IMC in uncontrolled airspace. [Archive]

BEagle

28th January 2001, 14:39

Nimbus,

A 'quadrantal' is a cruising level based upon 500 ft separation and on 1013/29.92 . Hence it is basically similar to a semi-circular cruising level (except that there are 4 quadrants rather than 2 sectors), but because our UK GA traffic often flies around above our low transition altitude (3000 to 6000 ft depending upon where you are!), IFR traffic above 3000 ft amsl must fly on 1013 and fly at an appropriate cruising level. So, for example, if you're flying on 120 deg you need to be at FL35 or 55 or 75 etc., not at an altitude based on the local 'altimeter' as you would in the US. Although there is no actual legal requirement to talk to anyone in IMC, it would be plain daft not to. So if not under Radar Control, you take either Radar Advisory Service (only available under IFR) or Radar Information Service; the main difference between RAS and RIS being that under RAS the radar unit will attempt to provide the required IFR separation from other traffic, whereas under RIS you will be told of other traffic nearby and it's then up to you to manoeuvre (or maneuver!) appropriately. Why would anyone want RIS under IFR? Because to provide IFR separation to the extent which the ATC unit is required to can involve extensive vectoring; pilots who can 'walk and chew gum at the same time' or who can fly and think at the same time under IFR often prefer just to take their own avoidance action based upon the situational awareness provided by the radar unit. You might be quite happy with "Traffic left at 10 o'clock 2 miles, heading away" under RIS and choose not change your heading, but under RAS the controller would have had to have vectored you earlier to provide greater separation!
Very simplistically, the IMC Rating is a basic instrument rating dsigned to equip UK pilots to cope with flight in IMC, but it is not the same as the Instrument Rating which in the UK requires far greater levels of ground and flying training plus testing in a comprehensively-equipped aircraft (and is much, much more expensive to obtain!). The IMC Rating has more restrictive take-off minima and recommended landing minima than an IR and it does NOT permit flight in Class A airspace. So if there's a layer of stratus with poor visibility underneath, rather than scrape around in marginal VFR underneath, with an IMC Rating you can get a radar service and climb to VFR on top, cruise to your destination, letting down again with a radar service to fly an ILS or GCA down to a 500 ft QFE DH or an NDB to 600 ft MDH (higher if the procedure minima dictate). Used within its limitations for the purpose intended, the IMC Rating is a very good rating for the average UK private pilot to obtain, but it is not a substitute for the PPL/IR. Also, if you're just going from A to B (remaining outside controlled airspace), even if you think that you'll need to fly in a bit of IMC en-route (at which point you'll be flying IFR), you don't need to file any sort of flight plan in the UK! No flight plan needed just to climb up through a bit of cloud to VMC on top!!

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 28 January 2001).]

foxmoth

28th January 2001, 21:18

NIMBUS - also you may want to note that you do NOT need to file a plan to fly IFR UNLESS you are going to fly in CONTROLLED airspace.

Luftwaffle

28th January 2001, 21:39

In Canada we have vast areas of uncontrolled airspace. IFR traffic monitor 126.7 MHz and make position reports over all navaids, before changing altitudes, and any other time that it would be sensible to tell other traffic and/or ground stations where you are. We're required to announce intentions on 126.7 and on the aerodrome frequency five minutes (or earlier, the approach plates tell you), prior to starting the approach.

NIMBUS

29th January 2001, 06:52

BEagle,
So a 'quadrantal' is just a fancy name for recommended cruising altitude?

Thanks for the lesson. Again you educate a dumb Yank (actually, a dumb mick living in the US!)
I'm still a little confused. Seems like the IMC rating allows you to fly in IFR conditions without a flight plan?
This sounds very dodgy to me. Even if the IMC rated hero sticks to his preferred altitude, is he/she not taking big risk? What happens if someone on an IFR plan is assigned a conflicting altitude by ATC?, or when he is coming down through the clouds?

Foxmouth,
I hope you're wrong! Do you mean simulated IFR in VFR conditions? I thought regulations require that you remain clear of clouds unless on a flight plan. The idea of somebody flying along in clouds when nobody knows hes there kind of scares me!

Bear Cub

29th January 2001, 07:17

Nimbus, et al - there is a difference between LAW and INTELLIGENCE.

If the airspace is NOT controlled then you can do what you like in it - by definition.

It may not be a very good idea, indeed it may be bloody stupid, but what is legal and what you do may be completely different.

It's a bit like flying a Saratoga on a hazy, pitch dark night across water to an island off the coast somewhere - without an instrument rating (or sufficient instrument training).

It's not illegal - but it proved to be deadly for some....it all comes down to airmanship.

------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!

BEagle

29th January 2001, 10:20

Nimbus - I appreciate that, to anyone brought up under the FAA system, the freedom of flight without a Flight Plan may seem utterly alien, but that's the way it is in the UK. No-one would be stupid enough to fly in IMC without some sort of radar service, I hope, Flight Information Service is NOT a suitable alternative in IMC, in my view, because in the UK you may not be talking to someone who can see you on the screen. The selection of the appropriate type of service is taught to all PPL students (which makes re-training those who learned to fly at a US flight school important) and is the pilot's choice. It is important only to request the type of service which you actually need; there was a change in the rules a few years ago which meant that those used to off-airways VOR crawls in VFR for navigation ("Err, this is Golf Alfa Bravo Charlie Delta, PA28 from Boggsville to Sunnyplace, routing via the ABC to the DEF to the GHI, request Radar Advisory Service") will now only be given a RAS if they're under IFR. This was to stop ATC controller overload when people who should have been flying VFR were expecting an IFR radar separation to be provided for them. Nowadays such folk would be asked "Are you flying IFR?" Since most don't know the difference between IMC and IFR, they will usually reply "Negative" and will then be told that RAS is not available. It really is very simple, but it requires good airmanship.

NIMBUS

29th January 2001, 14:38

Hi BEagle,
Amazing differences between FAA and CAA!
I guess the RIS then, is the same as optional VFR 'flight-following' in the US, but is, or was, also intended as a service to 'almost-but-not-quite' IFR flights?

Bear Cub,
Just watched a program about JFK Jr. Seems like he was actually a very careful pilot who never made a mistake. Very methodical and above average in skills. In short a gifted, natural airman! :rolleyes:

I guess you were talking about someone else :) :)

muppet

30th January 2001, 00:51

A call to all instructors here.

I do a lot of IMC training at an airfield where the approaches and the IAF are NOT in controlled airspace and the airfield does not have radar. This is the case at many fields in the UK, so you find yourself bumbling around with the screens up, teaching, often in poor vis or even in IMC when someone calls up to track via the beacon VFR. The controller cannot refuse them so suddenly you need eyes in the back of your head. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

The call to instructors:- well please do not teach students to transit IF recovery lanes just because it is a straight line on their plog. I go http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif if my student does this and then does not request a ATC clearance. From their point of view it is bad airmanship and they do not want to hit an IFR training Seneca on the ILS with its screens up.

Noggin

30th January 2001, 01:39

How precisely do you get an ATC Clearance for a VFR transit outside controlled airspace? Or track a beacon in IMC under VFR?

[This message has been edited by Noggin (edited 29 January 2001).]

foxmoth

30th January 2001, 02:43

No such thing as an ATC clearance outside controlled airspace - butI suspect that was your point anyway!!

Wee Weasley Welshman

30th January 2001, 13:31

I think the UK system works very well as evidenced by the lack of mid air collisions and the lack of a statistically significant higher incidence of TCAS warnings in UK airspace.

Obviously the whole thing rather relies on airmanship. I have spent many hours over the least year of two in IMC without radar or procesural ATC control. This is never something which is done lightly. However, in the UK if you earn by the hour as a FI then the typical weather almost impells you to fly uncontrolled IMC in many parts of the country.

By having a sensible pre-planned entry and exit from IMC conditions, by observing quadrantal rules and making blind transmissions over beacons one can operate with a reasonable degree of safety.

In the South East of England this probably would not be the case. However much of the UK is pretty sparse (mid Wales in my case). The military can more or less be gauranteed to be mowing the lawn at the weekends these days. "Proper" IFR traffic will have ATC seperation from you as well as possibly TCAS.

I have actually done it one several occassions with only a funtioning VOR receiver and transponder. Thats not much to go on and a lot of OBS twiddling is required. However, if you set yourself some rules and plan plan plan before the sortie then it can be doen safely.

With regard to the wider issue of the IMC. This is a really great example of the UK common sense approach. Is it better to be scud running in poor viz or is it better to be up there way above MSA in the clear blue? I know personally of two people killed by running just below a cloudbase into cummulo granitas...

You don´t need the demands of the full blown UK IRT to fly perfectly safely down an ILS or VOR/DME approach to, say, 650ft QFE. I see new students every week able to fly perfectly safe ILS´s down to 400ft QFE with only half an hours instruction.

Long live the IMC rating.

WWW

foxmoth

30th January 2001, 14:13

The point of flying above in the blue is well made, if you are going on top you need to get up/down through, so you need to have an IMC or IR rating to fly ABOVE the clouds if it is solid below!

[This message has been edited by foxmoth (edited 30 January 2001).]

NIMBUS

30th January 2001, 18:03

WWW,
Sounds like the big sky theory to me.
Maybe it would work in the UK, but I'd hate to try it anywhere in the US! Lots of uncontrolled space, but lots of traffic, too!
I'm still not comfortable with the idea of an IMC free-for-all!

UKPPL

31st January 2001, 02:56

Hi Nimbus,

"big sky theory" ? You lucky man. You should try flying round the north west of London, where thanks to our great country's aviation services (I laugh) you are funneled through a busy 8 mile gap between two control zones, below a ceiling of 2500'... with no radar services available to GA. Welcome to the small skies!!
OK on a reasonable VFR day (?) but try doing it IFR. Personally I don't do the lottery so doing this now and again makes up for my lack of gambling...
Still, GA don't pay for radar services (yet) in UK and I only pay 40% tax, so I shouldn't grumble.

Wee Weasley Welshman

31st January 2001, 13:40

Well it IS a big sky. Who the hell else is going to be stooging around Mid Wales airspace at a weekend at 5000ft without IFR seperation or Radar? I have taken far greater risks performing far more routine flying training functions.

As always, the simple answer is AIRMANSHIP. It makes all the difference to any flying activity.

Cheers,

WWW

NIMBUS

31st January 2001, 16:49

WWW!
Big Sky?
Never thought I'd see you making that comment!
You may be doing it, but all it takes is just one more guy thinking the same and the risk goes up.
Personally, I see 'airmanship' and flying IMC with no plan as opposites! Make a position report over a beacon at the same time someone is talking to ATC, changing frequencies, etc, and who will hear it?
The 'see-and-avoid' can't work in a cloud, so everyone is flying blind!
Maybe I'm not a 'real' pilot! :)

VLift

31st January 2001, 18:22

NIMBUS
I want to point out just one or two problems with operating IMC in uncontrolled airspace in FAA jurisdiction. First, you may well be able to get up there but how do you get down? Unless you fly out of it at a level altitude you have to descend or climb. More often than not a climb will put you in controlled airspace for which you need a clearance and, in order to descend to a civil airdrome you must use an approach contained issued under Part 97, which puts you back in controlled airspace. The other option, descending without an approach procedure to a field somewhere brings me to number two. When the FAA hears of this brail approach method they would likely drop their "careless and reckless endangerment" trump card on your certificate. A bad thing. The above does not apply to military unless they want, so are not considerd here. Under very predictable and controlled conditions you would be in no more danger than with an IFR flight plan in controlled airspace but, do you have that control and predictiblity? not for my money.

Yogi-Bear

31st January 2001, 18:25

Yeh. Some of us call it Russian roulette.
A few year's ago I bought a VFR only taildragger for a change. With it, I couldn't get there or I couldn't get back. That's British weather for you. Now I know why these a/c only do 50 hours pa, year in year out. IMC rating is essential if you want to get around and cannot justify several weeks of ground school and several £000s for an IR. Just wish ATC was more liberal with the RASs. My brain is too small to make an instant picture from a RIS.

------------------
Y-B

Night Rider

31st January 2001, 21:17

Your NOT SEPARATED by anybody - make as much use of RIS/RAS as you can!!!!!

------------------
Kit

NIMBUS

31st January 2001, 23:44

Vlift,
I think we're in agreement, but I'm not sure?
My opinion is that operating in IMC without being on a filed flight plan is nuts.
The UK IMC rating is good for climbing through a thin layer to VFR on top, or for getting down through a thin layer to an approach in marginal VFR conditions. Any time you're in a cloud, you're both blind and invisible. Not being in contact with someone who can see you, and others, on radar
makes it a very risky proposition, which, for me, at any rate, is not worth it.
Yogi,
The IMC rating is cheaper, but using it to fly IMC comprimises safety. Its' tough, I know, to get the money for a full IFR ticket, but where should you put your priorities, safety or cost?

Wee Weasley Welshman

1st February 2001, 01:48

IMC flight without radar happens all the time in the UK without incident.

I have had much closer shaves performing procedural approaches under rubbish ATC instruction or rubbish pilot liason with ATC.

EVERYONE is trying to get established on the FAT to a runway. Hardly anyone is trying to GH in the middle of my random cloud...

And remember, uncontrolled IMC flight is PERFECTLY legal in the UK. I am NOT in the habit of wearing a stetson and six shooter.

Safe flying,

WWW

NIMBUS

1st February 2001, 09:14

WWW,
I don't doubt its perfectly legal, but it can't be perfectly safe. I still don't understand how flying blind is a good idea!
Maybe in a very remote area, if I could be 100% certain that nobody else is around,(as opposed to knowing that hardly anyone could be in my way), then I'd feel safe. The fact it happens all the time means its only a matter of time

PS. What's 'GH' mean? (gaining height?, going home?) :)

BEagle

1st February 2001, 09:58

GH - General Handling.

You still don't seem to have understood the basic UK concept, Nimbus. Put simply, you can have radar separation from other traffic in the UK by asking for it on the radio. You don't need a flight plan. But you will only receive avoidance vectors under a radar ADVISORY service if you are also flying under IFR. You will NOT receive radar vectors if you're flying VFR; you might receive radar information if you actually need it and request it, but, perhaps unsurprisingly, under VFR you are normally expected to conduct your flight in accordance with VFR and accept a non-radar flight information service!

I vehemently disagree with the ridiculous idea of flying in IMC without any radar service, unless in a controlled environment on a procedural clearance. That is positively inviting disaster ANYWHERE in the UK these days and is unbelievably poor airmanship!!

Whether a pilot has a IMC Rating or IR in the 'open FIR' has virtually no relevance. All the IR really provides for its huge expense over the cost of an IMC Rating is the ability to fly a suitably-equipped aircraft in airways and to fly down to lower minima on an instrument approach. Unlike in some other countries, you can NEVER fly VFR in an airway in the UK, you must have a full IR to do so. Hence in the UK there are a lot of off-airways GA flights operating in IMC with a perfectly adequate radar service.....and NO flight plan is needed!!!

On another, but related topic, I also think that to fly around under VFR 'practising IF in a Seneca with its screens up' is a hazard to other traffic UNLESS the 'additional observer', as required under air law when the field of view of the instructor is obstructed (as it will be in a Seneca 'with its screens up'), is actually carried. And how many cash-strapped UK training schools actually do this, I wonder??

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 01 February 2001).]

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 01 February 2001).]

Wee Weasley Welshman

1st February 2001, 15:01

Operating IMC with a RIS is safe beyond question in the UK.

I agree totally that IMC flight in uncontrolled airspace without procedural or radar separation is undesireable in the extreme. HOWEVER, on occasions and with lots of caveats and planning it can be done with a level of risk commensurate with other flying training activities.

As illustration. Its a miserable wet Saturday morning with a cloudbase of 1500ft. You have a student needing some IF GH and radio aids work. You pick an area with nice flat terrain handy for a forced landing with late cloud break. You have the area nicely defined by multiple cockpit navaids and groundstations. You ensure said area is not on a diect line between nearby aerodomes, has no airways above it and is in the middle of nowhere. You get a FIS from London and also broadcast on local frequencies where applicable, blind if necessary. You check the mil coordination service prior and also file a VFR flight plan defining your area, times and altitudes for the sortie. You plan two diversion aerodromes that have current weather allowing sensible minimas for instrumental approach. All this extra planning is done with Bloggs in tow as a useful training event in itself.

Having done all that the actual risk of mid air collision is low.

Compare that with the routine close shaves encountered in a busy little airfield on a sunny Saturday afternoon in the summer. Microlights, 5hrs a year PPL´s, solo students and matey boy in his Yak performing running breaks...

Compare that with the routine NDB approaches made by Bloggs with the screens up where you are number 2 with number 1 on a low approach and go around back to the beacon and number 3 is just calling localiser established. Your neck is doing a decent impression of Rod Hull and Emu whilst Bloggs drifts all over the FAT with wildly erratic speed and VSI indications missing checks and gear along the way.

Compare that with the PFL midweek into Farmer Palmers best flat field which attracts every other student in the county plus the local Mil helicopter squadron. You know the field, the one with the flock of birds on it nicking the new seed with the rising ground o the left and the woods to the right and those cables half a mile upwind. Then of course you are in the hangar queen with "the big mag drop" and the slightly over rich mixture for the go around.

Compare that with cruising along on an IMC training flight (say Welshpool to Filton as I remember) at flight level enormous under positive radar control - maybee even an IFR flight plan - but in a Warrior. Whoops! Its all gone quiet, so its drift down time into the Brecon Beacons with an 800ft cloudbase and hill fog expected. Pass me the superman outfit will you - or perhaps you are going to use The Force today.

My basic point is that the comparable risk of a well planned uncontrolled non radar IMC sortie is equal to or less than other routine flying training sortie.

As I stated before - airmanship makes all the difference. Its all very well saying don´t do it sit at home but if thats the job and thats the equipment and the CAA says its legal then sometimes sitting on the ground drinking another coffee is not a viable option. If you want to keep your job. Or pay your rent.

Thats my tuppence ha´penny on a fogged in no-fly day.

Safe flying,

WWW

rolling circle

2nd February 2001, 02:10

Flying in IMC without a radar service is stupid in the extreme. For a flight instructor to advocate such a criminally insane practice is beyond belief!

BEagle

2nd February 2001, 02:23

Rolling circle, we may have disagreed in the past, but I'm 100% with you on this! For a well known flight instructor to advocate such dangerous practice is thoroughly reprehensible.
WWW - YOU ARE WRONG!!

NIMBUS

2nd February 2001, 08:37

Thanks BEagle,
Now I know what GH is!
I get the picture on the IMC/IFR scene in the UK! I see the IFR/Flight Plan route as the only safe way to do it. Lose the radios and at least ATC know what you'll do!
WWW,
I still don't like the idea! In very, very, specialized instances, it may be 'safe', but in general the idea scares me! I would imagine that many people abuse it, however, and see it as a cheap IR rating.

foxmoth

2nd February 2001, 12:54

Nimbus
It isn't the F.P. that is needed if you are IFR outside C.A.S., this will not protect you at all, what you do need is RADAR COVER which in some parts of the UK is fairly good outside C.A.S. and non existent in others.

TooHotToFly

2nd February 2001, 13:56

I'm sure I posted this message yesterday but it hasn't showed up. PPRuNe was all different with a new layout and presentation and then now it's back to normal. What's going on with my broswer?

Anyway, back to my point. BEagle - The whole point about screens is that they shouldn't obstruct the instructors view. If they do then they shouldn't be approved. No one sits in the back of your IR test so the CAA must think that it's perfectly legal not to carry someone else.

Wee Weasley Welshman

2nd February 2001, 20:00

I don´t advocate it. I don´t like doing it. As I stated, it is extremely undesireable.

I´m just being open and honest. I´m lucky that I´ll never be in a position where I have to do that sort of training again.

It was, and is, legal though. The best thing that could happen is that it is made illegal. That way there would be no pressure to do it and no need for people to exercise so much planning and caution over doing so.

If its mid air collisions that you are worried about then far more would be achieved by shipping military fast jet training over to Canada.

How many pilots killed over the last 10 years?

I remember the turbine sections embedded not 100yds from the primary school in Carno...

Or you could ban all light aicraft from being below 1000ft agl in Mid Wales, Northumbria and half of Scotland. I am even handed on that approach.

Cheers,

WWW

[This message has been edited by Wee Weasley Welshman (edited 02 February 2001).]

NIMBUS

2nd February 2001, 23:57

foxmoth,
In areas of poor, or no, radar cover, a flight plan is your only protection. ATC will have cleared a block of airspace when they gave the clearance. If you lose communications, they already know what you are going to do, and won't vector other traffic into your path.
Thats why I don't like the IMC rated pilot bouncing along on his own!

BEagle

3rd February 2001, 01:38

Nimbus - in the UK it is IMPOSSIBLE for ATC to 'clear a block of airspace when they gave you the clearance' in the open Class G FIR - because it's UNCONTROLLED. Hence the UK's FIS/RIS/RAS system of ATSORA - Air Traffic Services Outside Regulate Airspace.

JuicyLucy

3rd February 2001, 02:05

Its a nice theory to never be IMC without a radar service, but it happens all the time when operating out of airfields outside of CAS with no radar. The one best hope for anyone in the LAM-BPK-BKY-BNN area, Luton, now provides no radar service outside of CAS (or shouldn't, I'm glad to say a couple of controllers still do when not busy..).
If ws only went VFR until a radar service is provided not much would fly !!
The only time it would be provided is if we as operators are prepared to pay for it - the new commercialised NATS will have no interest unless £££ are supplied by someone.... :))

IanSeager

3rd February 2001, 03:19

In an ideal world everyone flying in IMC outside CAS would be getting a RAS. Unfortunately, regardless of the rating (IMC or IR) and regardless of whether or not you have filed a flight plan there will be occasions when you have to descend through cloud in the open FIR without a radar service. If that becomes illegal then the UK will either have to dramatically increase radar coverage and ATC staffing levels (Hmmm I doubt it with PPP) or a major amount of flying will no longer take place.
The statistics show that colliding with another aircraft while IMC is far less likely than CFIT. Off the top of my head I can't think of a collision between two aircraft in IMC in the UK (Apart from a few I have read about during the second world war).
It can be a very emotive issue, mainly because the pilot does not (is not) in control of his or her destiny, but there have been many more fatalities as a result of landing accidents/fuel starvation/CFIT/mechanical problems/loss of control/mid airs in VMC/medical problems etc. etc.
That said, common sense would strongly suggest that you don't practice holds in IMC at a VOR in a busy area without a RAS.

NIMBUS

3rd February 2001, 11:43

Hi BEagle,
Yes, I see your point.
Then again, if IMC conditions (in the clouds!) were restricted to IR rated pilots on a flight plan, then in effect it would become 'controlled' airspace.
I just don't like the idea of planes wandering in and out of IMC with no control!

As a matter of interest, how much training is involved in the IMC rating?

PS. I guess I'm just spoiled by the more extensive radar coverage in the US!

[This message has been edited by NIMBUS (edited 03 February 2001).]

IanSeager

3rd February 2001, 14:50

NIMBUS - Restricting it so that only IR rated pilots with on a flight plan could fly IMC would still not give you 'controlled' airspace in the open FIR.
Just to add another element (OK, rare I know), but what about sailplanes on cloud climbs?
The training for the IMC rating is 15 hours with a written exam.
Just out of interest the JAR training for a full IR is...
Hold minimum of PPL with Night rating.
Then...minimum of 200 hours ground school (Interestingly the JAA have defined an hour as being 60 minutes in their documents, wonder how long it took them to do that?)
50 hours flight training (single) or 55 hours flight training (twin).

Ian

[This message has been edited by IanSeager (edited 03 February 2001).]

pondlife

3rd February 2001, 14:58

I'll fly IMC without radar on occasion and done in such a way as to minimise the risk. It's difficult to say that it's more dangerous than joining the circuit in good VMC when everone else is doing the same thing and ATC have lost the plot. It *may* be more dangerous but I'd challenge all of these people who religiously perceive it to be more dangerous to back up their perception with some facts.
On the other hand, the more of you that think it's too dangerous and won't do it, the safer it will be for me when I do.

NIMBUS

3rd February 2001, 17:29

Well,
If I ever have to have surgery, I'd prefer to have a qualified surgeon, rather than one who quit school after learning the basics :)

As I see it, the IMC rating is a mid-way point between VFR and IFR. Maybe if used responsibly, its relativly safe. I don't know about statistics, but it seems that mid-airs can happen any time. The chances of it happening in the middle of a cloud have to be greater.
Pondlife,
If more people are afraid of it, and don't do, that makes it safer. However, if nobody does it, its even safer.
The UK is the only place, I think!, where it exists. Are UK clouds a lot thinner, or are UK pilots better than everybody else?
No. I'll leave it to you.
I value my life too much to take the cheap option.

PS. Ian,
Thanks for the info. Also, I know it would not be 'controlled' in the open FIR, but with limited access it would serve the same purpose!

[This message has been edited by NIMBUS (edited 03 February 2001).]

BEagle

3rd February 2001, 17:45

The IMC Rating also requires a test with an Examiner - it is NOT just a question of training and a written exam. The flight test consists of climb, climbing turns, level off, unusual atttitude recoveries on full panel plus radio navigation. Plus flight on turn and slip (or turn co-ordinator), altimeter, ASI, VSI and magnetic compass alone, including recoveries from unusual attitudes. It also requires a full-panel pilot-interpreted approach or 2, plus a go-around and poor visibility visual circuit. All except the visual circuit must be flown in simulated IF using foggles or screens. The candidate will NOT pass unless the Examiner is fully satisfied with the level of skill demonstrated, basic IF proficiency will be assessed far more critically than a NDB approach, for example.

Your touching faith in the protection afforded by an 'IFR flight plan' would be of no use whatever in the UK, even with an IR, unless you were in Controlled Airspace. But the fools who fly IMC with no radar service are a danger both to themselves and to all other airspace users.

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 03 February 2001).]

IanSeager

3rd February 2001, 22:53

BEagle - thanks for adding the part about the test. I did know but hadn't made it clear in my post.
Although as I said, in an ideal world all IMC flight would be with a radar service it just isn't possible all of the time. I don't agree with the suggestion that it should be banned, there are alraedy too many restrictions on flying in the UK/Europe, and banning things when there are no statistics to illustrate the danger is a dangerous precedent in my opinion.

JuicyLucy

3rd February 2001, 23:01

NIMBUS
You don't seem to be getting the point - it makes no difference in the'open' FIR if you have an IMC or IR - it is NOT controlled airspace. Correct me if I'm wrong but in the USA most airspace above 1200' AGL is effectivley Class E ie IFR flight is only allowed with ATC permmission and control. Thats a great way to work if the ATC services are funded by the taxpayer and not by user charges as ours are.

NIMBUS

4th February 2001, 23:15

JL,
I do get the point! Its' just that we're getting hung up on definitions and semantics, rather than on reality!

Air is air! Makes no difference if its called 'controlled' or 'uncontrolled'

My understanding is that its LEGAL to fly in IMC without a flight plan, and without an instrument rating, in the UK, in 'uncontrolled' airspace. Fine.
I also think its dangerous, and I don't care about statistics.

As far as I know, in the US you cannot go into a cloud, no matter what kind of airspace it's in, without an instrument rating and ATC communication (Flight plan!). Non-IFR rated pilots must maintain VFR minimums everywhere.

Flying from Point 'A' to Point 'B',in IMC, on a filed flight plan, with ATC control (advisories!) is safe, if other aircraft are also part of the system! If part of the flight is through 'uncontrolled' airspace, there is a greater POSSIBILITY in the UK that someone with the minimal training of an IMC rating can also be there, unannounced.
The increased risk is obvious!

15 hours of training is only enough to a 180 and make a instrument approach in MARGINAL VFR conditions. The fact that it can be used to avoid possible routing delays makes it less expensive, more useful, etc. Thats fine if the priority is saving money.

IFR flight is demanding, and by its very nature should be controlled! The pilot is effectively blind!

Freedom is nice, but with it should come responsibility! Part of that responsibility should be getting enough training, and staying current and proficient. If finances don't allow this, then don't do it in the first place!

ATC should be funded by tax money. Its' primary purpose is safety, not profit. The IMC rating appears to me to be a neat way to make pilots think they are getting value for money!

As far as banning something without statistics to back it up, what's the alternative? Wait until you have the statistics? How many dead bodies are needed to qualify as 'statistics'?

BEagle

5th February 2001, 01:25

JL - well, we've tried to explain it to him, but he is either unable to understand English, or chooses not to comprehend.

Are there yet sufficient dead body statistics in the US to consider restricting the sale and ownership of firearms?

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 04 February 2001).]

NIMBUS

5th February 2001, 05:06

Hey BEagle,
When one of your students seems to misunderstand something you explained, do you make the same kind of arrogant and condescending remarks?
This particular ‘Johnny foreigner’ is quite familiar with the English language.

My point, should YOU choose to comprehend it, is that a pilot with only minimal training, in other words, an IMC rating, has no business in a cloud, regardless of what kind of airspace it's in! Nit-pick over the legal definitions of controlled or uncontrolled airspace, and what you may or may not do, all you want to, but the fact remains, it IS dangerous!

To quote from YOUR previous posts…

<<..if you're just going from A to B (remaining outside controlled airspace), even if you think that you'll need to fly in a bit of IMC en-route (at which point you'll be flying IFR), you don't need to file any sort of flight plan in the UK! No flight plan needed just to climb up through a bit of cloud to VMC on top!!..>>
That implies you can go up through a layer, fly through EN-ROUTE CLOUDS, and get down again without an IFR rating. (You were, after all, referring to an IMC rating!)

<<..to anyone brought up under the FAA system, the freedom of flight without a Flight Plan may seem utterly alien, but that's the way it is in the UK..>>
Even you, with your often expressed ‘British-is-Best’ attitude, have to admit that freedom to fly in the US is far greater than in the UK or Europe!

<<..I vehemently disagree with the ridiculous idea of flying in IMC without any radar service, unless in a controlled environment on a procedural clearance. That is positively inviting disaster ANYWHERE in the UK these days..>>
That is the point I was making. Nobody should be allowed into IMC without clearance from ATC, which means a flight plan of some kind. Don’t nit-pick about uncontrolled space, or all the elements of a flight plan, please! If ATC knows your route, you don’t NEED radar service ALL the time. The interior of a cloud should automatically become controlled airspace, anyway.

<<..Flight Information Service is NOT a suitable alternative in IMC, in my view, because in the UK you may not be talking to someone who can see you on the screen. The selection of the appropriate type of service is taught to all PPL students (which makes re-training those who learned to fly at a US flight school important..>>
Again, that was also my point (except for the jab at the "johnny foreigner’s"!)

I fully understand all the points you, and others, made about the airspace!

BEagle

5th February 2001, 11:03

For the last time:
1. In the UK, the IMC Rating and the IR are both 'IFR ratings'.
2. Filing a Flight Plan is NOT required for ANY flight outside CAS in the UK -there is NO SUCH THING as ATC 'clearance' outside CAS.
3. Safe separation in IMC is only available with a radar service. It is the responsibility of the aircraft commander to request either a RIS or RAS at the time with the ATCRU with whom communication is established.
4. Stick-and-rudder skills are comprehensively tested in simulated or actual IF by Examiners in both the IR and IMC Rating Skill Tests.
5. The IMC Rating does not permit flight in Class A airspace, the IR does.
6. Because the procedures are DIFFERENT in the UK to the US, re-training US-trained PPL holders IS essential. Perhaps I should have said 'further training'; this is not meant to imply that US pilots are necessarily inferior.
7. 'Nit-picking about definitions' is not what we've been doing in this thread. It is VITAL to know and understand the REQUIREMENTS for flight in the UK and especially for safe flight in cloud and/or reduced visibility. It is also essential that pilots understand the privileges of their licences and associated ratings.
8. In case you missed it, A FLIGHT PLAN GIVES NO GUARANTEE OF SAFE SEPARATION IN IMC IN THE UK!!! Nor can ANY 'clearance' be given outside controlled airspace.

Have a nice dayee........

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 05 February 2001).]

Aussie Andy

5th February 2001, 13:23

BEagle: Crystal clear mate!

NIMBUS: Pull your head in 'sepo! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

Everyone else: Isn't it just sooooo American to presume that the rest of the world must be either the same as it is in the US, or else somehow inferior!

Andy

For those that don't know, "'sepo" is a contraction of septic... see http://www.controversycorner.com/docs/glossq-t.html for more...

------------------
"Andy sang, Andy watched, Andy waited 'til his billy boiled..." (It was written for me!)

[This message has been edited by Aussie Andy (edited 05 February 2001).]

NIMBUS

5th February 2001, 18:03

OK! Pistols at dawn!
Loser buys the drinks!!!

BEagle,
I know! I'm not disputing the legalities. I'm merely saying that the system contains some serious flaws! It is reduced training to save money!
Knowing and understanding the legal requirements are not as vital as being able to operate the aircraft on instruments as safely as possible!

Aussie Andy,
Yes. You're right! Many Americans do feel that way. Its' lucky they all have accents, or you'd think they were Australians!
By the way, I'm not American, but I've spent considerable time in both Australia and America. I prefer America :)

Yogi-Bear

5th February 2001, 18:19

Now,now,now, boys and girls. No need to go on like this.
I’m getting a little confused now. What is an IMC rating for...if not flying in IMC. A holder is not allowed in class A airspace so there are only the open FIR and the lower categories of CAS left. If a radar service is available, you use it, if not, too bad. Before we get too excited about the insanity of it all, lets remember what the conditions were when the quadrantal system was first devised. Most aircraft were non-radio and radar wasn’t invented. There were probably not a lot fewer aircraft about (and a vast increase during the war) so what scenario were its inventors contemplating?

Improbable though it may seem this version of Russian roulette doesn’t produce a crop of collisions. Like IanSeager, I can’t recall one since Richard Hillary, 1942, Spit/Oxford (?) though there must have been some, whereas I can recall easily, periodical VFR mid-airs.

Perfect safety is an illusion. We can have degrees of safety at different prices. The UK IR was always very expensive. Perverse nonsense about training to a high standard from which you were expected to deteriorate. The advent of JAR has now put its cost onto a stratospheric trajectory. £15K upwards. 6 weeks off work for groundschool and exams. The IMC rating though, costs about £1500 and a few evening classes. No time off work necessary. No contest. Difference in cost 10:1 Diff. in utility 2:1 Diff. in safety ?:1

BTW, please can someone tell me what is so miraculous about the airspace south of 50º N that, instantaneously, all the rules should change? Semi-circular rule applies; VFR allowed on lower airways at L+500’; IMC rating not recognised (although I read that the French recognise its advantages and are starting to train and test for it in the UK!).

I appears to be common ground that the JAR is a disaster for GA. Just as we start to regain independence from our American friends and allies after nearly sixty years of neo-colonial rule ;-), we hand the initiative back by producing gobbledygook like this. Is it another manifestation of the sort of European restrictive practices and bureaucracy that hobble us commercially? The NPPL gets around one part of the problem that JAR has created. To overcome the stratospheric cost of an IR, what about allowing IFR on the lower airways, up to FL115 say, by IMC rating holders after a supplementary test? Where better to start a ‘pilot’ scheme for this than on Alpha 25? Glasgow to Toulouse via points west. Introduced nationally, this one move would reduce at a stroke a lot of the off airway flogging around in IMC, which is actually the most taxing IFR regime on the pilot. It would make for a much more relaxed and safe environment for all. Might increase ATC workload a mite............

Since I have drifted far from TFG’s original quick question, I’ve started another thread. Whaddyathink?

------------------
Yaberdaberdoo
That's OK Boo-Boo

Aussie Andy

5th February 2001, 19:35

Yogi: Great suggestion... start anothe rthread on the idea of IMC access to lower airways. Perhaps we should lobby through AOPA?

Andy

IanSeager

5th February 2001, 20:00

NIMBUS - genuine question...how many hours on average to people take to get the FAA IR?
Ian

mickypitch

5th February 2001, 23:27

Having just read the last few pages of this topic it seems that those who fly/teach in large jets,fly commercially and have the luxury of every concievable nav aid, IFR flight and radar for the whole journey are against the IMC rating, or that it should only be used with the protection of radar.
Those of us that fly in uncontrolled airspace in small 30yr old planes would do a lot less flying if every flight where conditions were a bit cloudy had to file a flight plan!
Are people suggesting that flying through a layer of cloud to get on top and enjoy a fabulous flight in sunshine above clouds should either be made illegal, or legal only if you had radar coverage?
As has been mentioned the quadrangle rule is there to give a degree of seperation in level flight in cloud.
Getting a RAS or RIS is not always practicable for short flights etc..
There is a risk in flying and I do not see any evidence that light aircraft are colliding in cloud.
I certainly do not agree with making it illegal, where would this attitude get us all in the end? Flight only when there is ten kilometers vis, no cross wind at departure/destination, no cloud anywhere, sun shining, no rain, drizzle or threat of it within 24hrs of the flight......... :)

valerian

6th February 2001, 03:08

As a humble PPL with the intention of acquiring an IMC rating soon, I cannot see the problem with filing a flight plan to fly IMC, and I would NEVER comtemplate flying IMC without at least a RIS. So what if I am precluded from Class A airspace. I think the IMC privilages are valuable and well worth retaining, provided they are not abused.

rolling circle

6th February 2001, 03:32

valerian - My heartfelt congratulations, it's nice to know there are PPL holders out there with some common sense.

Yogi-Bear wrote: What is an IMC rating for...if not flying in IMC

The IMC rating was originally devised as a means of giving a better than even chance of survival to those who, through inadequate planning or plain bad luck, found themselves stuck above cloud and needed to get home. It was never envisaged that the IMC rating holder should plan to fly in IMC.

mickeypitch wrote: "Those of us that fly in uncontrolled airspace in small 30yr old planes would do a lot less flying if every flight where conditions were a bit cloudy had to file a flight plan!

Errr, yes - your point being?

"Are people suggesting that flying through a layer of cloud to get on top and enjoy a fabulous flight in sunshine above clouds should either be made illegal, or legal only if you had radar coverage?

Errr, no - that has never been suggested.

"As has been mentioned the quadrangle rule is there to give a degree of seperation in level flight in cloud."

Quadrangle????? Now I begin to understand.

"There is a risk in flying and I do not see any evidence that light aircraft are colliding in cloud."

Because, thankfully, the morons who engage in the mind numbingly stupid practice of flying in cloud without radar cover are in a sufficiently small minority.

[This message has been edited by rolling circle (edited 05 February 2001).]

[This message has been edited by rolling circle (edited 05 February 2001).]

QNH 1013

6th February 2001, 04:23

Rolling Circle, you wrote that "It was never envisaged that the IMC holder should plan to fly in IMC".
As far as I can establish, the IMC rating certainly was introduced for flight in IMC. I am trying to determine why so many think otherwise.
The earliest reference I can find to a suggestion that the IMC rating is not for flight in IMC is in the CAA safety sense leaflet No 23 of 1998 which states that flying in Instrument Conditions without an Instrument Rating is "extremely unwise to say the least". (In the context in which this is written it is refering to flight in IMC with an IMC rating but not an IR.) I also understand that this was one man's opinion at the CAA, and not necessarily a generally held view there. If anyone can quote me an official reference from the time of the introduction of the IMC rating suggesting that it was not designed for flight in IMC I should be grateful. I know of no such description.
Before I got an IR, I often planned and safely made flights in IMC as the holder of an IMC rating, however, safe IMC flight is all about planning, the weather, and what you are going to do if the weather is not as forecast. It is also about remaining current.
I'm far closer to the views of WWW than most others in this thread, but it all depends on planning, and sensibly assessing the risks.
In poor weather, more people hit the ground than hit other aircraft.
If some people won't fly in IMC without a radar service, then thats fine by me. In some circumstances I will, in others I won't. Similarly, I know people who won't fly S/E aircraft at night under any circumstances. I'm quite happy to respect their decision, but I don't expect them to criticise my S/E night flights without reasoned arguments.

TooHotToFly

6th February 2001, 06:11

Consider these situations:

Cloud from 2000 ft to 5000 ft. Very few light aircraft flying due to the weather. You're flying outside CAS at 4500 ft following the quadrantal rule (even without a RAS).

CAVOK Sunday afternoon. You and the other 10 aircraft from your local school are practicing stalls and steep turns in the local training area which also happens to be one of the most common transit areas for pilots flying cross country.

I'm pretty sure that it has been statiscally proven that the latter results in more accidents.

NIMBUS

6th February 2001, 11:12

Ian,
Average time for the IFR is around 55-60 hours, I think.
I know a few people who did it in less than 40. Depends on where and how they did the course.

Monkeypitch,
I don't (can't!) fly or teach in jets. My only commercial flights are as a passenger, and most of the aircraft I fly are 30yrs old or more. I just think that 15 hours of training in enough to instil a false confidence.

I have to admit that I've never flown in the UK or Europe, other than some VFR. However, from what I can see, the FAA system is certainly better, not because its "American" but because it just makes more sense.
Can someone explain the benefits of those strange QFE/QNE/QNH altimeter settings?, or why transition level should vary? Over complicates what should be a pretty straightforward activity! There is nothing special about the weather to justify it. East Coast USA weather, especially in Winter, is just as bad.

General Aviation in Europe is just not as accessible, because some see it as only for the elite, and commoners should not be allowed in!
15K+ for an IR is robbery. Four times the price I paid for what seems to be a lot more training than a UK/Europe ticket.

The IMC rating has advantages, but I defy anyone to say that using it as more than a 'get-out-of-trouble' tool is safe!

Wee Weasley Welshman

6th February 2001, 13:41

Interesting debate. I can see all the points of view quite clearly.

I think we should disregard the issue of whether or not the IMC rating is valuable/useful/safe. Its been around for a very long time, there have been very few incidents of IMC holders cocking up in any spectacular way and I bet my bottom dollar its save a few CFIT´s.

Back to the meat of the matter - IMC flight without radar or procedural seperation.

If it really is the "mind numbingly stupid pracrice of Morons" (to paraphrase slightly) then why don´t the CAA ban the practice? I mean it. Why don´t they? Then there would be no pressure on pilots to do so.

Few people seem willing to address my earlier substantial point. That of commensurate risk.

And please. Lets not start pulling each others hair and treat each other like fellow professionals. Nobody here is in the habit of donning stetsons and spurs I am sure.

Cheers,

WWW

rolling circle

6th February 2001, 14:09

QNH 1013 - You haven't read my previous post thoroughly. Of course the IMC rating was introduced to allow flight in IMC, but only in cases when VFR flight went wrong and it unexpectedly became necessary to fly through cloud to get home. It was never intended that the holder of the IMC rating should plan to fly in IMC.

It has, not surprisingly, become clear since the introduction of the rating that its benefits only marginally (if at all) outweigh its drawbacks and that it is routinely being abused. The AAIB has recommended withdrawal on a number of occasions having identified abuse of the rating as a contributing factor in fatal accidents.

mickypitch

6th February 2001, 14:31

Rolling circle,or going round in circles,
From my experience those with an IMC mainly use it to get above a thin cloud layer to fly on top, I do not know anyone who uses it to fly up and down the country in IMC without radar cover, or plan to do so.
I think the difference here is that holders of an IMC who fly LOCALLY will use it for getting above the cloud.
I think you have the impression that holders are flying 100 miles at a time in thick cloud. I do not think this is the case at all.
Those of us who have an IMC rating: I wonder how many who are stating they use radar all the time actually DO for short stints in cloud! Not much honesty going on here me thinks!
It is easier to go with the crowd than state what is actually happening and be slated for doing so........ :)
Happy flying

Thrush

6th February 2001, 18:53

ICING !!!

In Northern Europe this is the problem. It's all very well flying IFR in IMC but in a single you have no de-icing kit.

And I think the Cessna 310 is one of the few multi's that is cleared for moderate icing, so most are only light icing.

With icing levels on the deck or thereabouts for much of the winter, the best place for non IR heavy metal pilots is in the bar beside a log fire with a large Grouse.

flyingbird

6th February 2001, 20:13

Isn't that the best place to be anyway? For all the winter months?(Laphroaig rather than Grouse in my case!)
None of us wants a mid-air dent in the cowling. But some people (including me) are happy to use their IMC rating as a backup so they can fly in VMC at this time of year, especially. If you don't want to, then don't.

If, in the worst case scenario, 2 aircraft flying in IMC in class G airspace (obeying the quadrantal rule) collide, then presumably both of them knew the risks they were taking. They reduce the risks by talking to the local radar service provider (who may not be able to provide RIS because of geography, but FIS is better than being silent) or London Info, but at the end of the day it is up to each individual pilot to make his/her own choices as to what is safe.

Some people don't even think it's safe enough to fly in any GA aircraft in CAVOK, even though it's perfectly legal and most people disagree.
I think the rules are clear. Whether you think it's safe or not depends on you.

[This message has been edited by flyingbird (edited 06 February 2001).]

Wee Weasley Welshman

7th February 2001, 01:38

Rolling Circle, you said:

"The AAIB has recommended withdrawal on a number of occasions having identified abuse of the rating as a contributing factor in fatal accidents."

Really?

Realy?

When and in what reports? Its not that I don't believe you but just back in November I was at the AAIB to discuss Flight Safety with the UK Flight Safety Council. Whilst in discussions about recent incidents we touched upon IMC holders and accidents. At no time was the topic of withdrawl of the scheme raised.

Cheers,

WWW

ps the substantive point of commensurate risk has still not been addressed by anyone.

'I' in the sky

7th February 2001, 04:14

RC you say it was never intended that IMC rating holders PLAN to fly in IMC. My personal advice to all my IMC students and holders is that the only flight that should be undertaken in IMC is that which has been thoroughly planned.
As for getting out of trouble, if you hadn't planned to fly IMC then trying to locate your flight bag, extract the appropriate plates, work out a diversion on the hoof because your PLANNED destination doesn't have an approach etc etc etc is not conducive to maintaining controlled flight which is the only part of the IMC training which we are now apparently supposed to use.
So why not PLAN the flight, PLAN to make an approach at the other end, and then if the weather does turn to **** there are no surprises to catch you out.
I don't think this is an abuse of the rating.

As for the radar service, it was always part of the BCPL/CPL flight test that on the IMC leg you HAD to upgrade your RIS/FIS to a RAS.Are there different rules before Public Transport flights can be deemed to be complying with IFR ? - well apart from it just not being allowed single engine anyway.

Is full radar cover available on trans oceanic flights ? I'm sure it hasn't always been. Still not recommending you go IMC without a radar service but just a thought.

BEagle

7th February 2001, 11:21

The view at my Training Organisation is that the IMC Rating should NOT be used for the purpose of planned cruising in IMC. However, the Rating is quite adequate for making a climb through cloud under a radar service in order to reach VMC. Similarly, it allows the IMC Rating holder to descend through cloud under a radar service to 'VMC below' or to fly an approach under IFR at destination. To plan an entire flight to operate in IMC is, as RC states, not really what the IMC Rating was intended for.

No, radar service is not available across the entire Atlantic. After leaving UK radar cover, you are on a Procedural Service on an internationally agreed route until you reach radar cover on the other side. Note that it's only 'agreed'; some years ago I was on a pond crossing when we were given the 'heads-up' on Guard from an American voice as 2 Bear Hs crossed our route at right angles on the way to Cuba, no doubt!

There is absolutely no 'requirement' to 'upgrade' to RAS on encountering IMC if you have previously been receiving RIS. However, I am still of the opinion that it is essential to have some type of radar service in IMC; whether RIS, RAS or Radar Control depends upon the circumstances at the time. But pilots should only request the level of service they actually NEED.

GulfStreamV

7th February 2001, 13:46

I think one, has to be aware of their own limitations and currency on the IMC issue. However, Beagler - do you not find it bemusing that your training organisation uses it as a tool to get to VMC when as part of the IMC test, you are asked to plan a whole flight within IMC? - My one for example was from Fairoaks to Cardiff!

GV

rolling circle

7th February 2001, 14:54

WWW - Yes really. The last time, as I recall, was after a fatal accident at or near Booker some years ago. I can't remember the exact date and so cannot quote details. However, one recommendation was that the IMC rating either be withdrawn or subject to a significant increase in training and testing. The SACPL considered it at the time and went some way towards making the requirements for the IMC rating more stringent. However, in the end, AOPA managed to strangle the whole thing - as usual, cheap flying was seen as more important than flight safety.

Yogi-Bear

7th February 2001, 19:53

Personally, I don’t go for the idea that an IMC rating is only for getting you out of the ****. It was probably one of the thoughts when the rating was introduced, but why do we have to be stuck with just that. By definition it is unplanned and leads demonstrably to CFITs. I’ve had to do it but it frightens me. Whereas I have no problem carefully planning an entire route and then going and flying it as planned. No hasty ad hoc decisions which overlook the fine detail on the chart. But the flying club’s hired Warrior won’t quite do.

Off the top of my head I can think of four CFITs in recent years resulting from unplanned IMC. There are plenty more.
1. Tobago Blackpool to Mull scud-running hit lump on Jura at 1800’
2. Mooney inbound to Sleap scud-running, hit The Wrekin circa 1350’
3. Banderante Southend to Glasgow on off-airway VFR flight hit hill below 2000’ near Ravenglass.
4. Arrow in IMC hit Snaefell. Pressure very low and failed to realise that FL?? was below 3200’ hilltop. This flight might conceivably have been planned in which case pilot was well below sector safety altitude.

At least two of those pilots would have been better off without their IMC ratings. Then they might not have been tempted to fly through a dropper that turned out to be solid….

I’d still like to hear an instance of an IMC mid-air at any time with or without a radar service.

I’m no statistician but the relative risks are obviously not commensurate!

About radar cover. There will always be gaps unless we can fly higher and even then. Two examples spring to mind. Flying from Scotland to England down the west coast, Scottish Info lose interest in you by 54N. Warton can’t help until you reach Morecambe Bay. Pennine can’t help because you are too far west for them. So over the Lakes you’re on your own. A similar gap exists in mid-Wales between Cardiff and Shawbury. Chivenor closing has probably created another gap between St. Mawgan and Cardiff.
Y-B

Code Blue

8th February 2001, 00:31

WWW:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">ps the substantive point of commensurate risk has still not been addressed by anyone</font>

As a matter of debate/logic, I'll try this point: I would suggest that this point is being addressed. However it is being done in an individual and anecdotal fashion, not with any sort of scientific rigour.

For risks to be described as commensurate requires, by definition, some measurement to allow direct comparison. No-one has been able to produce statistically valid data to support their viewpoint (of course that data may not exist http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif ). The only activities mentioned here for which data are available is a comparison of the risks of day vs night flying: the risks are greater at night on the numbers published.

I would suggest that for each of the other issues of risk raised here, no-one has produced anything other than a personal opinion with anecdotal examples for support. Each has done with this issue what every pilot does on every flight. They make decisions based on incomplete or imperfect information. They look at their situation and decide go/no-go. That decision is based on experience, information, or lack of it and Factor X. What is being discussed here indirectly is Factor X - does it feel right; how important is this flight; what's my way out - that sort of thing.

At the end of this thread each of you will have aired your opinions and discussed specifics based on qualitative not quantitative data. The matter of commensurate risk will still be as nebulous as when you started, possibly because some of the quantitative measurements needed to assess commensurate cannot be made.

------------------
-.-- --.- -..-

TooHotToFly

8th February 2001, 01:23

Statiscally, there are fewer accidents per flying hour at night than there are during the day. Probably because people take more care at night.

[This message has been edited by TooHotToFly (edited 07 February 2001).]

Wee Weasley Welshman

8th February 2001, 01:38

Code Blue, a fair point well made.

I guess what would be more accurate to say is percieved commensurate risk. We will have to stay subjective as there are no relevant stats to draw on.

However. The anecdotal evidence by Yogi-Bear is compelling. I would add to it the C172 "LJ" crash in the Berwyns in Feb 1999 killing three.

I have experienced radar service (mil) being terminated because its 5pm on a Friday - its uncontrolled IMC flight time again! How would we legislate for that?

Rolling Circle, OK I believe you but the AAIB are certainly not pushing for changes to IMC rating or uncontrolled/ATCseperated IMC flight at the present time.

Good debate chaps, do keep it up.

WWW

Code Blue

8th February 2001, 02:24

TooHotToFly:

Precision with data is crucial. I too was imprecise with my statement about night vs day flying.

The NTSB database shows IFR night flying to have a greater number of accidents than day IFR. The denominator, ie hours flown, is a matter of choice because of the way flying hours are documented. Thus a prevalence for accidents in these 2 categories is difficult to arrive at and thus a direct yes/no comparison isn't possible. Interestingly the Cessna 210 has such a high accident rate at night that it equals that of all other singles in the US.

Whether or not the UK AAIB figures are similar or completely different I do not know, but a comparison would be interesting. The data may be 'out there' but the analysts are often not pilots and are looking at the figures with a completely different mindset.

------------------
-.-- --.- -..-