UK Pilot thinking of IMC

[Kevin31]

Hey all,

AS above low hours PPL but thinking about going down the IMC route. Is it really worth all the time effort and money?

Also can anyone tell me what books/CBT videos are best to use?

Had a search but couldnt see much on it.

Cheers

Kev

[BackPacker]

By all means. It'll improve your flying ability to no end, and gives you a way out in case of deteriorating weather. And I don't know the exact status, but there's on-and-off talk about a deadline, maybe April 2015, after which the IMC/IR(R) is no longer issued. (I'm sure some other forumite will be able to provide chapter and verse on this.)

One of the Trevor Thom books is about instruments/instrument flying and if you don't have anything else, it's probably a good start. I actually started with the two FAA books (8083 and 8261) on instrument flight, and I found a book online "The IMC Rating Pilot's Notes" from www.writek.co.uk.

You may also want to read up on the ANO (and recent ANO changes - check CAP393 and CAP804) to determine the recommendations and actual legal limits on the IMC rating.

[hegemon88]

Do. It.


I just can't recommend the IR(R) enough and I'm very glad I've done it (at just 150 hours total flying time). A few points:

I would have thought that the IR(R) will be issued in the UK at least until 8 April 2019
I think that the Trevor Thom vol. 5 on instrument flying should be sufficient - not just for the theory exam but also for the background knowledge for flying training
With EIR and competency-based modular way towards the full IR(A) now available the IMC course/IR(R) rating is a very good start
You'll enjoy it!



/h88

[dirkdj]

Is there still a reason to do the IR(R) if you can do the EIR? The IR(R) will give you approaches in OCAS, limited to UK but EIR will give you CAS (airways, etc) but no approaches all over Europe; it seems to me the EIR is a better stepping stone towards a full IR.
I am sending my daughter off to do the EIR as soon as she finishes the PPL.

[hegemon88]

For me the plan is IR(R), then EIR, then IR(A). I fully understand that for your daughter or someone else the plan can be different. The OP wanted to know whether it's worth to do IMCr/IR(R) and I provided my point of view.


I am sending my daughter off to do the EIR as soon as she finishes the PPL.


And as soon as there is a school offering the EIR course :}



/h88

[dirkdj]

IR(R) is not a option here, UK only.

[ChickenHouse]

My current best bet is - the UK special way of IMC/IR(R) will fade away quite soon. I saw the first approved EIR and CB-IR syllabus docs now published and my feeling tells me that this is the future. As CB-IR is now much easier compared to the former IR and it is EASA-wide, I do not see the IMC making sense.

[thing]

Yes do it. Apart from all of the good safety aspect stuff it sharpens up your flying. Don't worry about the amount of hours you have, I started mine not long after I passed my PPL skills test while the brain was still in training mode. TBH I always saw the PPL as being incomplete without the IMC and night qualification anyway, the PPL bit was just part of the overall package.

The one thing you do have to think about is staying current; I don't mean legally but from a safety point of view. There's not much point getting it and then the next time you fly on instruments is on the renewal. Try and get a couple of approaches in every month; if you're off on a trip go IFR occasionally instead of VFR even if it's a gin clear day; fly VMC on top if it's a crappy overcast day down below instead of plodding through the murk, that sort of thing.

Good luck with it, personally I found it very enjoyable.

[dirkdj]

The dirty little secret is that IFR is really much easier than VFR for long distance touring. At the time I got my IR a minimum of 200 hours was required, this is no longer the case.

[funfly]

Just after I got my PPL I flew my aircraft into a fog bank.
I got out alive (just) but that motivated me to do the IMC.

Yes flying is not only safer but easier using instruments. (not just GPS!)

[150 Driver]

I rushed into mine very soon after PPL as it was being abolished. It took a little longer than if I'd been more experienced

But I know I'm a seriously better pilot with it than I was before, not just from an instrument flying point of view but heading, height and speed control and general plane management even in VFR.

And I agree about cross country, I'd rather fly under IFR even in VMC

Still got loads to learn but so glad I did it

[Kevin31]

Thanks all. Think Im pretty convinced.

So how much harder is it to the PPL? Is it around 15 hours?

Ok found the Thom book version 5 what will I need for Test knowledge and practice tests?

[A and C]

The IMC is the most important bit of training that a PPL holder can do, the safety benifits are the main reason but it requires a lot of application to get the most from it.

As a new PPL holder with the minimum hours I found the thing an uphill struggle, I think that this was because my instructors were all ex-RAF or ex- Airline and for them there was only one standard. About five years down the line I found the IR to be much less of a problem than the IMC but this was because of the high standard of training I received on the IMC course.

On reflection the IMC was right up there with the Airbus A320 ground engineers course as the most difficult thing I have ever done in aviation................... Apart from getting a Gatwick airside pass but that is a process ( unlike the rest of aviation ) that defies any attempt at reason, logic or common sence !

[soaringhigh650]

Why do the IMC rating? It's not recognized outside the UK and will never be.
And it'll be extinct in a few years from now.

Go do the IR instead.

[stevelup]

Did you not read any of the posts after the first one?

It was explained in exhaustive detail why it's a good idea.

[ChickenHouse]

What a mess of opinions ... Please all, keep in mind that the educational level received during PPL is VERY different. Only lately have I started to talk with others about it and the insights were dramatic. About 5h of my PPL (education according to JAR-FCL) was dedicated to identify, avoid and cope with IMC. I thought this to be normal, BUT it ain't. I found many never hearing anything about IMC other then "do not go" - especially chaps with no NFQ.

It is indisputable that receiving IR education is of value. With EASA part-FCL we now even have a common route to go EIR -> CB-IR. Why should one follow a special IMC/IR(R) route only applicable in the UK?
Reason One: you only fly in the UK. Ok, makes sense.
Reason Two: you have an opportunity to get cheap IMC. OK, if you have a local chap to get it, why not.
Reason Three: you take a bet EASA will have a conversion later. Hmm, I won't bet this happens during our lifetime.

[thing]

So how much harder is it to the PPL? Is it around 15 hours?

Opinions differ obviously but the only difficult thing I found were NDB approaches, and then it depends how your particular aircraft is equiped. If it has an RMI it's not too bad, if it's a fixed card then it requires a lot of spatial awareness and mental maths guff while you're trying to fly the approach correctly. NDB holds aren't tested during the skills test but you'll no doubt do them. Not too bad in a slight wind but in a strong off axis wind they can be tricky. I keep hoping they'll do away with NDB approaches between one renewal and the next but haven't been lucky so far...

Took me around 18 hours I think with the test. It's knackering for the first few hours because you are continually maxed out but once things become second nature you can start thinking that you may just get the hang of it. Very intensive and very enjoyable.

[riverrock83]

IR(r) / IMC rating? 15 hours is doable. But then the aircraft I have isn't fitted with an ADF so that means I'm doing it without all the NDB stuff (which is fine).

The 15 hours of IR(r) or IMC rating instruction can go towards the CBM IR (and potentially more if your IMC instructor has a full IRI rating). Therefore there is every reason (in the UK) to do that rather than the EIR as a stepping stone to a full IR.

The issue with the EIR is that you can't do approaches with it - you need to essentially make sure both departure and destination are CAVOK before you leave. What if you've a problem or a diversion mid-route? You need a way to traverse into VFR for your take off / arrival. Does it not make a lot more sense to be able to follow the standard approaches instead? Makes ATC's job much easier!

If you are in the UK - a sensible route is IR(r) + experience -> CBM IR.

About education during a PPL? Training to deal with inadvertent IMC is required now. You are only tested on doing a safe 180 out of cloud, but the EASA mandated syllabus includes climbing / descending and turns under the hood. I understand this is one of the bits missing from some of the lesser qualifications (LAPL / NPPL).

Oh - and the IR(r) can be added to an EASA licence for at least the next 5 years (the deadline mentioned has been removed) and once you have it - they can't take if off you.

[thing]

But then the aircraft I have isn't fitted with an ADF so that means I'm doing it without all the NDB stuff (which is fine).

Not sure you can get away with that, you have to do two pilot interpreted approaches which as far as I'm aware are an ILS and NDB approach. Don't quote me I'm not an instructor, I'm sure someone who knows better than I will be along to quote you chapter and verse.

[Mach Jump]

I'm doing it without all the NDB stuff (which is fine).

It may be fine while you are doing the course but, as most ILS approach procedures have an NDB as an initial approach fix, the fix for the hold, and the fix for the standard missed approach, as well as the NDB approach being the most common alternative approach when the ILS goes off, then your 15 hour IMC Rating isn't of much practical use.


MJ:ok:

Ps Kevin, Just do the IMC, you will never regret it, but insist that you do both ILS and NDB approaches as part of your training, then you will be proficient in the two most common approaches. If you do this though, it will take you 20-25 hours in my experience.
MJ

[riverrock83]

Not sure you can get away with that, you have to do two pilot interpreted approaches which as far as I'm aware are an ILS and NDB approach. Don't quote me I'm not an instructor, I'm sure someone who knows better than I will be along to quote you chapter and verse.

VOR / LOC / DME / RNAV / LPV (if you can find one) / VDF (are there any still around?)

Basically any approach which isn't an SRA or a PAR counts.

I take your point MJ about how practical it is (or isn't) although I know a fair number of people who have completed their IMC rating in aircraft which don't have an ADF.

[Johnm]

The two approaches could be an ILS and RNAV I believe. The expectation is one precision and one non precision, SRA can count, or could when I did my test years ago.

Since I did the IMCR I have also done the IR and learned precisely nothing of use that I didn't already know, I got much more precise and current from the additional flying though.

IMCR is more use than EIR because it has approaches. You then have the skills to arrive anywhere in IFR conditions, you can argue about the legalities on the ground with you and aeroplane intact.

As to NDB I've never used one since my test, if there's one in a procedure it's just used as a waypoint in the GPS. It's long passed time the useless things were switched off.

[enq]

One top tip I can give is using MS flight sim X or similar to practice the procedural approach stuff - it's not, as anyone who's used it is aware I'm sure, terribly realistic in terms of physical flight characteristics, visual scenery etc but it is extremely useful for nailing down the numbers, headings & behaviour of the instruments (particularly the various adf techniques that personally I always find less than intuitive).

I found that having increased familiarity with the procedures & cockpit environment left me slightly better placed to concentrate on the myriad of other skills required & the increased standards of accuracy that I'd managed to erode during hours of happy vfr bimbling.

I also recommend using a large sheet of A3 across the top half of the screen so you can simulate that marvelous screens down moment on finals.

Actually, having used foggles & screens, I also recommend going for a training aircraft fitted for screens - it seems more civilised, less claustrophobic & a truer representation of flight in IMC.

I definitely endorse the safety & flight skill development aspect of the rating but won't comment on the future & seemingly fluid regulatory status of the various instrument flight rating options except to say that whatever else happens you don't lose the basic appreciation of flight in IMC you gain through the training (which, of course, is completely different from practicing the skills sufficiently to stay safe & competent in real IMC).

[riverrock83]

enq - indeed.
On MS Flight Sim you can move the instrument panel up so that you can't see the outside world anyway. As the physics engine isn't great I ignore the joystick and use autopilot to set which heading to go to.

Issue with screens is that it can reduce the ability for the instructor / safety pilot to lookout - as you are likely to (in reality) be in VFR conditions.

[thing]

The expectation is one precision and one non precision I thought the expectation was two different pilot interpreted approaches? Not arguing your point, I could well be wrong but that's how I always understood it.

[Mach Jump]

The expectation is one precision and one non precision

I thought the expectation was two different pilot interpreted approaches? Not arguing your point, I could well be wrong but that's how I always understood it.

If I may act as 'Referee' here, neither of you are quite right. The requirement is that the Test must include a 'published pilot interpreted approach/missed approach procedure', and during training, the Candidate must have been signed off as proficient on at least one other, 'different' type of approach, which may, or may not be 'pilot interpreted'. There is no requirement for either to be 'precision', or 'non-precision'.


MJ:ok:

[Level Attitude]

and during training, the Candidate must have been signed off as proficient on at least one otherNot quite:
Candidate will be tested on 2 Approaches, one of which must be pilot interpreted.
or
Candidate will be tested on 1 pilot interpreted Approach, provided at least one different Approach has been signed off during training.

This discussion has been about the IMC/IR(R) Test profile.
Just wondering if the 1 precision/1 non-precision Approach, mentioned by others, is an IR requirement? That is certainly what I have always been required to fly when undergoing IR LPCs.

[Mach Jump]

This discussion has been about the IMC/IR(R) Test profile.

Actually I think the discussion has been about the IMC Rating content, but you are right that the second approach may be included in the Test.

However, I think that, in reality, very few initial IMC Tests include two approaches.


MJ:ok:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Just wondering if the 1 precision/1 non-precision Approach, mentioned by others, is an IR requirement?
In at least one place it's a club requirement, and you have to do them the other way around on the next re-test (so you can't get away with never being tested on the NDB approach).

If one didn't like it one could always go find an examiner elsewhere.

[CaptainChairborne]

AS above low hours PPL but thinking about going down the IMC route. Is it really worth all the time effort and money?

OK, I'm going to put the case against:

Are you planning to use it regularly? If not (and I haven't got one so I don't know) is it safe to fly IFR when you are not current? As a 'get out of jail free' card, I'm not sure works if you don't regularly practice getting out of jail?

What is your flying for? If you fly a lot, as a means of transport for example, I imagine it is essential. But if you fly for fun, in good weather, then you may end up spending a lot of your 'fun' budget on just keeping a rating you don't really use. And don't forget you will need to fly an aircraft with IFR kit to fly in IMC (Currently CofA, possibly some Permits in future)

[A le Ron]

The most important thing is currency. I have an IMC rating, and use it on almost every flight I undertake. This may be for cloud break, an instrument approach, VFR on top, or simply flying instruments for the extra precision it offers. It is great fun, and even for flying VFR in limited visibility (where you are "legally" VFR, but in practice on instruments) it is incredibly useful. I'm not sure how I ever managed without it. And, it all counts towards the CBM IR. I can't think of a reason not to do it.

[CaptainChairborne]

I can't think of a reason not to do it

I've mentioned a couple above but here is one: it might stop you flying altogether.

I have a limited flying budget, I don't want to spend that following a magenta line or flying in cloud. The appeal of flying, for me, is seeing the world from above. If I had to spend a decent proportion of my budget on keeping current at something that doesn't interest me and I don't want to do, then I'd give up. As, I suspect, would many microlighters, permit flyers etc. We are seeing pilots hanging up their headsets more and more, don't do something that puts you closer to doing that

If you are going to use an IMCr or IR then get it. If you are going to need it, get it. If you are going to enjoy the process of getting it, go and get it, but if you are a fair-weather, Sunday afternoon flyer who doesn't want to spend valuable flying time head in the cockpit, then be realistic about the positives and negatives

[thing]

Fair sentiments CC but surely you would weigh all of that up first anyway? It doesn't cost a lot to stay current apart from the bi annual renewal (think mine cost £150 or so). If you're going somewhere then do it IFR, it costs the same, you can still look at the view. If you're landing somewhere with an instrument approach, do an instrument approach. Mine cost me nothing at my airfield and I think Doncaster charge a whole six quid. You can fit practice into your normal flights.

However as you say if you fly to enjoy the view and nice weather which of course is an excellent reason to fly then you don't need the rating.

[A and C]

The biggest reason for a PPL holder to do the IMC is the extra safety it brings if you find yourself painted into a corner by circumstances beyond your control.

The rating also gives you the flexibility to fly more safely, for instance on days were the low level visibility is poor and all the traffic is flying around at 1500-2000 ft below a (just) broken cloud base the option of cruising at 5000 ft or so in the very clear VFR makes things very much safer and you know that should the broken cloud turn into overcast you can always get on the ground safely.

A few years back I had to break off an ILS approach at 600 ft ( still IMC ) a VFR pilot who had been caught out by rapidly deteriorating weather had in fear of his life turned base leg to final ahead of me, surely if the guy had done the IMC training he would at soon as VFR flight had become untenable climbed to the MSA and arranged to get onto the ILS in and orderly manor.
It was very fortunate for us both that he has the presents of mind to make a few radio calls because ( as I discovered on my next approach) the cloud base was about 270 ft with 5000m vis in RADZ, had I continued the first approach the chances are we would have collided just short of the runway.

It is all very well for those above to worry about being current and the cost of the rating renewal but the training never completely leaves you and when the VFR flight you are on is no longer a VFR flight you are far better to climb above the MSA, declare an emergency and get help from an ATC radar, calm down and then make an approach ( Preferably a PAR) than to continue scud running until you run out of luck, the administrative state of your IMC rating is not a factor under these conditions..............it is staying alive that counts !

The fact that this essential piece of pilot skill is about to be watered down because of pressure from EU states with a far worse safety record than the UK just illustrates the fact that EASA is not a safety regulator it is just another part of the EU cushy well paid job club.

[Johnm]

Wot A&C said. I might not be alive today if I hadn't had an IMCR to ensure that I could get of some very nasty and unforecast weather over Germany a few years ago.......

I now have an IR and fly IFR whenever practical, but not a lot of IFR flying is in IMC quite often it's above the weather and just needs an approach to get down again. Moreover a lot of IFR flying is done using an autopilot, which reduces the workload significantly.

[BEagle]

A and C wrote: The fact that this essential piece of pilot skill is about to be watered down because of pressure from EU states with a far worse safety record than the UK just illustrates the fact that EASA is not a safety regulator it is just another part of the EU cushy well paid job club.

Nope, we finally beat the buggers when the EC found the same way to retain the IMCR / IR(R) which I'd proposed 3 years earlier to EASA! Who wouldn't agree at the time, but have now been trumped by the EC.

So the IMCR / IR(R) is safe in UK airspace until at least 2019 and very probably in perpetuity thereafter!

Oh and Kevin31, JFDI!!

[A and C]

I am very pleased with this turn of events but the fact that it took three years to get to this situation and that the rest of the PPL's who fly with EASA licenses can't benefit from this valuable rating says more about EASA's attitude to safety than all the Bull EASA publishes.

[keenpilot]

I have a PPL, am currently studying the ATPL theory to be able to become FI, I'd like to be able to instruct IR (or CB-IR/EIR), privately before the 10 mandatory ATO hours or inside an ATO. I am not in a big rush and CB-IR seems the way to go - but can I then instruct on IR, or do one need the old style IR to be allowed to instruct IR?

[stevelup]

A CB IR is an IR in every way. It's the way you get it, not what you end up with that's different.

[keenpilot]

Thank you stevelup, so if I take the CB-IR now, it would later count so I could fly commercially with it as well when I get my CPL+ME? And it would be part of my frozen ATPL?

So will no one do the old IR anymore then as it's more hours for no advantages?

It sounds tempting then to do the CB-IR theory now to start flying IR asap as it will be a while before I can do the ATPL exams. Then one disadvantage obviously that I would be doing the theory twice as I would first do the CB-IR, then the full ATPL.

[Level Attitude]

I a PPL, am currently studying the ATPL theory to be able to become FI, I'd like to be able to instruct IR (or CB-IR/EIR), privately before the 10 mandatory ATO hours or inside an ATOkeenpilot,
From what you have posted (you are PPL, currently with no IR or FI Ratings) this would not be possible.

A requirement to Instruct for the IR is to have 200 Hours IFR if an FI, or 800 Hours IFR if not an FI.

I am unaware of any reduction in these requirements to teach for the CB IR or EIR (does anyone know differently?)

[keenpilot]

Thanks for the info on the hours, that's good info. I expressed myself wrong, I didn't mean to instruct for it right away but if I could instruct later on only with the CB-IR, not the old type IR (after getting the FI and necessary hours).

However I am not sure what you mean by the difference 200/800 hours, I would like to understand? If one are an FI, you need 200 hours to instruct, if no FI you can instruct if you have 800 hours? I thought one would have to be FI, am I wrong?

[Level Attitude]

However I am not sure what you mean by the difference 200/800 hours, I would like to understand? If one are an FI, you need 200 hours to instruct, if no FI you can instruct if you have 800 hours? I thought one would have to be FI, am I wrong?To Instruct for an IR a Pilot would need either:
1) An IRI (Instrument Rating Instructor) Rating which requires 800 hours of IFR experience, completion of an IRI Course and passing an Assessment of Competence.
or
2) To add IRI Privileges to an existing FI Rating which requires 200 hours of IFR experience, completion of an IRI Course and passing an Assessment of Competence.

It sounds tempting then to do the CB-IR theory now to start flying IR asap as it will be a while before I can do the ATPL exams.Just passing the theory does not allow you to fly IFR, you would also need to take the 40 Hour CB-IR course (I am assuming you have no prior IFR experience) and to pass the IR Skill Test.

I have a PPL, am currently studying the ATPL theory to be able to become FI I am just wondering why you are even considering taking the CB-IR theory as you are already studying for the ATPL exams?

ATPL exams would be valid for 36 months for both CPL and IR issue, indefinitely for FI (PPL+) Privileges and indefinitely (provided a valid IR was held in the previous 7 years) for ATPL issue - all possibilities that you have mentioned in previous posts.

The CB-IR theory exams are only valid for IR or EIR issue.

To answer a previous question:
An IRI who had only taken the CB-IR theory exams is fully entitled to Instruct for any IR (regular, modular, CB or EIR).
An FI who had only taken the CB-IR theory exams could not Instruct for an IR at all. This is because, unless CPL (or ATPL) level knowledge has been demonstrated the FI is only allowed to Instruct for the LAPL.

[keenpilot]

I am just wondering why you are even considering taking the CB-IR theory as you are already studying for the ATPL exams?

As then I'll have my rating in a few months and can use it on a 20 hours total flight time round trip for my job in the spring instead of flying airlines, while I won't have the ATPL in more than one year yet due to my current work schedule. Yes, I would do some extra theory but I would get most of it back when studying the ATPL later. But I asked these questions to decide so your input is valuable, I am getting a lot of insight, at least I understand that the CB-IR _rating_ (not theory) would be okay for commercial flying if I get the CPL later.

[BillieBob]

There seems still to be a misunderstanding here. There is no such thing as a CB-IR rating, the CB-IR course leads to the issue of exactly the same qualification as the full IR course but gives credit for prior instrument flight instruction/experience. The amount of credit is determined by an ATO on the basis of a pre-entry assessment up to a maximum of 30hrs (SE) or 35hrs (ME).

[keenpilot]

Thank you, so everyone should do CB-IR as it is 10 hours less flying