Dear Straight10,
Thanks for your questions, I'm happy to think about it right now, and try to answer in my froggy english (pfiou good english training for me today !).
Your vision "from abroad" on our system may help us improve it, so I appreciate your opinion. And we all know it needs improvement, and as some other I work actively on that goal since years.
What could be added on the IMC rating syllabus to make it a IR acceptable one ?
It is not something that should be added, it is the whole spirit of the thing that does not cope with the requirements.
1) Flying IMC intentionaly should require an IR, which means a full IR training and understanding (only the ground school part should be improved : a lot of questions are completely useless).
So the whole IR syllabus should be the one you are taught before flying IMC intentionnaly.
If you think an IMC rating is enough to handle IMC, so that means you think that the IR is completely useless.
Having flown and taught quite a lot of IFR now, I do not think so !
2) Being able to handle an unintentional IMC situation should be taught to all pilots.
And your IMC rating syllabus could be added for the basic PPL VFR. This would not allow any VFR to enter IMC conditions intentionaly, but help them recover "in case of".
In fact, the main problem is the pilot's attitude.
You know that in the PPL cursus, there is a 180° in simulated IMC conditions. That's not enough, but that's a good start.
Why not more IMC training ?
Mainly because they thought that if they trained pilots to handle IMC, that would incitate them to enter IMC. So, they applied the rule : "I do not teach you what I do not want you to do".
That's completely stupid, but that's it.
In my opinion, VFR pilots should be taught more IMC stuff, but be aware that they mustn't enter IMC intentionnaly, and that these skills are only for non-intentional situations.
And if they do enter intentionaly without any care of the regulation => big punishment, license removed for a while, etc.
But NO punishment for those who have an unintentional bad situation that makes us enter IMC (except if they do it quite often, then => mandatory training, because a pilot should being able to make a decision according to the weather briefing + weather situation in flight)
This is what we already apply most of the time. On my airport, we have bad conditions most of the time. I never wrote a report against a pilot that entered IMC unintentionaly and required my assistance.
But I did for those who took off despite I advised them of very bad conditions on departure, and had to fly back IMC because of these conditions, or for those who obviously entered IMC "nearly intentionaly", just thinking they are "good enough" to handle that and "it's not a big deal".
And if any pilot cheats me by telling he's VMC when he's IMC, I'll do my best to have his license removed. So with those pilots that switch "stand by" when they violate a controlled airpace, or those IFR who declare a false "short petrol" just to get a direct clearance through other IFR and number 1 on approach.
My report will be rude enough to make them have big troubles.
No one is perfect, we all can be trapped by the situation.
But the main difference is our attitude, and this attitude makes a good/bad pilot.
Now, considering the on-top VFR.
You cannot say "We can keep our IMC rating, because you keep something which is at least as dangerous".
This is not an argument :-)
Each of these have to be discussed individually, there is no link between them.
First, let's make a difference between the US VFR-on-top and the French one.
In the US, VFR-on-top is an IFR clearance, that is given to an IFR airplane, whereas in France it is not a clearance, and it applies to a VFR flight.
In the US, flying VFR on-top is called "VFR over the top".
There is a regulation considering On-Top VFR :
- Day only
- You need a VHF two-way on board
- You need a VOR or an approved class A GPS on board
- You must fly above the S surface (3000 AMSL / 1000 ASFC)
- You must respect cloud clearance requirements (1000ft / 1500m etc)
- You must be able to climb and descend, maintaining VMC
- You must have done a minutious weather preflight briefing, which confirms the condition on arrival can allow your VMC descent to your airfield
- You must have prepared all alternatives possible for the flight
- You must update along the route your weather information to make sure the flight can be completed as planned
Which means this requires a lot of preparation for the flight, and a very attentive and consciencious pilot.
You cannot just climb above the layer during a flight and lose visual contact with the ground.
But sometimes some pilots with a bad attitude do so.
And once they get trapped by weather, if the forecast was obviously not adapted to an on-top flight that day, they get in trouble with the authorities.
I personaly know a pilot that acted a bit stupidely. He could land VMC without entering IMC, but needed assistance because he had not planned his flight correctly.
He had a 2-months suspension and had to fly some hours with an instructor.
But I do agree with you that the on-top VFR could be discussed, and that's interesting that you raise that point.
I'm also interested in your opinion about the Brevet de Base that seems not to be appreciated in UK (please feel free to write an email to me about that), that could raise ideas for our next brainstormings, and maybe we could make proposals to improve it.
VFR in airways
I'm not sure to understand : are VFR forbidden in airways in UK, or on-top VFR only ?
Whatever, only the airspace class is taken into account here.
First, a VFR cannot fly IMC, so he has to apply distance from clouds and visibility requirements at any time to maintain VMC.
Most VFR pilots forget that those requirements were set to allow distance+time for collision avoidance.
Which means that flying out of clouds just below a cloud layer (above 3000ft) is considered as IMC.
Just remember that if you do so during a PPL checkride, you fail.
That's a very dangerous attitude.
I always have a bit of tense during IFR flights when I just pop out of the clouds, because I'm always afraid to discover a VFR airplane in front of me and not have time to avoid him.
So, anywhere, VFR should apply distance from clouds and visibility requirements, and query ATC if they cannot apply those requirements because of deteriorating weather.
In IMC, IFR cannot meet a VFR (except some stupid non-legal G-reg...).
In VMC, IFR pilots should look out, as VFR do, for traffic avoidance (whatever the class of the airpace).
I do agree with you that most IFR pilots tend to forget that, and think they do not need to scan out for traffic avoidance when they fly under IFR rules... they are completely wrong.
As airways are usually E airspace, or D-C-B-A airspace, but not G, most of the time you will be in radio contact with the ATC.
In E airspace, that contact is not mandatory as long as you maintain VMC. If you cannot maintain VMC, you have to get a clearance to enter E airspace, and to establish radio contact.
In France Special VFR clearances are given only in CTRs.
We used to have a lot of class E CTRs, but this created a lot of problems, because VFRs were crossing through without radio contact, whatever their weather conditions, and we had a lot of AIRPROX and complains from Pilots, Companies and ATCs.
That's why all these CTR became Class-D quite recently, so that VFR cannot cross without radio contact...
I hope I answered your question.
I may not have time today to answer more (because even frogs need to go to work/shops/etc sometimes) but if ou have more feel free to write me an email.
If you want a good IFR syllabus, just check the FAA one, it is nearly perfect. (nearly, because nothing is perfect!)
Some people say the FAA one is "not serious", "too easy", etc.
Depends on your school.
I've seen some verybad JAR IR schools, believe me.
Moreover, if you learn in the US, you'll need some training back here because systems are different (and a JAA IR pilot in the US will also need some training to get used to the US system).
And it depends on you also.
What means "getting an Instrument Rating" ?
It only means that the day of your checkride, you could do more or less what is required.
But then, it will be your own responsibility to develop and maintain your skills at top level.
But I'm sure we could make something great, if only our politics and administrations could listen to us.
Regards,
Frozen_frog