I fail to see how being a PPL has anything to do with it?
You are quite correct and I might add that there is a large number of PPLs out there that I would have far more faith in should they be in a difficult situation than some CPL or even "ATPL" holders that I have come across.
Perhaps I should have said Private Operators......because Commercial Operators would be bound by their Ops manual and thus (hopefully) would have clearly defined limits.
"even if it will make your flight illegal?"
Now that really does take the biscuit. I dont mind people being rude or simply not knowing what they are talking about - all part of the fun on these forums but I do worry about the suggestion of doing something illegal. Please enlighten all of us?
The ANO requires a pilot not to depart unless the flight can be completed as planned......if you plan a VFR flight then you can not legally depart unless you are (as much as possible) sure that the flight can be completed VFR.
To do otherwise would be akin to departing in a twin where you had good reason to suspect that one engine would fail during the flight but departed anyway and when the engine failed 10 minutes after departure took that beast to an airfield and hailed how good a pilot you were at flying a twin on one engine!
One suspects the reason why an increase in the instrument time for a PPL was introduced in the syllabus was because the CAA felt a pilot would be better able to cope with certain conditions. A different skill - yes, a more skilled pilot -definitely yes, therefore a more skilled pilot, ???????
No the instrument requirement to be able to complete a 180 degree turn in IMC is simply to try and reduce the casualty rate. Even the Cessna manuals had instructions on how to do a 180 and get back to safety! They are no different a PPL than a PPL trained in an ICAO region where the instrument requirement is less.........unless you think that they think that they can better fly in cloud should the situation occur.....where everyone would say that actually they are worse cause they are overconfident and too willing to operate in conditions that could cause unexpected risks and dangers.
I am a great believer in actually reading the research that was done. Unless I have missed something the researchers did NOT take a bunch of SEP CURRENT IR pilots
Ok most of them were ME/IR pilots but all were what they in an aftermath questionaire regarded as "current" i.e. they were legal and stated that they would depart tomorrow on an IFR flight in IMC from start to end. However, the important element is that they were given a simple VFR flight to complete and unexpectedly had to go IFR. We did the thing as a bit of fun and a "let's see what happens" but the results were dreadfull.
Perhaps IO540 was one of the people who crashed and burned and that is why he makes personal attacks when things come a little close to home?
As I said previously I have learned a great deal from this forum. As a new pilot it gave me much encouragement to do things like take on an enjoy instrument flying. Yep, I would be the first to accept the risks of instrument flying are greater than flying in good VMC but then so is flying a greater risk than driving your car. Flying is risk management at its best...................However because of what I have gained from this forum I cannot accept postings that give such an unbalanced point of view
Since this forum is about 20 years old out of 100 years of flight that we have to learn from and I have been "zooming round" for more than half of aviation's history and have yet to kill myself, we have obviously vastly different experiences and I would be at pains to point out that everyone has free choice to do what they want to do and say what they want to say. However there are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are very few old bold pilots.
Again I say that if one of the most respected operators in Class G airspace with all their skill and resources (the RAF) treat going from visual contact to IFR unplanned as such a fuss then should the little operators not take a little guidance from the professionals who share their airspace and weather?
As for a "balanced argument"......an opinion you disagree with only unbalances the argument when you can not counter such an argument.
-------
Perhaps the answer is to make an IR mandatory for a UK PPL??
Nice idea but the political situation prevents it. Look at the political reasons why we have an IMC rating. How else can the CAA give some form of instrument privileges to pilots while at the same time ensure that such pilots do not take up any of the valuable slots that are available in the ATC airway system.....................Imagine the situation if like say France, most of the airspace below FL115 was class E or even D and every IMC rated pilot called London Control for an IFR clearance from say Leeds to Bournemouth via the airways insted of the current situation wher such pilots fly outside the ATS system and make no dent on ATC perfoemance targets.
Outside the UK, nothing short of a full IR is any good for serious flying, unless one is where the weather is nice, or in say the USA where one can fly VFR up to 17999ft
One can simply cross the UK FIR boundary and fly VFR within controlled airspace up to FL199. No big deal there so why corss the Atlantic? More importantly, the UK is the only country in the world to have such a rating......now if it is such a good idea then how come in 20+years not a single country has agreed with the UK - even those who share it's climate? The UK may have the singular view that an IMC rating is good but does that make it wrong when the rest of the world says no?
So we have for example the CAA "safety" leaflet #25 which contains mostly complete bull.
Have you told the CAA what you think of it's safety initiative? If not then you should.
There is a thred on here about a pilot who may have infringed Southampton airspace because they did not understand the problems with tracking a VOR and not using visual cross-reference on a VFR flight...........imagine that pilot going IMC.....if they can't navigate VFR then how the heck are they going to save themselves IFR. Imagine the situation if they can't get an ATC service!
Perhaps IO540 is an extremely good aviator. I would not class myself in that category. I would prefer to say that I was a survivor, have learned from experience and that regardless of how many decades I have been round, I will still (hopefully) learn some more before I obtain feathers.
--------
Nothing here will make your flight illegal
Hows about;
Not ensuring that the flight can be completed as planned;
Not having appropriate charts for the intended flight; and when it's al over
Failing to report a circumstance when the regulations were breached for the purpose of saving life.
I don't know how much flying people on here have done or where they are based but if one flyies south of say Birmingham and East of Bristol from what I have seen, one is never more than 5nm from an airfield where most GA types can land. Add to that the number of Grass foelds that are often better than some of the smaller strips then there is no reason why a precautionary landing can not be made safely.
Forget the arguments about damaging the aircraft flying it out. If there is any doubt about getting it out safely then take it home on a trailer..............oh but the expense - I can hear the cries.......money before safety?
Regards,
DFC
I think that I should put an explanation here to a comment I made in my last post that is very relevant;
Not ensuring that the flight can be completed as planned
The ANO Article 43;
The commander of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall reasonably
satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:
(a) that the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information
available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and
forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in
case the flight cannot be completed as planned;
I and most of the people I know interpret that as meaning if you are planning a VFR flight then the weather must be suitable for a VFR flight and one can not depart on such a flight unless that is the case. Yes one can plan for an IFR diversion should conditions not be as expected but overall, the flight only departs when the pilot reasonably expects to fly VFR to destination.
If the flight is IFR from start to finish then the same rule applies and the weather must be suitable. IR rated pilots will know how the ruless affect departure if the destination weather is below minima.
If the flight is planned as say VFR from departure to a certain point and then IFR and perhaps then VFR again closer to destination then the pre-flight planning must support this course of action and the decision to depart must be based on the pilot being in the belief that the flight can be completed as planned.
From the start I have said there is nothing worng with going planned IMC/IFR. It is the unexpected and/or unplanned IMC/IFR that can cause serious dangers regardless of qualifications or abilities.
Hope that clarifies my position!
Regards,
DFC