IMC rating legalities

[ericferret]

Is it legal for the holder of an IMC Rating to fly below 3,000 in IMC conditions (let's say in cloud)?

If you look at the list of IMC rating privileges it seems not. But my memory is telling me that it's OK to make a cloud break at 1,000 ft AGL and that much above the height of any structure within so many miles. I can't find this written down anywhere.

[Mach Jump]

Yes.

An IMC/IR(R) holder can fly in IMC, at any level permitted by IFR, in any but Class A,B,and C Airspace.

Rather bizarrely, at the moment, Min. Viz. for takeoff and landing with an IMC/IR(R) is 1800m, whereas, without an IMC/IR(R) it's 1500m!


MJ:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

1800m advisory...

G

[Mach Jump]

Don't think so Genghis.....

Sorry, I'm not at a computer that will copy and paste, but, off the top of my head, I think it's in CAP804-Section5,E,2,iii.


MJ:ok:


Ps. I know. I should get a life. :rolleyes:

[BEagle]

The 1800m limit is indeed mandatory! From the ANO:

The rating does not entitle the holder of the licence to fly:

(a) on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than three km; or

(b) when the aeroplane is taking off or landing at any place if the flight visibility below cloud is less than 1800 metres.


It has already been suggested that the 1800m limit is harmonised with the 1500m VFR limit - and it's also clear that the 3 km limit should be reviewed, given that there's a SERA derogation for 1500m SVFR under specified circumstances - see ORS4 No.1078.

[ericferret]

IMC holder can fly in IMC in any level permitted by IFR? Isn't that Flight Levels i.e. above 3,000 feet/transition level? And below that on published approaches?

So...what about Class G below 3,000 feet and not on a published approach? I'm still puzzled.

[BEagle]

Try reading the Air Navigation Order before posting, I would suggest.....:rolleyes:

[Mach Jump]

So...what about Class G below 3,000 feet and not on a published approach? I'm still puzzled.

As long as you fly under IFR you can do that as well.

IFRs Outside CAS:

Unless taking off, or landing, maintain at least 1,000' above any obstacle within 5nm.

If above Transition Altitude, (Generally 3,000' outside CAS in UK) fly Flight Levels in accordance with Quadrantal (Soon to be done away with) or Semi Circular rules.


MJ:ok:

Ps. Don't be grumpy, BEagle. Unlike us, some people have a life outside aviation!

[ericferret]

Thank you Mach Jump, that just about covers it. Believe me I spent a long time trawling through the rule books before asking for help!

Just leaves one thing: "Unless taking off, or landing (maintain at least 1,000' above any obstacle within 5nm)". Does this mean within a certain distance of the landing facility? That's something I've never been clear on.

[Mach Jump]

I believe it actually says:

'..taking off, or landing, in accordance with normal aviation practice'

Interpret that as you think fit.

Some people say that this means that you must be using a recognised Instrument Approach or departure Procedure.

Others argue that it means, you can descend below 1,000' once you are on final approach to any landing place, and devise whatever departure procedure you think will avoid the obstacles until you are above 1,000'.

I tend towards the former, but I suspect that the latter is probably also legal.


MJ:ok:

[BEagle]

The UK IAIP states as follows:


4.12 Aerodromes Without Published Instrument Approach Procedures
4.12.1 For an aircraft landing at an aerodrome without an instrument approach procedure either:

(a) a descent should be made in VMC until in visual contact with the ground, then fly to the destination; or

(b) an IAP at a nearby aerodrome should be flown and proceed as in (a); or

(c) if neither (a) nor (b) is possible, first obtain an accurate fix and then descend not lower than 1,000 ft above the highest obstacle within 5 NM (8 km) of the aircraft. If visual contact (as at (a) above) has not been established at this height, the aircraft should divert to a suitable alternate with a published instrument approach procedure.

This is something which the 'D-i-Y e-approach' suicide brigade, with their unapproved iToy-app let downs, don't seem to comprehend.....

[Mach Jump]

...a descent should be made in VMC...

...an IAP at a nearby aerodrome should be flown...

...the aircraft should divert to a suitable alternate with a published instrument approach procedure.

Note the use of the word 'should' rather than 'must' which suggests that it's not compulsory.


MJ:ok:

[BEagle]

You might wish to make such an interpretation, but it isn't quite that simple. This is a normally accepted set of definitions:

Shall: The word "shall" expresses a mandatory requirement. Departure from such a requirement is not permissible without formal agreement. (Sometimes "must" is used instead of shall).

Should: The word "should" expresses a recommendation or advice. Such recommendations or advice are expected to be followed unless satisfactory reasons are stated for not doing so.


Taking a cavalier attitude to so-called 'recommendations' in the IAIP for personal convenience is hardly a 'satisfactory reason'.

[ericferret]

Thanks for this, I have seen it before and it is paraphrased in The Air Pilot's Manual.

I searched hard to find it, It's UK AIP AD 1.1. Aerodrome and Heliport Availability.
The sub para 4.1., but others relevant too.

Online it's under under IAIP, aerodrome information, generic, then AD 1.1.

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-F60A7ACE7626766E6FCA1DE88EFAFAC2/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/AD/EG_AD_1_1_en_2014-12-11.pdf

Small wonder I couldn't find it.

[Whopity]

(maintain at least 1,000' above any obstacle within 5nm)". Does this mean within a certain distance of the landing facility? That's something I've never been clear on. No; it means 5nm from the aircraft. It used to be Rule 33, one of the Instrument Flight Rules:Minimum height
33 (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1,000
feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft
Under SERA it is now stated in KmSERA.5015 Instrument flight rules (IFR) — Rules applicable to all IFR flights
(b) Minimum levels
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority, an IFR flight shall be flown at a level which is not below the minimum flight altitude established by the State whose territory is overflown, or, where no such minimum flight altitude has been established:
(2) elsewhere than as specified in (1), at a level which is at least 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft.

[thing]

Small thread drift but being as we're on subject...I was crossing some CAS a couple of years ago VFR and was asked if I could go higher. I replied I could but that would put me IMC so could I have a deconfliction service and go IFR. The controller said that I could have the deconfliction service but stay VFR even though he was putting me in IMC.

What was all that about?

[3 Point]

Not an unusual situation. If he wants you higher but also wants you to maintain VMC and conditions are such that you can't do both just tell him. He's in a little dark room and you're up there so you have much better picture of the weather situation than he does.

Happy landings!

3 point

[ericferret]

Quote:
"maintain at least 1,000' above any obstacle within 5nm". Does this mean within a certain distance of the landing facility? "

I should have said: does it ALSO apply. Badly worded, what I meant was how close do you have to be to the landing site (with no Published Inst. Approach) before it is classed as "for take-off or landing"?

In other words let's say there is a tall structure 4 nm from the airport. Could you LEGALLY pass over that in IMC at less than 1,000 ft/300m? I.e. would that count as for take off or landing? So is there a stated distance within which the T/O & landing exemption applies where there is no published Inst. App.?

[Mach Jump]

So is there a stated distance within which the T/O & landing exemption applies where there is no published Inst. App.?

No. There's no stated distance from the departure/destination where the 'taking off, or landing' bit begins to apply.

It's a murky area of the pond in which you swim at your own risk.

The legality of what you did will only be made clear after the accident, and will probably be determined on the basis of whether you were judged to have recklessly endangered the aircraft, rather than attempting to clarify the rules regarding instrument approaches/departures.


MJ:ok:

[Whopity]

In other words let's say there is a tall structure 4 nm from the airport.Then it will be taken into account in calculating the approach procedure minima. This may be official or unofficial, but if there is No procedure and you are IMC then the 1000ft minima applies.

[ericferret]

Quote:
"In other words let's say there is a tall structure 4 nm from the airport".

Mach Jump I think you've hit the nail on the head that endangering the aircraft will take priority.

Whopity, what do you mean by "Then it (the tower) will be taken into account when calculating approach procedure minima. This may be official or unofficial..." What do you classify as an unofficial procedure?

[Whopity]

Official approach procedures are published in the UK AIP. There are also "discreet procedures" developed by other organisations that are not published and are "unofficial" but still perfectly legal. The procedure designers, not (the tower) follow strict rules when designing procedures which take into account all obstacles in the approach domain and apply appriopriate minima to that sector of the approach to allow for possible position tolerances. If you deviate from the approach procedure, then you should carry out the missed approach procedure which will take you back to a safe altitude to ensure you clear any obstacles.

[BEagle]

Presumably the 'discreet procedures' aren't published due the cost involved in upgrading them to 'official' status?

Whereas those who fly 3° approaches from a waypoint they've inserted into a nav system, or even a portable iToy 'app', do so contrary to the AIP and at risk to themselves, their passengers and those on the ground.

Or will the smartarses now say that it's some form of self-regulated 'informed consent' on behalf of the pilot :rolleyes: and therefore OK to do so?

[Whopity]

There lies the problem, the average GPS use cobbling together a home brew procedure has little idea of the factors taken into account when designing a safe procedure. Many "discreet" procedures are simply "not for public use", hence they are not published.

[Pull what]

Bungle-Try reading the AAIB reports before posting, I would suggest.....

The majority of IMC approach accidents are caused by pilots on published procedures not complying with the published procedure or published minima

[Mach Jump]

Bungle-Try reading the AAIB reports before posting...

I know BEagle can be a bit grumpy at times, but there's no need to be rude.

I take your point, though. I don't recall reading any accident reports where the aircraft was performing an 'unofficial'(non-approved) instrument approach, although it could be that we just never knew that was what they were doing at the time.


MJ:ok:

[Pull what]

On the contrary, I do feel the need to be rude to people I seeing being rude to other people.

[fireflybob]

Reminds of racing driver Graham Hill and all on board coming to grief trying to land at Elstree one foggy night using a "home grown" procedure.

[Pull what]

and 30 mins later the CFI of the Warwckshire Aero Club was killed with the pilot and 3 passengers at Birmingham after the third approach in 200 metres .

Both pilots in these two accidents had alternate airfields available and above limits(Luton & EMA)