To the person who asked who I got to explain the meaning of the excerpt from the AIP and who said that the word "but" was important - the answer is a person with an english language degree and absolutely no flying experience and hence no pre-conceptions.
Feel free to forward the paragraph to the plain english society and ask them.
--------
Justicar,
You said;
Speaking with a lawyer's hat (or should it be wig?) on, I don't believe this is laying down mandatory minima. The entire paragraph reads as an advisory statement. The use of "but" links the second part of the sentence to the first by qualifying the general statement that IMC holders are recommended to add 200 feet etc, but they should always work to a recomended minimum of 500 for a precision approach etc.
Should that not have said;
Speaking with a lawyer's hat (or should it be wig?) on, I don't believe this is laying down mandatory minima. The entire paragraph reads as an advisory statement. The use of "but" links the second part of the sentence to the first by qualifying the general statement that IMC holders are recommended to add 200 feet etc, but they should always work to
an absolute minimum of 500 for a precision approach etc.
The fact that you had to change the wording in order to make the paragraph read like it is all a recomendation only goes to support the point of view that the 500ft DH and 600ft MDH are absolute minima and since they are minima and notified in the AIP, they are covered by Article 49.
but is not a qualifier, it is a conjunction!
------
What everyone seems to miss in the argument is that it is often the case that an MDH of 600ft is less than 200ft above the IR MDH. The minima for the IR pilot permit an approach in IMC to be continued to MDH. The IMC holder can use 600ft as long as it is not less than the IR minima.
--------
Whatever anyone agrues what has to be agreed is that;
1. The IMC rating holder is not trained according to the sylabus to fly a precision approach below 500ft. DH or a non-precision approach below 600ft MDH.
2. The majority of holders of the IMC rating are in the situation where the AIP recomends that they do not attempt to make an approach and of the remainder a high proportion of those would have to make additions to the IMC minima to allow for not being totally current with the type of approach procedure.
That makes the idea of an IMC rating holder who flies the average number of PPL hours per year doing an ILS in IMC down to 200ft and expecting to be in a position to safely land as remote.
If one wants to operate as if one holds an IR regardless of airspace then there is only one answer - get an IR.
--------
There is no such thing as a home made Instrument Approach! There are quite a few cloud break procedures and those of us that use them have CAA permission to do so. Anyone else is illegal for a number of reasons but the most important one from my point of view is that you could hit us!
The only people who should be in IMC below MSA are;
1. Pilots on special VFR flights (in a zone of course!)
2. Pilots making an approved public or private descent.
Everyone else is endangering their aircraft.
IO540 is correct to say that there is nothing wrong with descending to MSA and being visual there, (Note that I said
visual and not VFR) continue descent visually. Of course the MSA is usually 1000ft above the highest obstacle within 10nm of the indicated position of the aircraft.
------
I note that everyone is very reluctant to name these CAA officials and FAA officials who say certain things. However, if one wants confirmation that 500ftDH and 600ft MDH are the absolute minima for an IMC holder - mandatory and that is what we teach and test please ask the chief examminer at the CAA and post their reply here for us all to see.
-----
What about the pilots who get the IMC on a single and then use it on a twin. Now there is an accident waiting to happen!
Regards,
DFC