Limits/possibilities of an IMC rating

[Fancy Navigator]

Hello,
Just a kind of survey to see how far you have ever been with an IMC rating? By this, I mean, what type of IMC conditions have you encountered (low ceiling/visibility) and where (flat terrain below/hills)? How did you get on? Anybody who "survived" to tell the tale?

Thank you for your replies :)
FN:D

[2Donkeys]

The lower limits are obvious, unless somebody wants to confess to routinely flouting them.

The practical limits are a function of experience, aircraft type and currency.

[FNG]

Here is Evo doing his IMC test...

http://www.pprune.org/go.php?go=/pub/fun/ifrflight.html

[KCDW]

Passed IMC last year, and have since been in it without an instructor 4 times. 3 of which was to get to VFR on top. Those were perfect days, with the clouds between 3 and 5 k feet.

The other time was different. Went to Duxford in marginal VFR (cloudbase 1500' in places). Took with me trusty Magellan 310 GPS as backup, as beacons in that part of the world are few and far between.

Coming up on Havershill (where I was counting on VFR) the clag came down in full force. Resorted to the GPS (which only points in the right direction like an ADF with DME), and instantly decided it was a) a lifesaver, and b) inadequate for real in-yer-face IMC.

IMC training kicked in. I flew on the numbers, did a nice 60 degree intercept on Duxford, and lo and behold, the runway was where it should have been as I descended through the cloudbase at 800'.

Mrs KCDW was very impressed. But I was secretly very relieved, as I recognised that I had just flown slightly on the uncomfortable side of my own personal envelope.

Conclusion? More IMC practice, and a decent moving map GPS would have put me on the comfortable side of my envelope.

PS. Please all scrap previous posts where I pour scorn on wusses who use fancy Garmin 295's etc. :\

[Charlie Zulu]

Hi,

Today I used mine from Bournemouth to Cardiff to get on top of a layer of clouds as it was a little bumpy below. Flying along at FL65 with the icing level above me in a nicely kitted out Warrior III.

All I could see for about half of my route was the nice fluffy white tops of the cumulous cloud whilst non-IMC holders battled it out underneath the cloud layer between ground level and around 4000.

This morning at around 8am it was a different story... a little hazy but absolutely gorgeous no turbulence no cloud morning on my way down to Bournemouth from Cardiff.

But anyway, I've used my IMC rating a few times in the following conditions, for instance an ILS Approach at night in drizzle and overcast cloud at 600' AGL with a little bit of a sixteen knot crosswind. Also the IMC rating comes in handy for the numerous times to get to VFR on top conditions when the cloud overcast / broken is around 2000 - 5000.

I practice ILS / NDB / Holds quite often under the hood when I have a safety pilot with me just to keep my FAA IR current as well as my Instrument Scan current. Ie, today I flew an ILS back into Cardiff under the hood just so I know I can still do one if I really had to.

However I am limited to when I can fly in IMC weather conditions here in the UK due to the icing levels during the winter due to the lack of icing equipment on the aircraft I fly (even the twin I will be flying shortly)... :(

Best wishes,

Charlie Zulu.

[Keef]

As has been said many times before, it's an excellent and useful rating if you keep yourself current in flying in IMC.

If you're not current, it's a recipe for disaster.

As a stepping stone to an FAA IR (as many folks do, these days), it's also excellent practice. If you can get your hands on an N-reg aircraft in Europe, do the IMC followed by some experience of real IMC, then add the FAA IR.

[englishal]

Flew from Enstone to Oban via edinburgh, and on the way back the weather was crap. Had to make up a departure procedure out of Oban, which consisted of climbing RH turn after take off, out over the sea cloudbase was <1000', at a certain time (forget what) and backed up by GPS further right hand turn on course, climbing to FL 55 direct PTH. It was crappy wx, fontal stuff, so we were in the clagg all the way to Teeside. At one point the rain was so heavy (and the radio so quiet) all you could hear was the pounding rain on the aeroplane, like drums. It was excellent when we came out of the back of the front, it literally just ended and we punched out into sunshine, just above a layer of "fair weather" cumulus, though it was a little bumpy (and the Mrs started to feel sick ).

When we left Edinburgh en-route to Oban, it was raining, and the cloudbase was very low (not to mention mist / fog). We were in the cloud from about 200' to 4000', and when we came out on top (to my horror) there were CBs everywhere. Ok while we were out of the cloud, but towards Oban we became IMC again, which was worrying as now the CBs were embedded. Had to take some avoiding action, to avoid flying right into one. It was getting so dark, black as night almost and bumpy as hell, which was when we decided we didn't want to be there. So 60° banked turn and head for the lighter bits (the storm scope had numerous X's on it, and proved useless for avoiding the cells). We popped out into glorious sunshine, and landed in Oban, only for a huge thunderstorm to pass right over the airfield 10 minutes later. We were going to head on to Stornoway, but that made us decide to stay put, and the guys at the airfield brought us out some beers......very nice!

The IMC is a great rating, very free. However, it worries me a bit that you are responsible for airspace avoidance, and you could meet a situation where you are in IMC, bumpy as hell, using a VFR chart for Nav, and get refused an airspace transit. In this situation you would now have to re-plan the flight around the airspace, while flying the aircraft in IMC......not that easy.

Another problem with it is that you're squashed down below the class A, at FL60 there may be glorious sunshine, but becasue of the overlaying Alpha you are restricted to FL40, and hence right in the thick of it. Its about time airways became class D to FL100

;)
EA

[DRJAD]

Another problem with it is that you're squashed down below the class A, at FL60 there may be glorious sunshine, but becasue of the overlaying Alpha you are restricted to FL40, and hence right in the thick of it. Its about time airways became class D to FL100

Ah, couldn't agree more!

I use my IMCR frequently for approaches both in real IMC and for practice to keep as current as possible.

Less frequently able to use it to climb out of IMC for the very reason quoted, coupled with the low freezing level often in the UK.

However, it has been useful, and I expect it to continue to be so.

Currency, in order both to be reasonably competent and to be comfortable in IMC is, as others have said, absolutely vital.

So far, since gaining it (October last year), I've had to use the IMCR for real only for approaches, and once, whilst positioning for a visual approach in fairly marginal conditions, when the track took me into a patch of IMC reaching to the ground (as far as I could see): transition from lookout to instr. scan did not seem to present any problems, and I was in grateful receipt of a good RIS anyway. Recently, conditions have occasionally been such as to allow the possibility of climbing to 'VFR on top', which is, of course, a rewarding manoeuvre.

[Fancy Navigator]

Very interesting stories, thank you:D
Keep sending them!
FN:)

[Snigs]

englishal

When we left Edinburgh en-route to Oban, it was raining, and the cloudbase was very low (not to mention mist / fog). We were in the cloud from about 200' to 4000'

I assume that you actually hold a UK/JAA Intrument Rating and were in an aircraft that was capable of Cat II ILS approaches. If not you shouldn't have taken off in the first place because you couldn't land back at your departure airport.

Edited to say I've just looked at your profile. :O What were you in if you had a stormscope?

[englishal]

No, I don't have a JAA IR :O But my mate beside me did ;)

RVR was legal (I forget what, but it was "legal"), and cloud base was above ILS minima so we could have come back had we needed to. We did keep a careful eye on the GPS (shock horror) incase the engine decided to quit, in which case, plan B was to stick it in the Forth. Was a TB20 by the way.

Rgds

[IO540]

Worth mentioning that all of the above could have been written if the pilot has the full IR - assuming a non-airways route.

Most of the issues which are routinely used to pick at the IMC Rating (even in CAA publications, sadly) are not to do with the IMC Rating. They are concerned with training, the availability of a suitably equipped aircraft (not only nav gear but de-ice / anti-ice), and currency on the type. All these factors are a general problem in the UK but that doesn't mean they are a problem for a particular pilot.

Doglegging around controlled airspace if a transit is refused is a challenge unless one has a GPS which shows the airspace on the moving map; then it's easy. But I have very rarely been refused transit if "IFR" and it is obvious to ATC that I am in real IMC. Gatwick were extremely helpful the other day.

[whatunion]

interested in this post

I assume that you actually hold a UK/JAA Intrument Rating and were in an aircraft that was capable of Cat II ILS approaches. If not you shouldn't have taken off in the first place because you couldn't land back at your departure airport.

my experience as a prof pilot tells me that cat 1 - 2 & 3 ils are subject to limits of rvr not cloudbase, is this different for a ppl imc rating?

[IO540]

Is it a legal requirement that one must be able to land at the airfield of departure (private flight)?

On the IMC Rating, for departure, there are no legal cloudbase requirements, only the 1800m horizontal vis which also applies to landing. There are various CAA advisory suggestions...

[QSK?]

For info, in Australia the standard takeoff minima for most general aviation aircraft is 300ft ceiling and a vis of 2000 metres UNLESS you are flying a multi-engine aircraft.

In the ME case, the pilot has to assume that they will be returning to the departure airport in the event of an engine failure and will be required to make an instrument approach to get in. Met conditions for takeoff must, therefore, be above the relevant (ie aircraft and pilot rated) instrument approach letdown procedure.

For example, if the departure airport had an ILS with a DH of 400 ft above ground level, and the pilot and aircraft were rated for ILS approaches, the take off minima for a ME aircraft would be 400ft ceiling and 2000m vis, even through the standard TO minima is 300ft/2kms. However, if the pilot was not rated for ILS, but was rated for VOR approaches and the departure airport's VOR approach had an MDA of 660ft, then the take off minima would be adjusted to 660ft/2km.

Obviously, for SE IFR aircraft this doesn't apply because, if the engine quits, you're going down regardless of the weather!

[Justiciar]

the pilot and aircraft were rated for ILS approaches

Interesting. So in Australia are you able to do ILS or VOR/NDB approaches without an IR? A guess you do not have the equivalent of the IMC rating?

[QSK?]

Justiciar:

No, to do any instrument approach letdown in Australia, the pilot must hold an instrument rating. However, there are two types of instrument ratings that can be issued, viz:

- Command Instrument Rating (SE and ME); and
- Private IFR rating (SE and ME).

CPL/ATPL pilots must hold a CIR if they wish to do comercial IFR work and the CIR usually endorses the pilots for the full array of IFR approaches (ILS/VOR/NDB/DME/GPS), although there is some scope to "tailor" the CIR to one's operational needs. The CIR (ME and SE) is also an ICAO recognised rating, that must be renewed every 12 months and also has strict guidelines re recency requirements. Before one can get a CIR, they must have completed 50 cross-country hours as PIC, 5 hours night as PIC, as well as 20 hours in the Sim (minimum) and 20 in-flight instrument time (minimum) in the aircraft type likely to be flown.

The PIFR rating (ME and SE) is a unique Australian instrument rating and is not internationally-recognised or useable outside of Australia. It is, as its name suggests, only available to private pilots and, unlike the CIR, only has to be renewed every 2 years, although the Australian Civil Aviation Authority highly recommends that PIFR pilots adopt the same renewal/recency framework as a CIR pilot.

Essentially, the PIFR rating is an enroute instrument rating, based on either an NDB or a VOR, which means the pilot can only fly IFR during the enroute phase of flight between the MSA on departure to the MSA on descent. In other words the weather conditions have to be VMC below the MSA at both ends of the route segment.

The beauty about the PIFR is that the pilot can "tailor" his IR by then picking and choosing what instrument approaches or other features (called FPAs or flight procedure authorisations) he wants to add, and under what time frame. For example, there are FPAs for night flying, holding patterns, all instrument approaches as well as SIDS/STARS. Another advantage of the PIFR is that the pilot does not require the 50 hours cross-country or 5 hours night flying as PIC before they can start training so, therefore, a pilot can start IR training immediately on gaining their PPL. Depending on the level of IR capability (ie the number of FPAs) required, the simulator and in-flight instrument training time can also be reduced significantly from that of a full CIR. A PIFR pilot who holds the full range of FPAs is as functionally competent, and also meets the same standards, as a pilot who holds a CIR with all endorsements.

There is a fair amount of heated debate in Australia re the PIFR vs the CIR rating, with opponents of the PIFR arguing:

1. the fact that PIFR pilots could be sharing airspace with CIR pilots under adverse weather conditions; yet the PIFR pilots may be less proficient and safe because they don't have to meet the same regulatory compliance requirements with respect to recency/renewal as a CIR pilot; and

2. many IFR flight schools are uncomfortable with granting just an enroute PIFR rating to a pilot without at least 1 instrument approach FPA also being attached. The rationale is that by having at least 1 instrument approach FPA attached to the PIFR rating, pilots who find themselves caught on top of cloud have some chance of getting down through the cloud in the event VMC does not exist below the destination MSA when they get there.

There are some IFR training schools that are so against the PIFR concept they simply will not recognise it, train anyone for it or grant it.

On the other hand, advocates of the PIFR point to its benefits to private pilots in the following areas:

1. facilitating easier access to progressive IFR training as private pilots can tailor their IR training to suit their financial circumstances. Prior to the availability of a PIFR, a CIR would normally cost upwards of $A8k, which meant an IR was simply out of reach for most private pilots.

2. allowing PPL pilots to start developing high-end IR skills earlier in their flying life which then better protects them in the event they find themselves inadvertently in cloud - if on a VFR flight

3. allowing a more gentle immersion into IFR flight by allowing pilots to add capability as their experience grows.

2. improving safety and pilot confidence, because the PIFR allows pilots to depart and arrive in VMC and also cruise at higher enroute altitudes without being forced to "scud run" particularly over mountainous terrain.

Hope that helps.

[englishal]

Sounds very sensible to me. Bit like the IMC rating, and what Europe could do with.

EA

[Justiciar]

QSK

Thanks very much for that helpful explaination. It is, as Englishal says, like the UK's IMC rating. This is not an ICAO rating so only valid in the UK. There is probably a bit more pressure on pilots in the UK who want to tour alot in Europe to get a full IR as the IMC is not valid and PPLs who try and do an instrument approach in, say, France on the basis of their IMC have ended up being heavily fined! Unfortunately the cost of a single engine IR is around £10,000 by the time you have done the 50 hours + 7 exams!

The IMC is 15 hours. You have to have one type of approach in your log book and demonstrate one other in the skills test. I found the training worth while but I think it is a little light weight for for anyone seriously wanting flight in IMC for any period. People tend to obtain the rating and then not use it or practice. It lasts for two years. However, it is potentially very useful and allows flight under IFR in all airspace except class A. The minima are 500' or published DA + 250' for precision approaches or MDA + 200' or 600' for non precision (whichever is the higher), 1800 metres visability for departures.

[englishal]

The minima are 500' or published DA + 250' for precision approaches or MDA + 200' or 600' for non precision (whichever is the higher)
Should be....recommended minima. You can actually shoot an approach down to minimums, but are restricted by the 1800m vis.

EA