Private and IR

[englishal]

I went to my flying club today, who do all manner of flight training, and said "I want to convert my FAA IR to JAA" and they said "sure, you can do it by the 15 hr route". But then the examiner came back and said that a private IR is no more:*, one won't be issued. To get an IR now, whether converting or doing one from scratch it appears that I have to take the CPL ground exams, the CPL GFT and hence get a CPL. Not to mention the fact that I would need a class 1 medical. So as you can imagine I said bollo*ks to that idea....

Something interesting though, apparently the JAA IWR is in the pipeline. I was advised to make sure I kept my IMC rating current as existing IMC holders will have grandfather rights.....I thought the IWR had died a death before it even got off the ground, but the person I spoke to was adamant that one would be appearing soon.....

Anyone know anything about this??

Cheers
EA :D

[rustle]

Sounds remarkably whiffy to me EA - our intrepid hero, FujiAbound, is on the IWR case I understand....

[2Donkeys]

The Club have got it wrong on both counts.

Firstly, adding an IR to a JAA PPL is no problem. The exams you take are very similar to the CPL/ATPL exams, but that was always the case. You can either enroll on a course for these, or you can distance learn. Atlantic Flight Training at Coventry have such a course. The IR Flight Test is substantially the same whether you are adding the IR to a PPL or CPL.


The IWR (Instrument Weather Rating), in fact pre-dates JAR, and was an attempt to come up with something similar to an IMC rating, but with rather wider acceptance. It proved to be too much of a bridge to cross, and is now very dead. There are no attempts being made to bring it back either.

2D

[englishal]

Thats what I always understood, but the person I spoke to, who seemed to know [or at least gave the impression] what they were talking about. I questioned the fact that PPL IR did exist and they were sure that it would no longer be issued and you had to have a CPL....

Sounds whiffy to me too, so to be continued......

EA:D

PS after thinking about it for some time, I can't see how they [the authorities] could ban a PP from getting an IR and insist on a CPL...?:confused:

[StrateandLevel]

An IR is an IR no matter what licence you hold, Private or Commercial. The IR exams are the same for PPL Holders and CPL holders.

Yes the old National PPL/IR is dead, but the JAA IR is here to stay and you can add it to a PPL or a CPL.

Details in LASORS 2003 Section E:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_E.pdf

[witchdoctor]

EA

Aviation is full of people who seem to know (or rather give the impresssion that they know) what they are talking about. Suppose that should be lesson number one on all syllabuses.;)

[Red Chilli]

I concur with 2Donkeys - a couple of weeks ago I phoned CAA FCL and quizzed them directly about IWR etc. they were pretty clear that there is to be no replacement for the IMC. :( Pity in my view 'cos you could then plan to let down if necessary at your European destination - whilst planning VFR and intending to stay VFR a la UK use of IMC. This would give far more certainty to trips (need to stay current etc. etc.) :D

[englishal]

Sounds like the person I spoke with is in a time warp, I wonder if they know about the JAA?:D Cheers for the replies, time to go back and try again !

Rgds
EA

[RodgerF]

Remember englishal, although you will not need a Class 1 medical you will need to have an audiogram done by your AME to have the IR. Good idea to get this out of the way before you start.

[IO540-C4D5D]

If you want a PPL/IR, and it is possible to use an N-reg plane, a far better route is an FAA PPL and FAA IR.

Easier to do, you get credit for previous instrument training (up to 25 hrs IIRC), you don't have the ludicrous JAR ATPL ground school (14 exams), and a Class 3 medical is dead easy to get.

For a plane owner, there are savings all the way down the line too. Own maintenance, only annual checks, able to use FAA STC'd parts...

[englishal]

I have the FAA IR but the trouble is I don't have access to an N reg. My plan is to eventually get one[ the Mrs is a yank, so she can 'own' it I'll just fly it:D] but in the meantime, I'm going to get involved with a G reg group for a couple of years, earn some more money [or win the lottery] then bring a N reg back to the UK, hopefully sell some shares in it to help finance the running costs [anyone interested?:D]

Cheers
EA

[IO540-C4D5D]

Englishal

By knowing a trusted person who is a US citizen and who can own the plane, you have solved the #1 drawback of N-reg ownership :O

Got for it!

[ratsarrse]

I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but I find licences desperately confusing. Am I right in thinking that the IR is a standalone rating? Maybe I can use an example to explain what I mean:
Pilot X is a vanilla PPL. He decides to add the IR to his licence. Manages to find a school that offers the IR training. Gets his IR. Later on, he decides that he wants to get his CPL. Am I right in thinking that once he's got his CPL, he has exactly the same qualifications as someone who did an integrated CPL/IR? That an IR is an IR, no matter which licence type you add it to?

[2Donkeys]

Ratsarrse:

Correct

[Justiciar]

I've looked into this quite alot recently and I think this is the position:
You can add an IR to your PPL by studying and taking either the IR exams, of which there are 7 (through Atlantic Flight Training or GTS) or by taking the full 14 ATPL exams. You then do the 50 or 55 hour flying course, depending on whether you want a single engine or multi IR.

If having gone this route you decide you want a CPL then, unless you took the full 14 ATPL exams you will have to take the CPL exams, of which there are 9.

So, only take the IR exams if you're sure you won't later want a CPL as well! The exams last for 36 months from the date of the last pass.

Once you have a JAA IR you can convert it to an FAA IR by applying for a Restricted FAA PPL and you can then convert your JAA IR to an FAA IR by taking a cut down version of the full FAA IR exam (I think its called the Instrument Foreign Pilot exam). Then providing you maintain validity on your JAA IR the FAA IR remains valid on the back of it.

You can go the FAA -> JAA route but have to take all the JAA exams and do 15 hours flying. I doubt it is any cheaper taking this route, even though the FAA IR requires only 40 hours and you can count the time spent elsewhere instrument flying, which means that you can count your 15 hours on the IMC rating towards the 40, which you can't do under JAA!! Bizzar!!

[englishal]

It baffles the hell out of me....Why have 7 exams for the IR? Knowing the JAA exams its probably so you know how to set up an approach in a 737 FMS [even though you have no intention of flying one] or so you know who's legally responsible for the Airmail packet you're carrying should you be delayed or have to divert becasue of weather....:D

Cheers
EA

[2Donkeys]

Englishal

You should probably take a look at the exam contents before writing them off quite so swiftly.

The IR exams teach a much better knowledge of the weather than either the FAA IR or the IMC (not difficult).

They cover radio theory to the point of pain, admittedly less than interesting in parts

They cover the way in which your instruments work.

They cover navigation to the point where you can safely navigate your aircraft, pretty-much regardless of its avionics fit, anywhere on the planet.


Passing the JAA IR will bring about the biggest jump forward in your aviation knowledge. Nothing quite compares to it.

Tell me I'm wrong once you have the paper in your hand.

[Megaton]

I've done both FAA IR and JAR ATPL exams and there is some useful stuff in them but mostly they're a load of tosh. They are an acedemic hoop to jump through.

[Justiciar]

What is so strange is the lack of overlap between the exams. If you take the IR set and later want a CPL the only exam you are credited with is IFR Comms! Although you get credit in terms of hours of study you effectively repeat most areas of study in the further exams, although I suppose you go into it all in more depth.

[2Donkeys]

Ham

I sat both sets of ATPLs.

There is no question which set of exams gives the broadest knowledge base on which to draw later on in your aviation career.

If your objective is to jump through hoops and forget the subject matter later, then I can see why one might prefer the FAA exams. They are easier, and there is less subject matter covered.

2D

[IO540-C4D5D]

2Donkeys

The real question, I think, is which is more applicable to a *PPL* / IR type of flight.

For the UK, I find the IMC Rating entirely adequate for private and business flight. Unless you fly a deiced turbocharged plane, preferably a twin, with oxygen, there are not many journeys where having a full IR will make a flight possible, over the IMC rating. I fly on business quite a bit (very well equipped non turbo, non press, retract SEP) and have not yet seen a contrary to this in the UK although I suppose there must be some and I would be certainly interested in examples.

So, the real use of the IR is for European flying.

Recently I have met quite a lot of people who are building hours for the ATPL and who have done the JAA IR ground school. I have seen the sort of exam questions there are, and the syllabus. I am enough technically minded and would have no problem getting through the stuff I saw but equally it is obvious to me that most of it is not applicable to the most common PPL/IR application i.e. flying around UK and Europe, private and business, in a non-jet non-press aircraft, VFR when possible for the view, IFR/airways when necessary or desired.

As for navigation, owners of modern aircraft practically all use a decent GPS as primary, with VOR/DME. Certainly navigation as taught at PPL level is grossly inadequate for UK/European airspace flying and no doubt this is one reason why most new PPLs pack it in very quickly indeed, but anyone who has a real reason to fly is going to have the incentive to do it properly, and they will see right away the need for an IR and for a plane equipped to go with that - and we aren't talking about a 1970 PA28 with a VOR receiver. The standard of navigation easily achieved with modern kit is way beyond what is taught.

The FAA IR, with an FAA Class 3 medical, is probably "right" for what I believe is the intended usage. I have not seen any evidence from the USA to the contrary. After that, any comparisons become completely irrelevant against varying currency. Currency, especially on type, counts for so much more than what exams you sat a few years ago.

I think it's a pity that there isn't a FAA-like dedicated PPL/IR in Europe.

Of course any commercial operation or ambitions are a different thing, for lots of reasons.

[2Donkeys]

No argument with any of that... for the private pilot, as you say.

I suspect that the ground exams could be relaxed somewhat for the private pilot, but my own suggestion would be that this should take the form of permitting 100% self-study, as with the US. In this way, people don't have to take time out of work just to go to refresher courses.

Currently, the time off paid employment on top of time spent flight training is what puts a lot of would-be IRs off.

2D

[slim_slag]

How tough are the oral exams for a JAA IR?

[IO540-C4D5D]

2Donkeys

I think that a PPL/IR will have a different reason to do it from someone doing a CPL/IR or ATPL. Most likely it will be for intensive leisure flying and/or for business travel. And the money involved in that will mean a decent plane to go with it - every current PPL/IR I know falls into that category. These people aren't usually skint. As for kit, a GNS430/530 is the baseline - how many miles is that from the 1960s syllabus?

Whereas a CPL/ATPL person is going to be looking for an airline or other commercial job, and most of them seem variously skint, to the point of doing a FI for a £10/day retainer, for a few years, on the way there. Plenty of time to do the exams!

Some of the syllabus I saw seems completely bizzare, e.g. the operation of AND/OR logic gates. Great... throw in a bit of college electronics here and there. As one 60+ ATPL with 25k hours said to me, it's great for sorting out the men from the sheep. But necessary, let alone relevant? You could just have a bog standard IQ test or one of those specialised "engineering aptitude" tests.

The PPL/IR syllabus should be tailored to the private pilot's requirements. But with the regulatory bodies being stuffed with airline pilot types, and presumably with the whole of JAA member countries having to agree...?

[englishal]

I've got no problem with a self study route, I was just curious as to why there was 7 exams to take. There is no doubt that the written exams under JAR are harder, and easier under the FAA, but does this make the FAA instrument pilot any worse than the JAA instrument pilot?....

Speaking of hard exam questions, this is why you pay your £000's for the ATPL ground school....

Q: CONTRACTING STATES SHALL CARRY OUT THE HANDLING, FORWARDING AND CLEARANCE OF AIRMAIL AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE DOCUMENTARY PROCEDURES AS PRESCRIBED:

1) By IATA and accepted contracting States
2) By IATA and accepted by ICAO
3) By the regional post office
4) In the Acts of force of the Unversal Postal Union

:D
[answers on a post card]

[Megaton]

JAR ATPLs are undoubtedly harder than US equivalents but that does not make them more relevant to flying in the real world. Air law questions on the distnce between lights on a mast? You've got to be joking!

[Red Chilli]

IO540 - I concur with your thoughts exactly and have been musing with the idea of proposing (with support from fellow aviators :D) a new rating via AOPA, CAA etc. to put on the table in front of the soon to be formed EASA i.e. in the name of safety. This rating would replace the IMC with a new standard akin to the FAA/IR, which as discussed would pretty well fit the bill and engender European wide acceptance, as opposed to the IWR which died a death!

I propose a name of IRP for IR Private (GA community target) and looking through LASORS my initial proposal would include:

a. 35 hours instrument time under instruction
b. Up to 10 hours of the 35 required to be allowed in a CAA approved simulator
c. An appropriate examination syllabus, which will major on weather and in particular, icing - how it's formed, effects, avoidance etc. The syllabus will be formed from the most relevant sections of existing material PLUS the addition of GPS and autopilot usage etc. :D
d. Revalidation by test after 13 months.

Not going to carry on with ideas for course pre-requisites - just thought I'd float the idea and see what you folks thought!

I'm posting this as a potential customer relatively new to this world and with no 'baggage' of any previous dealings with these august bodies. I have over the past couple of years read these same threads time and again and I think everyone is in broad agreement re: relative merits of the IMC v. IR - and it stikes me there is clearly a large void that requires a rating. In my view the CAA etc. are our agents and I think we have the right to campaign for an imrovement to our safety and enjoyment.

Well I feel better now:D Seriously though, I do intend to start the ball rolling with a note to AOPA - what do you think?!

[Keef]

Hi RedChilli.

I think this topic's been done to death many a time before. My long-departed mum used to talk about the "initiation ceremony - I had to go through it, so you all will if you want to join the club". The JAA IR is a bit like that for a PPL. Relevance to the situation at hand is not required. For CPL and ATPL, I can see the point. But then the CPL and ATPL exams should cover those bits already, surely? Can a CPL or ATPL be relevant without an IR?

For me, flying is a hobby - an expensive one. I want to be able to fly IFR, when it's safe (and to know when that is). There is no way I would contemplate a JAA IR with all the palaver and extended IQ/memory tests that entails. Nor would I want an IR that involves the full flight test (and a fee in the order of £500) every year.

The IMC rating does most of what I want, but isn't valid outside the UK.

So I did the FAA IR, and am looking round for an N-reg single. I'm hoping our group will move the group Arrow to the N reg (we have a US citizen associated with the group, so that bit's done).

I wish you joy with the campaign with AOPA-UK, but don't hold out much hope.

[Red Chilli]

Yes thanks Keef - essentially, a JAA version of the FAA/IR would do the trick. I think we're on the same square as I effectively want a Europe wide IMC (beefed up as required). If this proposal idea hits multiple brick walls, as it may do 'cos it almost in my view smacks of.....common sense (eek!), then I will probably follow the same path - but really why should I have to when we should be able to lead the way and improve safety at the same time :confused:

[IO540-C4D5D]

Red Chilli

Sounds very good, but as Keef points out, all the time there is the N-reg alternative (available to UK residents) few prospective UK PPL/IR pilots will take the time to support it.

Most serious private flyers I know are either already N-reg or are working towards it. They tend to be owners, or in a group with others with same usage, so N-reg is not a problem, and there are other benefits e.g. owner maintenance, various savings, and ability to fit FAA STC'd items.

The FAA Class 3 medical is also potentially very valuable in its own right. For example, most UK NPPL recruits are 50+ men who already have the PPL but who now fail the CAA Class 2 medical, and according to a CAA man I spoke to recently the average NPPL age is 60. The FAA C3 med has (I am told) no ECG and no audiogram, and despite the reluctance of the CAA to lower the standards for a PPL/IR there is no evidence (from the USA) that this causes any statistically visible problems. So I have no idea why the CAA are being so pedantic about it. Unfortunately - given the N-reg option - the attractiveness of an easier PPL/IR will be undermined if it still requires the CAA Class 2 medical (plus some of Class 1 such as the audiogram).

There are also obvious "PPL/IR-type" planes e.g. the Cirrus SR22 which presently have to be N-reg anyway.

The situation would change if the CAA did what the French DGAC has just proposed, i.e. to shaft French-resident N-reg owners by allowing them a max of 6 months. (The FAA apparently allows only 6 months after which a US-based plane has to go onto the N-reg, so the French are going to do the same; one can speculate as to the trigger for this :O ) So the DGAC is going to force a lot of their frequent private flyers into the JAA IR.

[slim_slag]

IO540-C4D5D,

If true, what the French are doing is an interesting little twist. So the poor little GA pilot gets the shaft again for the glory of a European JAA which can challenge the US FAA.

I'd also be a bit worried about the FAA (or more likely TSA) coming out and saying N regs have to be based in the USA. That would shaft a lot of poor GA pilots all over the world, and there is no evidence that will happen.

If the French are doing this "because it's what the Americans do" I expect the French to recognise ICAO IR licences and training the same way the Americans do when converting from one regime to another. Fat chance of that of course, one thing the French and Americans do have in common is they both only obey international protocols when it suits them :)

[bluskis]

I have been reading an article in an American publication on the subject of radio communication misunderstandings, and related incidents. The article did not make it clear whether or not the Americans have a radio licence test procedure like the UK one.

Could those that know please clarify.

[2Donkeys]

slim_slag

Never let the facts get in the way of a good xenophobic rant. I would recommend a browse on the DGAC Website.

The DGAC does accept other ICAO IRs, including the FAA IR, and it will endorse such licences for use in French aircraft, provided that the licence holder is not an EU resident.

In this way, the FAA or other ICAO licence can't be used as a quick way to a back-door JAA IR.

We won't even go that far in the UK.

2D

[down&out]

Red Chilli,

I've just seen this post and very much support you. I don't seem to fit in the mould either - I learnt in an UAS a little over 10 years ago, have an IMC & like flying round France & Ireland, so its a right royal pain I can't use it over there. But I don't earn or fly enough to afford time & cost for a full JAA IR. Also I don't intend to go commercial so an appropriate EU IR for private flyers would have me signed up for the training.

I know the subject has been raised before but, as I always hear, "its been tried before and didn't work" is THE WORST reason for not trying again. I'm sure there are others who think the same & some UK based flying schools that could benefit by potential more customers like me. It would be great to get AOPA to do something for us now & again.

D&O

[flyingfemme]

But would have a couple of variations :

Single-pilot IFR in a light piston, particularly without A/P, is the most demanding variation of the genre - 35 hours is not enough training. If anything it should be more than the CPL equivalent since most new-minted CPLs will be closely supervised and "Captained" for a very long time.

A "test" every 13 months? I prefer the FAA "review" - do it till you get it right rather than one strike and you're out.

Allowing training in the subject's own machine would be the single biggest cost-saving mechanism - the approved school lobby would probably squash that one.

[englishal]

Red Chilli,

Your idea sounds excellent to me, the only bit I would like to change is the d. Revalidation by test after 13 months.
What might be better is to have a "rolling currency" like the FAA IR. If your logbook contains the relevant requirements [6 approaches, navigation by navaids, holding etc] in the previous 6 months then you're legal to fly IFR in IMC. If not, then you have a further 6 months to get airbourne and do these requirements in VMC with a safety pilot before you can fly in IMC again. If you go over the extended 6 months, then you can become current again with a flight with an authorised instructor / examiner. Should you not fly IFR / IMC for more than 24 months then I think it would be fair to have a revalidation by test.

Also [for obvious reasons:D] I'd like to see previous instrument time count towards the course, with maybe a core mandatory course of say 5 hrs or something.....

Cheers
EA:D

[Julian]

Agree with EA, curency is maintained by your log book plus the fact that you have your BFR where you will shoot couple of approaches anyway.

The other thing to remember is that under the FAA System you can also do the approaches on an 'approved flight training device' - sorry MS Flight Sim wont count :} - with an instructor present and count those towards your currency.

[RodgerF]

Couple of points need clearing up here.

£500 examiners fee for an IR renewal is complete nonsense. £150 is more usual plus in a single about 1 hour flight time (usually less).

Training in ones own aircraft is allowed for the IR now. No reason to expect this will change. The main requirements are that the aircraft requires approval from the CAA in particular the provision of screens and appropriate equipment. The cost of this will be much less than the savings from operating your own aircraft.

[IO540-C4D5D]

slim_slag

Forcing N-reg owners to be US-based would upset an awful lot more than private pilots; there are many N-reg commercial (cargo etc) operations all over the world, plus Caribbean passenger operations, etc.

2Donkeys

What you appear to be saying is that an American with an FAA IR visiting France can rent an F-reg plane and, subject to getting the endorsement from the DGAC, he can fly IFR. That is in line with most other countries AFAIK; an endorsement is required but generally obtainable in each case. The UK CAA won't give an FAA IR full IR privileges in a G-reg plane but will give you the full IMC Rating; this comes close and perhaps is valid for a lot longer than a concession?

Incidentally do you have a URL for this info? I know someone who is preparing an English translation of these little DGAC quirks..

flyingfemme

I don't think any # of hours' training is adequate compensation for lack of an AP (and, more than likely if no AP is present, for lack of decent equipment generally) in single pilot IFR. It's extremely hard work no matter how you do it, unless you do it all the time. And very few people do it all the time even if they fly IFR all the time; the general idea is to get up VMC on top whenever possible. But all people that do it regularly (that I know of) have an AP anyway, plus a good plane.

You can get training in your own plane already, no restrictions I am aware of if 100% owned by you. You can train for a UK/JAA license/rating in a G-reg or for an FAA license/rating in an N-reg, entirely in the UK. Some instructors claim all training must be done "under the auspices of a flight training organisation" so you have to become a paid up member of their school/club to make it legal... What did you have in mind?

[flyingfemme]

Just a view that less flight training for a private pilot is not a particularly good idea and flying with less kit is tougher.

As far as I was aware IR training needs to be done "under the auspices of an APPROVED training organisation". In other words - the ones that cost mucho bucks and don't really have a flexible outlook. If you know different I would be happy to hear it.

I understand the US training system - I used it.

[West Coast]

Would someone be kind enough to explain the difference between an IMC and IR rating? What are the differences in privlidges and restrictions for a Brit flying a G reg acft in the UK?
Thanks

[flyingfemme]

An Instrument Rating is the full monty - allows you to fly through clouds, file IFR flight plans and make approaches (no sniggering at the back) everywhere in a G-reg aircraft.
An IMC is a half-a***d rating that only applies in G-reg aircraft in the United Kingdom's airspace and will not allow you into Class A airspace - which in this country covers ALL airways and several control zones.

[Keef]

Bluskis

In the USA, you don't need a radio operator's licence at all (or didn't last time I checked) to fly an N-reg aircraft.

If you fly an N-reg outside the USA, then you need a radio operator's licence. The procedure for getting one is on the FCC (not FAA) website.

There used to be a "Restricted Radio Licence for an Alien" or some such, free, valid three years. That's all stopped now, and depending on how you fill in the form, it can cost you from $50 to several hundred $. There is no test, no competence requirement, just money.

I got one, valid for life, for $50. It was quite a palaver since I don't have a US Social Security number. I had to fill in various forms to get past the next stage, but it can be done.

[Evo]

What was the IWR and why did it never appear? Seems like a very sensible idea to me. For that matter, I'm slightly surprised that the IMC has survived in this JAA'd, EASA'd world ... for how long?

[bluskis]

Thanks for the detailed reply Keef,

I won't personally be going for it, but the coincidence of reading that communication in the air is is occasionally a problem amongst professional pilots in the States, and the comparisons in workload between FAA and CAA licences discussed here made me wonder if there was a requirement for formal study and testing in the States.

Thats not to say that my calls are always perfect.

Flying Femme.

I think you short changed West Coast in your answer.

[West Coast]

Blueski
Not sure what you mean by formal testing. There are three hoops to jump through to attain an instrument rating. Yes there is a written test. It is only as hard as you want it to be. The govt is required to publish all the test questions and many companies will sell you them in book form to study. There is also a practical test in the aircraft to check tolerances. Lastly there is a oral exam in which the examiner peppers you with questions and scenarios for what ever time frame they deem suitable.

Flying femme
What good is the IMC rating? Is it for someone with a limited budget? Almost sounds like the recreational pilot certificate over here, an intro with loads of restrictions.

[bluskis]

West Coast

I was referring only to the testing of radio communications procedures and terminology.

A search on prune will give you a considerable collection of views on the IMC rating and its usefulness. Flying femmes answer reflected one end of a spectrum of views.

The actual requirements for IR and IMC ratings are laid out in the following web pages. I am sorry I don't know how to turn it into an actual link, that wasn't in the syllabus.

www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_E.pdf

Be interested in your comments when you have looked at it.

edit: magic, prune turned it into a link automatically

[Red Chilli]

Down&out, englishal, flyingfemme, Julian (and any others I've missed!) - thanks for the support for at least the principle of a more appropriate/accessible rating to enable the non commercial folks to enjoy a little more predictability when heading to Europe - I'll put a note out to AOPA initially and sound out their reaction. No doubt after a few weeks of this debate the full IR will begin to seem quite a pleasant option by comparison! :ok:

[down&out]

Good on yer - If you need support just tell us. I'd like to get something from my AOPA memebership.

[IO540-C4D5D]

flyingfemme

Interestingly, I have an email from the CAA confirming that the IMC Rating is not restricted to a G-reg plane.

There is a proviso: that the country of aircraft registration does not object. The FAA, for example, requires that an N-reg plane is flown with an FAA license/ratings.

I disagree with your apparent view of the IMC Rating; for private flight in the UK, in a non-deiced piston engined plane it comes very close to a full IR in practice. The difference in currency between different pilots, and the sort of plane and kit in it, counts for far more than the difference between the IMC and the IR.

All PPL students who look like they want to get into it properly ought to be encouraged to to the IMC Rating as a necessary step for UK flight. 15hrs min, perhaps 25hrs on average to cover the necessary bits. I suppose the problem is that the school would risk losing business because doing so would inflate the apparent cost of learning to fly.

[RodgerF]

flyingfemme

Just an observation on your last post.

Not all 'approved organisations' are conveyor belt training outfiits for integrated courses and don't want to do anything else. Some are small operations with a flexible outlook. Most IR instructors in these outfits would love to teach on something different and the 'Head of Training' is still close to the flying frontline.

BTW I forgot, the other thing you would need is to have an operating checklist for the aircraft also approved. This is a formality.

RF

[FlyingForFun]

Interestingly, I have an email from the CAA confirming that the IMC Rating is not restricted to a G-reg planeIf you want to fly an Outer Mongolian-registered aircraft, in Outer Mongolian airspace, then it is entirely up to the Outer Mongolian authorities to determine what their licensing requirements are. If they choose to accept a Double Dutch Ski-Float Rating, or a Russian Space Craft Rating, or a British IMC Rating, that is entirely their decision.

FFF
-------------

Disclaimer - for those of you with Double Dutch Ski-Float Ratings, I'm not certain that these are actually accepted in Outer Mongolia, and you should check with the Authority before you use it.

[slim_slag]

2 donkeys,

So if the French take residency into account, that means they do not do it like the USA, which is what I said. Xenophobia? You crack me up!

IO540-C4D5D

Yeh, never thought of that. Hopefully that makes it less likely to happen. I think the CAA could still force its "citizens" to fly on a JAA licence if they decided to, I actually think the CAA is by far the best of a bad European bunch. Still miles behind the Yanks.

[englishal]

The DGAC does accept other ICAO IRs, including the FAA IR, and it will endorse such licences for use in French aircraft, provided that the licence holder is not an EU resident.
Meaning that if you're Resident legally outside the EU, for example a legal Alien in the USA [that cracks me up:D] then you can apply for an endorsement even if you're a brit. Its true I'm afraid, I asked nos frères et soeurs français à DGAC if I could use my IR in a G or F reg plane. To the G reg their response was "whatever the UK say you can do" and to the F reg one, only if I was legally resident outside the EU and could prove it.....

Cyer
EA:D

[slim_slag]

West Coast,

The IMC is a very strange thing. It's incredibly expensive and complicated to get an ICAO IR in the UK, basically it's a "professional rating" whatever that is. So given the generally cloudy weather in the UK, the CAA have been very pragmatic and come up with an IMC. This is a 15 hour course (yes you read that right, fifteen) which lets you fly in the clouds and even shoot approaches in airspace where you will be unlikely to hit a real IR pilot.

This board is full of the repeating threads. I've seen multiple threads asking what the DH and RVR are when flying a Cat I ILS in Class D and all you have is an IMC. I don't think anybody has come up with an answer they could defend!!!! If you were flying that approach with an IR it would be an easy one. Some people argue that your DH or RVR can be lower flying with an IMC than if you had an IR!!! Confuses the hell out of me. Instead of making IR's accessible like in the US, the CAA makes IRs totally ridiculously hard to get, and fills the gap with this complicated beast called an "IMC"

So that is my understanding, happy to be corrected.

[benhurr]

IMC rating MDA's DA's are either 250 or 200 feet above an IR rated pilots.

What I have found most unusual with the JAA system is that there is no formalised examination of morse code knowledge. And the same applies for a CAA IMC.

From a purely practical point of view - surely morse is essential for any IMC flying?

How it got missed out out of the syllabus is totally beyond me...

[Keef]

benhurr

Those are RECOMMENDED MDAs etc. Usually "IR plus 200 feet" with an absolute minimum of 500 feet for a precision aid and 600 feet for non-precision.

But that's not LAW. Or wasn't last time I checked. The IMC-rated pilot can technically use the IR minima. I suspect the CAA would use the "endangering an aircraft" argument if he screwed up and they wanted to prosecute.

[flyingfemme]

That's pretty much how I see it all.

RodgerF
If the IR is not such an inflexible beast why is somebody (from one of these FTO's) not telling pilots. There seems to be a body of PPLs who have a will to learn more and improve their flying but cannot afford the time (and ridiculous fees) to take three months (or whatever) to do it - they have jobs or businesses. Many of them also have aircraft that would be suitable to do the training.

[FlyingForFun]

Slim_slag,

From your post, it's clear that you're not in favour of the IMC rating.

I have to agree that a simple IR would be a much better solution. But as a pilot who has to work within the current system, I have an IMC rating, and I use it. I stick to the CAA's recommended minima (200' above the IR minima, including a 50' altimeter error correction for a precision approach, or else 500' for a precision approach or 600' for a non-precision approach, whichever is higher), and I've never heard of any confusion regarding them. Since I don't get the opportunity to fly on instruments very often (my usual aircraft isn't suitably equipped) I use higher minima in real IMC (1000'), but I make a point of flying on instruments, including at least one approach to minima, around once a month, with foggles and a safety pilot if necessary. Does this, in your view, make me unsafe?

You said: "This is a 15 hour course (yes you read that right, fifteen)" Do you know of any accident or incident which has been caused by an IMC-rated pilot having had insufficient training to be safe?

You then said: "which lets you... even shoot approaches" Do you know how many approaches an average IMC student would shoot during training? How does that compare to an FAA IR student? If there is a difference (and I don't know the answer to that), do you feel the higher minima recommended for IMC-rated pilots account for this sufficiently? Do you know of any accidents or incidents which have been caused by an IMC-rated pilot shooting an approach whilst sticking to the recommended minima?

Finally, you said: "in airspace where you will be unlikely to hit a real IR pilot." What is the difference between a "real IR pilot" an any other pilot in terms of the result of hitting them in the air?

Like I said, I don't know the answers to all of these questions, that's why I'm asking them.

Having visited the towers at Heathrow and Gatwick, as well as LATCC and Swanwick, my honest opinion is that it is not safe or practical for GA pilots, however well qualified, to be flying around in the London TMA - there simply isn't the room nor the flexibility to handle IFR aircraft with such different speeds. I know you will cite US equivalents, but I have still not come across an area of the US where there are 5 busy international airports within such a confined space. The IMC rating keeps me out of the way of inbound and outbound traffic at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton and City, and I'm pleased for that. In those areas where proper radar coverage is available, I would rather be flying in Class G airspace than in the London TMA.

If you listen to British IMC-rated pilots and their gripes, it becomes clear that the only real gripe with the IMC rating is that it is not recognised in continental Europe. Which is why a JAR alternative is being asked for.

FFF
--------------

[Julian]

Slimslag summed it up for me, the IR is viewed over here in JAA land as a 'professional' qualification and therefore a pain in the @rse to get!!! It should not be but I think we can learn something from the good 'ole U S of A where and IR is viewed as the natural next rating for a pilot to obtain - the price is within the reaches of your average Joe Bloggs.

I didnt bother with the IMC but went straight for the IR (FAA) but both myself and the other guy who was training with me both came to the same conclusion, that there is no way we would have felt ready to take on IMC 15 hours into our course. I have no idea how many approaches I made but it was LOTS!!! I will have to have a look at my logbook when I get home.

Benhurr
- Nope you dont need to learn morse. It wouldnt hurt if you knew it but to be honest you dont need to. If you fly in the US all morse idents are on the charts anyway. You can always carry a crib sheet with morse alphabet written down if you want. I always work out the morse on any idents as part of my flight planning anyway.

[RodgerF]

flyingfemme

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I agree that there is a lot of hoops to jump for the IR, but with the current situation that 50 hours training is required then that is going to take some elapsed time. If someone wanted to train part time for example then I know of FTOs that would do it.

keef

The AIP is quite explicit about the IMC minima. Para 3.3.2 in section AD 1.1.2 states 'Pilots with a valid IMC/Instrument Weather Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the Instrument Rated pilots' DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non precision approach' I would read that to mean that the 500 and 600 ft figures are not just recommendations but requirements.

That being the case you would be liable under Article 40 of the ANO if you continued an approach with weather below these minima.

OTOH if you don't have an incident, you are unlikely to get an MOR as ATC won't know you don't have an IR!!

[englishal]

I think I shot around 60 approaches during the IR course, GPS / VOR / LDA / LOC / LDA / LOC DME [bk crs] / ILS / NDB.

As for morse....I use the Jepp charts, they print the ident on them :D The only really good one to know is dot dot, for I [as in ILS].

The IMC is a good rating, well done the CAA for not getting rid of it. It teaches basic attitude flying as well as approaches reasonably safely in marginal weather.

The biggest drawbacks with the IMC as far as I'm concerned is that a) I can't enter airways and b) I can't use it abroad. The IMC would be far more useful if airways say below FL100 were designated Class D or something. Its sometimes inconvienient to potter around at 3000' in IMC, especially if at 5000' its clear sunny sky. How many commercial operations fly below FL100 anyway? We've had this discussion before on here, but it would be nice to be able to obtain, relatively cheaply, taking into account previous hrs etc, rolling currency, a rating that lets a person fly Europe wide at FL100 or below say, 'proper' IFR?

Cheers
EA:D

[IO540]

As far as I recall, when doing the FAA IR you can bring in up to 25 hours of previous instrument instruction, provided each flight is signed off by a CFI. Sadly I don't recall where I saw that requirement but it's very useful; a typical IMC Rated pilot will have done 20-30 hours of training (no, 15hrs is not enough) and that takes care of most of the mandatory IR flying hours, and provided you are current etc getting the FAA IR should not be too hard. FAA IRs I know have confirmed this.

But what credit does one get towards the JAA IR?

[slim_slag]

FFF

We have had this discussion before :)

From your post, it's clear that you're not in favour of the IMC rating.

Nope, I called it a pragmatic solution, I am in favour. I find it confusing because the regulations are unclear.

Does this, in your view, make me unsafe?

I would have to fly with you to make that determination.

Do you know of any accident or incident which has been caused by an IMC-rated pilot having had insufficient training to be safe?

It is my opinion that you cannot possibly gain the skills required in 15 hours. Whether that has killed anybody, well I don't know, but I'd be surprised if it hadn't. I do know that plenty of current IR pilots in the States kill themselves because of disorientation in clouds, or kill themselves though CFIT. I would expect that an IMC pilot is not immune to these problems either. I would suspect that there are some IMC pilots who are safer than IR pilots, and vice versa. For instance, an IR pilot in Phoenix with 100 hours under the hood and no actual, would be more dangerous than an IMC pilot in England with 100 hours of actual. When both were newly qualified, I would say the IR pilot was significantly safer than the IMC.

Do you know how many approaches an average IMC student would shoot during training? How does that compare to an FAA IR student?

I've found an IR student spends 10-15 hours attitude flying. 15-20 hours shooting approaches (which includes attitude flying of course). 10 or so hours on cross countries, and 5 hours other stuff. So an FAA IR student will spend more time shooting approaches than an IMC spends on his whole training. YMMV. Also depends on how often you fly. You lose it very quick.

I know you will cite US equivalents, but I have still not come across an area of the US where there are 5 busy international airports within such a confined space.

You are correct, that's exactly what I did last time you and I crossed swords. You didn't reply to that post :)

I think that if I could be bothered to put up with CAA regulation, I would be more than satisfied with an IMC. I'd prefer an IR, but cannot be bothered with the CAA regulation. Seeing I find flying in clouds to be boring I don't really keep my IR up, so I am probably quite dangerous now in the clouds. I prefer to fly aeroplanes with no gyros or in attitudes where you have to see the horizon (like upside down) :) :) :)

Hope that helps :ok:

[FlyingForFun]

Yes, slim_slag, we have had this discussion before. Except that last time we had it, I didn't have an IMC rating, so my viewpoint was entirely theoretical. Now I do, so I speak from a position of (very slightly) more authority! :D

Your last post, where you've answered my questions, is far more balanced than your previous one, and I agree with almost all of it. I'd take issue with your statement that: "you cannot possibly gain the skills required in 15 hours." This depends on many things, including the student, the instructor and the training environment, but 15 hours is an absolute minimum. Many people will require more than this. My instructor felt that I had the necessary skills after 14 hours and 55 minutes, we had to do one low-level circuit to make the time up to 15 hours. My examiner agreed, telling me that I would be more than capable of passing an IR with a little more training. I put this down to a combination of excellent instruction, hard work on my part, lots of training in real IMC, and some training around CBs (obviously in VMC so my instructor could keep me well clear of the CBs themselves) where the aircraft was far more difficult to handle than anything else I've come across. I guess that, except for the hard work, I was lucky to have this combination, but it's not impossible.

I agree with you that it's more fun to fly by looking at the horizon, but unfortunately, I can't afford to fly regularly in anything where I'm allowed to look at the horizon upside-down. If only we could live in a world with no weather, flying would be even more fun that it is already!

FFF
-----------

[slim_slag]

FFF,

If posts had to be balanced this web site would be as boring as flying in clouds or straight & level.

Well done on your IMC. I am sure it will come in handy, remember recent currency is all that really counts. I have to say that there is no way you would ever get me to fly in clouds with you if you only had 15 hours experience, unless I had access to the controls and a large club to render you unconscious if you refused to hand them over to me :)

I am sooooo glad we are now friends :ok: Oh, next time you are in the States purchase some terminal charts with JFK, ORD, ATL, LAX, & SFO on them.

[bookworm]

The AIP is quite explicit about the IMC minima. Para 3.3.2 in section AD 1.1.2 states 'Pilots with a valid IMC/Instrument Weather Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the Instrument Rated pilots' DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non precision approach' I would read that to mean that the 500 and 600 ft figures are not just recommendations but requirements.

absolute according to the COED means

1. complete, perfect
2. pure
3. unrestricted, independent
4. not in usual grammatical relation !
5. not relative or comparative

I cannot find a meaning 'mandatory' or 'not just recommended'. absolute here means 'not relative to the IR pilot DH/MDH'. It is still a recommmendation.

[bluskis]

You could also say the meaning intended in this case is 'exact' which fits in with 1 perfect and 5 not comparative. However the word 'recommended' does appear to apply to the entire following phrase.

I have just been reading the Aerad European supplement, not cover to cover you understand, and I do realise it is not a source document, but under ATC and referring to the UK rules, it states 'the UK has adopted the new ICAO VMC criteria. There is one change from ICAO criteria: the requirement to be in sight of the surface for VFR flight below 3000 ft amsl is considered to be unduly restrictive.'

It then goes on to list forward viz and hor and vert dist from cloud for various Airspace classes.

Does this mean that VFR on top is now recognised and allowed?

[RodgerF]

blueskis

'VFR on top' has always been legal in UK airspace, its just that unrated PPLs can't fly out of sight of the surface because their licences don't allow it.

The point about the UK stance is that in UK airspace, being at or below 3000' clear of cloud and in sight of the surface complies with VFR it isn't mandatory as in ICAO, provided the other part of Rule 26(b) can be complied with. E.g Flying at 3000' with visibility > 5km no cloud above, below is an unbroken layer of stratus tops 1500'

Take your and bookworms point about the AIP, I am concerned when I see a sentence saying 'recommended xxxxxx, but'

[West Coast]

Slim slag, et al
Thanks for the insights. Are there any records that compare accident/incidents and violations between holders of IMC and IR ratings?

To the poster who believes there isn't any place in the US with large numbers of busy airports in close proximity, take a look at Southern and Northern California to start. They may not all be international airports, but I promise you, a domestic flight is going to hurt as much as an international one if you hit it.

[englishal]

I think the difference is that whereas an IR holder will plan a flight through IMC, MOST low hour IMC rating holders will probably not PLAN to fly through IMC unless its fairly gentle [ie. marine layer type stuff, where you climb to VFR ontop]. I'm sure I'm about to get shot down by this statement, and I'm sure there are many very expereienced high hour IMC holders out there who [quite rightly IMHO] do treat it like an mini IR, but I believe this is a reason why you can't compare IR and IMC accident stats.

There is a danger in using the IMC rating like an IR though, and that is that with an IMC rating you're responsible for negotiating you own CAS crossing clearances, radar services, DACS etc. I'm used to flying the US IFR system, where you are cleared before the flight [ie. you get your route clearance before take-off: say SLI dct V64 V363 OCN dct etc]. Any CAS en-route disappears as I have been pre-cleared through it, they may amend my route during the flight, but it is unlikely and if they do I'll get plenty of warning or vectors. Likewise, if I file a route they don't want me to fly, then they'll issue a new route which is ok as you know before you take off what your route is going to be.

Now imagine you have planned an IFR cross country in the UK using an IMC rating, you take off and expect to fly SAM dct CPT dct DTY dct Nottingham. You negotiate with Solent who are kind enough to let you in, so you intercept and fly OB on the SAM 010R to CPT. After CPT you reach some bad weather and you're now in solid IMC, so you call Brize Radar for a Radar advisory service, and you get the reply "sorry, too busy, FIS". So now you're in IMC, with no radar service and a little later you're approaching East Midlands CAS. You request a crossing service and they reply, "not cleared into the zone". Now what? You're in IMC, you haven't yet managed to pick up a radar service and you have to re-route around E Mids CAS avoiding any bad places to be [parachute jumping for example....unlikely in IMC but you never know].....and all this single pilot. And all this can be done after 15hrs instrument training....makes me shudder. As an instructor friend said to me yesterday, "a newly qualifed IMC rating holder is allowed to fly around in cloud and bumble their way through an instrument letdown at the end of the flight"

I'm not sure if there would be any difference if you pre-filed an IFR flight plan for this route, it may mean that you're MORE LIKELY to be allowed to cross CAS, but there is nothing guaranteed, and as one instructor said to me "you don't need to pre-file and I wouldn't as you could be subject to long delays".

Now wouldn't it be good if we had a network of low altitude airways, specifically designed for the IMC holder, providing automatic clearance through CAS and a radar service.....oh well.....

Cheers
EA:D

Note: I'm not slagging off IMC holders at all [me included :D], and I don't think the IMC is a bad rating. No doubt there are many highly experienced IMC holders out there who p*ss all over instrument rating holders, so don't take this post the wrong way.

[FlyingForFun]

Englishal, that is a very good point. However, in my limited experience, the scenario you describe is quite unlikely. LARS frequencies generally tend to get very busy on good VMC days, and if you asked for a RAS on such a day you could expect it to be refused. But on a day when you have no choice but to fly in heavy IMC, I think it's very unlikely that you wouldn't get the service you required, because the frequencies are much quieter.

A bigger problem, IMHO, is those parts of the country where there is no LARS available. Much of Kent, I think, falls into this category, although the one time I've flown in IMC in that area Thames very kindly gave us a squawk and kept an eye on us.

FFF
-----------

[englishal]

quite unlikely
True, but sods law says [and in my experience] that it WILL happen when you don't want it to :D Just like air traffic telling you to turn left 090, hold SW of BBB vor 270R 8DME descend an maintain 5000, sqwark ABCD, contact XYZ on aaa.bbb just as you enter a particularly turbulent bit of cloud, after it has been clear for ages [I'm sure they do it on purpose :D]

CU
EA

[IO540]

englishal

To my knowledge (no Class A airspace) if you file an IFR flight plan it just goes to the destination plus the regional service (e.g. London Info)

There is no controlled airspace clearance implicit; you still have to ask for it as you go along.

I may have missed something but I don't see how having a full IR would change this.

I agree with your comments about 15 hours; for most people it isn't enough to do what you describe, but equal in my view is the problem with suitable aircraft; the great majority of planes available for hire, or with shares available, are basically junk as far as IFR flight goes. But the instructor who has just taken £3000 off you for your IMC Rating, and who is hoping you will self fly hire his school's plane afterwards, isn't very likely going to tell you this. I know a few people who are doing their IMC Rating and not one of them is aware they won't be able to get their hands on a suitable plane afterwards in the location in question.

[englishal]

I haven't flown proper IFR in the UK, but having an instrument rating allows you into airways. The way I understand it is to get into the airways you need to be cleared in by a radar facility, and once in the airway is its own piece of airspace, so effectively you're cleared en-route. I'd like to see a similar thing for IMC holders, maybe the lower half of airways or something, without the need for all this FM immune nonsense.....oh and bring IFR approved GPS in while we're at it :D

Cheers
EA:D

[Keef]

I suspect I'm the superannuated IMC rating holder referred to above (with an FAA IR - that was at least twice as hard to get as the IMC).

I've found that flying round the UK in real IMC, the volume of traffic is usually low enough that you do get service from radar units. I can't recall ever being refused by Brize (or anyone else) when I needed them.

On a Sunday afternoon bimble in VMC, with lots of folks around, it's a very different story.

And yes, I have filed an IFR flight plan and flown it in IMC most of the way, including an ILS at the far end. I got told off rotten by the editor of a certain "official" publication for doing so - with the immortal words "The IMC is only a get-out-of-trouble rating". I told him that it doesn't say that on my IMC, and the ANO that I read said I'm entitled to fly IFR in IMC up to and including Class D.

There are two schools of thought on this one, and I doubt they will ever be reconciled. There's also a school of thought that says the FAA IR isn't a real IR. But you get that in every walk of life (even in my present career).

[drauk]

As FFF said, I think the (or certainly a) problem is the lack of radar units willing and able to give you a service in the south east, particularly in the LAM/Stapleford area. I've been in solid IMC there with Luton and Thames declining to give a radar service and "out of range" of any LARS unit. So englishal is right that as a lowly IMC pilot I have a problem that *might* be solved if I was instrument rated.

[rustle]

"...as a lowly IMC pilot I have a problem that *might* be solved if I was instrument rated

Negative.

The "problem" of no radar cover would be solved if you were flying in CAS - be it an (UK)airway or CTR/CTA/TMA whatever.

If an IR pilot flies IMC in F or G airspace there's no guarantee of radar cover either...

[drauk]

That's a valid point Rustle. But what I was thinking was that I have no choice - I can't fly airways, or in other class A controlled airspace, where I would be sure to get radar service, whereas as an IR pilot you have that option. If I had an IR I'd have a solution open to me.

As FFF said/implied, what would be great is better radar service in the south east (and no doubt elsewhere too). In reality this (and an instrument approach to Elstree where I'm based - GPS approaches anyone?) would be of more practical use to me than an IR I suspect.

[RodgerF]

Improved radar service in the SE below the TMA would be the best thing to get. Crossing the TMA even if you were rated is not usually an option as the minimum level for transit is FL100.