IMC / Instrument rating

[Grob Driver]

Hi,

Quick question please….

Can someone please explain the difference to me between an IMC rating, and an Instrument rating. I thought they were the same thing, but having looked through the adverts in one of the magazines, I see that they are different. Can someone please shed a bit of light on the subject for me.

Many thanks

Grob Driver

[CSX001]

IMC Rating

Quick easy course after which you can fly in cloud an shoot approaches in the UK only, and outside Class A airspace. The vis must be 1800m or better for take-off and landing, and you are advised to apply higher approach minima than would apply for an IR pilot

IR

Fly IFR anytime anyplace subject to your own prudence, currency and the limitations of the aircraft

Charlie

[FlyingForFun]

Instrument Rating: an ICAO rating, valid anywhere in the world. Allows you to fly in cloud or poor vis, out of sight of the surface, in all types of airspace. The JAR implementation of this rating is particularly difficult to get - in particular, the ground exams will be very difficult if you are working full time. Alternatives to the JAR IR are an FAA IR (which is only valid on N-registered aircraft), or an IMC Rating (with restrictions as described below).

IMC Rating: This is a UK-only rating. It is not recognised, and therefore can't be used, anywhere in the world except the UK. It allows you to fly in cloud or poor vis, out of sight of the surface, in class D, E, F and G airspace in the UK. It allows you to fly instrument approaches, but the recommended minima for these approaches are far higher than for an Instrument Rated pilot (500' absolutely minimum for a precision approach, 600' for non-precision, but an individual approach may have higher limits).

Hope that clears up the confusion!

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

[Timothy]

I think I am right in saying that the IMC requires renewal every two years and the IR every year?

Also the IMC can be renewed by most club CFIs, whereas the IR requires a CAA authorised Instrument Rating Examiner, who are more difficult to find and book.

And, of course, the initial IMC can also be done by a QFI, whereas the IR requires a visit to the CAA Flying Unit, who have a (rather undeserved) reputation for being dragons.

W

[CSX001]

All true Mr Collins, although if you are suggesting that a QFI can conduct the examination for an IMC rating, this is not correct. This takes the form of an examiners' endorsement. Still not the same as a visit to CAAFU though :D

Charlie.

[foghorn]

The IMC rating initial test and renewal tests are examined by PPL examiners (FE[PPL]). They are usually freelancers or staff instructors at your local flying school.

Initial Instrument Rating tests are examined by the dreaded CAAFU staff examiners. Renewals however are done by Instrument Rating Renewal Examiners (IRRE) who are usually freelancers or staff instructors at commercial schools.

QFIs don't technically exist under JAR - they're plain old FIs. The JAR equivalent to the old AFI is FI(R), the 'R' meaning 'Restricted'.

[Crowe]

for what it's worth, my opinion would be definitely to get an IMC (the JAR IR is out of most people's price/time range unless you're going for the full ATPL).

it really does open up the flying available to you in the UK, and makes you a lot more confident (subject of course to being current and never taking an instrument flight lightly).

it can either be a "get out of trouble" rating, or if you work at it and stay current, is almost as useful as an IR in the UK . True up north at least where there's not much class A below say FL65. If you're flying a prop single/twin it's not like you're going to be flying into Heathrow regularly...

[strafer]

Flying under IFR is not (necessarily) about the weather conditions but the rules under which you are flying. There's a lot more involved but you'll need a more knowledgeable man than me to tell you exactly what.

[Keef]

WCollins is correct - the IMC rating can be renewed by most club CFIs (they changed their name recently, but we know what we mean) - most CFIs are also examiners. The IR is altogether a different fish, with a renewal check flight every year. Prohibitive for most of us.

IMC - relatively easy to get; needs regular practice to keep it current. Provides a good compromise for UK-based PPLs who want to fly IFR in IMC, but who don't want to (or can't) do the full IR.

Trouble is, despite occasional bar talk to the contrary, the IMC rating is not recognised outside the UK.

If the IMC works for you, then after 50 hours or so of "use", you can do an FAA IR for relatively little expense. If you can get your hands on an N-reg aircraft, then you can fly IFR in IMC all over.

[StrateandLevel]

foghorn

Just to take the corrections a stage further, CAAFU has not existed for over a decade now.

An "IRE" as defined in JAR-FCL is qualified to conduct IR issue tests i.e. a CAA FE.

Renewals are conducted by either a CRE/IR (SPA) or a TRE (MPA).

The differences between the IR and IMC rating are given in ANO Schedule 8.

The holder of an IR may fly in controlled airspace in circumstances which require compliance with IFR. Additional privileges include a lower SVFR minima and no restriction on fly out of sight of the surface.

The privilege of the IMC rating, which is only valid in the State of Issue, extends the privileges of the holder of a pilot licence to fly in Class D and E controlled airspace in circumstances that require compliance with IFR. It also reduces the SVFR visibility minima to 3 Km, and permits flight out of sight of the surface. Compliance with IFR in F and G airspace is not mentioned in the IMC rating as these privileges are not excluded from the basic UK licence.

JAR-FCL 1.175 states that the holder of a JAA licence may include National ratings e.g. IMC for use in the State of Licence Issue. Schedule 8 states that the IMC rating extends the privileges of a JAA licence to include flight in Class D and E airspace in compliance with IFR, but makes no mention of Class F or G airspace!

Instrument Flight Rules have nothing to do with the weather!

Having an IR is only part of the equation, the aircraft must also be suitably "qualified" to exercise the privileges of the IR.

[slim_slag]

strateandlevel,

Call me confused, but what rules apply to approaching an airfield in class F/G airspace if you are in clouds and only hold an IMC? If IFR has nothing to do with the weather, where are regulations requiring you to fly the MAP or divert to an alternate found?

[IO540]

If you are in clouds then you are in IMC which means you must be "IFR".

One instructor told me the other day that you can be "VFR" above the clouds too if you have the IMCR or IR. I can't see the point of this since going "IFR" usually gets you better ATC service.

[drauk]

I think people say IFR has nothing to do with the weather just to try to sound cool and confuse the unwary. IFR isn't defined by the weather. It's also true that you can elect to fly under IFR regardless of the weather. But neither of these facts means that IFR has nothing to do with weather. If the weather is (or rather causes you to be in) IMC then you must fly under IFR. In this case then, IFR has a lot to do with the weather.

[englishal]

Just to clarify, the IMC is usable some places abroad, those British Dependant Territories listed in the ANO 2000 [Overseas Territories]....just to be pedantic :D

Anyone can fly IFR in uncontrolled airspace, but the 'standard' PPL has a restriction of 'in sight of the surface' and 'XYZ m from cloud' [can't remember what though]. The IMC rating removes these restrictions outside controlled airspace then has a little bit which states you can also use it in Class D airspace and below. It also reduces SVFR minima when transiting into Class A zones VFR [Channel Islands for example]. So with an IMC rating you can fly through the clouds, above the clouds and shoot an instrument approach into a Class D airport if you wish. You cannot fly in airways or in Class A airspace while flying in IMC.

The JAA IR in a G reg aircraft further removes the restictions on Class A airspace and because its an ICAO rating, it can be used abroad. You can also therefore enter airways.

Having a foreign IR, for example FAA IR in a G reg aircraft allows the holder to fly IFR in IMC outside all controlled airspace, and becasue many other european governments accept the british validation of a foreign IR this means you can fly outside CAS in IMC while abroard in a G reg aircraft. Not as useful as a JAR IR in a G reg, but more useful than an IMC rating abroard. You will also be issued an IMC rating by the CAA for free if you hold a foreign IR. Of course in a N reg aircraft with an FAA IR you are perfectly entitled to fly 'proper' IFR in any airspace in the UK / Europe / Aroard.

The confusing thing is filing an IFR flight plan whilst the holder of an IMC rating. For example the controllers don't know what your qualifications are, the other day I flew into Edinburgh and had to shoot the approach down to minimums to get in. No problem there as the CAA IMC minima is 'recommended'. However leaving Edinburgh I was cleared with the Grice 4 departure [or something] then Scottish control cleared me across Papa 600, which is class A airspace. [Not a problem in this case as I had a JAA IR'd pilot onboard, but had I been alone then theoretically I would have been illegal even though I hold an FAA IR], however had the tail number of the aircraft started with an N I would have been legal ??? Confusing or what !

It MAY be that in the future the CAA will state that a foreign IR holder can exercise the privilages of the IMC rating whilst in a G reg aircraft WITHOUT the need to have an IMC rating attached. If this is the case then the European IMC rating has just been born, as all European authorities I have contacted have replied that they will accept whatever the CAA accepts regarding foreign IR validation in a G reg aircraft.

Cheers
EA:D

[PhilD]

EA

On a technicality, am I right in thinking that your IR'd fellow pilot would have to log as P1 while you crossed the Class A airspace (assuming a single-pilot plane)?

[slim_slag]

So an IMC lets you fly in the clouds in Class E/F/G without a clearance.

What if your destination is a field "in" class E airspace. Does an IMC let you fly in the clouds until (say) 300ft above the field. You then break out and land visually. Is that legal?

[Fujiflyer]

Does the fact then that the IMC rating removes the "in sight of surface" restriction of the UK PPL mean that the holder is legal when VFR on top in the rest of Europe?

EA, that bit about the FAA IR in a G reg in Europe was interesting. I'd never realised there was a "half way house" between the IMC and JAA IR in Europe.

FujiF

[MasterCaution]

What if your destination is a field "in" class E airspace. Does an IMC let you fly in the clouds until (say) 300ft above the
field. You then break out and land visually. Is that legal?

No, because in order to fly in IMC you'll need to flying IFR, one of the IFRs is the minimum height rule which states that you must be at least 1000ft above any obstacle within 10nm (?) of your track. Unless of course you are performing a published instrument approach procedure - see earlier discussion - where the minimum will be a function of the procedure and the rating (which will always be >300ft for the IMC rating).

MC

[FlyingForFun]

So an IMC lets you fly in the clouds in Class E/F/G without a clearanceI think you do need a clearance to fly in Class E in IMC - since you must be IFR if you are in IMC, and you need a clearance for IFR in Class E any time. Don't quote me on that though - I don't have any Class E near me, so I've never done it.

Agree with MasterCaution re. the rest of your question though.

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

[englishal]

PhilD,

This is where the IR / IMC etc becomes like the film Brazil [a bunch of beaucratic nonsense].

Sure he could log P1 for the3-4 or so minutes we were crossing the airway, but in reality I was flying, paying for the plane, manipulating the controls and as I didn't notice the laws of physics change I felt confident the flight could be conducted with utmost safety without having to transfer control.....

Actually you DO NOT need to fly in accordance with IFR levels / rules in cloud, in Class G, so you can let down through the cloud. One of the stange uniquenesses of the UK and IMC rating is that you can go bumbling through cloud willy nilly, no radar, any altitude you want, no clearance in Class G, and even make your own GPS / instrument approaches up [where no other published instrument approaches exist.....]....Its kind of free in a very dangerous sort of way :D

Cyer
EA

[FlyingForFun]

Hi Englishal!Sure he could log P1 for the3-4 or so minutes we were crossing the airwayYes, he could. And technically, you couldn't - so he had to. I won't tell anyone if you won't!

Probably more important, though:Actually you DO NOT need to fly in accordance with IFR levels / rules in cloud, in Class GI thought you do. IFR levels (i.e. in the UK, at the kind of levels we fly at, the quadrantal rule) apply to any IFR flight whilst cruising, and are recommended for VFR flight in the UK. Of course they don't apply when you're climing or descending, so they don't stop you letting down through cloud. So I'm a bit confused about why you say: "You do not need to fly in accordance with IFR levels... so you can let down through the cloud." :confused:

Also:You can go bumbling through cloud willy nilly, no radar, any altitude you want, no clearance in Class G, and even make your own GPS / instrument approaches upWhat you can legally do, and what you can sensibly do, are two different things. Flying in cloud in Class G without radar coverage is stupid. I doubt there are too many who would disagree with that.

Anyway, not sure what this has to do with the IMC/IR question - it's just as legal, and just a stupid, to fly in Class G with no radar coverage on an IR as it is on an IMC rating!

FFF
----------

[Timothy]

The Rules of the Air Regulations 1996
Quadrantal rule and semi-circular rule
30.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), in order to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules, an aircraft when in level flight above 3000 feet above mean sea level or above the appropriate transition altitude, whichever is the higher, shall be flown at a level appropriate to its magnetic track, in accordance with the appropriate Table set forth in this rule. The level of flight shall be measured by an altimeter set:


(a) in the case of a flight over the United Kingdom, to a pressure setting of 1013.2 hectopascals; or


(b) in the case of any other flight, according to the system published by the competent authority in relation to the area over which the aircraft is flying.

(2) An aircraft may be flown at a level other than the level required by paragraph (1) if it is flying in conformity with instructions given by an air traffic control unit or in accordance with notified en-route holding patterns or in accordance with holding procedures notified in relation to an aerodrome.

I wonder how often I will have to post this :rolleyes:

Moving on to FFF'sFlying in cloud in Class G without radar coverage is stupid.I'm sorry but I simply cannot agree. When was the last time two aircraft collided en route in open FIR / Class G in cloud? (I give the option of open FIR because I am pretty sure it hasn't happened since Class G was invented, what, 15 years ago)

Flying quadrantals in clouds is, IMHO, much safer than flying VMC underneath, if for no other reason than the traffic density is much lower. I am no physicist or statistician (Bookworm where are you when we need you?) but the chances of two aircraft meeting in cloud is both pragmatically and intuitively extremely unlikely.

You are much more likely to bump into another aircraft over a VOR at just below the cloudbase or in the circuit.

W

Edited to add the words in cloud

[englishal]

Hi trippleF,

Ok, let me re-phrase [thanks to WCollins]. Below 3000' you can fly wherever you want in the clag. Not sure what this had to do with let-downs, I think I just got carried away :D Still what I meant was this if you're flying into a small aerodrome somewhere without a published IAP then it is perfectly legal to create your own. Without RAIM etc., you'd have to trust your GPS and probably the only sensible place to decend <~1000' in cloud is over the sea.

Regarding RIS or RAS you may think it stupid to fly in IMC with no radar [and I would tend to agree with you], but what about where you have no radar coverage? [This is why we need Class D airways !]

And finally, on the P1 thing....Even though I conducted the flight as PF I didn't log P1 anyway as my mate is a FI and I was being checked out on the aircraft. I was just making a point at the sort of grey area you get into when flying IFR on an IMCr on an IFR flight plan.....However had I been operating under the FARs then I would have logged P1 :D Of course had I been on my own then I would have avoided the airway, even if scottish had cleared me in...honest guv ;)

Bye for now
EA

[drauk]

EnglishAl wrote: Ok, let me re-phrase [thanks to WCollins]. Below 3000' you can fly wherever you want in the clag. Not sure what this had to do with let-downs, I think I just got carried away

Is this true? The minimum visbility for VFR flight in class G airspace is 5km. If you're in cloud you have zero vis, thus you can't be flying VFR, you must be flying IFR. If you're flying IFR you are restricted (as mentioned by mastercaution earlier) by the minimum height rule (rule 29) - flying 1000' above the highest obstacle within 5nm, except as necessary for take-off or landing, so I guess

Still what I meant was this if you're flying into a small aerodrome somewhere without a published IAP then it is perfectly legal to create your own.

is correct.

[Fly Stimulator]

WCollins,

When was the last time two aircraft collided en route in open FIR / Class G? (I give the option of open FIR because I am pretty sure it hasn't happened since Class G was invented, what, 15 years ago)

A year ago, (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_502100.hcsp) and not even in IMC.

[Timothy]

A year ago, and not even in IMC. Sorry, I meant in cloud. I thought that was clear in the context. I have edited the post.

My whole point is that you are much more likely to collide in VMC than IMC.

W

[rustle]

FujiFlyer Does the fact then that the IMC rating removes the "in sight of surface" restriction of the UK PPL mean that the holder is legal when VFR on top in the rest of Europe?

No.

What you are legally entitled to do is always the least of your licence and the national regs of where you are.

Since, in this case, the lower restriction is the UK-licence "in sight of surface" restriction, that is the UK-PPL's minima - the UK-only IMC rating being meaningless outside the UK...

HTH

[bookworm]

For discussion of IMC rating sight of the surface privileges abroad see worm vs donks 2002 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62070).

I concur with WCollins that in most circumstances in the open FIR, a collision in IMC is less likely than a collision in VMC.

Finally, for slim_slag, an IMC rating entitles the holder to make a normal IFR arrival in class D or E airspace. There are no airports in class E airspace in the UK, but plenty in class D.

[Timothy]

um....

I think that in parts of Europe (France in particular) you can fly on top with no instrument qualification, but please check before doing so.

W

[IO540]

englishal

Your last para is interesting; however doing any European IR is just as hard as doing the JAA one. The only IR which is substantially easier is the FAA one, and one cannot fly IFR outside the UK with an FAA IR unless in an N-reg plane. It would be brilliant if we had a European IMCR!

PhilD

Yes, I have seen this done. In practice very few people bother, because ATC simply assume people have the right licenses/ratings and provided you sound like you know what you are doing, the question isn't likely to arise.

slim_slag

If the field has a published IAP then the lowest DH would be 500ft for an IMCR pilot, so if you changed your "300ft" to "500ft" the answer could in theory (subject to the published IAP allowing it) be Yes.

If there is no published IAP then doing a DIY IAP with a DH of 300ft would be grossly negligent, to say the least. Certainly you would be below the MSA which is generally stupid - I don't know for sure if it is illegal. I can think of situations where it would not be unsafe though, e.g. an approach over the sea into a runway which starts right on the beach, with no terrain around it to get in the way of a missed approach, and with DME.

Fujiflyer

I have it in writing from the CAA that the answer is Yes for France (where a bare French PPL can do it legally) - provided the DGAC don't mind. Whether they do or don't mind I don't know.

MasterCaution

The DH for an IMCR pilot is 500ft, or the IR figure plus 200ft, whichever is greater.

FlyingForFun

"What you can legally do, and what you can sensibly do, are two different things. Flying in cloud in Class G without radar coverage is stupid. I doubt there are too many who would disagree with that."

I think you are being unduly harsh in your attitude to this type of risk. On a single carriageway at 60-70mph you are a second or two away from death, for hours on end. In flying, one often barely sees another plane, miles away in the distance, in an hour. Very few people fly in clouds for long anyway - the name of the game in IFR is VMC on top whenever possible. And very few of those types of people that fly without a transponder fly in clouds. While getting a RIS is a very good thing, the risk in IMC is very low. Obviously I would not do holds around a popular VOR at 2000ft in IMC especially in a non-radio plane! Finally, the stats for midairs show they are extremely rare, and most of them are in VMC and around airfields. If one never entered clouds in Class G without a RIS, one could not do an IAP into most airfields which are in Class G - e.g. a procedural ILS into Biggin Hill, or NDB/DME into Shoreham. The whole system assumes that people who fly in clouds know enough about this business, DO use their radio, and keep away from those places as appropriate.

Fly Stimulator

That was in VMC, in the vicinity of an aerodrome and below the LTMA I believe, not suprising. In VMC in that area, most people are at 2400ft QNH or slightly below. I don't believe this affects the case for en-route midairs in IMC. The area you mention is served by Thames radar and someone going there in IMC would almost certainly get RIS. I got RIS from Gatwick around there recently!

[Tinstaafl]

It's not inordinately difficult to fly IFR/IMC in Class G without a RAS or RIS. Use your radio to broadcast position & intent, listen & respond to other's calls, avoid known honeypots, fly at appropriate levels, keep a lookout - even IMC is rarely 100% 'IMC'.

[FlyingForFun]

Use your radio to broadcast position & intentOn what frequency?

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

[Keef]

WCollins wrote

I think that in parts of Europe (France in particular) you can fly on top with no instrument qualification, but please check before doing so.


A "basic" French PPL can do so, yes.

But a UK PPL specifically prohibits the pilot from flying out of sight of the surface. So he can't fly VFR on top in France.

The UK IMC rating allows the UK PPL to fly out of sight of the surface. But the IMCR is only valid in the UK, so the "out of sight of the surface" doesn't apply to a UK PPL with IMCR in France - he/she still has to be in sight of the surface when there.

That's the rule. As to whether anyone cares enough to enforce such a strange rule, I don't know.

[Timothy]

Keef

Um...where does that leave the JAA licence holder?

W

[IO540]

Keef

I have had this reply from the CAA on whether a UK PPL+IMCR can fly on top in France:

Article 123 of the current ANO sets out the extra territorial effect of the ANO. In the simplest of terms what it says is that what you cannot do here in the UK, you cannot do elsewhere. That said, the holder of a valid IMC Rating is not bound by the condition that requires the holder of a licence without an IMC Rating to remain in sight of the surface. However, because the IMC Rating is not an internationally recognised rating you ought to ask the DGAC [the French equivalent of the CAA] about what you can and cannot do in French airspace in UK registered aircraft or aircraft registered elsewhere.

So it is not illegal to do so as far as the CAA is concerned.

[CSX001]

IO540

Potentially a useful posting, but it is not possible to tell which bits of your text are bona-fide CAA words, and which bits are you interpreting what they say.

If you have a letter which says that the CAA condone flight out-of-sight-of-surface by a non-IR holder whilst abroad, you should scan it in and post it here as a GIF file. Many people will love you for ever.

Charlie.

[Northern Highflyer]

Haven't done my IMC yet and therefore showing my ignorance here. :(

Have I got this right ?

With an IMC rating you can use the rating to fly through cloud to get on top (which you cannot do with ordinary PPL) and then fly VFR once above it ?

So the IMC removes the need for "in sight of the surface". So you are flying VMC above cloud for keeping a good lookout for other a/c, yet you are using your "IMC skills" to navigate as you cannot see the ground to nav by ?

Hope that makes sense.
Sorry for the dumb question folks.

[Keef]

Northern Highflyer - exactly so. A "difference" between the UK CAA and the ICAO definition of the privileges of a basic PPL (which I understand allows VFR on top).

But it's not all bad - if you're flying, without IMC training, on top of an overcast ... how are you going to get down again if no holes appear in the cloud.?

In the USA, you need an IR to fly VFR on top (although there are arguments about "VFR over the top".)

WCollins - as I understand it, a JAA PPL issued in the UK has the old UK CAA PPL restriction "in sight of surface" applied to it.
Probably should ask someone who's done air law a bit more recently than me ;)

[Timothy]

Northern Highflyer With an IMC rating you can use the rating to fly through cloud to get on top (which you cannot do with ordinary PPL) and then fly VFR once above it ? You may be under a slight misapprehension here.

There is nothing to stop you taking off (meeting IMC take-off minima) climbing into cloud, remaining in cloud and shooting an instrument approach in cloud, providing that you meet the IMC approach minima.

This is not a licence to "get you on top", it is a licence to fly in IMC.

Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning.

W

[FlyingForFun]

This is not a licence to "get you on top"Though of course if the cloud tops and the surrounding Class A airspace restrictions permit, there's nothing to stop you using it as such.

Question: once "on top", can I then fly VFR, assuming sufficient separation from cloud, or must I remain IFR?

(It's a fairly academic question - the only practical difference it would make, as far as I can tell, is that the requirement to fly at appropriate quadrantal levels would then be a recommendation instead of a requirement, assuming you're high enough that the low flying rules aren't an issue.)

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

[2Donkeys]

FFF

VFR (the rules) don't prevent flight on top of a covered layer (out of sight of surface if you prefer). This is a restriction on the basic PPL, which is removed when you get your IR or IMC.

So, you can be VFR above a covered layer, having been IFR in the climb to get to those conditions. Check back to those VFR cloud separation pictures in all good PPL textbooks and you'll see what I mean.


2D

[englishal]

The UK IMC rating allows the UK PPL to fly out of sight of the surface. But the IMCR is only valid in the UK, so the "out of sight of the surface" doesn't apply to a UK PPL with IMCR in France - he/she still has to be in sight of the surface when there.
True, but this is where the beauty of an FAA IR in a G reg plane comes in. With this the CAA let you fly IFR and you DONT have to remain in sight of the surface outside CAS. As this is considered the CAA's validation of the FAA IR then the French [Germans etc] accept this, so now you can fly OUT of sight of the surface [outside CAS] abroard. Of course in the N reg you can fly full airways.

The FAA IR is by no means easy,the standard of flying is the same as for the JAA one, but the big difference is it takes into account previous instrument time. So the big plus for IMC holders with 50 hrs of Actual or Simulated is that you can go to a place in the UK or US do a 15 hr course with a CFII, which includes your qualifying X countries ["Air traffic directed routing" 250nm I think] take the ground exams [not difficult if you self study], take the oral [difficult but ok if you know your onions], and finally successfully complete a flight test with an examiner[hard, but fair]. You can even do this in your own G reg aircraft if you wanted. Now you are entitled to fly full airways in an N reg , IFR in the UK using your IMC rating [issued for free by the CAA if you didn't already have one] in a G reg, or IFR in IMC outside CAS abroard in a G reg. You never need to 'revalidate' and FAA IR as long as you remain current.....


I've written to the CAA asking whether my IMC rating needs to be revalidated as it was issued on the basis of an FAA IR. If not, then this route seems even more attractive.

Cheers
EA:D

[Northern Highflyer]

Wcollins

Thanks for the information but I was aware of what the IMC allows me to do, i.e. fly in cloud (or visibility less than that needed for VFR flights) if I want to.

My question, answered by keef and 2donkeys, was regarding flying above cloud, i.e. out of sight of the ground. I was confused initially by the fact that this could be classed as VFR as I assumed VFR meant being able to see the ground, but it's all clear to me now.

Thanks again. :ok:

[2Donkeys]

The FAA IR is by no means easy,the standard of flying is the same as for the JAA one,

A trivial point perhaps, but this one surfaces quite regularly. There are differences in the LASORS standards and the FAA Practical Test Standards.

Perhaps the best example relates to permited ILS deviation, where the FAA IR accepts upto a 3/4 scale deflection. 1/2 scale deflection is the CAAFU requirement. You'd be surprised what a difference that makes as you come below 500 feet.

I am not suggesting that this in any way devalues the FAA IR, but it is worth knowing. Unlike the UK, a wanabee US airline pilot going for his ATP exams will get a second instrument exam with much tighter ILS tolerances even than CAAFU. The absence of a second test in JAA-land makes it important that the standards are higher in the one and only test you'll be doing.


2D

[slim_slag]

2Donkeys,

More triviality :), but you do not get to take your ATP test in the US until you have 1500 hours, so when times were good and they were hiring with 1000 hours, you could be sitting in the RHS of a commuter with only an FAA CPL. You would then go do the ATP, thus allowing you to be captain, when you had the hours. Of course a FAA CPL includes the IR, which is not as big a deal as other authorities make it, but not as easy as others think it is either.

To get the FAA ATP you really need to keep the needles in the donut. Then there is the type rating, which is a tricky thing to get too..

[2Donkeys]

Thanks for the advice slim_slag. Been there, done that, got the epaulettes :yuk:

The type rating flight test, as you may well be aware is essentially a re-run of the ATP flight test, on the aircraft concerned.

There certainly is no shortage of opportunities to be tested under the FAA system

Of course a FAA CPL includes the IR

You are mistaken there I'm afraid. The IR is an entirely different qualification. An FAA CPL can be issued without an IR in which case it is known as a "restricted CPL" which does not permit the holder to carry passengers at night, and a couple of other distance related restrictions.

2D

[slim_slag]

2Donkeys,

You got me on that one, was thinking about it when I posted, but thought it too trivial :) 250 miles during the day I think, but hedge my bets as it could be 100. Nautical or statute is even too trivial for me :ok:

[2Donkeys]

Not even close I'm afraid. The distance limit is 50 nautical miles, and it is not "per day". The limit is imposed on cross-country flight.

I think that your licence to advise on FAA trivia is in real danger of being revoked here.:{

2D

[slim_slag]

50 measly miles!

What use is that then? Probably why I have never met one, or a recreational pilot for that matter.

Ah, but a cross country flight can be less than 50 miles. So take that piece of FAA trivia! I promise to shut up now though :)

[Chilli Monster]

slim_slag Ah, but a cross country flight can be less than 50 miles. Unless you're using it towards the qualifications for the grant of a rating ;) (14 CFR part 61.1(b)(3))

[Red Chilli]

Hi folks, just to let you know re: my recent posting on the topic of a European wide IMC rating that I've had a very positive response from Martin Robinson at AOPA, who is commencing discussions with the CAA SRG re: this very topic. Martin will also be pushing for any new rating to include and I quote... 'the training must include GPS for en route approach (non precision and precision to near CAT1)' - he also states that NATS are on his side re: GPS trials. So looks like things are shaping up, I sent him the output of this forum discussion and the 112 replies (all from 2D's! - well nearly :D) on the Flyer site to aid debate!. englishal - I also wasn't aware of the CAA technicality re: use of the FAA/IR in a G reg. outside the UK - an interesting point, which as you say makes that route even more attractive if nothing else materialises :ok:

[RodgerF]

2Ds

I was interested in your observation that the FAA IR allows 3/4 of full scale deflection on the ILS. The CAAFU requirement of 1/2 scale deflection is a requirement of the ILS procedure design.

PANS-OPS 8168 is quite clear on this.

'ILS obstacle clearance surfaces assume that the pilot does not normally deviate from the centreline more than half a scale deflection after being established on track. Thereafter the aircraft should adhere to the on-course, on-glide path position since more than half course sector deflection or more than half course fly-up deflection combined with other allowable system tolerances could place the aircraft in the vicinity of the edge or bottom of the protected airspace where loss of protection from obstacles can occur'

[Tinstaafl]

USA uses (used to use?) TERPS I seem to recall.

Interesting some of the comparisons:


UK: PPL must remain in sight of SFC + usual cloud spacing
US: PPL must maintain cloud separation. Slightly different to ICAO? No requirement to remain in sight of SFC.
Oz: PPL must maintain cloud separation. No requirement to remain in sight of SFC as long as defined nav. requirements are met.

UK: A non-instrument rated pilot can fly IFR (but clear of cloud etc)
US: An IR is a prerequisite for IFR flight
Oz: An IR is a prerequisite for IFR flight

UK: CPL must hold an IR. What happens when the IR lapses?
US: No IR required but limits on distance & day only
Oz: No IR required, no limits on distance. Night VFR if rated but that rating only available for Pvt. & aerial work flights.


UK: ATPL is issued on application once the required hours are gained. Must have an IR at the time of issue.
US: ATP is flight tested. Quite similar to an IR test but with some tighter tolerances eg 1/4 scales ILS deflection
Oz: is issued on application once the required hours are gained. Must have an IR at the time of issue.


UK: IR uses PANS-OPS tolerances.
US: IR uses less than PANS-OPS tolerances (3/4 scale deflection)
Oz: IR uses PANS-OPS.


Tests in general:

UK: No real pre-flight examination
US: In depth pre-flight examination. Very in depth.
Oz: In depth pre-flight examination.

UK/JAR: In depth knowledge required. (althought theory exams can contain lots of irrelevent questions. Can anyone justify why I needed to know the colour of a RLG?). Some parts are very basic, even at higher licence levels eg ATPL flight planning, othewise generally in depth knowledge required.
US: Theory exams are relatively simple. All questions available for public scrutiny. Compensated by having thousands of questions in the data bank (if you can memorise the answers to all of them then chances are you know the subject well).
Oz: In depth theory knowledge required.


Just my rough observations from getting ATPLs in all three countries.

[Timothy]

Tinstaafl

When did the rules change such that a UK CPL must have an IR...was that a JAR thing, and if so does it apply to CAA CPL?

Is it now true that CPL -> ATPL is simply an exercise in hours? I did the CPL exams (because I never intended to captain jets) and then had to do the ATPL exams from scratch :(, (because someone wanted me to captain jets).

Also is it not true that a JAR ATPL must be current in a two-crew aircraft, whereas a CPL doesn't, but a CAA ATPL doesn't have this requirement (which is why I hold a CAA ATPL)?

W

[Tinstaafl]

The old UK CPL as I understand it (not the BCPL) required an IR

The UK ATPL has no requirements for multi-crew experience. I know. I have one & am employed in SP ops. The JAR ATPL is different.

It's always been the case that a UK or Oz ATPL gets issued without further test once the experience requirements are met.

Remember, these are just my observations from stumbling through the different systems. They're not necessarily the definitive answer.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've heard a great many continental pilots describe the IMC rating with some envy, so I doubt that there'll be much objection from "rank and file" aviators to a JAR-IMC, it's just "regulating man" who might, as ever have problems with it.

I think if you check the regs, there are two types of JAA CPL. These are called CPL/IR and CPL/VFR, which probably tells you all that you need to know.

Did the old UK CPL not include training that was equivalent to an IMC rating if you didn't hold an IR, and then gave the privileges of an IMC holder for private flights only?

G

[FlyingForFun]

I think if you check the regs, there are two types of JAA CPL. These are called CPL/IR and CPL/VFRNever heard of that one before, Genghis.

There is only one type of JAR CPL, and it's called a CPL. One of the requirements for the CPL is to have passed either the CPL exams, or the ATPL exams.

If you've passed the ATPL exams, then once you've got an IR, 1500 hours of which several hundred are on multi-crew aircraft, and met several other requirements (including not letting your exam credits lapse) your CPL can be upgraded to an ATPL.

If you've passed the CPL exams, but not the ATPL exams, then you can't get an ATPL once you meet all the other requirements (even if you then did the IR exams and got an IR). The license that you have, though, is exactly the same as if you'd done the ATPL exams - it's a JAR CPL.

I think.

And what has any of this go to do with the IMC???

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

[Timothy]

TinstaaflThe old UK CPL as I understand it (not the BCPL) required an IR Certainly not true when I did my CPL in the early 80s, but it may well have changed after that but before JAR. Maybe that requirement came in with the BCPL (mid 90s ish?)

W

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've just double checked, I've a copy of a 2001 CAA leaflet on the JAR-FCL CPL(A), it lists separate syllabi for CPL(A) and CPL(A)/IR. It seems to say that to get a CPL(A) you have to pass the CPL skills test (on either a single or multi-engine type) and ground exams, and for a CPL(A)/IR you have to pass that plus an I/R test on a multi-engine type.

So my terminology was slightly off, but the principle correct, at least according to what CAA were publishing slightly less than 2 years ago.

The document is referenced GID No.24 issue 04 dated 12/10/01.

And as you point out, it's not got all that much to do with the IMC.

G

[Keef]

My distant memory from when I did the IMC rating was that (in those days, anyway) a CAA CPL automatically had the privileges of an IMC rating. I don't remember how that was renewed (if it was), and I don't know if it's still the case now.

When I did my US IR, and contemplated doing a CPL (bit silly, really, given my age) it was impressed on me that the FAA CPL without an IR is no use to anyone - with the 50nm radius from base, no night flight, etc limitation.

One of the ATPLs (FAA or CAA or JAA) automatically includes an IR, if I remember right. Not something I've studied lately, so might be different now.

[Tinstaafl]

The US ATP has an integral IR. That's why the ATP test is basically an IR test.

[BEagle]

So many errors and inaccuracies on this thread that it's difficult to know where to start....

IMC Ratings: Valid only in UK airspace. The old UK CPL and UK ATPL had IMC privileges equivalent to the IMC rating which were valid as long as the licence was. The JAR-FCL CPL and ATPL have no such privileges.

IR: Entirely separate to a JAR-FCL CPL, UK BCPL or UK CPL. There is no requirement to hold a ME Class Rating or ME IR on any CPL; however, the theory exams appropriate to the IR will only be valid for 36 months after passing the last exam. In other words, if you pass the CPL exams and obtain your CPL, you then have up to 3 years to add an IR. To keep the cost of licence and rating issue down, many people complete requirements for both CPL and ME Class Rating at the same time and then take their IR on the same ME aeroplane.

ATPL: The JAR-FCL CPL/IR is not 'automatically upgraded' upon achieving any specific total flight time. Most people take the ATPL exams rather than the CPL exams in order to suffer the misery only once, achieving a 'CPL with ATPL knowledge' which is commonly - and wrongly - referred to as a 'Frozen ATPL'. This ATPL theory credit is valid for 7 years from the date of the most recent IR revalidation so long as the first IR is passed within 3 years of passing the JAR-FCL theory exams. There are a number of other requirments for a JAR-FCL ATPL including a ME IR, completion of an approved Multi Crew Co-operation course, 500 hours multi-pilot (not multi-engine!) time and a minimum of 1500 hours.

Finally, if you hold a UK rather than JAR-FCL professional licence, remember that there is no necessity to convert to a JAR-FCL equivalent! Which means that even Restricted BCPL holders can continue to have their licences re-issued upon expiry.

[Timothy]

Finally, if you hold a UK rather than JAR-FCL professional licence, remember that there is no necessity to convert to a JAR-FCL equivalent! Which means that even Restricted BCPL holders can continue to have their licences re-issued upon expiry. Though for some reason that escapes me the CAA ATPL is valid for 5 years and the JAR for 10. Go figure!

W

[Fujiflyer]

I don't know if this should really be on another thread but as we are discussing ratings could anyone suggest the best "route" to ATPL from PPL + IMC (& a few hundred hrs P1)?

From the limited research I have done so far it sounds like:

(1) Get Class 1 medical
(2) Begin ATPL ground school modules

In parallel with (2) do the flight training for CPL (twin, to save having to do separate twin training). Then do the IR. Ensure IR and CPL flight tests are passed within 36 months of ATPL exams being passed.

Comments welcomed...

Fuji

[Evo]

Sounds about right, although I don't really understand the 'in parallel with...' bit - don't you need the CPL (or ATPL) exams complete before the CPL skills test?

An possible alternative would be to get the Class 1, start the ATPL writtens and then at a suitable point (after module one?) go do an FAA Multi/IR. Then go back, get the ATPL writtens done, do the CPL flying and then finally fly the 15 hours needed to convert the FAA IR to a JAR IR. I'd bet that having an IR would make the CPL test easier, and it's prbably a cheaper route to an JAR IR (the FAA will credit you with some of the IMC training hours, so it's around 25 hours in the states plus 15 here, rather than the full 55 here - IIRC, of course :) ).

[slim_slag]

Chilli Monster,

:) :)

Unless you're using it towards the qualifications for the grant of a rating (14 CFR part 61.1(b)(3))

Indeed, 61.1 (b)(3)(ii)(b), but that does not define cross country time.

61.1 (b)(3)(i)(C) defines cross country time as ..... time acquired during a flight..... that includes a landing at a point other than the point of departure.

The definition itself has nowt to do with distance (or IMC). I wonder if you departed from runway 22L, flew the pattern, and landed on 22R you could call that landing at a different point from departure point and log it as such? I guess you can log what you want, and people can laugh at you when they like, Trivia city!

BEagle, there are inacuracies because the regulations appear to be unclear and permit ridiculous flying behaviour. That's not safe.

[Fujiflyer]

Evo, thanks for your reply - its an interesting route which I'll look into further. I guess a further advantage of doing as you suggest is that you gain some US ratings as well.

When I mentioned doing the flight training in parallel with the ATPL theory I was thinking that the latter would be spread over a year or two (I have a full time job) but the flying would be likely to be done in smaller segments which I would do within the same period. In addition I would prefer to take my time with the ATPL stuff so I can absorb it properly. I had also forgotten that the theory exams had to be passed before the CPL flight test.

FujiF

[englishal]

so it's around 25 hours in the states plus 15 here
Sounds a good bet, though remember that of the 15 hrs needed to convert the IR in the UK, 10 can be done in a sim.

In theory if you have the IMC rating and have used it in anger, ie. gained 40 hrs Instrument time or simulated instrument, you only need to do a 15 hr course with an FAA CFII who will carry out the required IFR qualifying cross countries, and endorse you as ready to take the FAA IR skills test. The writtens are a non event, you study yourself and you take the test and either pass or fail. If you fail, you have to fork out another $70 for a re-test. Theoretically you could have an IMC + 30 hrs instrument, take a 15 hr instrument course in the states or UK, get the FAA IR, then fly 10 hrs in a sim, 5 in an aircraft and gain a JAA IR. Though the big stumbling block is the ATPL grounds.

Regarding FAA X/C time, there is really no point logging X/C below 50nm, as it doesn't count for anything under the FARs [for issue of IR / CPL / ATPL etc]. Also for rating requirements, there is no need for the cross country "legs" to be completed in the same day. So if I flew from Long Beach to Sedona, stopped over night, then Sedona to Roswell, stopped over night, then Roswell to Vegas, stopped over night, then Vegas back to Long Beach, this could be counted as one Cross Country trip for the purposes of rating issue [ie "300nm from departure, 3 landings, a leg of at least 150nm" or whatever it is].

Cheers
EA:D

[rustle]

EA, et al.

The words from LASORS Section E wrt converting an ICAO IR to JAA IR (or adding a JAA IR to a JAA/CAA PPL/CPL using the ICAO IR as a basis)

------------------

1. Complete a minimum of 15 hours instrument time under instruction, of which 5 hours may be in a FNPT 1 or 10 hours in a FNPT 2 or Flight Simulator.

2. Additional IR training considered necessary by the Head of Training of an approved FTO.

3. Pass a 170A Flight Test.

4. Pass the JAR IR(A) Skill Test.

5. Pass the JAR IR(A) or ATPL(A) Theoretical Knowledge examinations as appropriate.

------------------

Point 2 above may be the gotcha for anyone thinking it is a piece of piss to do it FAA --> JAA.

Also worth remembering that the 170A is going to take about 2 hours, as is the IRT...

LASORS Section E (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_E.pdf)

Edited to add link to LASORS-E

[englishal]

Point 2 above may be the gotcha for anyone thinking it is a piece of piss to do it FAA --> JAA.
Maybe if you are not at the required standard, however if you are then it should be a piece of piss.

My mate did it, 10 hrs in an FNPT2 5 in the air and passed first time. Still I guess less reputable organisations will try and milk you for as much as possible, which unfortunately seems to often be the way.....

EA

[Flying Tooth Driller]

Some points from earlier posts need correction or amplification:

1.<<You will also be issued an IMC rating by the CAA for free if you hold a foreign IR. Of course in a N reg aircraft with an FAA IR you are perfectly entitled to fly 'proper' IFR in any airspace in the UK / Europe / Abroad.>>

Not free. £67.

2. FAA regs: VFR on Top is requested by a pilot who is operating on an IFR clearance. If granted, you operate at the appropriate VFR altitudes and are responsible for separation, whilst staying on the IFR flight plan. VFR over the top is permitted without an IR, but one has to maintain the appropriate distances (for the airspace) from cloud, and that would usually mean having a BIG 4000' wide hole to descend through at or before the destination.

3. An IMC rating granted on the back of an FAA IR apparently does have to be revalidated after 2 years, regardless of the currency of the FAA IR.

FTD

[SKYYACHT]

On another technicality, I believe that you cannot go VFR on top, as VFR implies that you are in sight of the ground. In fact you would be flying VMC on top, but flying under IFR rules. I think.....

:confused:

Blue skies.

[Timothy]

SKYYACHTVFR implies that you are in sight of the ground.Might be worth reminding yourself what the rules really say, then:

Flight within controlled airspace
25.—(1) Within Class B airspace:


(a) an aircraft flying within Class B airspace at or above flight level 100 shall remain clear of cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 8 km;


(b) an aircraft flying within Class B airspace below flight level 100 shall remain clear of cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.

(2) Within Class C, Class D or Class E airspace:


(a) an aircraft flying within Class C, Class D or Class E airspace at or above flight level 100 shall remain at least 1500 metres horizontally and 1000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 8 km;


(b) subject to sub-paragraph (c), an aircraft flying within Class C, Class D or Class E airspace below flight level 100 shall remain at least 1500 metres horizontally and 1000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km;


(c) sub-paragraph (b) shall be deemed to be complied with if:


(i) the aircraft is not a helicopter and is flying at or below 3000 feet above mean sea level at a speed which, according to its airspeed indicator, is 140 knots or less and it remains clear of cloud, in sight of the surface and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km; or


(ii) the aircraft is a helicopter flying at or below 3000 feet above mean sea level and it remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.


Flight outside controlled airspace
26.—(1) An aircraft flying outside controlled airspace at or above flight level 100 shall remain at least 1500 metres horizontally and 1000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 8 km.

(2)

(a) Subject to sub-paragraph (b), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace below flight level 100 shall remain at least 1500 metres horizontally and 1000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.


(b) Sub-paragraph (a) shall be deemed to be complied with if:


(i) the aircraft is flying at or below 3000 feet above mean sea level and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km;


(ii) the aircraft, other than a helicopter, is flying at or below 3000 feet above mean sea level at a speed which according to its air speed indicator is 140 knots or less and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface and in a flight visibility of at least 1500 metres; or


(iii) in the case of a helicopter the helicopter is flying at or below 3000 feet above mean sea level flying at a speed, which having regard to the visibility is reasonable, and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

W

[Evo]

Fuji - if you do look further at my suggestion and find problems, could you let me know? Thanks :)

[englishal]

Not free. £67.
Well near enough free when talking about gaining a rating :D
An IMC rating granted on the back of an FAA IR apparently does have to be revalidated after 2 years, regardless of the currency of the FAA IR.
I'll let you know when the CAA write back to me...its only been a month so far, so could be a while longer :D

EA

[bookworm]

An IMC rating granted on the back of an FAA IR apparently does have to be revalidated after 2 years, regardless of the currency of the FAA IR.

That's because the IMC rating is a UK rating granted on a UK (or JAA) licence. The FAA IR serves only to reduce or eliminate the training or examination requirements. Once obtained its existence is independent of the FAA. If the FAA IR lapses in currency, you still have an IMC rating.

If the FAA IR remains current and the IMC rating lapses, the FAA is still rendered valid by Art 21(4) which permits its use on G-reg outside controlled airspace.

The oddity, I guess, is that if it lapses you cannot tear up your old IMC rating, write the CAA a cheque and apply for a new one on the basis of the current FAA IR. Or can you? :)

[bluskis]

English Al
A question on the points raised in your 24 July post.

Concerning an FAA IR used in a G reg flown in France etc.

You stated it is allowed to fly out of sight of the surface outside of controlled airspace, do you mean fly by the French definition of VMC rather than in IMC?

You also gave the impression that you can fly in actual IMC , but again outside of controlled airspace. Does this then exclude approaches in IMC and transits of C D and E airspace in IMC?

If so this makes the use of an FAA IR in a G reg pretty restricted.

You also in two different posts mentioned that credit would be given for instrument hours flown when undertaking training for an FAA IR, but you gave two different figures, 50 hours, and 40 hours.

Sorry to ask the questions, but the topic is of great interest, and any clarification very welcome.

[Grob Driver]

Just a quick message to say thanks for all the info! I never thought it would go on this far!… You’ve certainly answered my question so thanks very much to you all.

Cheers

Grob Driver

[englishal]

Blueskis,

You stated it is allowed to fly out of sight of the surface outside of controlled airspace, do you mean fly by the French definition of VMC rather than in IMC?
No, because the the ANO allows an ICAO IR holder to exercise the privileges of the rating in a G reg without formality, but only outside CAS. Now as the French recognise the british ruling on this they also allow the holder to exercise the privileges of this rating in a G reg outside their CAS. This means you can fly in actual IMC, out of sight of the surface outside CAS in France [and Germany etc]
You also gave the impression that you can fly in actual IMC , but again outside of controlled airspace. Does this then exclude approaches in IMC and transits of C D and E airspace in IMC?
Correct, as you are not allowed inside CAS while flying in accordance with IFR with an ICAO IR in a G reg plane, you cannot shoot an approach.
You also in two different posts mentioned that credit would be given for instrument hours flown when undertaking training for an FAA IR, but you gave two different figures, 50 hours, and 40 hours.
Ah sorry, I was getting ahead of myself there. The FAA IR requires 40 hrs instrument time [simulated or actual] before you take the flight test. 15hrs of this must have been done with an FAA CFII who needs to endorse you as ready for the flight test, and you must have completed a qualifying cross country which is a flight of 250nm I think, in airways under an air traffic controlled routing or something along those lines. So in theory, an IMC holder with 25hrs actual instrument [or simulated] could take a 15hr course with an FAA CFII and walk away with an IR. Note that this is instrument time and not "under IFR".

The way the IMC rating is worded is that it allows flight in IMC IFR outside controlled airspace but then there is an exception for Class D and below, meaning you can shoot an approach. When talking about an ICAO IR this exception doesn't exist which leads to the outside CAS thing. I think there is some confusion in the CAA over this, a friend of mine who is an FAA CFII and JAA FI had it confirmed verbally that holding an ICAO IR "gives the same privileges as the IMC rating". IF this statement was issued in writing it would then mean that an ICAO IR holder could exercise the privileges of the IMC rating throughout Europe in a G reg as the foreign CAA's effectively accept the CAA's validations without formality. In fact the French will now give you an IR based upon your FAA IR as long as you are non resident in the EU and can prove it.

Cheers
EA:D

[CSX001]

Englishal

Sorry to contradict, but your understanding of French airspace is dangerously wrong.

You are correct to say that an ICAO IR holder may exercise the rights to fly in IMC outside controlled airspace. Where you go wrong is in assuming that this applies in France.

In France, nobody may fly in conditions less than VMC unless they are under IFR (surprise surprise). To be IFR in France requires the commander of an aircraft to hold a valid instrument rating and to have filed an IFR flight plan. No problem if you have an FAA IR and you are in an N-reg aircraft.

You are half right that the French take the view that if something is legal in the pilot's home country, then it is OK in France too. This only applies if the proposed activity is also legal in France.

Flying under VFR above a solid cloud layer is legal in France. Therefore, the French take the view that if it is also legal for you at home, then it is legal for you to do it in France. By contrast, the whole concept of flying in cloud, without an IFR flight plan, and without a current and valid IR is totally illegal in France, and will not be allowed for you, just because you can do it under the ANO in British airspace.

If you wish to validate and FAA IR for IFR flight in France, you must be a non-EU resident, and the validation is a temporary one.

If you want to fly in cloud in France, there is no way that this can currently be achieved without a valid or validated IR.

Trust me. ;)

Charlie.

[englishal]

Charlie, cheers for the info. However when I contacted the French authorities, they said that the British Validation of the IR [ie. without formality being allowed to fly IFR outside CAS] was basically good enough for them. You are probably correct in the Flight plan bit, but the way it was described to me is that the British validation of the IR would be accepted in France. As in the UK you're restricted to outside CAS then in theory you could file IFR from an airport in France which is outside CAS to an airport in the UK inside class D and as long as you remain outside CAS until the FIR boundary you'll be legal [assuming hold IMC rating as well]. Of course you'd be better off in an N reg....

EA:D

[2Donkeys]

Englishal

Between you and the DGAC, you have without doubt managed to confuse one another.

For clarity we are talking about a UK PPL who also happens to have an FAA PPL/IR. We are talking about flight in the UK and France in a G-reg aircraft.


The UK CAA does not "validate" an FAA IR as such. Rather, it recognises the standard of flying reached, and grants a UK IMC rating without further test or written exam. On receipt of the IMC rating, the pilot may then exercise the privileges of the IMC rating. Even if the pilot elects not to get an IMC rating, he is one step up on a basic UK PPL. His FAA PPL (even without IR) does not restrict him to flight in sight of the surface. This is a particular restriction of the CAA PPL. Whilst he cannot fly in cloud, he in entitled to fly above a sold layer of cloud. The British rules of VFR permit this, as they do in most other countries.

Flight inside a cloud (in other words, IMC, and therefore IFR) is a different story.

In the UK this is OK once our hypothetical pilot gets his IMC rating (on the back of his FAA IR). Now he is bound by the privileges of his IMC rating.

The IMC rating is not valid in France, so when he crosses the channel, he must fall back onto his basic licence privileges. These still permit flight above a covered cloud layer under VFR (because of his FAA PPL), but do not permit flight in cloud.

If the pilot wished to obtain a validation by the French of his FAA IR, allowing the full use of its privileges, he could do this. Such validations are normally only issued for 6 months, and will only be issued to non-EU nationals, temporarily resident in the EU. A Brit who goes to America and obtains his FAA IR will therefore not be able to obtain such a validation.

Do not try to fly in cloud in France on the basis of the UK PPL and and FAA IR. You are definitely illegal doing so. If you have a letter from the DGAC saying something other than this, then you should scan it in, and you will become a hero to millions (well thousands)

2D

[IO540]

englishal

I tried to file an IFR flight plan in France, for flight outside CAS, and they refused to accept it because it was not in the airways.

What do you know about the position on this one?

Nobody asked me what license I had at the time, so hopefully that's not relevant to the question...

[2Donkeys]

There is no concept of IFR outside the controlled airspace in France (or many other places for that matter). This is one of the reasons why we can be reasonably sure that there has been some confusion between the DGAC and Englishal.

This said, controlled airspace in France works in a very different way to the UK. Most airspace is not controlled, and even the airways are only controlled by level (semi versus semi+500) below FL115. As a result, IFR flights are positively separated from VFR flights by virtue of being part of the "system", and being under radar control, from take-off to touch-down. They are controlled in this way, because unlike the UK, there isn't the controlled airspace to keep the VFR flyers out. This only comes into play above FL115, where airways become Class D, and VFR pilots are rarely cleared to go, despite the theoretical possibility.

The concept of randomly entering a cloud and declaring yourself IFR as occurs in the UK is simply not recognised, and neither is the concept of an uncontrolled IFR flight as commonly conducted by IMC-rating holders.

2D

[CSX001]

Agree 110% 2D ;D

I think engishal has become horribly confused by the fact that he can fly VFR over a covered layer of cloud, relying on his FAA PPL. The only thing that stops anybody else from doing that is a CAA PPL licence restriction, that has been carried through into UK issued JAA PPLs. The Visual Flight Rules have always allowed flight out of sight of surface in most countries.

This is obviously not the same thing at all as going into IMC. I hope englishal is able to clarify this point online, so as to avoid confusing other pilots and potentially encouraging them to break the law or worse, put themselves in danger.

Incidentally, we have been talking a lot about France here. This would all be true in Germany, the other country mentioned by englishal. They take licensing more seriously than the French, and being caught flying IFR without a valid instrument rating is punishable by large spot fines and worse.

Charlie

Charlie.

[englishal]

For clarity, I wrote and asked them about a UK [JAA PPL] with and FAA licence issued on the basis of this JAA licence with an FAA IR bolted on [US Test passed] flying a UK registered aircraft in French airspace. I have the reply somewhere and I'll see if I can find it and I'll post it here if I do. In the meantime I recommend that anyone interested in this route write directly to each relevant authority in turn to get it in writing.

In the UK even without an IMC rating a JAA PPL with FAA IR can fly in accordance with IFR [ie. in IMC out of sight of the surface] outside CAS. ANO 2K 21[4] states you can exercise all the privileges of the FAA certificate [ICAO cert even if based on JAA Cert] in a G reg, including ME, complex and IR but para (ii) prohibits flight in accordance with IFR in CAS.

A 'standard' FAA cert issued on basis of JAA licence prohibits flight above the cloud for a vanilla PPL due to CAA restrictions as stated, but once IR'd this restriction no longer applies.

Hope this helps a bit,

Rgds
EA:D

[CSX001]

So are you still trying to say that a UK PPL with an FAA PPL IR can fly in IMC in French airspace in a G-reg aircraft?

Charlie.

[2Donkeys]

The issue as far as France is concerned relates to the legality of flying "outside controlled airspace" under IFR.

The entire IFR system does not work in a way which recognises the existence of IFR flights outside controlled airspace, and it is not possible for a French pilot to be authorised to fly in this way. In many respects, it is a sysem that an FAA pilot should be very familiar with, because the system works in a very similar way.

Because a practice is legal in the UK, there is no requirement for all other contracting states to accept UK pilots flying in that manner in their own airspace. The general principle here is that where two rules conflict, the more restrictive applies.

2D

[englishal]

What I'm saying is that I wrote to the DGAC and explained that I hold a JAA PPL and also an FAA PPL issued on the basis of the JAA licence, and that I also held FAA ME and IR's [US test passed]. I asked them that if I was PIC of a G reg A/C in French airspace could I exercise the same privileges as the CAA allow me to exercise in a G registered aircraft in the UK, using my FAA ratings, namely to exercise the privilegs of my ME rating in a G registered aircraft and to exercise the privileges of my IR in a G regestered aircraft but subject to the restriction of outside CAS. Their reply was that they would accept the same as the CAA when flying a G reg aircraft, BUT NOT an F reg aircraft. For this you need a validation of your IR which you can't get unless you are non-resident in the EU.

So thats my story, anyone who wants to persue this further I suggest you contact the CAA and DGAC [ICAA, REGIERUNG VON OBERBAYERN etc.....] directly. I've researched this a fair bit and I'm convinced however to stop me getting sued I will add the disclaimer "it is your own responsibility to check the accuracy of this information before acting on it"...or something like that :D Maybe there was some miscommunication somewhere, so in order to clarify it in more detail I have written to the DGAC again asking them specific questions to which I hope to get a reply........time will tell !

Cheers
EA

[2Donkeys]

Hopefully you can be tempted to one last posting on this subject...

Just to clarify...

What are you suggesting that you *are* allowed to do? You are presumably accepting that you cannot file an airways flight plan in France?

So what can you actually do? Imagine that you are on the ground at an overcast Dieppe, and you want to fly to an overcast Pontivy (airfield in the North West with NDB approach) both outside controlled airspace. Are you suggesting that you can legally fly from one to the other, at IFR levels (ie semicircular) on an IFR flightplan, and shoot an approach at the destination.

What do you do about the airways you cross along the way?

Who provides separation between you and other aircraft?

Who do you talk to enroute?

How do you get your IFR flight plan accepted by Eurocontrol, who will only validate an airways routing? IFR flights in France without a flightplan are not allowed.

To what minima can you shoot the approach?


Genuinely interested to hear what you think you are allowed to do, because your interpretation makes no sense at all to me.


2D

[CSX001]

I really hope you reply to 2D englishal. Those questions are exactly where I was coming from. What would you say to Paris Control after you had left the ground at Dieppe? Thank you for clearing me direct to DVL, but I can't accept because even though I am in cloud at FL60, that path would take me into a Class D zone and across 5 airways. In fact, the only way I can get to DVL is to descend below FL30 and skirt round the edge of two control zones... all whilst flying IFR.

Doesn't really wash does it? Cummon englishal...

Charlie.

[IO540]

2Donkeys

Thanks for confirming the bit about airways.

It sounds like if flying in France with the right licenses etc (e.g. FAA PPL/IR, N-reg plane) and outside CAS, one can legally fly VMC on top (and call yourself "VFR") but one must not transit through clouds on the way up or down.

Presumably this is (practically) nonsense as those French PPLs who take advantage of their "VFR on top" allowance cannot fly around for hundreds of miles looking for holes in the clouds...

It seems obvious to me that to fly in anything other than perfect weather in non-UK Europe one needs the full IR, and matching the a/c country of reg, or some endorsement of the IR.

No wonder most serious pilots are going the FAA IR / N-reg route.

[bluskis]

IO540

France is a big country with lots of different weather. Quite often good in the south, fog over Lille, and clear again to the NW.

Flying over the Massive central you would not want to be squeezing between the cloud base and the 5700 ft hills if you were a French pilot flying from Bordeau, but would probably find Lyon in the clear.

The French have developed, or use, some rules to make flying in their environment practicable. The UK has done the same with the 70% perpetually miserable weather there, and uses the IMC rating.

Now what's wanted is a sensible combination , and an elimination of the effect of the N and G and F on the paintwork.

As an IMC holder you must have heard of TAF's and Actuals. I have a suspicion that rather than swan around until the fuel runs out, the average French pilot plans on the basis of them.

[CSX001]

Bluskis tells us:

Now what's wanted is a sensible combination , and an elimination of the effect of the N and G and F on the paintwork.

The French and US airspace system and flight rules are remarkably similar to one another. Only the UK sticks out like a sore thumb with its extensive enroute controlled airspace system and IMC rating.

What is needed is some mutual recognition of licences, but in the current climate, that seems somewhat unlikely.

Charlie.

[2Donkeys]

IO540

Thanks.

You are right that whilst it is legal for French PPLs to fly out of sight of the surface, many flying clubs prohibit it amongst non IR pilots because of the risks associated either with the layer closing up (these guys have no appreciable IFR training).

Other clubs take the line of enforcing strict Met minima before a pilot can climb on top, intended to ensure that he can get back down again with some certainty. Either way, this is is something of a fringe activity for basic PPLs to become involved in, despite the fact that it is legal.

Englishal

You often find people arguing for things on points of legal principle, only to find that should they attempt to apply their logic to the real world, it is totally unworkable. I suspect that Englishal is in that position now. Having argued the legality of flight "outside controlled airspace" under IFR in France, it is difficult to know what that means and how you would apply it. The entire IFR system in France is geared towards conventional airways IFR flight, and unlike the UK where pilots outside controlled airspace often blur IFR and VFR to suit the prevailing met conditions, the rules in France are as night and day. I do hope that you will respond to my earlier posting, if for no other reason than to help me to understand how you think you would apply the privileges you think you have in French airspace.

2D

[bookworm]

How do you get your IFR flight plan accepted by Eurocontrol, who will only validate an airways routing? IFR flights in France without a flightplan are not allowed.

(FPL-GABCD-YG
-M20P/L-SR/C
-LFAB1800
-N0150A030 DCT DPE DCT SFD VFR
-EGHI0040
-0)
NO ERRORS

There, that wasn't too hard was it. :)

For the most part, of course, I agree -- the French airspace system is designed for IFR flight to be in airways, and doing otherwise might confuse them. The applicability of an IR-in-class-F/G-only has to be minimal.

But I don't think there is a prohibition on IFR in class G in France, is there?

[2Donkeys]

There is no prohibition on IFR in class G in France. But there is a prohibition of IFR flight without a Flight Plan and a specific prohibition on IFR flight without a validated Instrument Rating.

2D

[IO540]

bluskis

Certainly I've heard of TAFs and METARs :O However they don't give you the accuracy to be able to plan a VMC-on-top flight and be sure there will be enough holes.

On the basis of weather forecasts, a prudent PPL cannot go anywhere if the forecast cloudbase is below the en-route MSA, end of story. And if the cloudbase is above the MSA, why fly above the clouds?

2Donkeys

Re IFR in Class G in France, I realise one needs an IR for it to be legal but, as a matter of interest, just how does one file a flight plan for that? That's what I tried once (cheekily I admit) and they refused, saying it must be an airways route. Does it mean, for example, that if you are departing an airfield in Class D then you have to be airways because the immediate area of departure isn't in Class G? It doesn't make sense unless the destination is an airfield in Class G with an IAP. I suppose that, since one needs an IR, one can go airways anyway and then the Class G bit is irrelevant except when flying to/from a Class G airfield and IFR en-route...

I know the bit about French clubs not liking VMC-on-top but I am looking at this from the POV of an owner.

[2Donkeys]

IO540

Despite bookworm's correct but tongue-in-cheek response to my FPL challenge, you experience is an accurate reflection of an attempt to file an IFR flightplan that does not conform with the published preferred routings. If the "strange" flightplan is not picked up at the point of submission (the usual way), you will find your route ignored and your flight guided onto airways as soon you receive your clearance.

The majority of French airports in Class D zones (and many in Class E) have SIDS and STARs to the appropriate airways joining points. It is customary when departing IFR from airports in class G to file initially DCT to a nearby VOR or intersection from which the airways structure can be joined.

Since IFR flights are under positive radar control in France, the concept of a flight being in an airway or not is somewhat irrelevant. Controllers will often tactically give a direct routing which will place the aircraft outside an airway, and therefore in class G airspace. This is not a problem under the French system, since VFR aircraft are *required* to be at semi+500 and because ATC provide positive separation for all IFR flights, irrespective of the airspace type in which they may find themselves temporarily operating.

This is why englishal's point, whilst it is not a bad academic one has no practical application to the way that IFR flight in Europe as a whole is actually performed.

2D

[Keef]

I've been watching with deep interest, and I think I see one "privilege" I didn't know I have, namely VFR on top in France in a G-reg aircraft on the basis of my FAA PPL/IR (well, ASEL/IA, but you know what I mean).

The IMC rating allows me to fly VFR on top in the UK, but isn't recognised outside the UK so I'm back to "in sight of surface" once I leave the UK on my CAA PPL.

But does my FAA PPL/IR mean I can fly out of sight of the surface in France? I'd have thought not, because it fails the "two out of three" test. I'd be curious to know!


On the more general issue of IFR flight in France: having done it several times (with an IR in the right hand seat), I can confirm that filing a non-airways route in France causes a) confusion on the part of the system/controller and b) rapid issue of a revised route.

I once managed to persuade Le Touquet to allow me to depart IFR for the UK on a direct (non-standard) route, but only (I suspect) because I would be out of French airspace within ten minutes. Even then, they weren't too happy about it.

You can usually persuade IFPS to accept a non-airways route - the "route tester" will accept routes that fail as an "airways" routing, if they are resubmitted to quote one VOR to the next VOR along the identical route. It will last until you speak to the first French controller, in my experience.

The curious thing is that, once you are "in" the airways system in France, you may then get a direct routing to a waypoint a very long way from your present position, and outside the published airways.

A couple of years ago, I was cleared direct from Rouen to Angers Marcé by Paris Control, at an IFR level. What was filed was much more complicated, using all the "right" airways. I wasn't sure how the controller expected me to navigate the direct route, in the absence of any VORs along the way, and the fact that I was below the level where I am "supposed" to use GPS. I queried it, and was asked my heading, then given a heading to steer. That matched what the GPS said. The next words from the controller to me were to hand me over to Angers - by which time we were in fine VMC and could see where we were anyway.

The solution is easy - for the moment, anyway: fly an N-reg aircraft, which makes the FAA IR valid in France. As others have said, flying IFR in France is much more like the US than the UK system anyway.

[bookworm]

Interesting but perhaps irrelevant twist.

Before the licence privileges were changed in 1996, IMC rating holders were prohibited from flying IFR in certain controlled airspace notified for the purposes of [some paragraph of] Schedule 8 of the ANO. Foreign IR holders using the validation of their IR on G-reg were prohibited from flying IFR in certain controlled airspace notified for the purposes of [some other paragraph of] Schedule 8 of the ANO. The notifications were broadly similar and included most of the majors.

But while the IMC-rating privileges stopped at the FIR boundary, presumably the ICAO IR was rendered valid in all controlled airspace outside the UK.

[englishal]

Ok, time to respond :D

Right I've been on to the DGAC and asked them the following:-

Dear Sir,

I would be grateful if you could clarify the following points with regard to flying a UK registered aircraft [G reg] in French airspace. I hold a JAA PPL issued by the UK CAA and also an FAA PPL with Instrument and Multi Engine ratings. The CAA allow me to fly as pilot in command a UK registered aircraft in accordance with IFR [in the cloud and out of sight of the surface] while outside controlled airspace. The FAA IR validation is an informal process detailed in The UK Air Navigation Order 2000 applies this ruling in Article 21 Paragraph 4. Can you confirm that the French authorities would also allow me to fly in accordance with IFR outside French controlled airspace while in command of a G registered aircraft.Many thanks for your time, I look forward to hearing from you.
------------------------

Now today [yes I contacted them yesterday and received the reply today, full marks to them] I received a response from them, this is what they said:-
------------------------

Delivered-To: [email protected]
Subject: FAA IR and JAA Licence
To: [email protected]
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000
From: "BARDET Sophie - DAC-N" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:27:08 +0200
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CS-NORD/DGAC(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at
31/07/2003 14:29:15


Sophie BARDET
Direction Aviation Civile Nord
Subdivision Réglementation et Contrôles Techniques
Tél : 01.69.57.74.42
Fax : 01.69.57.74.71
E-mail : [email protected]

Dear Sir,

If the UK CAA allow you to fly as a pilot in command a UK registered aircraft in accordance with IFR while outside controlled airspace in a private aim, you can do the same in France.
Best regards.

Sophie Bardet.
---------------------------

So if I may seem confused by this issue this is why. I have been told by the French that I am allowed to fly IFR in uncontrolled airspace, so please explain...........

Remember this is not isolated to France, what about Ireland?

Cheers
EA:D

[2Donkeys]

englishal

I think that the conversation has moved on. I think that both bookworm and I have acknowledged the interpretation of the rules that Mme Bardet appears to confirm to you.

The real question is what, if anything, this confirmation does for you? Filing and executing a flight plan under IFR that causes you to remain outside controlled airspace in France is a practical impossibility because of the structure of the airspace, and is something that would be very alien to the controllers that would work your flight.

What do you think?

2D

[bluskis]

2Donks

I am sure you have personal experience of the limitations you have highlighted, therefore please do not regard my question as a challenge.

France has a significant area of uncontrolled airspace, with a large number of airfields within.

How would a fully licenced IR pilot arrive or depart from airfields such as Abbeville, Amiens or LeMans in IMC?

If in fact they are able, what radar cover would be available to them?

[2Donkeys]

Its a good question. France is not significantly different to the UK in this regard.


When flying IFR to an airfield outside controlled airspace, your flightplan will nominate either an airways intersection or a beacon on the airways structure close to your intended destination. The plan will end with DCT.

As you get close, the airways controller in France will often clear you direct to the initial holding fix for the approach in use at the airfield, having negotiated a level to arrive at the beacon with the local airfield controllers.

Once close to the holding fix, you will be handed over to the airfield controller who will procedurally separate you from other IFR and VFR traffic until you land.

Should your destination be one which does not have ATC, but rather has FISO-like service, the same applies, with the FISO providing traffic information on other visual traffic, and multiple IFR aircraft self-announcing their positions in the procedure. This is not fun, and the UK looks upon this with a certain degree of horror, although it is currently in a consultation process to move the same way on a limited basis.


Departures work again in the same way they do in the UK. The FISO or Tower controller contacts the local airways authority, passes a clearance to the aircraft, and typically once the aircraft climbs through 1000 feet, he is handed to Paris Control (or as appropriate), who IDENT him and the flight then continues under radar cover by a mixture of airways and direct routings.

This all works because the radar controller is free to vector IFR traffic and offer it DIRECT routings without needing to worry about whether or not the pilot can accept IFR clearances into controlled airspace, or across an airway. Traffic is typically worked at levels above FL50, making radar coverage, no issue.

Being constrained to operate at lower levels implies that radar coverage will be poorer leaving controllers unable legally to offer a service - something which ordinarily cannot happen to an IFR flight in France because of the accepted routings which they follow.

Hope this clarifies

2D



POSTED SLIGHTLY LATER THIS MORNING BUT MERGED BY PPRUNE...


Puzzled by Sophie Bardet's earlier response to englishal, I have written and more recently spoken to her myself this morning.

Dear sir,

What the CAA agree on their aircraft is their business. We don't have anything to say about this. As it has been written to you, YOU HAVE TO know the british and the french regulations to be able to choose the more restricted when you fly over France, one of these says that we do not reconize the unvalidated FAA IR for flight under IFR in French airspace.By sending us the copies of your licences and your privileges (US & British), we would be able to give you an accurated answer.

Sophie BARDET
Direction Aviation Civile Nord
Subdivision Réglementation et Contrôles Techniques
Tél : 01.69.57.74.42
Fax : 01.69.57.74.71
E-mail : [email protected]


In this note, and during the conversation that followed, she appeared to retract her earlier suggestion that what the CAA accepts, the DGAC accepts too.

I still suggest extreme caution here. Ramp checks are an everyday occurance in France. Those who worried about carrying certificates of free circulation for their aircraft should certainly worry about arriving on an IFR approach in a G-reg aircraft with nothing but an unvalidated FAA IR.

2D

[bluskis]

2D

Thanks for your very clear answers.

Apropos the French reply, hopefully someone will do as she asks and all will become clearer.

[2Donkeys]

I am on the case now!


2D

[Timothy]

Just a little addition to 2D's explanation; it also happens in France that radar will "release" you to the destination AFIS and you call only to find that they are not there.

I've never known the legal position in these circumstances, but I have generally proceded, making blind calls, and have always popped out into VMC before having to decide whether to make an IFR approach.

I don't know what I would do if the cloudbase were below MSA on one of these occasions...I guess do whatever felt safe and expeditious.

W

[englishal]

2D et al,

I am just confirming what I have always said [or rather told by the DGAC], ie. you can fly in accordance with IFR [out of sight of the surface in IMC] outside controlled airspace in France on an FAA IR in a G reg aircraft. There is no doubt about this, it has been confirmed by the French CAA. There is also no doubt that you can do the same in the UK.

Now how you do this may be a mystery, but I bet if you go back to the French authorities and ask whether you NEED to be on an IFR flight plan that they will turn around and say "If the CAA say you don't need to be on a flight plan, then you don't need to be on one in France". Suddenly the concept of a European IMC rating of sorts has been born. I could in theory depart from an un controlled field in France, and while being responsible for my own navigation transition through or in IMC whilst remaining outside CAS. Not much different to flying around the UK with an IMC rating is it?

I hope some people don't take my posts personnaly, I am mearly trying to find a way that someone with a perfectly good IR can use the system to their advantage without breaking the law. If I fly to LFAT and end up shooting the ILS to get in in IMC I have broken the law, even though I am just as "qualified" as the fATPL holder who has just exited OAT with minimum hours. All becasue the tail letter happens to be a G rather than an N. Of course I could go out and fork out the several grand to convert my IR, or buy an N reg plane. Why fork out a few grand to convert my IR for private use? I have already proved my level of competence just in an N reg. Why should I buy an N reg? I am in a G reg syndicate, and to be honest a G reg and N reg fly exactly the same. [though I'm coming around to the point that I'd probably be better off just buying my own N reg aircraft and be done with it] I don't nescessarily want to fly in IMC in France, it just leaves open a useful tool for someone to "get home" if caught out by the weather which invariably happens in the UK / Europe.

I just used France as an example [probably a bad one as they don't seem to know what you can and can't do any more than we do :D], what about flying in Ireland? Never done it but the same will probably apply there, they will more than likely accept the CAA's endorsement of a foreign IR with the same restrictions on it.......

Still I wouldn't exercise any of these "privileges" without having a written letter in my possession saying what I'm allowed to do, so use extreme caution if you do decide to do it.

Anyway I've said my piece now, I suggest that other people can continue the campaign if they want, and maybe by campaigning this will lead to an affordable European Private IR :D. Its no good sitting around and bitching if you never end up doing anything about it.

Happy flying
EA:D

[2Donkeys]

LFAT sits in a Class E zone, which for the purposes of IFR flight is controlled airspace....

2D

[englishal]

[yea I know. I was making the point that it is illegal for me to shoot the approach there becasue I don't have an N painted on the tail:D]

2D,

Fancy calling a truce to this topic? I think I'm now suffering from repetitive strain injury from all this typing :D

I think the moral of this story is that if you're going to try to fly IFR abroard you have to make damn certain that you are legal. The DGAC appear to change their story every now and then so what I suggest is that anyone who's interested should write a letter [not email] to the relevant authority spelling out exactly what they want to do and to get a reply that you carry with you. I'm going to do this anyhow. Better be quick though as France goes on holiday for the summer soon :D

2D raised some good topics and clearly knows the IFR regs in France better than I do, however it doesn't help when the DGAC then turn around and say that I can do what I suggest. Maybe there is a loophole allowing what I suggest or maybe there is utter confusion and it is clearly impossible......

Anyway, happy flying, I hear the weather is going to be good next week, so hopefully we won't need any of this IFR nonsense anyway :D

bye for now
EA

[bookworm]

In this note, and during the conversation that followed, she appeared to retract her earlier suggestion that what the CAA accepts, the DGAC accepts too.

I would imagine, 2D, that Mme Bardet skipped the course in Advanced Comparative Airspace Structure that you and I took in our spare time over the last few years. As such she probably doesn't understand the issue in detail, but has twigged that there is an issue and is leaning towards the more conservative option of quoting the regs and refusing to interpret them. I'd probably do the same.

The DGAC is obliged by the Chicago Convention to accept the licence privileges that the CAA render valid for flight in a G-reg aircraft, just as she clearly asserts in her first message to englishal. The DGAC is, however, under no obligation to adapt its Rules of the Air to make those privileges useful!

[IO540]

This is a brilliantly helpful thread - thank you all.

englishal

Yes, go for N-reg. You don't have to BUY one; you can go from G-reg to N-reg (most cost effectively done at the CofA annual, or any other service which takes a few weeks for that matter) for about £2k, with a subsequent cost of some £500/year. You get various benefits:

Worldwide IR privileges without a question
No CofA
No 50/150 services, just an annual
Lots of pilot maintenance is allowed
Lots of non CAA approved STCs
Class 3 medical (the main benefit of the NPPL in the UK.....)
+Others

Keef

I have it in writing from the CAA that a IMCR pilot flying VFR on top in France is not breaking the ANO, and that if the DGAC don't mind then the CAA don't mind either. I don't know the DGAC position on this though - but it would be very interesting since "VMC on top" is in practice what IFR flight is about most of the time. One would be illegal only for the short time it takes to get up/down through the cloud. More practically, it means one could depart the UK IFR if necessary, and stay VMC on top when going to the south of France (usually) and 100% legally all the way. Any views on this one?

[bluskis]

VFR on top,

Its excellent to hear that it is now clear that the CAA allow IMCR PPLs to fly VFR on top outside the UK.

The French allow PPL VFR on top, so IMHO nothing needs further clarification.

This is how I have understood the matter for many years.

It would be best not to throw too many balls at the DGAC at the same time, and concentrate on what exactly the position is regarding their acceptance of FAA IR in G reg, which 2D has said he is doing.

[bookworm]

his is a brilliantly helpful thread - thank you all.

Damn! And here I was thinking that it was a masterpiece of obfuscation... Must try harder... :)

[IO540]

bookworm

Damn! And here I was thinking that it was a masterpiece of obfuscation... Must try harder

I strongly suspect that

a) there are people who know the answers but aren't posting them on the internet (only a miniscule % of pilots are in here, and those taking advantage of some loophole won't be advertising it), and

b) there are plenty of people who just fly and don't worry about it.

I know for certain that some IMCR pilots do fly airways in France; the only thing which would stop me doing such a thing when going back to the UK (i.e. with a near-nil chance of getting caught) is my lack of airways procedure knowledge and lingo. One is a lot more likely to need to fly in IMC when returning to the UK than on the way out, for obvious reasons.

Also lots of pilots with "any old IR" fly airways routinely all over Europe, e.g. delivering planes of various registrations to customers. If you know the lingo and procedures, and fly a serious plane, nobody is likely to question it. But if you have a gold plated JAA IR and fly a 1970 C150, and fumble and stumble on the radio, you will only draw attention to yourself...

I have found the French ATC extremely professional and courteous, as soon as they can see you know what you are doing. I always plan a flight as if it was IFR, use IFR waypoints etc, and this makes their job a lot simpler. A bit like the UK really, but I found the French to be better, especially with handing out RIS very readily.

[bluskis]

2D

Have you any news for the thread?

or English Al perhaps?

[englishal]

Hi Blueskis,

No not yet from me.....I intend to get a list of other European CAA's and find out what their IFR requirements are.....I've just been a bit slack lately:D It appears that IF you can fly IFR in uncontrolled airspace without having to file a flight plan in CAS then you can use the privileges of the FAA IR in a G reg to some extent. Incidentally, if I file an IFR flight plan outside CAS in the UK, ie. from one unlicenced field to another, what happens to it? Where does it go?

Anyone want to buy into a N reg Arrow / fast single or something based down South UK? [Would like a Seneca, but think that one in Europe would bankrupt me :D] I'm seriously considering getting one in the USA, and bringing it back....

Cheers
EA:ok:

[Keef]

Yes, extremely interested in an N-reg Arrow. In fact, I'm hoping that in 15 months' time (next CAA C of A due) that ours will become one.

Pity we can't just paint "N" on the side and go for it.

[mm_flynn]

I have a Mooney at EGTF that I am most of the way through the paperwork to convert to N Reg. By the way I looked at the cost of bringing one in from the states and it looke dmuch easier and cheaper to convert a well selected airplane.