IO540,
Leave "in curent practice" in and define it. How would one define it? Having made that type of approach in IMC/under the hood/FNPT2 in the last 28 days as a starter?.....if not then add another 300ft and 1000m to the minima?
-------
Originally Posted by englishal
You are all very good at quoting rules and regulations
Why not? The usual rules apply, if the needle is out by the specified amount of deflection (personal limit / ½ / full scale), you execute a missed approach. I'm sure there are IMCR holders out there capable of flying an ILS down to 20', and IR holders who are not even capable of getting to minimums (because they are out of practice, or can't afford to remain current
).
look at the situation like this;
1. The rules say no lower than 500ft DH for an IMC rating holder.
As a result of this, the training sylabus requires that pilots are trained to fly a precision approach to a minimum DH of 500ft; and
The Skill Test to obtain the rating involves being tested on the ability to fly a precision approach to a minimum DH of 500ft.
If you go over the 15 hours in training because you are having problems with flying the ILS below 500ft then you could be in a position to claim your money back because that is not a required part of the sylabus. ( Think of it like taking 100 hours to get your basic PPL because it took 40 hours dual for you to master instrument approaches! - you would ask for a lot of money back since they are not a required part of the sylabus.)
If you fail your Test because you were unable to fly the ILS below 500ft then you can complain about the conduct of the test.
and finally but probably more important to this discussion;
If you have an accident while flying below 500ft in IMC on a precision approach with an IMC rating - you can not claim that you were not properly trained because it is not in the sylabus, you can not claim that the CAA should have chekced your ability because it is not required. That leaves you with no one for you, or the insurance company to blame but yourself.
However, if the permitted minima were less than 500ft, you could claim that you did not receive the required training - but they are not and you can not............or atleast you can but you will win the lotto before you win that one against anyone who can put a good argument to the Judge about training, demonstrated ability, safety, attitude and rules! Perhaps you should look up the original proposal documents and the initial idea that was the birth of the IMC rating - ask AOPA for more info!
---------
Fuji,
I am not prepared to quote the name of the person giving the interpretation or to reproduce their letter here because I have not asked their permission to do so.
Go on. Ask them. I can guarantee that they will give their permission.
The reason why I ask is that training providers would be very interested in this
new development and would be taking time to consider the implications in terms of training standards, sylabus and potential advertisement
, not to mention revision of course notes and from the Examiner's position, revision of the written exam and skill test standards.
---------
3FallinFlyer,
I will have to check again but my understanding is that you must hold an IR to fly an N reg aircraft IFR. The FARs say so. To my understanding that means an FAA IR or an IR issued by the country where the aircraft is operating.
Regards,
DFC