Imc

[c-bert]

Hi Guys!

Nearing the end of my PPL (well about 3/4 of the way through anyway) and thinking of doing the IMC rating due to the rubbish weather in this country. Only thing is I'm not too sure what it entails and what it entitles me to. I'm aware it's only valid in the UK but apart from that, what is the difference from an IR?

Thanks!

[2Donkeys]

No IFR in class A

1800m minimum met vis for take-off and landing

Higher "advisory" minima for cloud base during instrument approaches.

[Justiciar]

minimum 15 hours rather than 50 hours (for single engine IR), one short exam rather than 7; cost about £2,000 rather than £9,000!

Well worth doing, but probably better to get a few hours under you belt first. I think in fact you need 25 hours P1 to apply for the rating, but not to start the training.

[c-bert]

Thanks, that's what I though. I can't really understand why a full IR is soooo much more expensive (well obviously it's because it's 50 hours but you know what I mean :rolleyes: ).

So apart from Class A airspace you can fly full IFR type stuff?

[S-Works]

thats the $64million question. technically yes (no airways of course) but it comes down to currency and the quality of the instruction as well as having an aircraft that is capable of IMC flight AND navigation.

Most hired aircraft are not IMC capable, whether it is crap avionics that are not FM Immune or accurate or just that dont work at all. Also the UK generally has very low freezing levels which again most club hire aircraft are nopt capable of dealing with as they have no de-ice/anti-ice.

The quality of instruction is also very variable going from failry low hours FI's able to teach the IMC to high hours full IR instructors.

The IMC is a great rating, well worth doing. It needs constant practice at all aspects of flying IMC, this includes, sustained instrument flight, and approaches. It is very easy to get out of currency and expect to just be able to switch back to the guages when you hit IMC because you have a ticket that says you can and thats when things have the potential to go wrong.

My view personally is go out, get some experiance flying in day VFR try other new things and mature as a pilot before you try Instrument flight. (There will of course be the usual round of people telling you do aeros and tail wheel conversions instead, not my cup of tea really allthough I have done them).

It strikes me that a lot of people go into the IMC "early" after listening to talk in the bar/club of pilots "larging it up" about how clever they think they are because the can fly in cloud.

At your stage in your flying you are barely able to operate the aircraft let alone contemplate flying it with sole reference to the instruments. If the weather is so marginal you may end up in IMC then is it a good day to fly?

Enjoy your flying, look out the window and admire the view, this is one of the key things about learning to fly and when you are ready to expand the envelope then consider the IMC.

I am an Instrument rated pilot and find there is nothing like climbing above an overcast and sitting in the sunshine, but conversly there is also nothing like cruising along below watching the sun poke through in beams and lighting the landscape.

[rustle]

It doesn't happen all the time, but I totally agree with bose-x's comments above.

When you have your PPL and have reached that point in your flying where the basic PPL doesn't allow you to do the things you want to do, then is the time to address which additional ratings you need...

It needn't take years or even months post-PPL to come to these conclusions, but I suggest it should take "hours" :)

[Fly Stimulator]

c-bert,

For most recreational pilots the JAA IR is not really practical unless you have a great amount of time and money to put aside for the training. Unless you have a real use for it (the need to make business trips around Europe and not be delayed so much by weather for example) then you will find it a costly indulgence. Too costly for most UK PPLs.

It isn't only the extra hours that make the IR more expensive. The exams are far more challenging and are more akin to the ATPL ones than those for the PPL.

One solution that many people use is to get an FAA IR and an N-reg aircraft to go with it. The US qualification (the exam in particular) is a much more practical proposition for most people.

If you use the forum search facility you will find a great deal of discussion of these issues and the pros and cons of the IMC qualification.

There is an organisation which promotes PPL IR flying here. (http://www.pplir.org/)

By the way - the good news is that you can fly IFR to your heart's content in the UK without going to the trouble of getting an IMC - you just do it in VMC.

[c-bert]

Thanks for the replies guys (& girls?). One further question though on Fly Stimulators point about IFR. Am I allowed to file an IFR flight plan on just a basic PPL? I know nothing about IFR procedures or instrument approaches (nothing official at least!) so how can I fly IFR?

Or do you just mean VFR but with reference to the instruments and radio nav aids?

Just for info, my main reason for doing the IMC would be so that I can still fly on the decidedly marginal VMC days we often have here in the winter. It's frustrating leaving home in VMC and getting to the airfield only for the cloud to have thickened enough to preclude flying.

[S-Works]

C-bert, then my previous comments apply, if it is marginal at your level of experiance it is better sit in the bar and tell tall stories!

[c-bert]

Fair point! Although they are more likely to be short stories....:( :D

[Fly Stimulator]

c-bert,

Somebody always chucks in the IFR vs IMC distinction in these discussions so I thought I'd just get it out of the way early for efficiency's sake! ;)

Best to talk it through with your instructor, but in a nutshell IFR and VFR are just sets of rules to fly by. The IFR rules involve things like the levels you have to fly at for certain headings, the clearance you have to allow over the ground and so on.

If you comply with these rules you can claim to be flying IFR, even if there's not a cloud in the sky. So, even without an IMC rating you could fly IFR. What you can't do without an extra rating is to fly in IMC, which is the term that relates to the weather conditions rather than the flight rules.

In short it's a technicality which brings you no practical benefits, other than an ability to recount tales of your IFR flying in the pub afterwards.

The IMC is useful both in itself and for the extra discipline it can bring to your flying, but the above posts make good points. Give yourself a little time to get a little more experience first. Most of us have found the IMC training is hard enough work for the brain as it is without having to still be devoting mental capacity to basic flying skills at the same time.

And don't forget that most airfields that recreational flyers go to do not have any instrument approach facilities. Even with an IMC or IR your day trip for a £200 bacon roll in the rain will probably end up with you returning to your nearest large airfield which may not be where you started from or left your car!

[c-bert]

Thanks. I fly from Southampton so I've got all manner of whizzbang nav aids to get confused by (and airliners to get in the way of!) although the aircraft I use doesn't...oh well, it probably is a good idea to tonk around in the sunshine for a while first.

[Justiciar]

my main reason for doing the IMC would be so that I can still fly on the decidedly marginal VMC days

I would say that is not a good idea, even for a relatively experienced pilot. Others much more experienced than me will tell you that flying in IMC for an extended period is a hell of a strain and you really need an aircraft with an autopilot to reduce the work load. Not only that, in winter you have serious risk of airframe icing in and often below cloud.

I use my IMC to get above cloud where I am as certain as I can be that I can go VMC on top and that the cloud base is not likely to deteriorate to a point where making an instrument approach is going to be difficult (because of the minima for IMC rated pilots). It is also very useful training for those occasions when you enter IMC inadvertantly, but even then I descent to VMC unless it is obvious that the IMC is very temporary.

Flying is more enjoyable when you can see the ground. I would not set off in 'marginal' VMC unless I was very confident that the weather is improving or it is or will very quickly become VMC at my destination.

[MLS-12D]

Too right, Justiciar.

I assume that c-bert wants to fly purely for fun (if he has aspirations of professional flying, I'd say bypass the IMC altogether and get a proper IR) ... and flying around in "decidely marginal VMC" is far from relaxing.

[IO540]

It is always worth asking these "is the IMC Rating worth doing" people what their budget is. If it is £1000/year then the "correct" answer is going to be NO; just keep renting the Cessna 150 :O In most cases, this turns out to be the case, and probably this is why most IMC Ratings are lapsed. But for pilots that do the right amount of flying in the right plane, etc, it is a great privilege.

I fly IMC (IFR) as necessary/possible but do find that most flights are in fact done in VMC (above, between or below the clouds; the first two not being legal for a basic PPL). But even if one is fussy about conditions, what the IMC option gives you is flying when the weather is too marginal for a basic PPL pilot (much of the time in the UK).

Without the IMCR, I would perhaps do 1/4 of my present hours, and my currency would fall to a point where it would be sooo easy to just pack it in altogether. Not to mention all the cancelled flights, which make flying with passengers very awkward.

Re the "proper IR" as some put it, there is nothing useful about the proper IR if the destination is an airfield without an IAP (which is true for most UK GA airfields) or the icing level is below the MSA (true much of the winter) etc. In the UK, the IR may be useful over the IMCR if you have a de-iced plane with a turbo engine, but then one is going to be above the clouds with no view. The IR really comes in for foreign trips.

Incidentally if a JAA IR costs £9000, that is cheap on the scale of what it will cost over the next 10-20 years actually making use of it. For starters, one needs to get one's hands on a decent plane (which is equally true for the IMCR) and the extra cost of that will dwarf the cost of the training. For anyone who is gainfully employed, the real cost of a JAA IR will be far more than £9000, due to the time spent on the ground school.

[S-Works]

Just to clarify, the only difference in minima between an IMC and an IR is the requirement for 1800m horizontal vizability. All other limits are ADVISORY. There is no reason an IMC holder cant do an IP to published minimums other than currency.

When I did my IMC I was taught down to minimums which stood me well for IR training.

[rustle]

All other limits are ADVISORYIs this now established beyond reasonable argument? Both you and 2Donks said the same thing, but I'm sure one of you used to argue that those limits were, infact, mandatory:confused: What's changed? Or have I, again, got the wrong suspects :8

[2Donkeys]

The ceiling limits concerned are published in the AIP using phraseology that is not particularly clear. I think that the advisory nature of the ceiling minima and the mandatory nature of the 1800m minimum are pretty widely accepted.


2D

[rustle]

Thanks :) So 'twas ever thus?

[Flyin'Dutch']

No, twasn't!

;)

FD

[2Donkeys]

I have no idea whether twas ever thus. It matches what I was taught in the 1980s. I went through a brief period of being a believer in the ceiling limits being mandatory when I first saw the AIP section. Wise voices talked me out of that belief, and I have now returned to my previous position.

As is so often the case, a simple concept is overcomplicated by poor drafting. Something the FAA by and large manages to get right.

2D

[Flyin'Dutch']

Something the FAA by and large manages to get right.

Hear, hear.

I think that R was referring to past (tedious) discussions where the subject was whether the minimums for IAP for IMC holders were mandatory and absolute or advisory and therefore relative.

The FAA have circumnavigated that particular issue by allowing us lesser gods to get a meaningful internationally recognised IR.

FD

[rustle]

I think that R was referring to past (tedious) discussions where the subject was whether the minimums for IAP for IMC holders were mandatory and absolute or advisory and therefore relative.Yes, but also that when I did my IMC (1999) it was taught that way - i.e. mandatory 500' minimum DH for an ILS.

Period.

For me, now academic, but I did recall a discussion or seven about it :)

[bookworm]

So 'twas ever thus?

I think you have to look at this in a slightly wider context.

The article of the ANO mandating aerodrome operating minima for non-PT flights was introduced in about 1992. Before that, an IR holder on a non-PT flight was not bound by any particular minima. Thus everything in the AIP was advisory. AOC-holders had minima dictated by their Ops Manual (which was undoubtedly based on the same calculations as in the AIP).

When the guidance to IMC-holders was drafted, it was done with that as a backdrop. I don't think that anyone foresaw that it would be interpreted as mandatory at some point in the future. The Schedule 8 minimum of 1 nm for t/o and ldg was always there.

I can guess at why it has been left the way it is. The (mis-)interpretation of the AIP as mandating 500/600 ft minima suits the CAA position of discouraging IMC-rating holders from tackling difficult approaches. So clarifying the AIP entry as being recommended only is unhelpful for that cause. But changing the entry to indicate that the increments are mandatory would be a substantial erosion of rights that would require consultation, time and resource. So as with so many things in aviation, we're left with the status quo. But that's just a guess.

As is so often the case, a simple concept is overcomplicated by poor drafting. Something the FAA by and large manages to get right.

I think that\'s partly because the FAA gets regulatory stuff into the FARs and advisory stuff into the AIM. None of these notifications as we have.

[rustle]

...So as with so many things in aviation, we're left with the status quo. But that's just a guess.Excellent post, thanks bookworm. :)

[S-Works]

I was always one of the voices that stated it was advisory and not law.


:O

[Justiciar]

Compliance with aerodrome DA/MDA is in article 40 of the ANO; the 1800' take off minimum is in Schedule 8 of the ANO, which contains the privileges of licenses and ratings. Any restriction on IMC rated pilots would be expected in one of these two locations. The fact that the ANO is silent suggests very strongly that the 500'/600' minima are indeed only advisory.

[TwinAisle]

My thoughts, for what they are worth.

I did my IMC after 30-odd hours post PPL. I enjoy flying in IMC, but for extended periods it can be tiring, and as such, I apply a simple rule:

IMC is NOT an instrument rating. It is a "get me home on that iffy day" rating, NOT a "go flying on that iffy day rating."

Last Sunday, I Wx diverted on a trip to Ireland - even though the forecasts and reports from Ireland were good, and so no sweat over there - because it was too much like hard work to fly for an hour in IMC. I'll wait for a better day.

Having said that, I find that my flying is MUCH more precise now after doing the IMC, in terms of holding headings, speeds and altitudes - which in itself made it worthwhile.

TA

[S-Works]

The IMC is an instrument rating if taught correctly and is not a get you home rating. Anyone who enters into an IMC rating with the view of getting the rating as an emergency escape card on a bad day is fooling themselves.

Instrument flight requires constant practice to be current enough to use it anger. Whether it is an IMC rating or a rull IR the same skills need to be practiced.

Sustained flight in IMC is hard work. The IMC rating training tends to focus on shorter duration instrument only flight than the IR with a view to using it for getting above cloud into the cruise and back down again at the other end. I found IR training focused more on airways joins and exits, IFR RT and some sustained IMC flight but the preference always being to get on top above the weather. As an IMC pilot I needed no work on holds or procedures.

A good IMC pilot who practices regularily is just as capable of flying in sustained IMC, you develop and practice the skills and can either fly the guages or not.

Anyone who feels that they could not fly comfortably on the guages for a lenghty period of time should not be excercising the priveledges of an IMC.

[TwinAisle]

I'm really not sure I agree with that.

Yes, I practice instrument approaches and IMC flying so that I am not "out of practice". When I use it "in anger", I do so in the knowledge that I can fly on the gauges, and am within the limits of my ability. But my point remains - flying as the only pilot into IMC conditions is a lot harder than flying in VMC, and I still say that the IMC is a "get you home" rating. I don't know of any IMC rated pilots who would actually want to fly on a day when they are going straight into IMC for the duration anyway. I fly for my own enjoyment - professional pilots with IRs get paid to go up in the cr@p, and then they do it in pairs.....

I would say anyone who takes the IMC thinking it gives them the same, but slightly watered down, priviledges as a full IR is fooling themselves personally.

TA

[S-Works]

go and do an IR then pass comment. Trust me there is little extra in an IR that is not in an IMC unless the IMC was badly taught in the first place!

[skyrabbit]

The IMC rating is NOT and never will be an instrument rating. It is a valuable addition to the ppl in that it gives a very sound introduction to the use of instuments and radio aids, but as Twin Aisle quite rightly states it is a 'get out of jail card' for those occasions when wx conditions deteriorate and make things difficult.

The world is unfortunately full of idiots with a ppl/imc who think they are airline pilots. They are a danger to themselves and everyone else.

Have you ever wondered why it is not recognised outside the UK?

Remember the ppl/imc that died trying to do an ILS approach into Le Touquet?

If you wanna fly with the big boys do an I/R....otherwise stick to nice sunny days.


rabbs

:}

[troddenmasses]

If an IMC is well taught, and then well practiced - it is an incredibly good addition to the PPL. It isn't an IR, so shouldn't be used as an IR. I have an IMC and use it often - either for getting on top of cloud, or getting the last 15 miles home on a cr@ppy day. I wouldn't drem of setting off on a day like that though, knowing that it was going to be IMC all of the way. That kind of flying is for people who REALLY need to be somewhere. For those people - get an IR. Personally, I have a company car with fuel included. It may take me a bit longer, but at least I will arrive fresh (ish).

[S-Works]

I think that your world being full of idiot PPL's with an IMC is nowhere near the world that the rest of us live in. In fact I think your assessment of PPL/IMC holders is pretty offensive!

My point was the the IMC is not a get out of jail free card, that instrument flight requires skill and practice. So I say again anyone who thinks that getting an IMC for this reason is seriously fooling themselves.

As I recall there have been very few incidents of IMC PPL's crashing and burning but I am happy to be corrected nothwithstanding your LFAT incident. I wonder in the case of the LFAT incident was the IMC holder actually current at IMC flight or was he just trying his get out of jail card???

But to add perspective while doing my IR training I was quoted a number of IR holder incidents of the same ilk.

It does not matter which piece of paper you have, if you are not current then it is a waste of time.

[TwinAisle]

Gotta agree with Skyrabbit on this, and with TM.

As for

I wonder in the case of the LFAT incident was the IMC holder actually current at IMC flight or was he just trying his get out of jail card???

Well - his IMC rating was not valid at LFAT - whether he was current or not.

As I say - I practice IMC flying - a lot - but I still would never take to the skies to fly end-to-end IMC. Like TM, I would rather drive it. As Rabbit said, if you want to fly with the big boys, get an IR.

TA

[S-Works]

I wasn't questioning whether the IMC was valid at LFAT as it clearly was not. I was asking about currency.

I am however very flattered to be considered one of the "big boys" even cruising around in my 152........

[rustle]

I am however very flattered to be considered one of the "big boys"...Twice in as many days I find myself agreeing (at least in part) with bose-x... Did you spike my drink? ;) :rolleyes:

[flower]

I find myself agreeing with SkyRabbit, Twin Aisle and Trodden masses here.
Bose-x I understand your viewpoint but am afraid i can not concur with you.
Although we are unable to ask people under what license they are flying it becomes blatantly obvious when conditions deteriorate who is flying under an IMC rating and who is on an IR rating, the lack of confidence can become quite apparent. That is not to say that those flying with an IMC lack skills , far from it they are pilots who have committed time and expense to their hobby,but that is what it is to the majority of them simply a hobby. Those with IR ratings in the main have them as they wish to or either already do so fly commercially.
I see what you say about practice and experience and there will always be those who buck the trend, but the IMC rating was never designed as anything other than a " get me out of this" rating ideally suited to the British Climate and the tendency for the weather to rapidly change

[Penworth]

Trust me there is little extra in an IR that is not in an IMC
Can I just ask what else is involved in the IR that isn't included in the IMC rating? I've not got an IMC rating but am planning on getting my IR next year, and I'm interested to know how, if they're essentially the same, one can be 35 hours longer than the other? Granted, the IR involves airways flying, but surely that doesn't justify the difference? Or am I missing something? :confused:

[Flyin'Dutch']

1. Proper instruction according to a mandatory syllabus by Instrument Rated instructors

2. Appreciation of weather related issues.

3. Appreciation of the IFR system.

etc etc.

Until you do an IR you don't know what you have missed by doing just an IMC.

True, as Bose X says there are some competent IMC PPLs around who use the rating for more than a get out of jail card. They are however a miniscule fraction of the total of people with an IMC.

It is however a bit unfair to make out everyone with an IMC rating out to be a cowboy ready to fly beyond the limits of their abilities and rating. The lack of IMC related accidents by IMC rated folks proves that in my opinion.

FD

[S-Works]

Blimey rustle, people will start talking about us!!! :p


IR focuses on sustained instrument flight, airways joining and leaving and RT in addittion to the skills taught in the IMC.

Procedures are flown to minimums and within tighter speed, height tolerances than those given for the IMC. Allthough my IMC was taught to the same standards as the IR by an excellant instructor and I know a good number of people who were also taught the same way.

It is basically the same thing with more practice!

There is a tendancy for those with higher qualifications to look down there noses at those "beneath" them. I don't believe that a ticket belies experiance. Give me a thousand hour PPL with current IMC experiance to match over a 250hr fATPL any day.

I keep saying this, currency and experiance count over any badge.

:p :p :p

[IO540]

TwinAisle

"I don't know of any IMC rated pilots who would actually want to fly on a day when they are going straight into IMC for the duration anyway"
I know a few, including myself. If you have the Rating, you have the privileges, and if you have had the training, have the currency, have a suitably equipped aircraft, then not flying within limits of your privileges is just a waste of all the time and money spent learning the stuff.
"if you want to fly with the big boys"
That sort of patronising language is best kept out of any rational debate. Do you edit Gasil/Gasco by any chance?

skyrabbit

"Remember the ppl/imc that died trying to do an ILS approach into Le Touquet?"
Remember all those airline pilots and their passengers that died doing an ILS approach into [name an airport]. Loads and loads. An IMCR holder who cannot fly an ILS perfectly well should have had a decent instructor.

flower

"Those with IR ratings in the main have them as they wish to or either already do so fly commercially."
That is partially true (in the GA scene, many IRs are held by hour-building instructors and most of these either have no currency or are lapsed, and most instructors that might have had an IR but teach the IMCR let their IR lapse because they can't afford it) but is barking up the wrong tree. The reason why a lot of IMC Rated pilots have bad training and low currency is because most of the instructors that teach it shouldn't be teaching it, and most of the planes one can get one's hands on are junk (for IMC). If you compare an IMCR pilot (owner of a plane with all the kit, flies 100-200hrs/year) with an IR pilot (owner of a plane with all the kit, flies 100-200hrs/year) their IMC skills will be just the same after a year. Except airways, which is not in the IMCR privileges anyway. You are only as good as your currency on type, and just because most current IRs are flying a multi crew space shuttle (on which the autopilot is rarely disengaged) paid for by someone else this is not only outside the GA context but is also not a reason to criticise the IMC Rating.

So, all of you, please stop knocking the IMC Rating. It is a super privilege. Much more usefully, have a go at the training establishment which in the main treats it as just a way of getting another £3k out of somebody before he drops off the GA radar permanently as most do, and have a go at the GA training aircraft operators who think that spending 50hrs in a 30 year old piece of junk is the proper initiation ceremony for "proper pilots". The first is going to be a lot easier than the second :O

[S-Works]

Beautifully stated IO540, far better than my rambling attempt at saying the same thing!

[benhurr]

There are a few other differences between an IMC and an IR:

1. Hold entry/flying the hold.

2. IR's tend to be on a twin so you have asymmetric approaches.

3. Engine failure during a go around/asymmetric go around.

4. Airways.

5. Non precision approaches/Precision Approaches to much tighter limits.

6. SID's and STAR's


There really is no comparison between the two. And for those who say an IR is used multicrew - my IR is for single pilot commercial operations. However I can only use it commercially when I have 700 hours so most people do a multicrew IR when they do a type rating on a multicrew aircraft.

After saying all of that, I would say that an IMC is a useful rating, but as others have said currency and airmanship are the main issues. The IMC gives you a bit more help in a marginal "go/no-go" situation but it is not a "mini-IR" and should not be treated as such.

[drauk]

I don't think adding additional monikers (e.g. mini-IR) to a rating, or even comparing the abstract attributes (e.g. mostly done by this or that kind of flyer) of one with another, is very useful. Surely a rating is about the priviledges it gives you? If you need to fly airways, you need an IR. If you want to do approaches in Class D, you can do it with an IMC rating or an IR. And so on.

Furthermore, a rating and even the rights it gives you can end up having little to do with your knowledge or ability to operate safely and efficiently. For a start there is the oft-quoted example of a pilot who rating wise is allowed to fly in a way which his currency would not support. Or how about an FAA IR holder in an N-reg plane who would get quite a shock trying to fly IFR if that person had no exposure to GA airways flights in the UK, just like a PPL who gained his license in the Florida would.

It's all about the rules (where and what you can fly as per your ratings) and your skills (absolute ability, skill, experience). I think the rest is just clouding the issue.

[IO540]

Well, exactly, terms like "mini-IR" are completely unhelpful. It comes down to the privileges. The choice one is left with is whether

(a) an IMC Rated pilot should be allowed to exercise his privileges, or

(b) an IMC Rated pilot should not be allowed to exercise his privileges

There appears to be a group of traditionalists who believe in (b) but they never offer good reasons.

As a general rule (not just aviation) I believe that privileges should not be curtailed unless there is a good reason for it, and there is NO evidence that the IMC Rating is causing any harm. The holders can't mix it with the "big boys" (as someone derogatorily put it earlier) in the airways, and elsewhere it is pretty much a "PPL free for all" anyway. I bet that far more hassle is caused by basic PPL holders who cannot navigate than by IMC Rated pilots flying less than perfect holds, etc.

The IMC Rating is largely wasted, but that's a whole different subject. One could say exactly the same thing about the basic PPL. Most of them get chucked in too, after couple of years of negligible currency. So, should we curtail or abolish the PPL, just because most holders don't do much with it?

[c-bert]

Wow, seems I opened a real can o' worms on this one. Well, thanks for all your responses. At least I know the differences now! :ok:

[TwinAisle]

Well said, Benhurr/DRAUK.

For the record, my "big boys" comment was a quote from another poster.... and no, I have nothing to do with GASIL, or indeed the CAA - apart from being one of their customers.

Also for the record - I am NOT knocking the rating. My experience from having done one is that (a) it is extremely useful (b) has made my flying much more accurate (c) was great fun to do and to keep current.

BUT.

It is also (a) a bit of a cobbled-together rating (I have had loads of interesting discussions with a VERY experienced NATS controller mate of mine, who can highlight some of the bizarre issues from her end of things with the IMC), and (b) it does engender, in a few people I know, a sense of "go anywhere, go anytime".

It is also not a "mini-IR" - as many here agree.

As for using your license to the limits.... well, I could take a PA28 tonite at midnight, and take it on a spin around Tusker Rock. Legal. Within my license priviledges. Anyone wanna come with me?

Experience and a rating - Double Tick. Agree fully with Bose-X et al. But a little judgement as well goes a long way...

TA

BTW: I think the rest is just clouding the issue

Was this a deliberate pun, DRAUK?? :ok:

[drauk]

:ok:

[owenlars]

For me the IR gives me the ability to sit in controlled airspace at FL100 above all the zones, areas, changes of QNH that make a long VFR flight quite stressful on occasions, especially flying low level VFR in France. (Incidentally you can use the airways in France as a PPL as long as you fly at quadrantal levels plus 500 ft) which is something you can't do in Blighty.

It also allows me to do approaches in IMC outside England. For me that is it's utility. IFR in Controlled Airspace is simpler, safer and considerably less stressful than the alternative. (Ice and Thunderstorms permitting of course).

In short it gives me greater utility.

[Fly Stimulator]

Incidentally you can use the airways in France as a PPL as long as you fly at quadrantal levels plus 500 ft You no doubt meant semi-circular levels in France, not quadrantals.
IFR in Controlled Airspace is simpler, safer and considerably less stressful than the alternative.
All the IR pilots I know say the same, and it seems one of the big attractions of doing the rating if one needs to do that sort of flight.

[rustle]

I think it may have been 2Donkeys who wrote about some of the advantages of an IR over an IMC rating in terms of workload on a flight just within the UK...

(Assuming we are in an aircraft under 2t for sake of simplicity.)

With an IR, planned IFR: take off, maybe at an uncontrolled field, join CAS, single squawk (usually alloted whilst you're on the ground), seamless handovers from controller to controller until destination or you leave CAS to land at perhaps another uncontrolled field.

With an IMC rating, planned IFR: take off, try and get a service of RIS or RAS assuming controller workload permits and/or technical limitations don't prevent it, try and be passed from one LARS to another but often have to free-call and go through the whole "pass your message" again, assume you may have to avoid any class D zones in your path (you may not have to, of course) multiple squawks along the way...

That's why a lot of IR holders think it is easier :)

[bookworm]

The IMC gives you a bit more help in a marginal "go/no-go" situation but it is not a "mini-IR" and should not be treated as such.

It's this bit that troubles me.

The IMC rating is not designed to help you fly marginal VFR better. The training involves simulating flying in cloud, flying from beacon to beacon without visual reference, and flying instrument approaches. It doesn't take the hills away, it doesn't give you better X-ray vision and it doesn't make navaids suddenly appear where none were previously situated.

If the conditions are "marginal" for visual flight, all the more reason to plan and execute a proper IFR flight to reduce the risk. Plan the whole thing at a safe cruising altitude without the presumption that you'll be able to see out of the window. That's what instrument rated pilots do, and that's what IMC-rated pilots should be encouraged to do.

An instrument qualification is not a get-out-of-trouble rating -- it needs to be a don't-get-into-trouble-in-the-first-place rating. The CAA in its Safety Sense leaflets seems to have seized upon the idea that the IMC-rating is not intended to allow you to plan and execute an IFR flight but can be stuffed in your pocket like a get-out-of-jail-free card to be played when things go pear-shaped. IMHO that is more likely to get somebody killed.

[TwinAisle]

Now i reread the line that Bookworm quoted, I can see his/her point....

I agree almost entirely with BW. I tend to plan for IFR flights end-to-end if it looks marginal.

I have been caught once when a VFR flight had to turn IFR - a local flight where there was an entirely unforecast heavy rain storm, which left leaving filthy vis over my destination. Without the IMC, I would have diverted. With it, and my trusty Jepps plates, straight in.

I do wonder if the CAA is behind some of this confusion - and dare I say misselling? - of the IMC. They are the only authority that issues it or recognises it, perhaps they are trying to get shot of it as well??

TA

[IO540]

There is a body of people in GA who feel they are the elite and everybody else is an idiot. Some of these may be involved peripherally in the CAA but I doubt it.

It is understandable that if somebody has just sat 14 ATPL exams, taking 6 months off work in the process and perhaps working as a flying instructor for a few years on a retainer of £10/day, they might think the IMCR is a mickey mouse rating. They are wrong, but they ARE going to think that.

I once walked up to a CAA man at one of their safety presentations and suggested to him that he should give some credence to IFR flight generally (practically the whole seminar was aimed at stopping plain PPLs flying into hills in poor vis, and such). Somebody in the audience jumped up and said "you can fly EVERYWHERE VFR" and that was the end of it. There is ZERO interest in IFR at that level.

This isn't an argument we can win. Best to just enjoy flying. Probably less than 1% of active pilots have the time to read anything here, anyway :O

[S-Works]

The ones that insist you can fly everywhere VFR are the old farts mostly retired with nothing to do but sit around the flying club all day impressing others with there 500 years of flying experiance and going flying only when it s VFR!

IO540 is also right about the attitude of people taking the ATPL exams. Often what were perfectly reasonable people suddenly start looking down there nose at "plain" PPL just because they have sat through 14 exams. Yet they are still the same people who have less total flying hours than some of us have taxiing to the holds.

I wonder who really has more experiance the 200hr fATPL holder or the 800hr IMCR pilot?

I applaud anyone who is daft enough to go and do an ATPL in this day and age of no work (look at the latest articles in flyer etc.) but being fresh off the exams does not give anyone the right to look down there nose at "plain" PPL's. I know some of the wannabees find it hard to believe but not every one wants to fly an autopilot on a bus, there are people out there who actually want to fly for the enjoyment of it and are prepared to put in the time and effort to become competant at all aspects of there flying.

Doing 14 exams and a CPL/IR which then lapses due to lack of work and experiance makes no one a "big boy".

[benhurr]

Well I certainly dont consider myself one of the "big-boys" even though I passed the ATPL's and have a current CPL/IR. But there again I dont want to fly for an airline.

Although I agree that SOME might consider an IMC as a "mickey-mouse" rating, isn't it also true that some consider a CPL "just a PPL skills test flown to tighter tolerances" or an IR is just "an IMC with a few extra bits."

Of course the 800 hour IMCR pilot has more experience than the 200 hour fATPL holder, but potentially, both could learn from each other.

Bookworm, I apologise for the quote - I worded it badly. What I meant was that if the weather is marginal VMC then the flight could still go ahead with an IFR departure and planned route - indeed that is what I did for my CPL qualifying cross country.

[mad_jock]

I wonder who really has more experiance the 200hr fATPL holder or the 800hr IMCR pilot?

Never mind sitting the exams what about a FI(R) just out of school in there first week.

I felt such a fraud charging money to poeple with 2,3,4 times as many hours as me.

Personally I think the instrument appreciation given at PPL level is put in to try and show how difficult it is.

The IMC continues that training to a point that more likely than not your not going to kill yourself in the first 3 mins of entering cloud. And it will also give you confidence to think sod this and climb to MSA where as before they would have pushed an even worse situation. So in some ways its the fact you have done the IMC training which counts more than if you keep it current.

As for what you do with it. In a SEP there is not much difference between a IR holder and a IMC holder. Both are likely to have much the same currency level which is the thing that counts. Personally I have done the old IMC from loosing sight of the ground at 500ft to mins at the other end in a SEP. Would I do it again?

Proberly not unless the trip had to be done. Ie someones granny was in hospital in EDI or Glasgow and they needed to be down quick. The level of risk your exccepting by doing this in my view isn't exceptable in a SEP but thats only me. I don't have a problem with other people doing it.

And I agree with rustle flying IFR on a flight plan in controlled airspace is alot easier than IMC in class G. And in some ways easier than flying VFR.

MJ

[IO540]

I've got airborne into a ~200ft cloudbase, but that was with the runway end over the sea, with the liferaft on the other seat, the sea was flat, and water is the same everywhere :O I wouldn't have done that over land. I would prefer 500ft+ cloudbase if departing over land and even then no high ground or a built-up area.

No way would I fly if the cloudbase was in/under the terrain en-route. But that raises an interesting question about night flight in a SEP, doesn't it? Some nights are bright, many are not, and some which look bright at 5000ft are pitch black when lower down. This is another can of worms to open up... you can fly at night on a plain PPL (with the NQ), you could easily not see anything useful down below, yet you haven't been taught to navigate fully IFR.

Plenty here to keep pprune going :O I am off to France shortly (VFR :O )

[LowNSlow]

When I did my IMC (now lapsed) many moons ago, my instructor asked my how was I going to use it. I replied that I wanted it to be a useful rating. As it was Autumn in Wales there was real IMC aplenty. I think I only used foggles once. I spent the remaining 14 hours bouncing around in cloud in a C-150 and became quite comfortable with it. He taught to IR limits and insisted on mastery of holds and approaches. Taught like this and with experience built up in a sensible manner, the IMC Rating is FAR more than a get -you-out-of-trouble card. For somebody like bose-x who obviously uses his Cessna to go places on a regular basis then, if experienced and current within IMC, a pilot shouldn't need to upgrade to an expensive IR unless they want to exploit the ease of flight planning etc enjoyed by IR holders.



PS After the IMC Rating I bought an Aerobat and spent heaps on kitting it out as a reasonably practical IMC capable machine. It got wrecked in a gale. I bought a Cub with the insurance payment. IMC rating lapsed.......

[S-Works]

Of course the 800 hour IMCR pilot has more experience than the 200 hour fATPL holder, but potentially, both could learn from each other.

I was not denying this, in fact any pilot who thinks he has nothing to learn from others is a liability.......

My comments were aimed at the new fATPL people who think that having an ATPL despite there total lack of flying experiance makes them superior to everyone else and that it gives them the right to call themselves "big boys". A fact that we come accross time and time again sadly.

One of the reasons I originally went off to do the CPL/IR was to prove anyone with time on there hands can do it!

:p :O :cool:

[c-bert]

...and money....:(

[S-Works]

yep and that of course. :O

Which is also why it still amazes me that people go off and get themselves into debt when there is no work and a dearth of others all out there in the same position. And we expect our airline bus drivers to show good judgement and not take risks!!

:p


Don't get me wrong, despite what it seems I have nothing against the wannabees. I just don't like the way a lot of them treat the dirty unwashed because they think they are better just because they have a little green folder.:O

[rustle]

I just don't like the way a lot of them treat the dirty unwashed because they think they are better just because they have a little green folder.bose-x, is that something you see happening here in this virtual world, or do you see it in your flying club or where?

[S-Works]

there is a fair amount of it here in our virtual world but significantly more in the "real world".

Its one of those things I notice a lot in the various clubs that I frequent.

How do you know an ATPL holder in a crowded room? Because they tell you!!!

Dig deeper and you find someone with a fATPL and a couple of hundred hours who thinks because they understand jet power plants, airconditioning units etc that they are expert flyers.

[rotatrim]

Point of Order.........it's a little blue folder until you "unfreeze" the ATPL (and get a little green folder), by which time you have at least 1500 hours.

[S-Works]

good point well made and conceded!

:D

[benhurr]

So c-bert, have we answered your questions?

Do you think you will do an IMC rating?

[c-bert]

Lol, yeah my question has been answered several times over thanks. I think I'll follow one of the first pieces of advice, which was get a few hours under my belt and then tackle it. Not sure what capacity I will use it yet, but actually training for it should improve the quality and precision of my flying if nothing else.

Never thought such a simple question would end up in a 5 page thread! :D