IR vs IMC training

[ruth0000]

I’m currently approx 10 hours underway towards gaining my IR rating. In the meantime I’ve also read some blog’s on people gaining their IMC rating. It strikes me that the stuff they learn is much the same as I’m doing in the full IR training. The difference being, IMC only requires 15 hours of training as opposed to 50 hours for the full IR-rating.
Would someone care to elaborate on what is being taught extra for the full IR that requires an extra 35 hours of training? I’m just curious.

Thanks

[18greens]

You've hit the nail on the head. There is no real difference since both qualifications allow you to fly in cloud in the UK. The test standards are higher for the IR (painfully high, especially on the hold).

Perhaps most people would find 15 hours a little light in terms of shooting off into the clag on hour 16 on your own and if you want to fly to france the IR is useful .

If you were just flying privately in the UK then the IMC woudl save you a lot of money. If you want to fly commercailly the IR is the one to have. A lot of instructors have an IR but only renew every two years lapsing to IMC priviledges in the second year.

[maxdrypower]

The qualification(IMCR) is not there to allow you to fly in cloud , it is there to assist you if you inadvertently enter imc and need to use an instrument procedure to get yourself home .It is not intended for people to use as a "Fly in IMC" rating
You are taught the bare minimum on an imcr enough to hopefully get you home in one piece if it all goes wrong .
Holds are taught in their most basic form , and indeed are not actually included on the imc syllabus but most instructors tend to give a grounding .
Your minima is considerably higher than with an IR . You cannot fly in airways and are not really taught navigation based solely on instruments .
There is quite a bit more to the IR but you get the idea , Having held an IMC and an IR I can tell you that the differences in standard are immense .I foudn the IMCR quite easy , the IR was a bastard!

[Shunter]

Here we go again...

The qualification(IMCR) is not there to allow you to fly in cloudSays who?

Your minima is considerably higher than with an IRNo they're not. They're exactly the same from a vertical point of view, although there is a 1800m horizontal restriction for take-off and landing. There's a *recommendation* to increase vertical minima, but it's not law. I've flown ILS approaches to <300ft numerous times on an IMC rating.

My IMC test iincluded a SID, DME arc, 6 laps of the hold from the correct join and an NDB/DME approach... The FAA IR (note: I'm not including the oral test) was no harder. One's currency in instrument flying is far, far more important than the writing on their license.

[Flyluke]

Whilst Maxdrypower is right in what (s)he says, for the average PPL, an IMC is probably sufficient, and a great deal less expensive to both achieve and maintain.

I'd like my IMC to be usable in France where I fly regularly. But it isn't, so that's that.

But I did once go into cloud under ATC control when descending into Tenerife South.....

The REAL point, though, is whichever rating you have, it is not the piece of paper which counts.
It is the currency, and regular practise (and from that, confidence) which matters. Both from the point of view of safety, also the satisfaction of having flown well.

[maxdrypower]

Here we go again...


Quote:
The qualification(IMCR) is not there to allow you to fly in cloud

Says who?

Common sense

Quote:
Your minima is considerably higher than with an IR

No they're not. They're exactly the same from a vertical point of view, although there is a 1800m horizontal restriction for take-off and landing. There's a *recommendation* to increase vertical minima, but it's not law. I've flown ILS approaches to <300ft numerous times on an IMC rating.

you say no there not then go on to contardict that exact statement

there is a recommendatuion to increase vertical minima but you think you are good enough ti gonore that do you , pattern developing here Shunter
Ones intentions bginning to outweigh ones abilities are they
So you dont have a JAR IR then

[18greens]

As many people have said the real difference is experience. An out of practice IR would do well to raise the limits to IMC recommendations whereas an experienced IMC can go to minimums totally legally. The license just give you the right to do it, the experience gives you the ability.

As for tracking VORs most PPLs work that one out a couple of hours after getting their licenses and airways takes up a couple of hours of the IR.

There's a lot of ego in having an IR but when you look at what you do with it an IMC covers most of the bases.

And all that stuff about not intentionally flying in IMC and its an emergency only tool, if you don't practice what happens when you need to use it? Far better off to shoot at least one or more approaches per month with an instructor after the IMC and get really comfortable with instrument flying.


Personally having got all of them I prefer to fly VMC. If there's any chance I need to use any of those priviledges, stay on the ground. Single pilot IFR is just too much effort.

[tropicalfridge]

Well, the IR is training to a far higher standard and allows you to get far closer to the ground while in IMC. Typically its 200ft on a precision approach, rather than 500ft for an IMC rating. Plus, on an IMC rating you can't fly in class A without special permission which rules out airways, not that your likely to be in an aircraft capable of getting into them.

The clever gits aside, few will really be able to fly cross country in IMC with confidence and carry out an unfamiliar instrument approach after only 15hrs instrument training.

[IO540]

Well, the IR is training to a far higher standard and allows you to get far closer to the ground while in IMC. Typically its 200ft on a precision approach, rather than 500ft for an IMC rating. Plus, on an IMC rating you can't fly in class A without special permission which rules out airways, not that your likely to be in an aircraft capable of getting into them.

Are you a pilot?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The clever gits aside, few will really be able to fly cross country in IMC with confidence and carry out an unfamiliar instrument approach after only 15hrs instrument training.
Did it during IMCR training. Took off from Cambridge, next looked out of the window to see the Norwich runway nicely lined up in front of me, having done much of the trip in and above cloud.

[WorkingHard]

"not that your likely to be in an aircraft capable of getting into them."
Just a tad arrogant dont you think? There are many on these forums who fly fully certified IFR aircraft and are perfectly capable of using airways IF they had an IR instead of an IMCR. Airways is a darned lot easier than off airways for a number of reasons.

[S-Works]

Has anyone noticed where the poster claims to be based? Last time I looked the Netherlands did not issue or recognise the IMCR. Perhaps the OP might want to clarify where he intends to use these ratings and what for before everyone disappears up there own bums in another IMC v IR debate.

[ruth0000]

As I said, I’m just curious. In my country there is only the IR to gain.

And from the posts sofar I learn that it is only the tighter tolerances that require the extra hours.
Airways and class A do I my opinion not add training hours.

Thanks for the comments and it is not my intention to start a fight between imc and ir holders.

[18greens]

it is not my intention to start a fight between imc and ir holders

Why not, a healthy debate that dispells myths is always good fun and educational.

[englishal]

The main differences are:

IMCr teaches you basic attitude instrument flying, a couple of types approaches and basic nav. Other parts of the IR mght be touched upon.

The IR teaches you basic attitude instrument flying to a higher tolerance, partial panel (in FAALand anyway) competence, unusual attitude recovery, lots of different types of approaches, in depth Nav. including SIDs and STARs, procedures and rules (minima, alternate requirements, weather requirement etc...) not to mention weather, coms and more in depth theory.

The IMCr is fine for "flying in cloud" though whether or not someone with a new IMCr could fly one of IO540's TransEurope IFR cross countries?......I doubt it......Give them a year or two, then maybe.....

[IO540]

A lot of these debates bring out old establishment attitudes to how people should be trained.

The ICAO IR minimum training (i.e. dual flying) requirement is 10 hours.

The FAA IR makes it 15.

The JAA IR makes it 50/55 (SE/ME).

Ideally, the whole thing should be competence based, and that would make most comparisons irrelevant because it is quite possible for an IMC Rated pilot, with some extra instruction especially stuff on icing and other type specific stuff, to be fully capable of flying airways routings. I did my IMCR in about 22 hrs, then flew for ~ 3 years on it boring holes in UK Class G (not to mention boring unofficial holes in all kinds of overseas clouds ;) ) and when I started training for the FAA IR my very first flight was a 700nm airways flight across Europe which I planned 100% myself and flew myself, with the RHS instructor doing practically nothing.

A year or so later, the FAA IR legalised what I was doing for solo flight but nothing actually changed. I didn't learn anything of significance to present-day European IFR which is a purely RNAV point to point navigation exercise using an IFR GPS.

If you have the IMCR then you should be able to fly any procedure for which there is a plate. After all, you just need to read the plate :ugh: It's all there in plain English.

Then you need just a little bit more operational knowledge, like working out valid Eurocontrol routes, icing avoidance strategies, etc (most of this isn't taught in any IR) and you are good to go out there.

Pretending that one actually needs 50/55hrs regardless of competence is nuts.

But one cannot say this to the old guardians of the IR ;) They are stuck in the olde world where a proof of a real man is how long he has spent in the training factory.

However, I think there will be interesting developments over the next few years, for private IFR in Europe.

[Hot 'n' High]

Maxdrypower

The qualification(IMCR) is not there to allow you to fly in cloud , it is there to assist you if you inadvertently enter imc and need to use an instrument procedure to get yourself home .It is not intended for people to use as a "Fly in IMC" rating

Interesting! Schedule 8 of the ANO says, a PPL shall not

unless his licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane:

(i) on a flight outside controlled airspace when the flight visibility is less than 3 km;

(ii) on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than 10 km except on a route or in an aerodrome traffic zone notified for the purpose of this sub-paragraph; or

(iii) out of sight of the surface;

I regularly used to use my IMCR on cross-country flights, A to B, in IMC, with appropriate flight planning on the ground and Radar services en route. All legal and, above all, safe, as I made sure I remained current and adjusted my limits up accordingly – or did not fly! And I instruct IMCR students assuming that they will use the Rating as above. And, just to clarify something englishal raised, the IMCR training does include all the joys of partial panel and unusual attitudes and all the different types of approaches! SIDS and STARS are not covered in detail as, unless you are flying Airways, there is little point. And, with an IMCR, Class A is verboten in IMC. Other PPL-level training is in place to mitigate against inadvertent entry in to IMC - 180 deg turn on instruments (except, I make sure my students can do a bit more than the minimum), Forced Landing With Power and general “education” not to get anywhere near that situation in the first place.

Now, quite correctly, several people suggest that Currency and Common Sense are the key to Safety – and, actually, that applies equally whether you have an IR or an IMCR. For example, flying SE in IMC, I always make sure there is a nice gap between the cloudbase and terra firma at departure, en-route and destination – just in case it all goes quiet – an IR or IMCR makes no difference in that case. Why do I not go “under” the cloud VFR? Because, often, I feel far safer in IMC or VMC on top, under IFR, with appropriate Radar services rather than operating with everyone else grubbing around in marginal conditions under the cloud!

Not being current and not applying common sense is the key argument which should be debated. In addition, another debate is the way GA is being pushed out of the regional airports with appropriate Instrument Approaches. Now, that does limit the usefulness of the IMCR – unless the CAA expands the use of GPS Approaches. But that’s a whole new can of worms!! But, that aside, to suggest that an IMCR is of no use apart from in an emergency is nonsensical. And, yes, these days I use my IR flying my SLF from A to B. Of course, I'll be soundly flamed for all of the above - but, hey ho.

[IO540]

Of course, I'll be soundly flamed for all of the above - but, hey ho.

Only by non-pilots.

[CJ Driver]

Speaking as someone who had an IMC rating - and used it - and then upgraded to the IR, I can confirm that the IR does go quite a bit further on airways procedures - both navigation and R/T - and equips the pilot with a lot more tools and techniques for flying to a higher degree of accuracy and repeatability in controlled airspace. But, if all you want to do is fly in the clouds, the IMC rating is quite sufficient.

I am certainly in the camp that believe the IMC rating can and should be used to fly actual IFR trips on a regular basis - it is not some form of emergency training. I can also tell you that if you've done a couple of hundred hours of actual IMC using your IMC rating, doing an IR is a doddle. There's still lots to learn, but keeping the aircraft pointing the right way up whilst doing all the other stuff isn't one of them.

[englishal]

And, just to clarify something englishal raised, the IMCR training does include all the joys of partial panel and unusual attitudes and all the different types of approaches
Actually what I meant was that "not as in depth"...which because of the hours cannot be as in depth.

[Whopity]

For many years there was no prohibition in the UK on flying IFR and IMC outside controlled airspace, anyone was entitled to do it without any specific qualification.

At some point the law changed and ceased to allow flight in IMC but, did still allow flight under IFR outside controlled airspace, UK PPLs still do. The IMC rating was invented at around the time this law change took place with the intention of allowing pilots to fly in IMC under IFR in their own aircraft using whatever equipment was available. Consequently, there is no specific need to have an ADF to get an IMC rating. It requires basic IF skills and the demonstrated ability to fly a pilot monitored instrument approach and another approach which may be directed by ATC. Thus the IMCR minimum requirement comes nowhere near the requirements for an IR. Once you have the rating you can exercise its privileges using aids you have never been trained on, in aircraft you have never been trained in (inc MEP).

I recall training for an IMC rating in 15 hours and doing my IR in 13 hours flight training, so it has not always been 15 v 55 hours, there has been a lot of evolution whilst the IMCR has remained largely static.

[IO540]

That's true, Whopity (the IMCR came in in the late 1960s or so). However I think any half decent instructor will teach the normal range of real-world landing aids i.e. ILS, VOR, DME, ADF. It's a bit pointless otherwise, because there are so many NDBs in use around the place.

In the end, the pilot is only as good as his own currency and "dedication to the cause". But one cannot legislate for that. Well, the FAA does, by requiring the 6/6 approaches rolling currency, while JAA sort-of solves this with an annual check flight.

[Hot 'n' High]

englishal

not as in depth

Sorry, I misunderstood your point – now fully agreed. With the hours available in the IR you can practice the partial panel & unusual attitudes a bit more – as well as the other bits – though, if they struggle, we just fly until they can! Period. After all, the hours are a minimum.

IO540

However I think any half decent instructor will teach the normal range of real-world landing aids

Exactly so – even if you have to go hunting a bit. Even my PPL-level IF instruction includes a simulated “RV to a visual approach” exercise which I find most PPLs can achieve and, IMHO, represents a possible real-life scenario they could find themselves in. It adds little or nothing to the total training time as you do the exercise returning from the training area. But, that way, I/they know that when ATC are helping them home, at least they will have experienced how they can be safely positioned for a visual approach by a controller - even if I do make an odd “in-flight ATCO”!!!!! And the students are always amazed how well it works out – and it is all useful IF experience for them as well as getting some confidence in responding to ATC vectors. Why do I do it? I’m convinced that the experience is the ideal way to reduce their stress should, one day, it all go pear-shaped on them and ATC have to give them a helping hand home or to a diversion.

I guess the bottom line is any syllabus is the legal minimum. Duty of Care means I will enhance certain areas that I feel to be of real benefit to a student, always having explained why to the student first!

[BackPacker]

Even my PPL-level IF instruction includes a simulated “RV to a visual approach” exercise which I find most PPLs can achieve and, IMHO, represents a possible real-life scenario they could find themselves in.

This was one of the bits of the PPL course that I remember specifically and enjoyed a lot. Under the hood, getting vectored by the instructor to and around the circuit and into the descent, until she told me "look up now" at 200' and short final. Great!

[tropicalfridge]

IO540: I believe my post was factual and relevant to the discussion at that point, so IO540 you can keep your smart comments yourself. The decision height is higher on an IMC and you can't fly in airways, I think that sums it up quite well. Is it your thing to go around suggesting the others are not Pilots? I really couldn't care less what you think I do for a living.

Gertrude/Workinghard - accepted that it was a bit of an arrogant response on my part, I take back the tone. I believe that the IMC rating is largely aimed at GA, and since most GA aircraft are unpressurised pistons, they are not great for airways flying, that was what I meant.

[IO540]

I believe my post was factual and relevant to the discussion at that point, so IO540 you can keep your smart comments yourself. The decision height is higher on an IMC and you can't fly in airways, I think that sums it up quite well. Is it your thing to go around suggesting the others are not Pilots? I really couldn't care less what you think I do for a living.

Your comments (e.g. below)

on an IMC rating you can't fly in class A without special permission which rules out airways, not that your likely to be in an aircraft capable of getting into the

are hardly factual. The IMCR is not good for Class A and there is no possibility of getting a "special permission".

And what kind of plane the pilot is capable of getting into depends on his budget, which is completely irrelevant to the training he got beforehand. A lot of IMCR holders fly pretty decent stuff - £250k Cirruses, etc.

What I particularly don't like is the IMCR being slagged off. Like all ratings etc, it is only as good as the effort pilot makes afterwards t get good, and stay good, plus the investment in a well equipped plane. Anybody who can drive a car and got some GCSE pass at school can get the IMCR or the JAA IR if they have enough time and work at it for long enough, but how good a pilot they will be is up to them. After some months, in the absence of currency etc, the original training pales into insignificance.

[Shunter]

The decision height is higher on an IMCFor God's sake.. NO, IT ISN'T.

3.3.2.1 Pilots with a valid Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the minimum
applicable DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non-precision approach.Those with a lesser grasp of the English language regularly misunderstand this statement. I have a letter from the CAA which clarifies the fact. Vertical minima are identical for IR and IMC holders. If you intend to argue about the IMC rating, please get your facts right.

[TractorBoy]

Did it during IMCR training. Took off from Cambridge, next looked out of the window to see the Norwich runway nicely lined up in front of me, having done much of the trip in and above cloud.

Seconded. I had a great instructor for my IMC. He finishes off the course by doing a real life nav. Routed from North Weald to Jersey via CPT and SAM - spent alot of the time in IMC, including the Solent Zone transit, met some really nasty clag and turbulence over the Channel - raining in the cockpit etc, got a SVFR through the Jersey Zone, ILS into Jersey then an NDB approach to Alderney and back through the crap again on the way back.

OK I was with an instructor, but he provided minimum if almost no input. Showed just how useful an IMC is. Especially helped in getting a zone transit. All the VFR traffic was being routed round that day.

[Fuji Abound]

Just add to Shunter's comment for the sake of factual accuracy there is no legal difference between the DH for an IMCr holder and an IR holder. This is an age old myth that requires to be regularly dispelled.

Those who roll out the myth usually try and cover up their error by pointing out a heigher DH is both recommended and sensible - albeit they usually prefer somewhat stronger language.

I can think of a few IR holders who would be wise to avoid flying to minima and a few IMCr holders for that matter. The correct answer is know your own limitations and if you are not current increase your minima. Not rocket science really, is it?

[englishal]

and since most GA aircraft are unpressurised pistons, they are not great for airways flying,
Really! I must remember that. Better tell IO540 as well for when he does his next Eurotransit :};)

[IO540]

Yes I did wonder about that comment too...

Got a photo of my altimeter and speedo at FL200 last Friday. TAS was about 130kt; not too bad considering the engine was making not a whole lot of power... pressurisation is not directly relevant to airways flight. What matters is the operating ceiling, which ideally should be FL170 or higher, to get above the cloud tops most of the time (non frontal conditions).

[Fuji Abound]

I dont know never noticed a lack of oxygen flying the sim. :)

[tropicalfridge]

Quote:
3.3.2.1 Pilots with a valid Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the minimum
applicable DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non-precision approach.
Those with a lesser grasp of the English language regularly misunderstand this statement. I have a letter from the CAA which clarifies the fact. Vertical minima are identical for IR and IMC holders. If you intend to argue about the IMC rating, please get your facts right.

Okay fellas, I'll watch my flippant comments in future, I'm sure there a plenty of you with IMC ratings happily flying airways capable aircraft. But you'd have to admit that there are far more flying C152 types probably keeping out of the airways. Enough said on that one, I didn't mean to irritate anyone!

On the other point about minimas, I'm reading that differently, your quote says "an absolute minima of 500ft for a precision"? Its 200ft if you have an IR, unless the plate minima is higher.

[IO540]

But you'd have to admit that there are far more flying C152 types probably keeping out of the airways.Sure; the vast majority of UK GA keeps out of IMC. Especially if they are flying C152s which are barely able to make the Eurocontrol airway MEAs... ;)

There has been a huge decline in IMCR issues in recent years; around 2/3 down. I don't know why this is.

As regards airways, this makes little sense for UK-only IFR, basically because it is so easy to bore a hole in Class G clouds, non-radio. The main driver behind the IR is to fly IFR around Europe generally, so one finds that most IR holders are either lapsed (these are found in the bars) or they own their own plane, and it sure won't be a C152 otherwise they would not have bothered to get an IR.

As regards that "absolute minima" bit, the document containing it (some AIC) is of advisory nature only. The law in the UK is the ANO, and above it is the Civil Aviation Act.

Then you have LASORS which deals with miscellaneous areas where the CAA has been given the power to decide on their own.

Everything not in the above regs is advisory. If the IMCR had different minima to the IR, this would be in the ANO. Currently, the IMCR requires 1800m vis for departure and landing, which the IR does not need, and that's about it. Some people don't like this but that's what the law says, and everything which is not expressly prohibited is 100.000% legal.

[tropicalfridge]

That is an interesting point about the minima, and I'll check it out further but I'm still not sure you are correct!

My aim isn't to bash the IMC rating, I think its a great thing. There is another difference regarding not being able to fly on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than 3 km on an IMC rating.

I think the general distinction between the two ratings is that an IR is for a professional pilot who must get from A to B by the most cost effective means, and as you say often overseas.

[englishal]

and it sure won't be a C152
Different attitude in the USA though. They have hills where mountain goats roam at 11,000+ around California and people really do fly 152's IFR in the airways out there! (I have indeed flown some ropey old ****e around these hills). If my aeroplane has the right avionics, I'd even fly that in airways - good job a minimum speed is not required!

[Shunter]

That is an interesting point about the minima, and I'll check it out further but I'm still not sure you are correct!He is. You'll find that IO540 is very well read and his contributions on such matters are often held as a point of reference. Numerous people have sought clarification on the matter because the wording is commonly misinterpreted, but it is what it is; a recommendation.

I think the general distinction between the two ratings is that an IR is for a professional pilot who must get from A to B by the most cost effective means, and as you say often overseas.I suggest you try flying in America sometime as you'll gain a whole new perspective on instrument ratings over there. I don't have the figure to hand, but a substantial number of private pilots hold IRs in the states. The traditional European requirements have skewed the perception of the IR into something "only professional pilots have", but there are many valid reasons why a PPL might want to pursue such a rating, especially in the context of seamless international IFR touring. The completely OTT theory requirements (Been there, done that, forgotten most of it) serve only to put people off, as opposed to encouraging them to become better, more capable pilots.

If the IMC rating ever does cease to exist and is not replaced by an IR more accessible to the kind of busy people with the funding to exercise it, EASA will prove well and truly that the S in their name stands for nothing.

[IO540]

There is another difference regarding not being able to fly on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than 3 km on an IMC rating.Well, yes. IIRC, the IMCR gives you the following stuff:

1) In the UK only, IFR in Class D,E,F,G. 1800m min surface vis for takeoff and landing.

2) VFR flight does not need to be in sight of the surface (no territorial limit on this one, unless modified by local airspace rules)

3) The 3000m vis requirement for VFR flight (applicable to all JAA PPLs I believe) is removed - presumably this means you can fly VFR down to 1500m vis. (no territorial limit on this one, unless modified by local airspace rules)

4) SVFR visibility requirements are different (I can never remember the details since I never seem to make use of SVFR).

I think the general distinction between the two ratings is that an IR is for a professional pilot who must get from A to B by the most cost effective means,That is an opinion which you are entitled to :)

I would say: "why professional"? I think you are the victim of traditional "elitist" attitudes in Europe. Try stepping back a bit.

In Europe, the private-IFR crowd has been largely ignored, and IR training has become the province of ATPL schools (both practically, and in a legally-protectionist manner since you cannot do an IR with freelance instructors). Since the European ATPL is largely a formality (obtained by getting a CPL/IR, a RHS cheap airline job, and clocking up the required 250hrs or so of MCC time), the hallmark of a pro has become the CPL/IR. Since the IR is a lot harder than the CPL (which in any case is rarely done totally separately; a CPL without an IR is useless) the various protagonists have nailed the "professional pilot" status flag to the IR mast, and this is why we have the rigid emotional attachment to the IR as the guardian of heavenly purity of all things in professional aviation. It has often been said by the old purists that the IR is the last barrier to prevent undesirable characters getting into airline jobs, and I am sure it is very effective indeed in doing that.

In the USA, you can do the IR with any freelance FAA CFII instructor, and dig out a local DPE for the checkride. The CPL is widely done by private pilots; it is good VFR aircraft-technical and handling stuff, with very little fat or crap. It is often done standalone (no IR) because it allows a lot of stuff like crop spraying. I did the FAA CPL/IR myself. The IR is something which is very accessible and which any private pilot can do and no big deal is attached to it. The halmark of a professional pilot is the ATPL, which is as it should be, and this is another exam and another checkride to tighter tolerances. (You still need the 1500hrs TT, like here). As a result of this, about 10x more US pilots (as a % of total GA population) have the IR. The checkride standard of the FAA IR is every bit as tough as any other IR elsewhere.

The "IR = professional" attitude in Europe is misplaced and is a consequence of the way the airline pilot training establishment has been set up. In turn, this cartel has done a really good job in keeping the # of private IR holders incredibly small (single digits per year in the UK) with most private pilot going places flying under the FAA system.

[Hot 'n' High]

Hi Guys & Gals,

As regards that "absolute minima" bit, the document containing it (some AIC) is of advisory nature only.

Picked this up and I believe that the “absolute minima” is law. Before I’m flamed, follow my trail and I have highlighted the critical word - notified as this is key. I will readily agree that the link, for such a fundamental set of Documents (ANO and UK AIP), is very hazy – but I think it is there! Hang in here and I will take you through the trail!!!

The ANO states an aircraft (I have used non-public transport as that is what we are talking about here with the IMCR), when making an approach using a notified instrument approach procedure shall not descend below the relevant DH/MDH unless visual:-

From the ANO, Sect 1, Part 5, Para 49 Non-public transport aircraft – aerodrome operating minima

49 (1) This article shall apply to any aircraft which is not a public transport aircraft.

49 (5) Without prejudice to paragraph (2) an aircraft to which this article applies when making a descent to a runway in respect of which there is a notified instrument approach procedure shall not:

(a) continue an approach to landing on such a runway by flying below the relevant specified decision height; or

(b) descend below the relevant specified minimum descent height; unless in either case from such height the specified visual reference for landing is established and is maintained.


The UK AIP is the document where the Notifications mentioned in the ANO are detailed:-

From UK AIP Gen 3.1, 3 Aeronautical Publications

3.2 The United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP)

3.2.1 The UK AIP is published in accordance with the provisions of Annex 15 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and is, in addition, the official document used to publish Notifications required by the UK Air Navigation Order.

The UK AIP, therefore, expands on the UK ANO providing the detail for each individual notified instrument approach in the individual "Aerodrome - Specific" sections. However, in the general preamble to Aerodrome Operating Minima, AD 1.1.2, which is part also of the UK AIP which supports the ANO as per 3.2.1 above, it [the UK AIP] states:-

3.3.2 IMC Rating Holder in Current Practice

3.3.2.1 Pilots with a valid Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the minimum applicable DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non-precision approach. The UK IMC Rating may not be valid outside UK territorial airspace …..

Note the language of 3.3.2.1 changes from “recommended to add 200ft to the minimum applicable DH/MDH..”, which is clearly optional/advice, to “but with an absolute minima of 500 ft…” etc. The way I read this there appears to be no option here. It looks like this “absolute minima” blanket amends any DH/MDH in any notified instrument approach procedure detailed in the UK AIP and referred to in the ANO Sect 1, Part 5, Para 49 (5) unless the DH/MDH is greater, in which case the higher DH/MDH would apply.

Again, I really believe that the linkage between the ANO and UK AIP could be made clearer but, following the above paper trail, I believe it is there. I table this more for comment but it is how it looks to me and it is how I have always understood it to be.

Please do advise me if I am wrong and I would be grateful if you could explain why the above assumptions are incorrect. Happy to discuss!

Off to get me tin helmet, flack jacket and asbestos suit!!! :(

Cheers, H n' H

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Long time lurker in this corner of the forum

IO540

Generally your posts aren't wide of the mark, but you really do sometimes come across as having a huge chip on your shoulder when you start discussing this elitist BS you have a habit of coming out with.

Why not just take 6 months off and do the JAA exams - you know you want to deep deep down and then do the JAA IR in an aztec with no autopilot or FMS or head up display or whatever else you have FAA STC'd in your aircraft ;)

Just a thought.....hang on.....dont tell me you couldn't afford the pay cut....yada yada yada :rolleyes:

[Pace]

Hot N High

That maybe correct but it would be impossible to prove a cloudbase in a court unless you admit it. Even with overcast at 200 feet no one can prove that there was not a hole and tunnel in the clouds leading to the numbers and touchdown point. This appears to be unenforceable law in the above format.

RVR is a different matter and you will get the book thrown at you breaking an RVR minima.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

HotNHigh

English proficiency for you, me thinks. :)

The sentence simply says adding the extra height and imposing an absolute minima are RECOMMENDED, read the whole of the section after recommended as just that - a complete section. I recommend you dont get too close to the edge, and I (recommend) you absolutely should not stand on the edge on one leg. If you like the recomendation that you impose a minima is a stronger recommendation by the addition of the word absolute.

That is the CAAs interpretation as outlined in writing on numerous occasions and one with which I would agree. You may not agree, but there it is.

[Hot 'n' High]

Pace

Even with overcast at 200 feet no one can prove that there was not a hole and tunnel in the clouds leading to the numbers and touchdown point. This appears to be unenforceable law in the above format.

Very true! I guess we have all seen people landing in abysmal conditions having "found a hole". The "Law" is unenforceable for "real" DH/MDH's as well. Even I have landed where I and ATC were surprised I made it in but, a couple of minutes later, as we taxy to stand, we could not even see the next aircraft as it executed a GA. And the converse has happened to me - off we trot to the Diversion!!!! :ugh:

All I would observe is that the question raised here is what the legal minima are for an IMCr pilot, not the enforceability of said legal minima. Personally, I Instruct to the 500/600ft minima and flew to my interpretation of the minima on my IMCR. I'm not suggesting that anyone here is doing otherwise as the issue here is clearly "interpretation" of what the law is.

Shunter, Fuji

Always delighted to be corrected, is it possible to have a copy of any letter from the CAA as that would be really useful? I have learned over the last 30 years, some correspondence is best held on file – just in case. My logic for my current position is that, if there was an "and" rather than a "but" between the two sections, I would agree that the recommendation applies to both. That's my take on it given my knowledge of English but if the CAA view both as recommendations then, hey, it's their Rules!!!!! :O

The sad part about this, why don't they just amend the section to read:- Pilots with a valid Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the minimum applicable DH/MDH, and are advised to use absolute minima of 500 ft for all precision approaches and 600 ft for all non-precision approaches for additional safety. Job done!

Cheers, H ‘n’ H

[IO540]

you know you want to deep deep down and then do the JAA IR in an aztec with no autopilot or FMS or head up display or whatever else you have FAA STC'd in your aircraft

Sorry to inform you but my TB20 is identical to its previous G-reg equipment level, and everything I have installed was on the DGAC Type Certificate ;)

[Fuji Abound]

Hot N High

If you consider the sentence I think you may find the use of and or but doesnt make any difference to the meaning of the sentence, the key is the sentence starts with the use of "recommended". If the draftsman wanted to impose the recommended minima as a legal minima he would have started a new sentence. I would agree it is a good example where the wording requires carefully reading to avoid any confusion.

I also have written confirmation from the CAA. Such correspondence will usually be qualified with "This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential." so it would be inappropriate to engage in their wider distribution.

However, particularly if you are an instructor, you should write and can expect a rapid response. I dont know whether David Cockburn is still editor of GASIL but I know it was suggested he might include clarrification in GASIL - whether or not he did, I am uncertain. If Cpt Pat Lander is still in PL he might also be another good port of call.


Why not just take 6 months off and do the JAA exams - you know you want to deep deep down and then do the JAA IR in an aztec with no autopilot or FMS or head up display or whatever else you have FAA STC'd in your aircraft http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Just a thought.....hang on.....dont tell me you couldn't afford the pay cut....yada yada yada :rolleyes:


and your point from the corner is?

[Hot 'n' High]

Fuji (and Shunter), I quite understand re the e-mails and I will drop David a line or even ping him when I next see him at a CAA Safety Evening.

If it's any consolation, I can almost read the para as you say - but my alternative interpretation is so long-standing and deep-rooted ......

Anyway, cheers for that. Just goes to show how one can be mistaken for so long!!! :ugh:

Cheers, H 'n' H

[IO540]

I agree with Fuji. That famously often quoted piece of text is so poorly worded it would have never been drafted by a lawyer. The non-legal writing emanating from the CAA is often like that, but thankfully it is not the law.

[Hot 'n' High]

That famously often quoted piece of text is so poorly worded it would have never been drafted by a lawyer.

LOL! The cynic in me thought it had been deliberately worded vaguely so that any Court Cases arising would run and run arguing the toss, thereby ensuring both the Prosecution and Defence would make a tidy sum!!!! :}

Cheers, H ‘n’ H


Disclaimer:- No offence is meant by the comments made by H 'n' H in this Post to any member of the Legal Profession!!!!! H 'n' H is only kidding!!! Honest!!!!!

[mm_flynn]

I believe the CAA employ special purpose writers to take simple concepts and document them in as complex a manner as possible.

I also have it on good authority the CAA receive a pay for click commission for each new post on the Internet debating their arcane wording. These funds are used to support the 100 year plan for implementation of an NDB replacement strategy. ;)

My personal favorite in the UK is

'... may not fly in Class D under circumstances which require compliance with the instrument flight rules'

actually means

'may not fly IFR in Class D' - under ANY circumstances

[IO540]

LOL! The cynic in me thought it had been deliberately worded vaguely so that any Court Cases arising would run and run arguing the toss, thereby ensuring both the Prosecution and Defence would make a tidy sum!!!!

I know you are leg pulling, but seriously I don't think there is ANY point behind such allegedly deliberately crap wording because there is no evidence the CAA have ever prosecuted this. You can find recent prosecution details on their website.

Any minima is according to whether the runway etc is seen by the pilot and in a single crew scenario this cannot ever be enforced anyway.

'... may not fly in Class D under circumstances which require compliance with the instrument flight rules'

actually means

'may not fly IFR in Class D' - under ANY circumstances

What about VFR in Class D?

[Hot 'n' High]

IO540

I don't think there is ANY point behind such allegedly deliberately crap wording

I agree, given it would be difficult to prove a breach as you and Pace rightly say. Even sadder, looking at the "amendment bar" adjacent to the current 3.3.2.1, it looks like it has recently been changed! And, still,
H 'n' H is confused! Not much hope for me really! :(

Anyway, I've learned something today! Think, for my own peace of mind, as Pace said, I'll just get it in writing. Not that I don't trust the CAA/NATS - soon, you'll be thinking H 'n' H is permanently paranoid!!! :}

Cheers guys! Off out now and I'm now suitably enlightened! :ok:

H 'n' H

[mm_flynn]

What about VFR in Class D?
It is from the PPL section and more fully means - in (Class D) VFR (in VMC of course) is OK, IFR in VMC is forbidden, IFR in IMC is forbidden.


The logic of why the CAA phrasing means IFR in VMC is forbidden (to a PPL in class D) is ---

Although you are not 'in circumstances requiring compliance with the IFRs', once you say you are IFR, you will receive and accept an IFR clearance, putting you in a 'circumstance requiring compliance with the IFRs' (which in this particular case are almost certainly operationally identical to the VFRs).

This is almost a verbatim response I received from the CAA.

[421dog]

From a "this side of the pond" perspective, an ATP is really just the "commercial instrument" rating. The standards are those that are required for any type-rating, so anyone who's got 1500 hrs and is taking his Citation 500 or whatever checkride actually has to perform to the standard, so he might as well get the rating. The hard part is all of the part 121, 125, and 131 garbage you have to regurgitate on the written.

The instrument rating over here has been best described as a "license to kill yourself, but not the rest of us". Part 91 operations are nearly entirely permissive, in that there are no specific minima for attempting an operation (other than airport limitations) so some 200 hr pilot with his newly minted instrument rating and absolutely no actual instrument time is totally free to kill himself on an ILS to a 0/0 field.

[Airbus Girl]

I think these posts just prove the point that in all kinds of flying, it is the pilots attitude that is the most important thing. Personally I don't like the IMC rating because the majority of IMC holders tend to not be current on real instrument flying and the only practice they tend to do is to fly the occasional ILS approach. I think most of the posters on here who have IMC ratings are the kind of pilots who keep their ratings valid, and are in regular practice with their instrument flying, and keen to add to their knowledge. The problem IMC rating holders are the ones who do the rating and then don't keep actively current, and then one day they have a trip planned to France with friends and rather than lose face and cancel it, they go ahead, knowing that they have an IMC rating, regardless of the fact they are not in current practice. They are the ones we read about in the accident pages.

I guess its like learning a language - I did German 'O' level at school but haven't really used it since. I have the piece of paper but would be pretty rubbish at speaking German. Yet if I was living in Germany I would be very proficient and my knowledge would probably mean I was on a par with an A level or Degree holder even though I didn't have that piece of paper.

[421C]

They are the ones we read about in the accident pages


No we don't. IFR accidents involvng IMCr holders are almost non-existant in the accident record. I've read zillions of web postings conjecturing the dangers of the IMCr and never seen any evidence for it. It's been around a long time and enough people have held it that there would be an accident record to support the "inadequately trained, don't stay current, blunder on regardless" hypothesis if it were true IMHO.

I'm not saying the IMCR danger hypothesis is impossible. But every Licence, Rating, Privilege etc has a potential danger scenario of being used to its legal max limit with legal min currency (or illegally in your French example). There's no evidence that such a danger is any higher with the IMCr than with any other qualification. It seems to me the training, privileges and how pilots use those privileges all line up very nicely.

brgds
421C

[Fuji Abound]

Personally I don't like the IMC rating because the majority of IMC holders tend to not be current on real instrument flying and the only practice they tend to do is to fly the occasional ILS approach.


Which only goes to show you have absolutely no understanding of the rating, and very little understanding of IMC ops in light aircraft.


and then one day they have a trip planned to France with friends and rather than lose face and cancel it, they go ahead, knowing that they have an IMC rating, regardless of the fact they are not in current practice.


I very much doubt you will find much evidence of the implied hords of IMCr pilots doing this and ending up in trouble in the air.

They are the ones we read about in the accident pages.

In which case, doubtless you would like to point us to the accident pages in question.

Airbus Girl - I am afraid your post is the usual dribble, which sounds all very alarming until you try and find any evidence to support the dribble.

The real problem is the intention behind your post was presumably to caution people either from obtaining an IMCr (in favour of a proper IR) or just a general slating of the IMCr on the basis, if it was well intentioned at all, of keeping these pilots out of harms way.

The reality is your post has the potential to achieve exactly the opposite effect - the abolition of the IMCr all together. As matters stand, all that will then happen is pilots will engage in IMC for what ever reason without any training at all - and will kill themselves.

I think you will find that pilots with either and IMCr or an IR in the vast majority of cases know their limits. It matters not the colour of your rating, as you rightly say, what does matter is whether or not you are current. For those pilots who are willing to push their PLs I can guarantee you it doesnt matter what rating they have, they will still find ways of killing themselves

You would do well to not be judgemental unless you can assure us you have reviewed the evidence.

[Pace]

Fuji

There is no reason to get heavy handed with Airbus Girl as a lot of what she says is not far off the Mark.

The IMCR is a minimal instrument training and nav package with high innacuracy tolerances for instrument flying. It is NOT an IR.

Many pilots do use it as an insurance policy, a get out of trouble rating only and are not current or experienced in instrument flight but like the enhanced safety the rating offers.

A few pilots use it for HARD IMC flying like a mini IR but it is their experience and currency which allows them to do so not the rating training itself.

Where AirbusGirl is wrong is in the fact that it cannot be used for day trips into France because it is not accepted there.

Pace

[IO540]

What I am not happy about with

I think these posts just prove the point that in all kinds of flying, it is the pilots attitude that is the most important thing. Personally I don't like the IMC rating because the majority of IMC holders tend to not be current on real instrument flying and the only practice they tend to do is to fly the occasional ILS approach. I think most of the posters on here who have IMC ratings are the kind of pilots who keep their ratings valid, and are in regular practice with their instrument flying, and keen to add to their knowledge. The problem IMC rating holders are the ones who do the rating and then don't keep actively current, and then one day they have a trip planned to France with friends and rather than lose face and cancel it, they go ahead, knowing that they have an IMC rating, regardless of the fact they are not in current practice. They are the ones we read about in the accident pages.

is that it implies that these pilots would be safer without the IMCR being an option at all.

Outside the UK, there is very little private IFR activity because the pilots there have been pushed into the VFR-only ghetto where they stay, occassionally doing some illegal and (more importantly) untrained IMC flight.

I was once parked at San Sebastian. There were a bunch of French pilots, all VFR ones, flying plastic homebuilts. All departed into ~ OVC007 to go back to their French destinations.

Here (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=175&pagetype=68&gid=559) is some data on private IR issuance in the UK. Pretty unimpressive, against the 20,000 or so IMC Ratings (reference: CAA presentation Feb 2008) issued since its start.

An IR holder with a poor currency will be as useless as an IMCR holder with poor currency.

[Hot 'n' High]

An IR holder with a poor currency will be as useless as an IMCR holder with poor currency.

Could not have put it better IO540!

The Thread title is “IR [training] vs IMCR training”. I think we all agree that there is more time on the IR course to practice things for the Test. But I would suggest that the “training experience advantage” rapidly diminishes after the Test leaving a PPL IR and a PPL IMCR in exactly the same boat within a couple of months of the IR, and less after renewals! And the differences in “tolerances” is a real red herring when it comes to basic safety. Where it really matters (ILS or similar) it’s the same. Upper air, the IMCR has a bit more latitude, but that is not where rocks and trees are found. A far more logical and productive discussion is to look at recurrency periodicity. But even that is moot as you can’t logically reduce the IMCR validity to less than that of the IR. Finally, as far as I’m aware, there have been absolutely no IMCR-related accidents ever - IMCR pilots have had accidents, but these have not been related to use of the Rating.

As Airbus Girl says

I think these posts just prove the point that in all kinds of flying, it is the pilots attitude that is the most important thing.

You said it – for a PPL IR or a PPL IMCR, it matters not.

[IO540]

Finally, as far as I’m aware, there have been absolutely no IMCR-related accidents ever - IMCR pilots have had accidents, but these have not been related to use of the Rating.In that presentation, the CAA head of licensing said they know of just one fatal accident where the pilot was exercising his IMCR privileges at the time.

This suprised a lot of people, because it goes against a certain widespread common "wisdom" but I would suppose that if this was easy to challenge, he would not have said it.

As 421C says, the IMCR training and usage tend to line up well and this is no doubt why there isn't wreckage everywhere (though there is a lot more wreckage in France, resulting from French pilots doing VFR into IMC etc). This is fairly obvious IMHO, because if you have the time and money to fly in a more advanced way (both equipment and mission profile) you will eventually find the time for the IR, not least because the IMCR is no good for IFR abroad. An FAA one it will be in most cases but that's another story.

[Hot 'n' High]

IO540,

Thank you. Sadly, I stand corrected - not because it weakens the argument much - just that any accident is sad. Pity we can't look at when it has helped.

Confession time! Years ago, I was flying cross-country and Met conditions got worse and worse, but I thought it would be easier to stay VFR underneath - even though I had an IMCR. Don't recall being particularly current in IF at the time and the forecast certainly had been way out - the vis was right down and cloud was forming off some high ground. To begin with, I could not face changing my "planned" VFR flight to an "unplanned" IFR flight particularly as, at the time, I was not particularly IF current. However, once I made the psychological decision to call it IFR and climb, all of a sudden my world got a whole lot easier and a lot safer. Yes, the flying was harder .... but I did not have the stress of peering out wondering how much worse things were going to get! Got the first VOR tuned in and I was up and running - with a friendly Radar service to back me up too if I became "unsure of my position". I felt sorry for the PA-28 ahead of me who was left grubbing along VFR as it was really not nice at all. I like to think the only reason I stayed VFR for so long was "because the guy ahead was managing OK"! At least, that way, I can blame my stupidy on the "macho-factor"!!! Hopefully, I've learned a bit over the years ... and long may I continue to learn!!

H 'n' H

[Fuji Abound]

There is no reason to get heavy handed with Airbus Girl as a lot of what she says is not far off the Mark.



Pace

There is, perhaps if only because I may have a better memory than you.

Airbus Girl has rolled out the same arguments before and was corrected last time. I think for the reasons I said her comments were very far off the mark.

I dont mind anyone putting forward a reasoned argument, but I do object when the argument is neither reasoned nor has the evidence previously presented been either refuted or accepted.

There are a great many people who would wish to see the end of the IMCr for reasons other than safety. If the IMCr is lost, and there is no comparable alternative, a great deal of the damage will have been done through either ignorance or maliciouness.

Neither should be tolerated by us.

[Pace]

10540

In that presentation, the CAA head of licensing said they know of just one fatal accident where the pilot was exercising his IMCR privileges at the time.

This suprised a lot of people, because it goes against a certain widespread common "wisdom" but I would suppose that if this was easy to challenge, he would not have said it.

There was a fatal in Ireland earlier this year descending into high terrain another over the channel. As Posted in an Earlier debate one of my best friends was killed in a mooney flying IMC with an IMCR.

Having said that both IMCR and IR pilots have fatals and the French accident stats are not a good advert for pure VFR no IMC flights. Without doubt the IMCR is a strong addition to flight safety but the Europeans for their own reasons dont want to see that.

Pace

[IO540]

the Europeans for their own reasons dont want to see that.

I don't think that is true, Pace.

In the few cases where the subject has been discussed among European pilots, AFAIK, half said that everybody will kill themselves without a proper gold plated IR, while the other half would have given both arms for what we have here in the UK.

About the same as here then ;)

Anyway, give it a few years. There might be some interesting developments.

[Sciolistes]

Fuji, Hot and High,
English proficiency for you, me thinks.

The sentence simply says adding the extra height and imposing an absolute minima are RECOMMENDED, read the whole of the section after recommended as just that - a complete section.
I interpret that the same way as High and High, that the absolute minima is 500/600' and that the recommendation applies to adding 200' to achieve an optionally higher DH/MDH.

However, some time ago I emailed the CAA and asked for clarification and was told that anything above standard IR privileges is recommended. But if you chose to ignore the advice and have an incident then the CAA would probably use that against you. When I asked if I could quote the email on pprune, they said they rather I didn't. I viewed the refusal as ominous and that they didn't really have much confidence in their own interpretation.

Regardless of what the CAA thinks (or that chap at the CAA thinks), I wouldn't trust the such ad hoc opinions from individual employees. My interpretation of the offending sentence is as stated and, personally speaking, if I were to use the IMC again in the future that is how I would treat it.

[IO540]

But if you chose to ignore the advice and have an incident then the CAA would probably use that against youI wonder what view their lawyer would take of that ;)

Especially as the history of prosecutions in this area (where only the pilot can say when he became visual) is exactly nil.

Regardless of what the CAA thinks (or that chap at the CAA thinks), I wouldn't trust the such ad hoc opinions from individual employeesFor yourself, such an opinion, coming as it does from an apparent authority, would make a prosecution impossible. That's how things work, and if they didn't work that way, any opinion on anything whatsoever from any official body whatever, would be totally worthless, because the enquirer has a reasonable expectation of receiving the correct advice from an official.

However, and I got this from a lawyer, such an opinion does not change the law itself, and this makes it difficult for other people to rely on it too. It appears, however, that if you posted that opinion openly on some website, and for ages the CAA did nothing to correct it, then it would hold up for the others too. This, I suspect, is why the CAA doesn't like their letters reproduced verbatim with the headers... and this is widely suspected to be the reason why the FAA withdrew their website FAQ in 2004; they didn't want their Chief Counsel opinions to be undermined.

The CAA is IME pretty good in the accuracy of their replies. I know of just two which are misleading or totally wrong. One told somebody he cannot fly a G-reg on an FAA license (which is really basic utter bollox), and the other told somebody he can fly a G-reg, worldwide IFR, on an FAA IR (which is true but they forgot to mention it works only in Class F or G which makes it effectively useless especially outside the UK).

[Hot 'n' High]

Pace,

I’m really sorry to hear that. Have you got the details of the Accident Report? I’d like to see what teaching points the Recommendations have.

Sciolistes

I interpret that the same way as High and High

and, notwithstanding what I now know thanks to IO540, Fuji, Shunter and your good self, I think I will still emphasise, and instruct to, the higher limits – explaining to the student why I am doing so. The reasons I will do this are as follows:-

1. Personally, I feel that, in the main, the pilots I take on to the IMCR will use it purely as a “recreational” licence. Usually, there is no need to fly “recreationally” in weather to the absolute IR minima. If the weather is that bad, most PPL IMCR’s would not bother anyway – most of those I know, and especially their pax, enjoy the view too much!

2. The newly qualified IMCR pilot will not be subject to the sort of early post-qualification supervision that we find in the Commercial world (OPC/LPC etc) followed, in the main, by two-crew Ops with an experienced Captain. While the upper-air section is fine, it’s the decision/transition phase as the ILS becomes more and more sensitive which is key.

3. And, finally, and not wishing to open another can of worms – my personal view this, flying SEP (which most IMCR PPLs do) with an overcast at 200ft leaves no margin for error in the engine failure case. If it’s 200ft at the field it’s probably on the deck on the hills surrounding the field! I know, statistically, it is very unlikely for all holes to line up for that one but ….. well, call me a woossie! :O

If someone asked me to Instruct them to the absolute limits, I would now do so (what choice have I got?!!) - but only having re-iterated (on a regular basis) the above cautions. I would even make a note to that effect in their Training Records! After all, we not only Instruct the practical mechanics for safe flight, but the decision-making skills which also ensure that the flight is safe. That way, hopefully Airbus Girl will see IMCR pilots making sensible choices, as I believe the vast majority do already - flying within their personal limits, be that the IR limits or the recommended IMCR limits.

Anyway, that’s my tack on this now, FWIW!

Cheers, H ‘n’ H

PS As a matter of fact, I have always made sure I take IMCR students down to the IR ILS minima once - to emphasise to them how much difference those last few hundred feet make!

[mm_flynn]

Hot N High, the accident in question is here AAIB (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/january_2000/mooney_500922.cfm).

A more complete analysis of the accidents in the CAA's latest 10year fatal accident summary shows twoweather related accidents for IMC rated pilots

There is one CFIT for an IMC pilot (An IMC pilot and instructor on an IMC re-validation)
There is one loss of control accident (the above referenced Mooney engine failure in IMC).

In the same period of time there were
1 CPL/IR CFIT
1 ATPL loss of control in IMC
1 CPL/IR Loss of control in IMC
9 PPL CFIT in IMC
2 PPL Loss of control in IMC

There is no data to suggest the relative exposure of PPL, PPL/IMC,CPL/IR, ATPL to IMC conditions in GA operations.

Interestingly there were also 6 accidents in the CAAs analysis that ocurred outside the UK and look like weather accidents (eg. 'crashed into mountainous terrain in deteriorating weather') for which inadequate information is available to be analysed.

Recently there have been a number if 'foreign' weather related accidents involving UK based pilots. As these are investigated by agencies other than the AAIB or the NTSB, the reports take ages to come into the public domain (and even the AAIB can take well over a year).

[belowradar]

Regarding training minima

I train to the minima on the approach plate and fly all ILS to the minima. This gets the pilot used to flying the full approach.

I explain what the CAA guidance is regarding adding a safety factor for IMC and emphasise that it is best practice HOWEVER don't worry about flying to the minima if you need to as long as you are current, just don't plan to do that !!!

[Hot 'n' High]

Pace,

Thanks for the link. And I’ll also dig out the latest “10 year” summary as well. Not looked at that for a while I must admit.

Belowradar,

Having pondered things a bit more, I think the thing for me to do is to chat to the CFI and see what "company policy" is on this, and clarify this wherever I happen to be Instructing. Had not even considered instructing IMCR to IR limits until yesterday so still a bit of a novel idea for me!

Anyway, my thanks to all. A very useful/enlightning Topic.

H ‘n’ H

[Pace]

These stats are between 1985 and 1994 where there were 29 fatal accidents in IMC.
Three quarters were to pilots who had NO IR or IMCR. That leaves approx 7 pilots killed with an IMCR in IMC in that period.

Only one of the accidents involved a pilot with a full IR.

Appendix 5 Loss of Control in IMC (LOC IMC)
1 Definition of a Fatal LOC IMC
¨ This is defined as a fatal accident where a pilot lost control of the aircraft in
Instrument Meteorological Conditions.
2 Pilot Characteristics in LOC IMC Accidents
¨ Pilots involved in fatal LOC IMC accidents appear to be close to average age.
The mean values for Total Hours and Hours on Type appear slightly lower than
for other accident types but the difference is not statistically significant.
Although recency data was too sparse to analyse, the averages do not suggest
that this type of accident is particularly associated with being out of practice.
¨ All were flying in IMC yet more than three quarters had no Instrument Rating
(IR) or IMC rating. (Only one pilot in this group had an IR.)

So much for the CAA guy who stated there had never been a fatal accident to a holder of an IMCR in IMC which is argued in these threads.
My Friend killed in the mooney was in this period.

Pace

[-GQ-]

I'm close to doing the PPL skills test and plan to do IMC training straight after (I understand the 25 hour rule).

Given the common view, albeit not universal, in this thread that IMCr allows full IFR flight (except no class A and 1800m horizontal take off and landing minima), why does a respected training institution like Multiflight say on their website "The IMC rating allows you to pilot your aircraft in slightly worse weather conditions than the basic PPL. However it must be stressed that this licence is designed to allow you to depart into better weather or land should the weather change enroute and is more of a 'get out of jail card'. It is not a licence to takeoff, cruise and land is [sic] poor weather."?

Is this just to illustrate that they are a conservative and responsible organisation?

My question not rhetorical or aimed at slating any FTO, but a genuine enquiry, as I plan to use the rating as regularly as I can - I don't want to become a fairweather local bambler and if I want to go on to CPL/IR/ME and beyond, I want to be as prepared as possible.

So would your average club allow you to take off in a rented aircraft in genuine IMC minima?

I would appreciate the views of pilots who use their IMCr regularly.

Thanks

[Fuji Abound]

Pace


So much for the CAA guy who stated there had never been a fatal accident to a holder of an IMCR in IMC which is argued in these threads.



Where are you getting your information from? Do you have a link to the reports and stats. for the period to which you refer?


But if you chose to ignore the advice and have an incident then the CAA would probably use that against you.


Rubbish


I think I will still emphasise, and instruct to, the higher limits – explaining to the student why I am doing so.


I wouldnt, if I were you.

The best way to ensure the average pilot knows he shouldnt being flying to minima is to require him to do just that. How many of us think we can do things, until we try. It is in the trying that we come to appreciate the skills required. Emphasise time and again the dangers of doing so unless you are current, point out how tough you found it when you were current during your training and accompanied by an instructor - you have far more chance to get the message home. Moreover if they get really unlucky and the forecasts are horribly wrong at least they have an idea what it is about.

[Brendan Navigator]

I just love how this debate goes on and on. Polarised views colouring the views from both sides of the fence.

Considder this;

When driving pass a school it is recomended that your speed is less than 20 mph but with an absolute limit of 30 mph.

or

When driving past a school it is recomended that your speed is less than 20 mph and with an absolute limit of 30 mph.

I believe that both of the above sentences say the same.

They both recomend that you drive at less than 20 mph

They both say that while driving at 25mph you are not following the recomendation but are within the overall limit

They both say that driving at 35 mph in the above case is not OK because it is outside the absolute limit of speed allowed.

BN

[Pace]

https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP667.PDF

Fuji

This is the Link to the CAA accident stats for that period. They are for aircraft flying IMC not ones flying IMC that decided to try going underneith or for IMCR pilots flying VFR in minImal conditions.

If those were brought in the picture I am sure there would be far worse picture especially amongst IMCR pilots who are not current or experienced but do use it to fly in minimal VMC.

Fuji we had a long thread on this before and one where numerous times the arguement was made that there had been NO fataliies in the whole history of the IMCR which is rubbish.

There are NOT two brigades the pro IMCr and anti IMCR.
I have my own views that by promoting an IMCR in Europe will lead to a new IMCR watered down to almost nothing as I cannot see the Europeans accepting an IMCR in the way we use it in the UK.

A case of passing the ball and shooting an own goal.

I could see the Europeans seeing an IMCR as a way out of issuing a Proper achievable FAA style PPL IR and creating a VFR IMCR tacked on for VFR pilots who get into trouble only.

IMO It is better to fight for a PPL IR Than cloud the issue but then what do I know?

Lastly small point when you place highlighted extracts please make sure who they refer to as you open your post with PACE as if the extracts are from my writing which apart from the first they are NOT.

Pace

[Gertrude the Wombat]

So would your average club allow you to take off in a rented aircraft in genuine IMC minima?
Mine doesn't, nowhere near.

But it's their train set, they can set whatever rules they see fit, if I don't like it I can go elsewhere.

[mm_flynn]

Pace, Cap667 is more than a decade old (and I think your friend's Mooney accident happened in 1999 and is therefore not included in Cap667 but is included in Cap780 (rather than the late 80's M20K at Southampton). The data I based my analysis on is Cap780 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP780.pdf). In addition, I have only included fixed wing aircraft, whereas a number of the IMC accidents in Cap667 involve helicopters.

Much the same as in Cap780, a number of the IMC fixed wing IMC accidents happened outside the UK.

[Pace]

mm flynn

The big words were " never in the history of the IMCR there has never been a fatality etc.

All used as arguemnt in the previous thread. But hey statistics can read what you want them too. I could take one month, say there have been no accidents to pilots as there were none in that month and then portray the no accident result from statistics.

There have been three fatal accidents alone this year due to non VFR weather and conditions in fixed wing and am pretty sure all 3 held IMC ratings.

But this is point scoring as No one me included is trying to say that pilots trained in instrument flying are more dangerous than their pure VFR brothers.
Infact the reverse is true they are far safer.

But things have changed.
We are now more and more under the power of Europe who dont really care much about GA and whether Joe Blogs can take his girlfriend for a weekend in france flying IFR in airways on his PPL .
Yes they will give sympathetic noises, big smiles and tea and biscuits but thats about all and for us charging around Europe in cloud on an IMCR to an ILS forget it it wont happen other than in an emergency only situation.


Pace

[IO540]

The CAA said there was one known fatality of a pilot while exercising the privileges of the IMC Rating.

That's not the same as counting all pilots who got killed and who happened to have the IMCR. There will be more of those, obviously. One reportedly got killed flying an ILS into Le Touquet, I gather, but that one obviously doesn't count because it was illegal anyway.

[Pace]

The CAA said there was one known fatality of a pilot while exercising the privileges of the IMC Rating.

10540

How can that be when the IMC fatalities for that period contained 7 IMCR pilots in IMC. Being in IMC with IMCR ratings must mean that they were exercising their privalages to be there?

I can remember flying a C150 with very basic instrumentation and no NAV. I started VFR following a river line to avoid high ground at 700 agl in poor vis and rain. When I was down at 200 feet with wisps of cloud below I elected to climb IMC and get a PAR to a landing at a military base back then I had an IMCR. Luckely for me I flew out of the front into good VFR 20 miles from the base. I was exercising the privileges of the IMC Rating having been forced up.

My big concern with saving the IMCR is that we will loose the bigger picture of an achievable PPL IR. We will hand EASA a way out of ever making a European PPL IR a la FAA. I can see it now.

The new European IMCR has been approved in the name of safety. The new IMCR will allow VFR pilots to fly in lower VFR limits. Should such a pilot EIMCR rated be unable to continue his/her trip because of weather they may climb to the SSA into IMC. They must then squawk an emergency special code and state their situation. They will then be guided to a nearby airport by radar with an instrument approach and with weather in certain limits and will land.

Is that what we want? becuase my fear is something like that is what we will get.

Pace

[englishal]

When driving past a school it is recomended that your speed is less than 20 mph and with an absolute limit of 30 mph.
In approach terms...I'd say (regardless of IR or IMCr):

If the approach is stable then you can take it to minima no problem.
If the approach is unstable and going to rats sh*t, then throw it away as soon as possible and try again or divert.
In an emergency and the approch is stable, fly it onto the deck.

Or to use the car analogy:

If kids are playing near the road, 20 mph may be too fast. If it is 11pm then 40mph may be ok....

[Fuji Abound]

Is that what we want? becuase my fear is something like that is what we will get.

All I am prepared to say at this time is it would seem your fear is unwarranted.

The IMCr has proved to be an exceptionally safe rating over a very long period of time. In short it has stood the test of time.

The existence of the rating has I believe ensured the safety of a great many pilots, and has significantly promoted GA in this country.

There are a few who would like to rewrite history. I would strongly caution against doing so and suggest that those who would should carefully examine their reasons.

[mm_flynn]

I am surprised at the 'Only one IMCr fatality' comment as there clearly are two in the CAP780 period and several others in the prior report.

Pace, on a point of detail, your quote earlier in the day is slightly incorrect.

The CAA report regarding IMC Loss of Control accidents does say, '75% of accidents involved non-rated pilots and only one with an IR'. However, there are only 13 accidents in this group - which seems to break down as 1 IR, 2 IMC, 10 PPL. The CFIT category will surely have a number of IRs as some of these were 'proper aircraft' like Beech 90, Beech 200, Twin Otter, Trislander or undertaking what looks very much like AOC work.

In my mind, the key point in all of these statistics is people with only a PPL flying in IMC (on purpose or accidentally) get killed quite a lot (relatively to the hopefully very small percentage of time they spend in IMC). People flying with IMC training also have accidents, even AOC operators in IMC. However, the safety record of the proper IFR operators (both IMC and IR ratings) seems to have improved substantially between the the two reports - Maybe technology and training are helping?

[Pace]

All I am prepared to say at this time is it would seem your fear is unwarranted.

Fuji

If you know something the rest of us dont and that something is that Europe is about to accept the IMCR as it stands in the UK then that is BIG and good news :)

Pace

[Pace]

MM Flynn

I took my numbers of 29 from this section for the period which is roughly 7-8 pilots who were IMCR rated, but I am NOT saying the IMCR has not made a massive contribution to safety for the VFR pilot. You only have to look at the French VFR accidents to realise the IMCR safety benefits

6.5 Loss of Control in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (LOC IMC)
(See Appendix 5)
This was defined as an accident where a pilot lost control of the aircraft in
Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). This was the fourth most common
accident type, having been the cause of 8% of the accidents and 29 deaths. Three
quarters of the pilots involved were attempting to fly in IMC when not qualified to
do so. It was not possible to determine whether or not the accident aircraft were
fitted with serviceable attitude indication equipment to assist the pilot in getting out
of such weather conditions.


Pace

[mm_flynn]

MM Flynn

I took my numbers of 29 from this section for the period which is roughly 7-8 pilots who were IMCR rated
Pace
29 deaths, 'only' 13 accidents (each one tragic)

[Pace]

mm flynn

:ok:

Pace