Flying For Fun,
Nice try and I am sure that many IMC holders would like it to mean that.
The interpretation of the statement in the AIP does not revolve around how you read the paragraph with regard to the words
recomended or
absolute. The important word I am told is in fact
but.
Check your dictionary for a definition of the word but.........conjunction - however, on the other hand.
Thus in simple terms the IMC rating holder is recomended to add 200ft to all minima however (on the other hand) the absolute minima is 500 precision and 600ft non-precision.
For your interpretation of the paragraph to work, the word
but would have to be removed and replanced with
and
Here is your interpreataion;
Pilots with a valid Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the minimum
applicable DH/MDH,
and with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non-precision approach.
However, the actual words are;
Pilots with a valid Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the minimum
applicable DH/MDH,
but with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non-precision approach.
I do agree that the paragraph can be confusing but the training material, teaching of the rating, the exam and the CAA all follow the common line that 500 precision or 600 nonprecision are absolute minima.
Personally, I find that this is not simply a wording problem- an ILS wih no obstacles and IR hoder's DH of 200ft will see the IMCR pilot use a DH of 500ft minimum. An extra safety margin of 300ft.
Now add in some serious obstacles and terrain and make the IR holders DH 600ft. The IMCR holder can now use 800ft DH. A much reduced safety margin despite the fact that the environment is less forgiving!
It would be far simpler for pilots to understand, for pilots to calculate and also far safer if the IMCR holder was simply required to add 300ft to the IR rating holders minima regardless of approach.
Regards,
DFC