Lowering cloud base rising terrain

[Fuji Abound]

For some reasons I have been thinking about these posts regarding transitioning form VMC to IMC.

As both instrument rated pilots and non instrument rated pilots read these threads I think it is important to try and give a balanced view.

In my opinion if you intend to fly regularly over distance in the UK and Europe an instrument rating is a really good thing to have.

With the rating and GOOD CURRENCY flying in IMC is what we do and we do it very safely. Not only do we do it but we do it often because that is the sort of weather we have most of the time.

Now let me put that in context. Setting off into a 500 foot overcast and doing a long sector in IMC with an instrument approach, concerns about the freezing level, turbulence and all without an auto pilot is hard - very hard. These are some of the most challenging flying conditions you will encounter and not surprisingly the risks are high unless the aircraft is properly equipped and the pilot REALLY CURRENT.

At the other extreme in my opinion transitioning through a high overcast to VMC with a 1000 or two of IMC and with a solid TAF at the destination (planned or unplanned) when, as is so typical visibility below the overcast is poor in haze, should be bread and butter to an instrument rated pilot - we do it all the time. The reason we do it is because we can conduct the flight far more safely and indeed enjoyably "on top".

Of course there are all sorts of permutations in between and all sorts of potential risks. Yes the METAR might end up being far worse at your destination than the TAF suggested and you might need to do an instrument approach to minimum, yes the AI might unexpectedly pack up on you etc., AND that means you need the training, currency and experience to assess the situation.

HOWEVER you should not be put off getting and using an instrument rating - it will add to your safety greatly. Yep we have all read about the study of the bunch of non instrument rated pilots who were taken into simulated IMC - the outcome was not surprisingly poor! In my opinion if you took a similar bunch of SEP CURRENT instrument rated pilots and gave them a totally unexpected transition from VMC to IMC the whole thing would be a non event. I accept that some of these might struggle if they then had to continue in IMC ending up with an instrument approach in IMC at a destination for which they did not have the plates - but I bet these would be the first to admit they weren’t really current.

I gave one recent example - it is what actually happens in the real world. On departure westbound the base was around 1,800 - not too bad. Viz beneath was not great - so typical in this country. En route TAFS suggested the base would come down to 1,000 but a local report from the destination strip suggested the weather was clearing nicely from the West with a broken overcast. The flight started VMC beneath along the coast because by remaining visual there was no need to rely on finding a "hole" at the strip (non published approach). The intention was to fly the whole route VMC. In fact the base came down to around 500 feet en route. A climb in IMC was initiated with a RIS. I was far happier above the MSA in IMC than fiddling around trying to spot masts at 500 feet. There was no risk of freezing, no CBs forecast and I knew (because I asked) the tops were at 4,500. When I got to the strip a let down through some very large "holes" still with a RIS served the job. If the holes had not been there I knew of an airport close by with an ILS and even if I had not had the plate I knew vectors would have been given. If that had not been an alternative I knew I had sufficient fuel to get back to base and was very familiar with the approaches there. Forgive me for setting that experience out again but it IS typical, we do it all the time, and we do it safely. I did not plan the flight IFR but by making the transition to IFR the flight was able to continue safely rather than perhaps returning straight to base. It means we can fly more safely and IMHO it should not be suggested otherwise because you WILL be a better pilot if you go out and get an instrument rating and use it.

Final thought I know many have no interest in flying in less than ideal conditions and / or do not have an instrument platform available. That is fine - long may they continue. I simply believe it is wrong to be put off getting an instrument rating by opinions expressed that do not reflect there real world application or the real world risk involved.

TONYHALLS - yep, sorry it has gone off thread but posts here typically do that and the debate is often as interesting in consequence.

I think most of us would agree that without an instrument rating transitioning into IMC is a killer - dont do it. That means any other alterantive is better. If you can back track do so, if you can continue low level at minimium safe speed - do so. If you cant do any of those things you are better off making a precutionary landing. IMHO pilots should practice flying low level when possible - we dont do much of it.