somehow) on the ground exactly what one should be doing in the air.

Damn straight. What you should be doig in the air is practicing the procedures you have already learnt on the ground.

Trying to teah someone how to do anything in the air without a proper briefing before hand on the ground is a total waste of time and a total waste of money for the student subjected to this terrible teaching.

When doing an IMC course I'd often spend a whole day or two (when the weather was too bad to fly, a regular occurance in the UK) going through the whole course one step at a time.
Firstly talking about the differences between VFR and IMC flying, the risks, advantages and the gotcha's.
Once they had a few hours in the air and were starting to learn the basic flying techniques, then they would get the full day or two on procedures and using radio nav aids.

You don't want to overload anyone with information, it needs to be introduced when they are capable of understanding it and one of the biggest problem any FI faces is that of the student rushing ahead on their own outside of the syllabus and confusing themselves.

Of course you need to prepare well, but often people try and rush to the end. I've lost count of the number of times I've been asked to explain the intricacies of an ILS by someone who hasn't even mastered straight and level flight. Of course you explain the very basics, but to go into the depth you would with an IMC student would be a waste of your and their time.

[tmmorris]

For me, the sim (MS Flight Sim and also an ancient but usable Frasca sim at the airfield) enabled me to crack NDB approaches without spending hours in the air. ONce you understand them they are fine, but it can take a while before the penny drops!

Tim

[Pace]

SayagainSlowly

You obviously are a good instructor. In an ideal world what you say should be true.

When I got my PPL and IMCR years ago it was a boom time. The flying school was very busy it was a job to book an hour slot with one of the instructors on a sunday morning and often you had different instructors on each lesson.

Briefings were short and often a case of sort it in the air which was not the right invironment for sorting the complexities of instrument flying.

In my early commercial flying I used the sim to fly my next days trip with Sids and stars and instrument approaches, With MSFS at the level I had it I could even put in the forecast weather and winds. Both trips simulated and real were uncannely simular.

Pace

[Fright Level]

Another vote for IO540's suggestion. I always use MS flight sim to practise my holds/approaches prior to the SEP IR renewal as I can plug the actual winds in and get a better idea of the drift/timings prior to going into the air and doing it.

I've got plenty of actual IMC hours under my belt but the chair flying/flight sim tip is invaluable to avoid turning the wrong way, forgetting to level off or 100 other mistakes you can make when the pressure is on in real conditions.

As for flying around SEP in a very low cloudbase or vis, my personal limits wouldn't be comfortable factoring in the "what if's".

[Say again s l o w l y]

Using a PC based flight sim to keep up your skills is one thing, using it on your own to try and learn the skills quite another.

Pace, I hear about schools like that and I understand why so many people who have sat next to me in an aircraft have been so poor. It isn't their fault, but it is they who pay the price for shoddy training.

Smart youngsters can often get away with dodgy training, the general PPL population can't and this one of the reasons that proper GA flying is relatively rare in the UK. People simply don't have the skills or real confidence to go off and challenge themselves and that makes me very sad.

[2close]

You shouldn't need a "hood" on lesson 1 - and certainly no IMC conditions.

Agreed - Surely the first lesson should be without the hood and definitely in VMC to be able to show the relationship between the visible horizon and the artificial one.

Can't agree enough with the positives of procedural training on MSFS or a FNPT but be prepared to be bumped about when in the real muck. Learn to fly the aircraft in IMC before going to the FS.

I always introduce the student to Spatial Disorientation on Day 1. Not trying to teach my grannie to suck eggs but for the sake of those who don't know - Take control (FI), close eyes (student) and (FI) place a/c into a gentle, banked, clmbing turn, slowly increasing the bank and climb angles over approx 1 minute. Keep eyes closed (student) and tell me what the aircraft is doing - (FI) set a/c straight and level and the student will invariably tell you the aircraft is diving to the right/left. FI tell Student to look at instruments - hey?? - now look outside - what the?? Now, if you were in IMC and you'd believed the 'seat of your pants' you'd have recovered from a descending turn; reduce power, roll wings level, pull out of dive which would have actually placed you into a climbing turn with reduced power - 1 x stall in cloud which is not a good position to be in. Try it - you will learn to trust the instruments.

I've only had bad SD for real twice but on both occasions if I hadn't trusted the instruments I could have wound up in serious trouble.

[pmh1234]

Is there any hope that a IMC rating can eventually be converted to a new EASA light IFR rating automatically when the IMC is not valid anymore?

[Pace]

Is there any hope that a IMC rating can eventually be converted to a new EASA light IFR rating automatically when the IMC is not valid anymore?

I doubt the new EASA light IFR ever coming into being?

Should that happen then its more likely that an IMCR will count towards some of the hours and training for an EASA light IR.

As for converting automatically to an EASA light IR no chance!

Pace

[2close]

By all accounts (and I stand to be corrected) the opposition to the IMCR (or something similar) in Europe does not come from the NAA's but from certain professional pilot's associations who do not want non-professional pilots in their exclusive 'professional' airspace - and they do have some clout.

[IO540]

The story I have heard in a number of places is that the airline pilot unions have always objected to making the IR any easier because, in Europe, the IR has become the hallmark of the professional pilot. The IR has also often been described as the last opportunity to keep undesirable people out of the airlines. In turn, for a CPL/IR holder, the ATPL has largely become an hour building exercise.

In the USA, the IR is just something you can get at the same school at which you did your PPL, probably with the same instructor. Same for the CPL. Over there, the hallmark of a professional pilot is the ATPL which is an extra exam and an extra checkride to closer tolerances.

Also, Europe has lumped a chunk of the jet type rating into the IR ground school. American never did this - to get that you do the ATPL and the jet type rating, which is as it should be.

I don't think there is any great conspiracy (other than widespread uninformed prejudice) to keep private pilots out of the "commercials' airspace". The numbers of private pilots flying around Europe at the relevant "GA" levels - FL080-FL250 - is in any case miniscule and this is immediately evident to anybody who actually does it.

[Pace]

By all accounts (and I stand to be corrected) the opposition to the IMCR (or something similar) in Europe does not come from the NAA's but from certain professional pilot's associations who do not want non-professional pilots in their exclusive 'professional' airspace - and they do have some clout.

2Close

I dont think it is so much that but freeing up airspace for less congestion and reducing ATC workload.

There is a problem in Europe with Slot Times and those slot problems are not dictated by enroute delays. Although Light GA would not use the busy upper levels larger faster aircraft do have to be descended through or climbed through those low levels in various areas.

Depart out of London in a Corporate jet and see the amount of radar headings you get and way off course headings you get before being allowed to climb into the upper levels or to your airways routing.

The fact that a light 4 seater single takes almost as much workload as a large aircraft and causes hell on the speed differential and climb rates and you can see why the reluctance to encourage more in certain areas. Ie they dont want to encourage what they see as half trained PPLs clogging up the system flying their hoard of PA28s in the airways. They dont like it now in certain areas. We are tolerated rather than welcomed.

Even in a Citation business jet you are always being questioned on climb rates or speeds.

take a light twin around London at peak times and you can feel the reluctance to have you there. You are often directed miles off track or shoved down to the bottom of CAS to such an extent that you wonder if its worth bothering filing IFR and far quicker to stay below and almost go direct.

One fear could be that rather than licence restrictions there could be aircraft performance restrictions on aircraft using CAS IE if it doesnt climb well enough or cruise fast enough it cant fly in CAS. I could only envisage that happening in certain areas?

Pace