Using the IMC abroad..

[nick ritter]

Hi all,

I know that the IMCr is only a UK rating – however.. I would be interested to hear how people with this rating deal with certain situations when travelling outside the UK

You check the weather for your destination – say some airport just outside of Paris (any good recommendations would be appreciated as well for my June 11th trip) and the forecast is for scattered cloud at 2500 or something. You decide to go – yet approaching Paris it is clear that the cloud has got thicker and that in order to land you will need to descend through cloud (no holes immediately visible)

As I am new to it – perhaps my assumptions are wrong?

Am I right in thinking that you can only fly above cloud outside of the UK only as long as you are in the sight of the surface (i.e some hole somewhere that lets you see the ground)? Or can you fly above cloud irrespective of being insight of the ground?

Either way you are not allowed to climb through or descend through cloud or to fly an approach as you don’t hold an IR? And that you are not allowed a traffic service as you are not IR and you have not filled an IFR plan?

If these are correct – how do people deal with the above situation?

Are you just meant to look for a hole? Turn around and go home? Or do people just let down through the cloud regardless while tracking a certain route/VOR knowing that you will come out at a safe height to land visually? Would it ever be acceptable to fly the published approach? Or only under an emergency?

I don’t ask to see where I can bend the rules – I am not looking to do more than I am allowed – I am just trying to think ahead to the inevitable day when this situation presents itself

Any advice, experiences, would be much appreciated

Thanks in advance – Nick

[BackPacker]

If you have an IMC, it generally has two benefits:

1. It lifts certain restrictions that are placed on your vanilla UK PPL, including the "in sight surface" restriction.
2. It gives you the ability to fly in IMC conditions, outside controlled airspace.

Item 1 applies worldwide, but item 2 is UK-only.

So outside the UK you have to fly in VMC conditions. Those VMC conditions limits are defined on a per-country and per-airspace class (A-G) basis. But I'm not aware of any VMC condition in any class anywhere that allows you to fly in cloud. So any kind of cloud flying is forbidden. Also, mind that certain classes of airspace in some countries have an "in sight surface" requirement attached. In that case you still have to follow that requirement even though that requirement is lifted from your license.

So to descend through a cloud layer you have to find a hole. A hole which is actually big enough to satisfy the VMC conditions with regards to cloud clearance: Just the width of your wings may not satisfy VMC conditions unless those limits are just stated as 'clear of cloud'.

Or you rely on a bit of common sense and the fact that it'll be extremely hard for a prosecutor to successfully prosecute you for not maintaining VMC. (So don't put your "marginal VMC" flight on Youtube...)

[IO540]

An IMCR substantially expands your ability to do VFR flights abroad, because you can fly and navigate in lower vis, fly and navigate above an overcast, and you can penetrate IMC if this is necessary. In an emergency situation you can fly an IAP also, because you know how.

It makes you a much more confident pilot. Almost no really long VFR trip is possible as 100% totally clear of any cloud whatsoever. Well, it is possible if you are a permanent retired pilot with plenty of time :)

I would still be really careful to avoid ending up looking like a d1ck at the destination, because if the wx is OVC002 and you call up "VFR inbound" at 5000ft overhead, it is kind of obvious.... but enroute is a different thing.

The IMCR will not help you with a departure from a non-UK towered airport because they have VMC/VFR minima e.g. 1500ft cloudbase so if it is BKN009 you are stuck there no matter what. That actually happens quite often to VFR pilots.

"In sight of surface" is unenforceable and meaningless - assuming you are technically capable.

BTW the IMCR allows IFR in Class D,E,F,G in UK airspace, not just Class F,G.

[proudprivate]

1. It lifts certain restrictions that are placed on your vanilla UK PPL, including the "in sight surface" restriction.
...
Item 1 applies worldwide, but item 2 is UK-only.


There is an old quote from "bookworm" describing a few worldwide differences, clearly contradicting point 1.


For example, at Night, the rules of VFR in France change to prohibit flight above a covered layer. Other countries prohibit VFR flight in a control zone above a covered layer. I don't recall any country that prohibits it as a matter of course though.

Just this once, I'm genuinely interested in the data and I'm not trying to pick a fight for the sake of it :)

I've downloaded GEN1.7 (National Differences from ICAO) from a number of AIPs (France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Sweden) and I can't find any evidence of that. Germany does prohibit VFR on top in class G, which only exists below 2500 ft agl.

France doesn't seem to change its rules of the air for night VFR, but since night VFR is effectively by exemption on particular routes, it may be that all the permissible night VFR routes have an 'in sight of the surface' restriction -- can't find it though.

The only state I ever found that prohibited VFR on top was South Africa.


From studying for the Belgian Air Law exam, I seem to remember that VFR above a cloud layer in Belgium was prohibited. In France, by day, it certainly is allowed and is stated explicitly in my "Manuel de Pilote Privé" which I bought for the inevitable small French airfield A/A and local regs.

As none of the countries outside the UK recognise the IMCR, I doubt very much that it would be of any use for the objectives you mentioned.

Also, in regards to "declaring an emergency" there was an interesting incident about a year and a half ago with a Dutch IFR rated pilot asking for an IFR clearance when getting above a cloud layer and Bremen Control (manned by an inexperienced stressed young lady) refusing first and arguing until the pilot in desperation declared an emergency to obtain his clearance. This then escalated into a full blown LBA-investigation and enforcement action, questioning pilots in the surroundings etc...

So don't try this above Germany :E

Hope this helps,

PP

[BackPacker]

PP, do you have a *UK issued* JAR-FCL compliant PPL?

This is taken straight from the ANO, which is the law governing anything that has to do with UK-issued PPLs:

SCHEDULE 7 Articles 64 to 71 and 78
Flight crew of aircraft – licences, ratings, qualifications and maintenance
of licence privileges
PART A
Flight crew licences
SECTION 1
United Kingdom Licences
SUB-SECTION 1
Aeroplane pilots
Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
Minimum age – 17 years
No maximum period of validity
Privileges:
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the holder of a Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes) is entitled to fly as pilot in command or co-pilot of an aeroplane of any of the types or classes specified or otherwise falling within an aircraft rating included in the licence.
(2) The holder may not—
[...]
(c) unless the 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 if the flight visibility is less than three 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 subparagraph; or
(iii) out of sight of the surface;
[...]
(e) unless the licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane), fly as pilot in command or co-pilot of such an aeroplane flying in Class A, B or C airspace in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules;
(f) unless the licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command or co-pilot of such an aeroplane flying in Class D or E airspace in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules; or
[...]


These are restrictions on the *license*. They apply worldwide unless the applicable condition (IR or IMC) is met. So the holder of a UK-issued (JAR-FCL or national) PPL may not fly out of sight of the surface UNLESS he holds an IMC or IR. Period. And yes, this is not entirely according to JAR-FCL. So this *license* restriction is lifted (or replaced by something else) if you trade in your UK-issued license for another countries license.

Now IF said PPL holder also holds the IMC or IR, the *license restriction* is lifted. But there may still be *airspace restrictions* or other restrictions in place that required him from flying out of sight of the surface. These restrictions may be buried in the VMC minima that are defined for the various classes of airspace (A-G) or elsewhere. That's what bookworks quote is about.

(Edited: The ANO section quoted is about old-style UK licenses. But the section on JAR-FCL licenses is essentially the same and has the same restrictions.)

[AdamFrisch]

"In sight of surface" is unenforceable and meaningless - assuming you are technically capable.

Which is pretty much true for all VFR minima enforcement. 1500m horizontally from cloud? Not even P3 Orion full of the Royal Navy's most high tech equip could measure that with any accuracy.

[Fuji Abound]

An IMCR substantially expands your ability to do VFR flights abroad, because you can fly and navigate in lower vis, fly and navigate above an overcast, and you can penetrate IMC if this is necessary. In an emergency situation you can fly an IAP also, because you know how.


Read this carefully.

If you fly a lot and actually go places you will do well at some point not too come a little unstuck with the weather.

The key is that the IMCr doesnt know where you are and doesnt care, and you know how to get yourself out of trouble.

Obvioulsy you never set out to abuse your priviliges and obviously you will think carefully should the need arise, but it is good to know that if all else fails "in an emergency situation" you can get yourself down, just as well as you could in the UK.

[bookworm]

Now IF said PPL holder also holds the IMC or IR, the *license restriction* is lifted. But there may still be *airspace restrictions* or other restrictions in place that required him from flying out of sight of the surface. These restrictions may be buried in the VMC minima that are defined for the various classes of airspace (A-G) or elsewhere. That's what bookworks quote is about.

Wot he said.

[BackPacker]

Not quite...

But there may still be *airspace restrictions* or other restrictions in place that required him from flying out of sight of the surface.

What I meant, of course, was that there may be other restrictions in place that *forbid* him from flying out of sight of the surface.

:ugh:

[Whopity]

ANO Schedule 7 Part BInstrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes)
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), within the United Kingdom an instrument meteorological
conditions rating (aeroplanes) rating entitles:so how does this apply outside the UK?

[IO540]

It doesn't.

The bit of the IMCR which applies outside the UK is the removal of the UK-issued PPL to be in sight of surface for VFR.

Far be it for me to argue with you, Whopity :)

Obvioulsy you never set out to abuse your priviliges and obviously you will think carefully should the need arise, but it is good to know that if all else fails "in an emergency situation" you can get yourself down, just as well as you could in the UK.

Indeed, but there is a subtle difference between going somewhere if

- IMC (or low vis) will kill you
- IMC (or low vis) won't kill you

You could be flying over the Channel on a hazy day and you see absolutely zilch. It is just like IMC. But 100% legal VFR. You can even see the water surface if you look straight down.

So instrument capability, even if not legal, is worth a huge amount - because VFR license privileges are impossible to fully explore on the basic PPL training one gets.

Pre-IR, I used to plan my long cross-Europe VFR trips very carefully, to make sure I would never make a fool of myself.

My only reflection on those long trips (all the way to Crete) is that I had much better weather back then. Since I got the IR, the weather has been much worse :)

[Fuji Abound]

Indeed, but there is a subtle difference between going somewhere if

- IMC (or low vis) will kill you
- IMC (or low vis) won't kill you

You could be flying over the Channel on a hazy day and you see absolutely zilch. It is just like IMC. But 100% legal VFR. You can even see the water surface if you look straight down.

So instrument capability, even if not legal, is worth a huge amount


Yes, exactly and I think you are reading between the lines.

To be blunt, if you go places you WILL get caught out by the weather sometime be it your example or something else. I know you know that!

So you will use your IMCr in earnest and be pleased your skills are current and ready.

Some may be even more "cavalier" and if some are to be believed this is as true of us and our European cousins.

To this day I still recall an afternoon at a well kown destination in France when conditions became distinctly IMC. I dont think there was one other IR or valid IMCr holder in the airport on that day but I can guarantee you there werent any aircraft left on the tarmac either. ;)

[BEagle]

If these are correct – how do people deal with the above situation?

They do what the French do - lie and say they're in VMC.

[bookworm]

ANO Schedule 7 Part B
Instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes)
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), within the United Kingdom an instrument meteorological
conditions rating (aeroplanes) rating entitles:

so how does this apply outside the UK?

The restriction in question is in Schedule 7 Part A:

Section 1 – United Kingdom Licences
Sub-Section 1 AEROPLANE PILOTS
Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
(2) The holder may not:
...
(c) unless the licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an instrument
meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command of such an
aeroplane:
...
(iii) out of sight of the surface;

Similar for the JAR-FCL version.

[Pace]

You are the commander of the aircraft and responsable for the safety of your aircraft and its pax.

As such your decisions relating to the above overide any other laws.
Should you with an IMCR rating and with the skills and currency to boot inadvertantly get into an IMC condition where you deem your SAFEST option is to take an instrument approach then do it and argue the situation on the ground.

As long as you explain to ATC your predicament and intentions I cannot see how legally you could have the book thrown at you.

The situation can occur with N v G reg. Pilot X flies his Cirrus SR22 to a french location. He flies IFR and lands off an instrument approach with overcast 300 feet in his N reg Cirrus with aN FAA PPL IR.

Next day Pilot X with a Basic European licence flies the same trip but VFR in the same aircraft type but G reg.
A front moves in much faster than forecast (it does happen and Pilot X is trapped from behind and infront.
Now his destination 25 miles ahead is 300 overcast what does he do?
It is pretty obvious that anything less than flying an IFR approach is risking his aircraft and the lives of those on board.

Douglas Bader quote " Rules are for fools to obey and wisemen to question".

As Captain do whatever you consider is your safest option for the flight and argue it later. You cannot argue from a coffin just because you stuck to the rules.

To takeoff knowing your conditions at the other end are likely to be IMC and then take an instrument approach then you will be in trouble legally if anyone cottons on.

Addendum

Rules should be in place to protect us from ourselves and to make flying safer as such we should try to keep to them.

Sadly EASA a supposed safety body has shown this NOT to be the case.Their regulations are more and more politically motivated and less and less safety orientated GO FIGURE?

Pace

[what next]

Hello!

As such your decisions relating to the above overide any other laws.

Yes, but really only in an emergency. Like in your deteriorating weather example. In all other cases, you as the commander must base your decisions on the laws in force.

I personally know of several cases here in Germany where continuing flight into adverse weather conditions by non IFR-rated (but obviously capable) pilots has resulted in accusations of "endagering the safety of an aeroplane and its occupants in grossly negligent manner". The prosecutors/authorities have won every time.

[Pace]

The prosecutors/authorities have won every time.

It is also the Captains position to stop a potential emergency situation arising.

The key here is to explain to ATC your predicament and your intentions.
To mislead ATC that you hold ratings that you dont or to say little when you have safer options available than taking an instrument approach will proabably result in a prosection.

But to have it recorded that you have entered adverse weather that you hold an IUK MCR rating and on the grounds of safety you would like vectors onto the XYZ ILS ???

The French who have no IMCR have a bad VFR fatality rate. Hence there is a move in France to push through an FAA style french PPL IR.

As EASA continue down their politically motivated regulation path and fail to follow their SAFETY mandate I can see more successful challenges in the courts based on safety against EASA.

I maybe wrong but regarding FAA IR v JAA IR I do not think there has been a prosecution against an FAA IR flying a JAA aircraft IFR?

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

There's an old saying "it's always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

You are a fool and deserve to have the book flown at you if, outside the UK, you deliberately plan to fly IMC on an IMC rating.

You are an even bigger fool if you get into a situation that you didn't expect, and you don't use IMC training to get you out of trouble if that is the solution which puts the aircraft and its occupants least in harms way. If you get prosecuted for this, tell the truth and let the local legal system do its worse - you'll still be alive to take the punishment, but the odds are any sensible legal system will not be particularly severe anyhow.

G

[Johnm]

I have been caught twice by worse than expected weather in Germany while an IMCR holder in both cases the safest course of action was to climb into IMC and seek a diversion to a VFR field which was organised with little or no drama. I wasn't even asked if I had a problem, so I suspect it's not that uncommon.

Similarly in France low cloud rolled in and screwed up my planned route royally. That time I was actually VFR on top and again with ATC help found a suitable alternative plan, though they had to work at it before we finally ended with Toussus le Noble as an alternative stop to Troyes.:p

[Sillert,V.I.]

Speaking very much from personal experience, I'd caution IMC holders to think very carefully before planning an international flight in dubious weather conditions. It's terribly easy to be tempted into pressing on and once the trap is sprung, you can very quickly run out of options.

I learned this the hard way and was lucky to escape with my life. Not being prosecuted & getting to keep my licence was an unexpected bonus.

[IO540]

I personally know of several cases here in Germany where continuing flight into adverse weather conditions by non IFR-rated (but obviously capable) pilots has resulted in accusations of "endagering the safety of an aeroplane and its occupants in grossly negligent manner". The prosecutors/authorities have won every time.

That seems to be a very German thing.

What exactly were the circumstances? Except in obvious cases, like departing VFR into an ATC-assessed OVC002 (and bear in mind and doing so into OVC006 would be prob99 legal in UK Class G because you can fly at 500ft AGL), only the pilot can know his actual flight conditions.

The FAA has also successfuly prosecuted pilots for "VFR in IMC" but only in such obvious near-airport cases.

Maybe the German accused just pleaded guilty, like a good citizen should :)

I'd caution IMC holders to think very carefully before planning an international flight in dubious weather conditions. It's terribly easy to be tempted into pressing on and once the trap is sprung, you can very quickly run out of options.

I learned this the hard way and was lucky to escape with my life. Not being prosecuted & getting to keep my licence was an unexpected bonus.

Can you describe what happened?

Legalities aside, IMC is the same in the UK as France etc. There is no obvious reason why you should get killed in France (e.g.) and not doing the same thing in the UK.

I would not suggest somebody embarking on an obviously illegal flight, on the basis of the IMCR, but that is a different line to saying that somebody might get killed when using the privilege abroad.

[what next]

Hello!

What exactly were the circumstances? Except in obvious cases, like departing VFR into an ATC-assessed OVC002 (and bear in mind and doing so into OVC006 would be prob99 legal in UK Class G because you can fly at 500ft AGL), only the pilot can know his actual flight conditions.

Of several cases I know of, here are two very different ones as examples:

a) One is an instructor colleague who at that time had no IFR rating but was quite proficient at instrument flying. He was on a VFR flight with a passenger and pressed on through clouds, knowing (or hoping?) that his destination was VMC. In the cloud they experienced severe icing, had to declare an emergency and were vectored onto the ILS of an international airport nearby.

b) The other one is a training captain at a large airline who was flying privately with a helicopter. He had promised the flight to some relatives who were on a tight schedule and took off despite a thin layer of low stratus that had already started to dissolve. The tower controller who knew that the type of helicopter was not cleared for instrument flying immediately reported the incident and again the pilot was met by some officials right after touchdown.

Maybe the German accused just pleaded guilty, like a good citizen should

In both these cases they did. Because you are usually given two options:

1. Go to court. In case you lose you have a criminal record, "endangering the safety of an aeroplane" being a criminal offense. Not a good thing for any pilot and most certainly the end of the career of an airline pilot.
2. Plead guilty, accept a fine at the discretion of the aviation authority and have the criminal charges dropped.
Which option would you chose - good citizen or not? (BTW: I once infringed a miltary zone during aerial work (an offense even worse than flying IFR without a rating) and very gladly accepted option 2 without even asking what the fine would be or what my chances would have been to win the court case...)

Regards, max

NB: Anonther instructor colleague of mine did the same thing as our colleague in example a) above. The exact cause of the accident could never be determined (there were no survivors) but airframe/pitot icing with subsequent loss of control by a pilot not trained for instrument flying seems to be the most probable. Since this accident I really understand the reason behind prosecuting this kind of activity. The pilot can decide for himself, but his unsuspecting passenger(s) deserve to be protected.

[Fuji Abound]

Departing knowing your destination will involve an IMC descent is asking for trouble. Such an IMC descent is pretty much guaranted if the forecast is overcast x with no prob relief.

However anything involving a probable VMC on top that becomes less than VMC is going to be tough to argue the toss over should you decide to press on.

Anything involving an arrival with a reasonable prob of broken or scattered is a reasonable departure.

The get out of jail card is to declare an emergency; I cant imagine if you have departed in any of the above circumstances (except the first) a prosecution would be sucessful.

The rating has had no idea whether you are in France or the UK anymore than the fella with an FAA IR is more or less capable of flying an approach in IMC in France in a G reg aircraft (which would of course be illegal). I would love to see a case where this happens and the pilot is brave enough to fight his corner in court.

So let me see, the FAA consider I am qualified to fly the approach, the JAA consider I am qualified to fly the approach if the aircraft has an N on the side, but if I paint a G on the side, all of a sudden I am not long capable. That is a convincing argument - not! Imagine try to persuade a jury they should convict the pilot. I bet the judge would have to do a lot of directing. ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Devil's advocate here..

You might be 'capable" but you are not 'qualified'.
Big difference in the eyes of the law. You get 'convicted' for busting the laws of the land.

Take a 700 mile road trip (or whatever it is) from London to Prague....
BAC limit in the UK is 0.8 mg per ml
In France and Germany it is 0.5 mg per ml
and 0.0 mg per ml in Czech Republic.

Same car, same registration, same driver but different rules apply.
You get convicted for breaking the rules appropriate to the country.

Aviation is no different than many walks of life.

Similarity being that 70%mg.bal might get you killed on a sharp bend whilst a bit tired in any of those countries, regardless of the legalities. And in pretty much all cases, being banged up in the local clink for a while is still better than being wrapped around a lamp-post.

We do need I think to separate out:

- Deliberately flying illegally when it wasn't necessary.

- Saving an aircraft from unforseen circumstances, using available equipment and training, and happening to break the law whilst doing so.


Except in very exceptional circumstances, nobody needs to deliberately launch a car with alcohol inside them, or an aeroplane into marginal VMC for which they're not formally qualified.

I can't imagine any jury / magistrate / prosecutor / authority will struggle too much to understand the difference between breaking the law because you believed you'd get away with it, and breaking the law because it was the best way to get safely onto a runway.

I suspect that the difference will be between a mild slap on the wrist, and a hefty fine or short spell in the local clink.

G

[Fuji Abound]

Socal i dont disagree, but there is a distinction between your example.

A country may have its own view on a safe alcohol level, and who is to say their view is wrong, and they may have a view that an faa ir does not cut the mustard - and who is to say they are wrong. However to cut the mustard in an identical aircraft distinguished only by the letter on the side is banal. In your example that would mean you would be legal in a car in holland with 10 mg in your blood but change the plates on the car and you would mysteriously be illegal. The faa ir is good enough with a n on the side but not good enough with a g. The imcr is good enough to the fir but 10 feet the other side isnt even though we are meant to all be in the same european boat. Imagine the french refusing to accept a britsh driving licence! Or we a french licence.

The law is the law, but just sometimes it takes brave people to point out the law is an ass. :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

The whole basis of the Chicago Convention, of-course, is based upon the homogenous safety of an aircraft + flight crew licences + ground crew licences + operating procedures combination.

And in 1944, that did make a lot more sense than perhaps it does now when global equipment and training standards are a lot more universal. What makes it even more daft in Europe is JAA and now EASA which has created uinversal standards in many things, but it remains the case that each national authority is still lord of its own airspace.


Instrument flight is probably a latecomer for necessary global convergence. As I understand it, the "vanilla" FAA IR is rather closer to the UK IMC - which since US airliners aren't routinely embarrassing themselves around the world presumably means that there's additional training in the ATPL and/or type rating courses for the airlines. Fair enough.

In the meantime, I learned the other day that Transport Canada has "VFR Over The Top" or VFR-OTT rating, FAA has an IR which is affordable and sensible for a PPL, the UK has the IMC rating which is also affordable and sensible for a PPL... Even the French are now talking about something that looks like an IMC rating.

... we aren't going to change the ICAO convention requirement to match licence with state of registry.

So what we need is an ICAO IR for PPLs that is acknowledged across the world. The right solution to this is probably that the IR in Europe, and I'm sure one or two other places, is trimmed down to the ICAO minimum (which will then look rather like the FAA IR), and additional material needed for the airlines is moved over to type rating training and tests where it really belongs.

Maybe this would be a worthy project for IAOPA?

G

[Pace]

between breaking the law because you believed you'd get away with it, and breaking the law because it was the best way to get safely onto a runway.

If the Commander of the aircraft decided he was in a situation where his aircraft was in danger then his decisions over ride any laws which are in place.
Following that he could not be found guilty of breaking such a law because as Captain he has the ultimate authority.

He may have broken laws taking him to the point that requires him to overide laws to save his aircraft but that is different.

Here we are talking about a pilot flying VFR who is forced by weather into IMC and decides his best option is to use skills he has to fly an instrument approach.

That is different to knowingly flying outside the legal boundaries of his licence.

N reg V JAA reg? Pilot is qualified to fly IFR but not legal to do so. I would imagine he could not be found guilty of endangering his aircraft and occupants but would be found guilty on technicalities.
Not sure what would happen with insurance etc.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Genghis i think you will find the faa ir is every bit as hard as our equivalent - some would say "harder" some would say the emphasis has far more to do with real world application. I dont think anyone seriously argues these days there is much between them. In fact the evidence is faa ir holders in europe have a lower accident rate than jaa ir holders. I dont think the cat enviroment is relevant - instrument flying in a multi crew commercial cockpit is very different than single pilot ifr ops. One might say single pilot ops with a six pack and no ap outside cas is as tough as it gets. Some are even currently questioning the instrument skills of certain french atpls at the moment.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Can you describe what happened?

Legalities aside, IMC is the same in the UK as France etc. There is no obvious reason why you should get killed in France (e.g.) and not doing the same thing in the UK.

I would not suggest somebody embarking on an obviously illegal flight, on the basis of the IMCR, but that is a different line to saying that somebody might get killed when using the privilege abroad.

In brief, on a flight from the UK to Holland, the knowledge that I was flying illegally once in dutch airspace compromised my decision-making & I then concentrated on trying to cover up what I had done when I should have been asking for help. The knowledge that I could be prosecuted for my actions definitely compounded my earlier bad judgement.

[IO540]

So what we need is an ICAO IR for PPLs that is acknowledged across the world.ICAO does "require" mutual acceptance but in practice nearly all countries have washed their hands of it, especially for the IR.

What next your two examples were what I would call "obvious" :) The first man was a fool to fly in potentially icing conditions on a VFR flight plan, and the helicopter man was a fool to do an obviously "license illegal" flight.

In brief, on a flight from the UK to Holland, the knowledge that I was flying illegally once in dutch airspace compromised my decision-making & I then concentrated on trying to cover up what I had done when I should have been asking for help

IMHO all that you can do in that situation is declare an emergency, tell them you are instrument capable, and ask for an IAP. I doubt anybody is going to make a fuss. If you just carry on, you are very likely to stick out like a sore thumb because the process of requesting an IFR clearance involves a little bit of terminology which an IMCR pilot may not be familiar with. I know people who got away with this kind of thing but they had the right "lingo", as well as the capability. ATC can usually see from a mile away if somebody is pushing things, and while policing is not their job in most of Europe (I am told German ATC are a part of the police) somebody might decide to report it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis i think you will find the faa ir is every bit as hard as our equivalent - some would say "harder" some would say the emphasis has far more to do with real world application. I dont think anyone seriously argues these days there is much between them. In fact the evidence is faa ir holders in europe have a lower accident rate than jaa ir holders. I dont think the cat enviroment is relevant - instrument flying in a multi crew commercial cockpit is very different than single pilot ifr ops. One might say single pilot ops with a six pack and no ap outside cas is as tough as it gets. Some are even currently questioning the instrument skills of certain french atpls at the moment.

"Hard" as in the cost and complexity of obtaining and maintaining it.

If those were as easy for the JAR-IR, then we wouldn't see so many N registered high performance singles and light twins in Europe.

G

[IO540]

Exactly right.

European protectionism and job creation has screwed up safety for decades, and everybody knows it.

[Fuji Abound]

Yep, frightening isnt it that in allegedly the most safety conscious business safety is compromised by politics and commercial interest - you couldnt make it up.

[Pace]

Maybe we will get to a point where someone will take EASA to court for endangering the lives of pilots with their rulemaking and political motivations.
You only have to look at the french AS to see how bad they are for French VFR Pilots yet EASA continue to block any practical PPL IR.

Pace

[Sillert,V.I.]

IMHO all that you can do in that situation is declare an emergency, tell them you are instrument capable, and ask for an IAP. I doubt anybody is going to make a fuss. If you just carry on, you are very likely to stick out like a sore thumb because the process of requesting an IFR clearance involves a little bit of terminology which an IMCR pilot may not be familiar with. I know people who got away with this kind of thing but they had the right "lingo", as well as the capability. ATC can usually see from a mile away if somebody is pushing things, and while policing is not their job in most of Europe (I am told German ATC are a part of the police) somebody might decide to report it.

What I should have done was to turn back before the FIR boundary & divert to Luton (it was SRZ airspace in those days & I could have legally flown the approach with an IMC rating). I'd filed a "Y" flightplan with the intention of descending over the North Sea but in deteriorating Wx the London FIR controller asked me if I wished to refile IFR & being a total idiot I just replied "affirm". "G-xx for Amsterdam squawk xxxx maintain 5" and the trap was sprung.

I think in those days (this was the mid 1980's) controllers generally turned a blind eye to the dubious activities of PPLs & in some cases seemed to actively condone it.

My point in posting is that there is often an opportunity to 'rescue' a flight before exceeding the privileges of one's licence &, with the benefit of hindsight, I'd encourage others to do so whenever possible. Having an IMCr may tempt you into places you've no business going - but equally the skills you've acquired in the process might also one day save your life .

[nick ritter]

Thank you for the replies above

It seems inevitable that if you are allowed to fly above cloud in France that at some point a situation will arise where you need to break cloud in order to land

I guess this will depend on the set of conditions that one places on him or herself before making such a trip

My post was not to see where I can push the boundaries on this – more to see what the correct procedure is should this event occur

An emergency case almost seems more straight forward to me – you just ask for the approach procedure under an emergency and deal with the issues later

The part that I am more concerned about is the grey area, where you are above cloud, the forecast was for broken or scattered at 2500 and on arrival it is solid with no holes, and even though the base is at say 2500, you have to get through (if you are intent on landing). Knowing that the rating doesn’t allow for this, what is the correct procedure?

Thanks for the replies
Nick

[S-Works]

And we wonder why the regulators are so anti the rating.............

[421C]

The part that I am more concerned about is the grey area, where you are above cloud, the forecast was for broken or scattered at 2500 and on arrival it is solid with no holes, and even though the base is at say 2500, you have to get through (if you are intent on landing). Knowing that the rating doesn’t allow for this, what is the correct procedure?
Maintain VFR and either go back to get under the layer in VMC or divert to somewhere you can land at within your licence and rating privileges. If you can't, declare an emergency. It's black and white. Sorry if I am being dense, but what is "grey" here?

There is nothing special about flying VFR on top that "sort-of-kind-of lets you do a bit of IFR" because inevitably you might need to sometimes. It's just plain vanilla PPL VFR stuff which happens not to be permitted in the UK, but is in many parts of the world, and the majority of the world's PPLs (ie. FAA PPLs) manage fine.

There is a paper here: http://www.pplir.org/images/stories/pplir_files/2011%20agm-cfit%20accident%20review.pdf
that discusses the consequences of pushing "marginal" conditions and flight rules.

[Fuji Abound]

And we wonder why the regulators are so anti the rating.............


Well it is not for the reasons you imagine it to be. ;)

Maintain VFR and either go back to get under the layer in VMC or divert to somewhere you can land at within your licence and rating privileges. If you can't, declare an emergency. It's black and white. Sorry if I am being dense, but what is "grey" here?


If you are following a milk float at 10 miles an hour along a 3 mile stretch of single carriage with double white lines, nothing coming the other way and a clear view, of course the correct thing to do is to stay behind the milk float for 3 miles at 10 mph.

I always remember I got asked that question at the end of my driving test - I told the examiner that obviously the correct answer was to stay behind the float but if it were going that slow and I had a clear view I would overtake - I passed. ;)


I think pilot's are required to display a certain level of intelligence, presence and ability to assess situations. I think that if I arrived at my destination to find a thin overcast, which had been forecast as broken or scattered when I set off with a METAR showing perfect conditions below, I only had an IMCr, and I had done my home work on the MSA I would make a decision based on the facts as presented.

For those reasons I dont understand the point of the presentation to which you link 421C. A pilot with an IMCr or IR is capable of doing some pretty stupid things. The evidence is that an IR doesnt make him any less immune - infact the evidence is that he is far more likely to kill himself.

As others have said rules are terribly important, and on the whole flight safety rules exist to protect us from ourselves, BUT equally as others have said, you are the commander, you are in charge of the flight and there will be times you must make an intelligent assessment of the facts.

[maxred]

FA - I think that is the crux. Weather is fluid, it changes, and in our systems, can change pretty rapidly. The pilot makes hopefully balanced and intelligent decisions, based on past experience and what he knows. Obviously there are times when we get caught out, however, if a pilot has gained, and used his IMCR then that should get him home.

I used to fly long distance VFR, down through France and Spain, and got caught out once. I came home and immedaitely got my IMC plus night. I then used that rating as much as I could - legally.i.e. I still check weather at departure, on route and at destination. If it looks crap, and I do not, or cannot, file an IFR plan I do not go.

In a sense the IMC does not fully fit some conditions, hence I am studying for IR. My decision. The rating has definately made VFR transit for me safer, in that you can go on top, you can descend knowledgeably through or up through layers. Again, where it is legal to do so.

[421C]

For those reasons I dont understand the point of the presentation to which you link 421C

2 of the pilots had FAA IRs, one an IMCr and one a PPL. I suspect they all thought that they were applying "a certain level of intelligence, presence and ability to assess situations". To me it illustrates, amongst other things, the seductive danger of making up your own rules because you judge it to be ok.

On the subject of relevance, how is the Milk Float story relevant to Nick's question? What analogy are you drawing between that and a pilot confronted with a solid overcast, as described in his question?

[Sillert,V.I.]

Maintain VFR and either go back to get under the layer in VMC or divert to somewhere you can land at within your licence and rating privileges. If you can't, declare an emergency. It's black and white.

Spot on advice and an interesting set of slides. Pay particular attention to the part which says that without full IFR capability, you're flying VFR in IMC.
That applies to both the pilot AND the aircraft.

My stupidity was brought home very forcefully when faced with the challenge of trying to follow a DCT routing in controlled airspace in a busy TMA to a grass airfield with no navigation or approach aids in solid, turbulent IMC in a rented club cherokee with no autopilot, 1 radio, 1 VOR, no RNAV, no glideslope receiver and no mode C transponder without the faintest idea of how I was going to descend at the end of the flight. Fear of prosecution held me back from declaring an emergency, another highly questionable decision.

If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, I can assure you with heartfelt feeling that you will wish very much that you were somewhere else.

[Fuji Abound]

2 of the pilots had FAA IRs, one an IMCr and one a PPL. I suspect they all thought that they were applying "a certain level of intelligence, presence and ability to assess situations". To me it illustrates, amongst other things, the seductive danger of making up your own rules because you judge it to be ok.

Well exactly - the fact that three of them were doing something they were "qualified" to do, didnt help them. Believing that you are displaying intelligence and presence is very different from displaying intelligence and presence. You would be a fool to think any set of rules can protect you from a misplaced belief.

On the subject of relevance, how is the Milk Float story relevant to Nick's question? What analogy are you drawing between that and a pilot confronted with a solid overcast, as described in his question?

421C - now I am worrying about you, isnt it obvious?

Let me put it another way. Nick turns up at his destination at FL45, there is a solid undercast with tops 4,500 and the METAR reports the base at 3,500. He has checked his MSA which is 2,500 for miles around. He is OCAS. His diversion is 40 minutes away and this being France he cant get the weather for his diversion. He has an IMCr, (or he could have a JAA IR, and a FAA 61.8 without instrument priviliges and be flying an N reg aircraft) is very current and wouldnt think twice about making the descent in the UK. In fact he notes there are even bits in the cloud layer where he can just make out the ground. :confused:

Now what would you do? Ah, I know declare a Pan, or maybe even a Mayday, or divert, find there is also the same overcast at your diversion and again declare a Pan, or Mayday, or perhaps you did that before you diverted to make sure you had really got everyones attention? OK, so if that is your assessment of the situation, sure play it that way :) just the same as staying behind the milk float for the three mile stretch.

Let me give you a real life example. Many years ago I did some aero sorties with a BA training captain. His background; well a few years in the RAF, fast jets and all that old boy, how many tens of thousands of hours with BA, I dont recall, well we got ourselves above the overcast through a hole and played around doing some loops but when it was time to stop playing I was horrified to see the holes had all but disappeared. I didnt have an instrument rating. Strangely enough nor did he - well not single crew SEP. I cant recall exactly what we did as we found ourselves at 3,500 feet in 10K vis beneath the base that we had previously been above but then again I wasnt flying at the time. I dont recall the acknowledgement of a Pan but who knows maybe he had inadvertently selected the wrong frequency and didnt get any response so used some common sense and a little intelligence. Whether he was up to the descent of course was questionable.

My stupidity was brought home very forcefully when faced with the challenge of trying to follow a DCT routing in controlled airspace in a busy TMA to a grass airfield with no navigation or approach aids in solid, turbulent IMC in a rented club cherokee with no autopilot, 1 radio, 1 VOR, no RNAV, no glideslope receiver and no mode C transponder without the faintest idea of how I was going to descend at the end of the flight. Fear of prosecution held me back from declaring an emergency, another highly questionable decision.

Sorry to be blunt, but you were stupid.

This has nothing to do with my examples any more than most of the earlier post. You didnt make an intelligent assessment of the situation.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Sorry to be blunt, but you were stupid.

I made some extremely stupid decisions that day, but I am not normally a stupid person. I posted the story because it is a real life example of how having an IMCr can seduce you into a dangerous spiral of ever-more irrational decision making. Without in any way seeking to condone what I did, the additional pressures of flying single-pilot IFR in a typical club rental aircraft are not conducive to clarity of thought when the difficult choices have to be made.

At the time of that flight, I was much the same age as the OP, and also "new to it". I learned the limits of my licence and capabilities the hard way and hope my story will help someone else from making the same mistakes.




[/SIZE]

[Fuji Abound]

I made some extremely stupid decisions that day, but I am not normally a stupid person. I posted the story because it is a real life example of how having an IMCr can seduce you into a dangerous spiral of ever-more irrational decision making. Without in any way seeking to condone what I did, the additional pressures of flying single-pilot IFR in a typical club rental aircraft are not conducive to clarity of thought when the difficult choices have to be made.

.. and thank you for the post, no criticism intended.

I would add one qualifier. Your post could be construed to relate specifically to the IMCr but (and I appreciate that is the topic we are debating). it does apply to anything. Many of us did some pretty stupid things when we first got our PPL (not involving clouds), or our driving licence or what ever. The IMC rating is no different in what it can and cant seduce you into doing if you allow it to do so.

Some might say it doesnt teach you enough about instrument flying to know your limits and / or it doesnt teach you to fly on instruments but only get out of trouble on instruments (or into trouble :O). Would they possibly be the same people who believe the FAA IR has no place in Europe, or those who would argue that while the IMCr legally enables you to fly an approach to the published minima you have no business doing so or might it even be the same folk that think the JAA IR gives you everything you need to fly IFR around Europe from the off. Are these the same people that would far rather a tiny percentage of GA pilots in Europe held an instrument rating while the rest occasionally killed themselves? Thank God for the wisdom of our own beloved CAA and the FAA on this one and may the Devil deal with EASA in the fullness of time.

[421C]

Fuji,
Believing that you are displaying intelligence and presence is very different from displaying intelligence and presence. Wonderful with hindsight. But how do I judge in flight if I am merely "believing" or actually exercising?

You would be a fool to think any set of rules can protect you from a misplaced belief I don't know what set of rules you are talking about. The rule I am talking about, the one about not continuing VFR into IMC does protect you from the potentially misplaced belief that it is ok to do so.


Now what would you do?
I typed it before, but I'll repaste my opinion on Nick's scenario. "Maintain VFR and either go back to get under the layer in VMC or divert to somewhere you can land at within your licence and rating privileges. If you can't, declare an emergency. "

How is this complicated? Nick asked a simple question to which there is a simple answer. Any number of stories about Milk FLoats or BA Captains or Chuck Yeager or the Red Arrows or anything else won't change this.
brgds
421C

[421C]

Your post could be construed to relate specifically to the IMCr
That's because it does. This thread is specifically about an IMCr holder encountering IMC outside the UK. Mr Villert wrote a very open and insightful account of a situation in which, as an IMCr holder, he flew IFR outside the UK when not qualified to do so and how that scenario "can seduce you into a dangerous spiral of ever-more irrational decision making". He makes a point which is direct and relevant to the thread. More so than your Milk Float analogy or Airline Captain stories.


Some might say it doesnt teach you enough .......Would they possibly be the same people who believe......
No one is arguing anything about the IMCr other than the obvious fact that its privileges for flight in IMC do not extend beyond the UK, and the equally obvious advice to conform to this restriction other than in an emergency. Why are you trying to link this with anti-IMCr conspiracy theories and EASA politics? It is really simple.

[dublinpilot]

It seems inevitable that if you are allowed to fly above cloud in France that at some point a situation will arise where you need to break cloud in order to land

It's not inevitable at all, unless you allow your IMCR to lead you into situations that you have no business being in, if you can't legally use your IMCR at that time.

I'm with 421C on this. I've flown on top of clouds on a number of occasions, but never where I couldn't see a way back down.

You need to be able see a way back down. That might be the end of the overcast a few miles off tracks, or it might be holes of sufficient size within view. When your last hole is starting to leave view you have little choice but to turn towards it and use that way out. If you don't then you run the risk of being in a situation that you describe. I don't think many pilots who don't have instrument qualifications but do have VFR on top privlidges will continue on in such a situation.

If they did continue on, then their principal escape route has to be to return to an area of known good conditions, but of course that could have changed by the time that they return to it.

So if you decide to continue on top with no escape route other than "expecting better weather ahead" then you are letting your instrument skills lead you further than you would go without them. The trouble is your instrument skills can't legally be used in France, so of course you can expect to have your decisions questioned afterwards.

As Pace say, you are not likely to be questioned for using your skills to get out of the situation, but more likely to be questioned for how you got yourself into the situation in the first place.

Those talking about forecasts of Sct or Bkn at the destination have gotten too use to instrument flying! No VFR only pilot with any sense will fly over an overcast relying on a weather forecast for a way back down. We all know that they can't be relied on like that.

IO540 said many years ago on a different subject, but is relevant to this...."you must always make sure that you have a way out." Hopeing that the forecast at your destination will prove true isn't having a way out, but rather 'hoping for a way out'.

If your only way out is to use skills that you aren't legally entitled to exercise in that country, then of course you are leaving yourself open to question. If you take that risk then yes envitably you will eventually have to use that skill that you arn't legally entitled to use, but most sensible pilots without such a skill would never have gotten themselves into that situation in the first place.

So...no gray area as far as I'm concerned. 421C has it spot on.

dp

[Fuji Abound]

I typed it before, but I'll repaste my opinion on Nick's scenario. "Maintain VFR and either go back to get under the layer in VMC or divert to somewhere you can land at within your licence and rating privileges. If you can't, declare an emergency. "


Good. Declare your emergency, tell the controller (I wonder which one you are going to talk to in some parts of France) of your situation and that you have an instrument rating which you cant use in the aircraft or airspace in which you find yourself and therefore you have no alternative to ask him what to do. Mention while you are about it that there is 1,000 foot of undercast with tops way above the MSA and you were thinking about transitioning from VMC on top to VMC below.

If that is the way you want to play it, fine by be.

I don't know what set of rules you are talking about. The rule I am talking about, the one about not continuing VFR into IMC does protect you from the potentially misplaced belief that it is ok to do so.

What a complete load of nonesense.

We are debating whether there are any circumstances in which a qualified, trained and current pilot should or should not make a brief incursion into IMC for the purposes of recovering to an airfield that was forecast to have broken or scattered cloud cover with a base well above the MSA not a pilot deliberately flying a sector in IMC with a IAP recovery in IMC.

The fact you dont see the difference is for the same reason that you dont see the difference between making an intelligent and informed decision and making a prat of yourself.

Still I can see we are clearly in complete disagreement so I am going to leave it there.

(all good fun and dont take it personally, I know there are those that always see things in black and white and are uncomfortable ever departing from the rule book regardless of circumstances - I dont have a problem with that I might add if that is your cup of tea).

Dp

If scattered or broken is not good enough for you then I can only imagine you dont go very far. :D

and when the holes are just a little too small to not be actually in IMC but to still be outside your licence priviliges by all means divert back to whence you came, all fine by me.

[what next]

Hello!

...or Airline Captain stories.That was me with this story and not the guy you repiled to, but it dosen't really matter. I think this story about „my“ airline captain is not such a bad analogy to the IMCr outside the UK: This guy has a valid instrument rating and was flying in a perfectly safe way, but his rating did not apply to the type of aircraft he was flying. Therefore he was prosecuted. The holder of IMCr rating is flying perfectly safe too, but outside the UK his rating is unknown and therefore nonexistent. Therefore he will be prosecuted if he gets caught using it. Simply put (see bolow).

For flying abroad (wordwide!), there is a very simple basic rule that applies to private and commercial pilots/operations: You must comply with the more stringent/restrictive set of rules between your national legislation/privileges and those of the country overflown.

For example: In Germany, flying VFR on top of an overcast is perfectly legal with a private pilots license, provided the ascent above and the descent below the clouds can be performed according to the visual flight rules and the aircraft is equipped for radio navigation. If a "normal" UK PPL does not allow this, then the UK PPL holder can not fly VFR on top in Germany. His more restrictive national rule overrides the foreign one. But if he is allowed to do so with UK PPL & IMCr, then he can also do it in Germany because he complies with national and foreign rules, even if the IMCr itself is nonexistent in Germany.
On the other hand, there is no such thing as instrument flying outside controlled airspace in Germany. Therefore, all other possible uses of the IMCr are banned by foreign rules, because an instrument rating is required for flying IFR _within_ controlled airspace. Simple, isn't it?

Happy landings,
max

[421C]

Good. Declare your emergency, tell the controller (I wonder which one you are going to talk to in some parts of France) of your situation and that you have an instrument rating which you cant use in the aircraft or airspace in which you find yourself and therefore you have no alternative to ask him what to do. Mention while you are about it that there is 1,000 foot of undercast with tops way above the MSA and you were thinking about transitioning from VMC on top to VMC below

How can you possibly mangle and misrepresent a perfectly plain statement like: "Maintain VFR and either go back to get under the layer in VMC or divert to somewhere you can land at within your licence and rating privileges. If you can't, declare an emergency."
You know exactly what I meant by "declare an emergency". The controller I am going to talk to is the one relevant to this scenario: remember that? The mythical French airport I am flying to from the UK which goes from BKN forecast to actual OVC? Well, most French airports which are customs and provide a TAF have an ATC service (either based at the airport, or a approach service from a nearby airport or both). So if I really do find myself unexpectedly above this layer and without a safe alternative course of action then, of course, I declare that to ATC and either make a request or state my intentions as I judge fit to ensure the safety of the flight - but I will expect to account for my actions and judgement subsequently. Let's be clear, it takes a pretty contrived scenario to get to this point, but if I had written only "Maintain VFR and either go back to get under the layer in VMC or divert to somewhere you can land at within your licence and rating privileges", that would not be 100% complete advice and you'd no doubt have pointed that out.

I do find it extraordinary there is even a "debate" to be had on this.

[421C]

What Next/Max,
Hi - I was referring to Fuji Abound's anecdote in post #47

Many years ago I did some aero sorties with a BA training captain...
brgds 421C

[Sillert,V.I.]

The fact you dont see the difference is for the same reason that you dont see the difference between making an intelligent and informed decision and making a prat of yourself.

Thing is, it's all too easy to begin your day with the intentions of doing the former, and end up doing the latter. What if you descend & find you're still in solid IFR at MSA?

One thing I'd say to the OP - start out by getting as much experience as you can flying in real weather. I probably owe my life to my ex-airline captain instructor, who somehow managed things so that the vast majority of my IMCr training was done in actual IMC.

The difference between descending through a thousand feet of cloud and hand flying for an extended period in turbulent Wx with no visual reference is considerable.

Do this outside CAS in the UK with some form of radar service & and make sure you have a rock-solid legal alternate in case the Wx deteriorates & you need to divert.

[Fuji Abound]

421C

Clearly we are at cross purposes as I have already said or you are just plain trying to be difficult.

I dont care how unlikely the circusmtances are; the poster asked the question. I have a feeling you have done plenty of touring so I have to add your comment surprises me. I am with IO540 in his earlier post about the real world circumstances of touring, but there it is, your experiences are obviously very different from all (not most) of the people I know.

As to the point at issue, it is only that you would declare an emergency in the scenario given if for whatever reason a diversion did not produce the desired results. Where I in that situation (in the very carefully worded example I gave) and hypothetically if I didnt have an instrument rating which I was entitled to use in that specific circumstance for a purely technical reason I wouldnt take the same course. (and in case you are trying to bate me into an admission of acting illegally of course I have never found myself in that situation :))

So you do it your way and I will do it mine.

The gentleman who asked the question and anyone else will make their own decision.


Thing is, it's all too easy to begin your day with the intentions of doing the former, and end up doing the latter. What if you descend & find you're still in solid IFR at MSA?


You have made a pr** of yourself. :) However you began your day if that is something you ended up doing then it has nothing to do with a sensible pilot making an informed decision about arriving above an overcast that was never remotely forecast to be a problem beyond a brief incursion into IMC for the purpose of a visual recovery.


The difference between descending through a thousand feet of cloud and hand flying for an extended period in turbulent Wx with no visual reference is considerable.



Which was why we were not debating this issue. The trick is to read the question which posters on PPRuNe seem to have become very poor at doing. (Oh this is fun today, love a bit pf PPRuNe stirring).

[dublinpilot]

Dp

If scattered or broken is not good enough for you then I can only imagine you dont go very far.


Fuji,

Given your normal good nature, I take it that you're not deliberitly trying to be insulting, and you've just grossly misread my post.

Nowhere in my post did I say that I don't fly when there is a scattered or broken layer.

Nowhere did I say that I won't fly above a scattered or broken layer.

The only mention in my post of broken and scattered layers was:
Those talking about forecasts of Sct or Bkn at the destination have gotten too use to instrument flying! No VFR only pilot with any sense will fly over an overcast relying on a weather forecast for a way back down. We all know that they can't be relied on like that.


Anyone who is flying over an overcast relying on a forecast of a SCT or BNK at their destination is going to be regularly disappointed by the forecast. If their plan B for the occasions when the forecast SCT or BKN turns out to be OVC is to make an illegal trip into IMC then they shouldn't be surprised if the authorities start to ask questions about their decision making.

I really can't belive that you can't see that.

[IO540]

Do this outside CAS in the UK with some form of radar service & and make sure you have a rock-solid legal alternate in case the Wx deteriorates & you need to divert.

I am not sure where a radar service comes into it. You don't need that to get back down, either OCAS on a made-up letdown, or to fly an IAP.

Re your other Q about getting stuck above a layer, of course it can happen; wx is not 100% predictable. What one does is make sure the tafs and metars for the destination are SCT or better. IF this fails (and I don't recall it ever failing for me, largely because most of my long VFR trips were to warn southern countries) the official legal procedure is to declare an emergency and ask for the IAP.

There is an "unofficial option" which is safe at coastal airports where there is a way to descend OCAS over the sea, and then call up the airport when under the cloud, and I believe this very obvious method is a national past-time in countries which don't have the IMCR.

Re the other man's comment, the alleged hostility to the IMCR abroad is far less than claimed. Most GA pilots would give an arm for it. France has just announced its own "IMCR", in a finger-up to EASA. The official resistance to an "IMCR" is simply that it is perceived to undermine the IR which, along with vital capabilities like goolies dangling very symmetrically, has over the decades become the gold standard for "professional pilots". The IMCR is virtually an IR, except for Class A-C and needing 1800m vis, but is much more achievable, and if it became widespread, the airline pilot unions would go berserk because of the perceived undermining of the 14-exam CPL/IR to which their member status has been (inexplicably) nailed. There is no safety case underpinning any of this; the IMCR has a superb safety record.

I probably owe my life to my ex-airline captain instructor, who somehow managed things so that the vast majority of my IMCr training was done in actual IMC.

I don't think you owe your life to anybody in particular. If you have a license privilege, and you are unable to use that privilege, but you feel you need that privilege, then you need to do something about it. The IMCR is just another privilege which, if properly trained and maintained current, allows you to fly any IAP in IMC, and legally so in the UK. Had you got an IMCR but could not do this with it, but somebody passed you on the checkride, you should have asked for a refund :)

BTW you can land at Luton, Gatwick, Stansted, London City today, with an IMCR, as they are all Class D. They just cost about £500, and LCY does not allow GA anyway. Heathrow is Class A so you can't go there (and they don't allow GA also). The 1st 3 are perfectly doable with something like 24hr PPR. The PPR and the £500 make sure these airports are closed to GA even if there is nothing going on.

[Fuji Abound]

Dp

I apologise, but you seem to being confusing different aspects of the debate which lead to my comments.


No VFR only pilot


If you meant literally this, then I would agree. I took your comment to be in the context of the debate. In other words the pilot was an instrument rated pilot but technically restricted to VFR because for example he held an FAA IR but the aircraft had a G on the side.

So our hapless instrument rated pilot set out on the basis of a scattered or broken forecast, pitched up at the destination to find a mild overcast (no question of an IAP, no question of undercast any where close to MSA etc), and in any event capable, current and qualified to fly an approach to minima were there only an N on the side and our hapless pilot must decide what to do. (and I have only converted the qualification away from the OP IMCr to an IR because I know some on here let their emotions run away with them at the mention of a IMCr).

If I could remind you that was effectively the question.

421C (assuming he cant find a VMC descent) would have him declare an emergency; I have taken a different point of view.

That is it. Nothing about pilots without instrument ratings bouncing around in severe turbulence and shooting IAP to minima without telling anyone, or pressing on into fog and landing in the side of someones hill, or pitching up at destination being surprised that broken has become overcast.

I do wish we could stick to the debate rather than ply all the usual dribble out (as sensible as it is) about why a non instrument rated pilot should never go near a cloud.

[S-Works]

The sooner its got rid of the better. Roll on 2012.

[421C]

I dont care how unlikely the circusmtances are; the poster asked the question.
And I answered it with the sentence I've repeated twice so far. You are the one who's then contrived scenarios to suggest that it would be prattish.


I have a feeling you have done plenty of touring so I have to add your comment surprises me. I am with IO540 in his earlier post about the real world circumstances of touring, but there it is, your experiences are obviously very different from all (not most) of the people I know
I have done about 500hrs and 100 arrivals outside the UK whilst an IMC holder. Probably > 50% of that in France. I have never experienced a surprise "requirement to arrive IMC" contrary to a recent TAF. Not even close. I cancelled many trips in the 24hrs before departure, and I had a handful of times where I had to delay the return home by a day or two; once to abandon the aircraft, return commercially and recover it a week later.

Of course, my utility would have been greatly increased by not having to conform to VFR. But let's not kid ourselves that the weather springs unforseeable surprises that often. It is either poor planning or very bad luck.


Where I in that situation (in the very carefully worded example I gave) and hypothetically if I didnt have an instrument rating which I was entitled to use in that specific circumstance for a purely technical reason I wouldnt take the same course. (and in case you are trying to bate me into an admission of acting illegally of course I have never found myself in that situation http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif)

My point is I am replying to Nick's question and not your 'carefully worded examples'. I am not trying to bait you into anything. You make your own judgements and do what you will. Nick asked for advice. I gave mine and I dispute the contrary suggestion that might be inferred from your posts in reply to the advice I gave.

[IO540]

The sooner its got rid of the better. Roll on 2012.

What a totally ridiculous and undeserved comment.

If I was making such a comment, suggesting that ripping several thousand pilots of some privilege is somehow desirable, I would feel a moral obligation to disclose the full story about how I obtained my pilot papers, over the years... A pity that one of the most hilarious pilot forum threads ever was deleted (for legal reasons, I assume) after only about 3 days :)

[S-Works]

LOL. The bet was on who would rise to the bait the fastest. You or Fuji. I went with you.......

:ok::ok::ok:

[Fuji Abound]

I have done about 500hrs and 100 arrivals outside the UK whilst an IMC holder.


To be fair that is not much time at all.


My point is I am replying to Nick's question and not your 'carefully worded examples'.


Which is not fair, my example is pretty clsoe to Nick's question.


I gave mine and I dispute the contrary suggestion that might be inferred from your posts in reply to the advice I gave.


Indeed you did and I really do respect your point of view. In all seriousness it is one on which we will have to disagree.


The sooner its got rid of the better. Roll on 2012.


I have got news for you that you will not like. :D

I think you will find it will be made public soon. Then again I might be wrong.

[peregrineh]

The sooner its got rid of the better. Roll on 2012.

I think I have had a run in with this particular misery @ a fuel pump

[englishal]

There is no black and white. If you have an IMCr and you are flying to France, you must ensure you maintain VFR in French airspace. Simple really.

The grey area comes when you have someone with a foreign IR who is very capable at flying IFR, but not allowed to due to their tail letter. Again this is more of a muddy black area as we know that the flight should be, as with a), be planned and executed as VFR, but because they would be rated if a letter was changed, then it is *more* excuseable (but not in the eyes of the law I suspect). Certainly not an emergency though.

However what with the weather forecasts being so ****e, I have planned and flown a VFR flight to be confronted by either scud running at 1000 agl for 200 miles, or climb a few thou through to safety on top. Turning back would have meant a whole load of hassle.

I do confess to shooting an ILS in France with the wrong tail letter once upon a time many years ago. It was either that or cross the channel at 400' which another G reg aeroplane, (with JAA instrument rated pilot onboard), did just behind us. Madness if you ask me, their reason for not climbing into the cloud was they "didn't know the procedure". I just asked the controller if I could have the ILS as I was now IFR and he said okdokey.

[dublinpilot]

No VFR only pilot

If you meant literally this, then I would agree. I took your comment to be in the context of the debate. In other words the pilot was an instrument rated pilot but technically restricted to VFR because for example he held an FAA IR but the aircraft had a G on the side.

The thing is that any pilot who can't legally fly under IFR for whatever reason, is a VFR only pilot at that time, whether they like it or not.

A pilot should always have a plan B for when the weather doesn't work out as expected.

If your plan B is to do something that is illegal, then you shouldn't be surprised if the authorities become interested in your decision making.

Doing illegal things should be well down the list of options in routine flight planning!

[421C]

To be fair that is not much time at all.

True. So tell me, how often have you had a current TAF forecast good VFR for an arrival and turned up to require an IFR arrival and/or approach because it was not possible to descend somehow/somewhere to establish VMC below? I think it would be valuable for us to hear about these truly unexpected IMC instances. Note: I am not asking or judging what you did as a pilot in those circumstances, or trying to draw you into anything. I am sure you executed the best safe and legal course of action. I am only interested in the facts about TAFs and actual weather, in scenarios that relate directly to Nick's question - a UK departure to a French destination in a G-reg airplane and holding an IMCr. My modest several hundred hours and 50plus arrivals in this exact scenario has zero such examples, which is why I am eager to learn.

PS. I just noticed IO540's experience is similar to mine: (my underline)

What one does is make sure the tafs and metars for the destination are SCT or better. IF this fails (and I don't recall it ever failing for me, largely because most of my long VFR trips were to warn southern countries) the official legal procedure is to declare an emergency and ask for the IAP.

[421C]

You need to be able see a way back down. That might be the end of the overcast a few miles off tracks, or it might be holes of sufficient size within view. When your last hole is starting to leave view you have little choice but to turn towards it and use that way out. If you don't then you run the risk of being in a situation that you describe. I don't think many pilots who don't have instrument qualifications but do have VFR on top privlidges will continue on in such a situation.

If they did continue on, then their principal escape route has to be to return to an area of known good conditions, but of course that could have changed by the time that they return to it.


DP,
Whilst this may be sensibly conservative, I don't think one has to be always that conservative as a rule. I can remember plenty of scenarios of being over an overcast layer with no ground in sight. An example might be Bournemouth to Biarritz. Say there is bad weather over NW France. Dinard, Rennes, Nantes TAFS all OVC. La Rochelle a bit better. Bordeaux, Biarritz, Toulouse, San Sebastian all CAVOK or FEW or SCT. You could spend an hour with no hole in sight, but be comfortable that you will see the ground somewhere further south to be able to descend. The advantage of the IMCr in this scenario is the comfort one gets from knowing that if you have (say) an engine problem in the OVC area, the least of your worries is the instrument arrival and approach. You have a legitimate emergency and all the skills necessary to handle the IFR work to get down.

That's not to say any OVC layer is fine as long as there some hope of better weather further enroute. You need a convincing body of weather information to give you a reasonable and high standard of assurance you can complete a flight safely in accordance with your privileges. It's more to say that I don't think it can never be acceptable to be VFR on top of a layer.

[dublinpilot]

421C,

I can see how that might be acceptable depending on aircraft range.

If for example weather in the UK was good, Northern France poor, and Mid and Southern France CAVOK then I can understand how you could justify that. In all fairness in such a circumstance your chances of getting caught out aren't very high.

However often such bands of poor weather can be associated with a front, and your average light aircraft doesn't come equipped with the oxygen system nor performance to climb over frontal system.

But actaully I find the biggest problem with flying on top is airspace. If you fly towards airspace and can't get a clearance through (Damn class A all over the UK! :ugh:) your option of desending to go under is gone because of the undercast. Admittedly that's not such a big problem in France, but can be with militiary areas.

Your average PA28 or C172 has a (safe) range not much more than 4 hours. If you plan a three hour trip and you spend an hour in good weather, an hour over an overcast, and then the clearer weather doesn't materalise for the last hour of your trip, you find yourself in a rather difficult situation. Do you press on hoping that it will get better, or return back while you still have sufficient fuel?

For these reasons I don't believe may VFR pilots will put themselves into a situation where they don't have the option of desending.

I keep asking myself how the conversation would go with the authorities. I can imagine them saying:

"The forecast for your destination was SCT and BKN for the whole day. What was your backup plan if the actual turned out to be a bit worse than forecast and it was overcast?"

If your answer is to make an illegal approach because you knew you could do it safely, I suspect they might not be happy with your reliance on forecasts at the planning stage.

If your backup plan was something more sensible like divert, or return to an area of known good weather, or return to base, then I think they would not unreasonably ask why you didn't execute that plan.

dp

[Shunter]

Interestingly the first time I flew in canada I held a PPL/IMC and got a Foreign License Verification Certificate (FLVC) so I could hire over there. On it was the following wording: Provided the foreign license is valid under the law of the issuing State, this Validation Certificate is valid for private recreational purposes on Canadian registered aircraft in accordance with the privileges of the United Kingdom.

I queried this with Transport Canada, explained that the IMC is a sub-ICAO rating and their response was that the wording is quite clear; you can do anything the license and ratings permit you to do in your home State. Go figure!

[IO540]

how often have you had a current TAF forecast good VFR for an arrival and turned up to require an IFR arrival and/or approach because it was not possible to descend somehow/somewhere to establish VMC below?

I have had it happen a few times going to N French airfields.

In the UK one can't do it because UK ATC has a very poor capability for ad-hoc IFR clearances into what is mostly Class A. I have tried it a number of times and always been frustrated by a fairly deliberate "anti" procedure.

On my long trips we normally set a 3-day window and wait for the first technically flyable opportunity, and this applies to both VFR and, nowadays, IFR.

I queried this with Transport Canada, explained that the IMC is a sub-ICAO rating and their response was that the wording is quite clear; you can do anything the license and ratings permit you to do in your home State. Go figure!

The FAA confirmed to me in writing that the IMCR is valid on an N-reg.

Others disagree but if you get this kind of thing in writing, it is good enough for you.

But actaully I find the biggest problem with flying on top is airspace

Absolutely so, which is why an IR, which everybody who has got it busted their gut to get, is so perverse. It is mostly a "CAS ticket" to VMC on top flight, and you fly the exact same route you would fly under VFR if you got easy CAS transits, in accordance with ICAO airspace classification ;)

I have done loads of ~ 15 hour trips where I did not bother to log any instrument time, and I log IT in 5 minute increments :)

[Fuji Abound]

I have reflected on our earlier fun and games and a general winding up - or in that spirit I take it. It is fun to see a bit of passion again on this forum.

Perhaps after a while a descent through a shallow overcast becomes such a non event that it is difficult to appreciate why some see it so differently. Blase perhaps, but if I ever was not technically qualified to do what I have suggested then I would go right ahead and do it any way - so there!

As to being caught out I can think of a number of trips which didnt end up as forecast. Could I have diverted some where else - probably, would there have been holes in the overcast at the diversion - maybe, but I never went to find out.

My nemesis for unforecast weather over the years has been Newquay (St Mawgs as it was), Dundee, Southern Ireland and the CIs. Maybe the similarity between the four is coastal weather that can and does change unexpectedly, together with a lack of close diversions that wouldnt be equally effected.

I would never under play how cautious we should all be with the weather. As most of us I have been caught out twice in my career, undoubtedly pushing on when I had no business to do so. As it turned out both were non events BUT they could have proved otherwise, and you definetely learn that frontal weather with any activity is to be avoided unless you are very certain of being able to get over the top.

My worst weather experience by far had very little to do with IMC and everything to do with the wind. The wind was forecast to be around 25 knots from memory but over the course of the flight of about one and half hours became the top end of 40 knots with gusts well into the 50s. All the planning went out the window when it became apparent there was very little available that didnt involve a distinctly cross wind landing.

I have found it fascinating how polarised the views in this debate are and the way in which we can be unswervingly controlled by regulations. Some one said earlier the Germans wouldnt dream of departing from the model citizens, we are probably closer to our German friends than most, hence we form neat and tidy rows unlike our French, Spanish and Italian friends who form disorderly rows and say wvat cloud, I never saw it.

[what next]

...unlike our French, Spanish and Italian friends who form disorderly rows and say wvat cloud, I never saw it. Maybe so. But on the other hand, _if_ they catch you, Italians and Frenchmen are the worst of all when it comes to punishing (I don't know about the Spanish).

Italians are very quick at impounding things (aeroplanes in this case) and if in doubt, you will go home by train and come back next year or the year after to collect your aircraft. The French have the highest fines (fly too close to one of their nuclear power plants and you will leave behind 20.000 Euros in beautiful France!) and the most frequent and rigid ramp inspections anywhere in Europe.

[IO540]

I have never heard of anybody getting done for enroute stuff of this sort.

Yes, the French, and apparently increasingly the Germans, like to harrass N-reg aircraft and check their VAT status, and the pilot's IR if he arrived on an IFR flight plan.

How many people got done 20k euros for busting the nuclear TRAs? The "pilot forum figure" for the fine varies between 10k and 30k euros, with confiscation often included :) But nobody I know has actually got this treatment for a nuclear RA bust. I did such a bust in 2003 and the French went after me 6 months later but it went nowhere after I proved I was under a radar service, with a discrete squawk, the whole time, with their ATC saying nothing at the time. They probably didn't know about the RA, as back then they were not notamed :)

I'm not disagreeing and it would make sense as the N reg aircraft is limited to UK airspace anyway as it is being flown on a UK issued license - but if that came from John Lynch then take it with a very large caveat. He was not part of FAA Legal Counsel so unless he reprinted a FAA Legal Counsel formal response then it counts for little and is simply his opinion. His infamous FAQ carries that large caveat. I think you will not find that FAQ on any FAA website. Not really. There is the concept of "apparent authority". It is absolutely not necessary to get a Chief Counsel reply for it to be legally binding on the FAA, in the same way it is not necessary to have some reply from the UK CAA signed by the Secretary of State. Such replies (if legally inaccurate) do not create new law but they remain valid for that individual recipient. And if they become publicly known, the public becomes entitled to a correction from the authority. I got this from a barrister.

What this means is that if e.g. the CAA told you that you can fly a plane under the Tower Bridge, but unknown to you the letter was written by somebody there not authorised to reply or not understanding the legal position (which has happened many times, with both the CAA and the FAA) then you cannot be prosecuted for doing it.

If this was not so, every reply from every corporate or got body to any question whatsoever would be completely worthless!

John Lynch wrote most of the FAR/AIM and he also wrote the FAQ, which was taken off the FAA website c. 2004 because the FAA did not want it to be regarded as law and usurping the authority of the FARs. The bit about the IMCR for an N-reg I got from the FAA personally; it is not in the FAQ.

[A and C]

The sooner the French start this Euro IMC rating the better, now that it is a French idea it should give the Eurocrats no problem with implimenting it.

One inccident that happend to me makes me sure that the IMC has a real safety case...........................

I was making an ILS approach at a French airfield, the weather was 2000m overcast at 300ft with light rain. A very panicy VFR pilot who had got his planning very wrong, he was making position reports that made some sort of sence but then suddenly reported that he was "base leg, turning final".

As I was at about 800 feet on the ILS at the time I had no option but to go around as I could not see him.

When I did get on the ground I talked to the guy and it was clear that he had been totaly out of his depth with the conditions that he was flying in, I am sure you could have sold this guy an IMC rating on the spot but it was not an option in France.

Would it not have been better for this guy to have had the option (and trainning) to abandon any hope of VFR flight long before the "VFR" approach to the airfield and climb into the radar controled enviroment to seek radar vectors to the ILS?

I know that we cant keep politics out of flight safety but least hope that now the EASA IMC is a French idea it will go ahead and then just maybe the rest of Europe will reach the same standards of flight safety that the UK has.

[Fuji Abound]

Italians are very quick at impounding things (aeroplanes in this case) and if in doubt, you will go home by train and come back next year or the year after to collect your aircraft. The French have the highest fines (fly too close to one of their nuclear power plants and you will leave behind 20.000 Euros in beautiful France!) and the most frequent and rigid ramp inspections anywhere in Europe.

I agree with io.

I have flown pretty extensively in europe both g and n reg and to quite a few of the bigger airports. I have never been ramp checked, heard of a very very few that have been and never heard of anyone being impounded. It is just another of those myths loved on these forum.

Yes, if you have it in writing on faa letterhead i would totally rely on the letter (if you needed to). It is good law here and there.

[Pace]

Don't think the French proposal is an IMCR but an FAA style IR ?
I was always opposed fighting to retain the IMCR and expanding it into Europe for a number of reasons.
Firstly I felt fighting for the IMCR would detract from a greater goal of an FAA style PPL IR.
Secondly an IMCR would not work in Europe.
I still feel that a threatened attack with clout on EASA would work on the exposure that far from meeting their mandate of safety they are killing pilots by their refusal to put onto place an FAA style PPL IR.
There is also enough evidence to expose their political legislation rather than their mandate of safety.
There is enough evidence to justify a court hearing on that fact. I am afraid that EASA will only respond if their own integrity is challenged?
There is a good case with plenty of evidence to question that integrity and to get a result !

Pace

[IO540]

Yeah, we are back to the old "will the crooked liars at EASA really pull off their aggressive proposal for grounding nearly the whole N-reg community in April 2012" question :)

My view has not changed in that I think they won't. I think the chief GA centres in Europe (UK, Germany, France) will implement the 2014 extension option and after that, if EASA has not collapsed amid the general meltdown of the EU around us, they will continue to implement "extensions".

What the smaller countries will do I don't know. On the one hand they are mostly spineless, and the new EU members busily brown-nose every EU official they can get close enough behind, and on the other hand the EU is not going to take any action for disobedience when there are somewhat bigger issues at stake, like the meltdown of Greece, which if it happens will be followed by a meltdown of a few other countries, which if it happens will melt down many EU banks...

As they say, we live in interesting times :)

I have still decided to embark on the JAA IR and have ground my way through 4 exams of near-total bollox so far. 3 more near-total-bollox exams to go :) Then 15hrs somewhere, before April 2012. Then I will write it all up, with various options around Europe :)

I don't know what exactly the French IR will be. It has to be fewer than the present 7 exams otherwise almost nobody will be doing it, as at present. But France will always get its way. From the latest EASA doc they have salvaged their Brevet de Base :) :)