Flight Plan-imc

[pipertommy]

I have recently got my IMCR but feel a littled confused over flight plan requirements?If i was VFR on a local trip but went IFR with lowering cloud base and wanted to let down at an airport which was located in class D airspace would/should i have filed a flight plan to enter there airspace? And what is the legal requirement for equipment to fly IFR ie two radios?:confused:

[Chilli Monster]

To answer both:

1) When people say flight plan most think of the formal plan submitted before some flights. However, the definition of a Flight Plan is "Information to enable a flight or portion of a flight to be conducted iaw with an ATC clearance". Passing your details and requirements to the relevant Class 'D' ATC unit constitutes a "Flight Plan" as such.

2) According to the ANO you only require "Radio equipment capable of maintaining direct two-way communication with the appropriate aeronautical radio stations." One would be sufficient. However, you also however require VOR/ILS amd ADF. If the aircraft Comms / VOR/ ILS are not FM immune then you cannot fly IMC/IFR within CAS. (Schedule 5 of the ANO has all the details you need).

[pipertommy]

Thanks i will have a good read through it!So just to make sure ,i could request to enter class D for ie ILS approach without having sent them a flight plan

[Aussie Andy]

Chilli, you are a wealth of information and it is appreciated... you also however require VOR/ILS and ADF My question relates to an aircraft I was flying this weekend... It has ILS, but the G/S is INOP (and placarded as such)... so was I breaking the rules when I took the a/c IFR with a radar service to climb above a layer and back down again?

Cheers,

Andy :ok:

[tmmorris]

Chilli - I have no doubt you know more than me about this, but... you only require VOR/ILS and ADF in CAS, surely? Outside it's just the equipment you require to complete the flight (i.e. stopwatch & compass...?)

Tim

[Chilli Monster]

Andy:

Those requirements are for CAS only - outside you don't technically need anything apart from "equipment necessary for the conduct of the flight" - so if you were in Class 'G' no problems at all.

Tim:

Original question concerned Class 'D' airspace, and as such the answer is applicable to 'D' and above only. I've flown IFR outside with just a VOR and a stopwatch - perfectly acceptable :)

[tmmorris]

Thanks Chilli. Which is why, presumably, there are all those people out there using GPS as a backup to their primary Nav, which is of course dead reckoning, stopwatch and compass...!

Tim

[Chilli Monster]

Of course ;)

I don't even turn on the Garmin 430/530's in the aircraft I fly! 20 year old stopwatch works far better :ok:

(sorry - I'll stop now before the men in white coats turn up :\ )

[Keef]

I don't even turn on the Garmin 430/530's in the aircraft I fly! 20 year old stopwatch works far better
Sure you don't. Just like I don't.

One tiny warning: if you just pitch up and call an ATC unit in Class D, not having spoken to them beforehand, they may decline to accept you for an ILS approach.

If you are in genuine need, of course, you'll have no problem.

[pipertommy]

Do you have to inform ATC when you go imc?Just getting a couple of things sorted in my head!I understand you would have requested a RAS or RIS,you would class your flight IFR.Or the opposite you would report VFR when below/OUT OF CLOUD.Any tips would be great.

[bookworm]

You don't actually need a glideslope receiver for IFR in class A/B/D/E, just a VOR receiver.

Schedule 5 has a framework for requiring an ILS receiver for take-offs and landings at notified airports, regardless of flight rules. But I've never seen such a notification.

[FullyFlapped]

These questions being asked by PiperTommy strike a real chord with me, and prove one of two things : either he had a crap IMCR instructor, or (actually) the fact is that the IMCR is not a "how to fly IFR" guide. Yes, I know all the old guff about "it's only a get you home/get out of jail card", but I personally don't believe that that is how a great many PPLs with one actually use it, or why they even get one in the first place.

This rating is - whether those in authority like it or not - used to fly IFR, very probably often in solid IMC. Been there loads of times, eaten the T-shirt etc. But the instruction leaves a huge amount of gaps in the pilot's knowledge, eg in the areas of flight planning, IFR RT etc, and the obvious implication is that these are things only to be taught in the hallowed halls of the full IR. Can't have those IMC chappies getting in the way of the real IFR traffic, can we ?

Excuse my sarcasm, but having had an IMC for a while now, I've learned (thanks to fantastic help in other places and on here from the likes of the inestimable Chilli) how much I don't know, which is why I'm doing a (stupidly over-complicated and expensive) IR. But I'm one of the lucky ones who has the resources available, whereas many don't. I think it really is high time that that those who run aviation in Europe got their heads out of the sand and came up with some sort of IR for the PPL which is attainable in terms of cost and effort, and effective in terms of promoting flight safety and efficiency for those who, like me, aren't interested in driving a 737.

Hang on, did I just describe an FAA IR ? Oops ... but wait, that's no good, as it seems the CAA are going to ban N reg UK-based planes. Jolly good show, chaps : any more bright ideas for reducing flight safety ?

Rant over ....

FF :ok:

[Fuji Abound]

"Do you have to inform ATC when you go imc?Just getting a couple of things sorted in my head!I understand you would have requested a RAS or RIS,you would class your flight IFR.Or the opposite you would report VFR when below/OUT OF CLOUD.Any tips would be great."

To request a RAS or RIS doesnt necessarily mean you are IFR or in IMC. You are at liberty to request either service in VMC and for example when flying directly into a low sun I often find a RIS very helpul in otherwise excellent VMC.

As I am sure you know a flight is either VFR or IFR. For the flight to be VFR you must be in VMC but of course for a flight to be IFR you may be either in VMC or IMC BUT if you are IMC then the flight must be IFR. Therefore you might have "declared" the flight to be VFR, to find that during the flight conditions changed. You would then notify the ground unit you were working that you were now IFR. I dont see any requirement to tell them you are now IMC but equally it does no harm. In fact I often find it is helpful because the controller knows your work load may have risen and usually they are even more helpful and certainly far more likely to give you the service you request.

FullyFlapped


- well said!

Pipertommy - without in any way wishing to sound patronising I also agree that some of these questions seem strange given that you have just completed an IMCR. Presumably during some of your training you must have transitioned from VMC to IFR and "arranged" to make a number of approaches in class D airspace - or was in fact all your training with the fogels??

[bookworm]

To request a RAS or RIS doesnt necessarily mean you are IFR or in IMC. You are at liberty to request either service in VMC

It used to be that way, then they changed it. For the last 5 years or so, you have to be IFR to receive a RAS. Retrograde step IMHO.

[Circuit Basher]

Bookworm - without trying to get into semantics or someone else's discussion, what I understood Fuji to be saying was that even if VFR, you're entitled to ASK for a RAS/RIS. The realistic amongst us know that 'due to controller workload', VFR traffic should not expect to be offered RAS/RIS and FIS is the most likely outcome. IFR traffic, however, should reasonably expect a RAS, with a RIS being the icing on the cake.

If you don't ask, you don't get!! :D

[Edited 'coz I got in a mucking fuddle with my RASs and my RISs!! ;]

[IO540]

FF

I think this man really did have a seriously crap IMCR instructor.

Even mine wasn't that bad - and mine told me that one could overload a VOR by tuning too many receivers to it. He had a JAA ATPL too - no idea if it was real or a photocopy though.

The trouble is that you could do a JAA PPL/IR and having sat through the 10 exams (is it 10, 14 for the CPL/IR?) you still don't need to know how to actually go somewhere for real. All depends on the instructor(s) and most instructors never do go anywhere.

I suspect this "how do I go to XYZ" problem doesn't surface with JAA IR pilots because so few of them (virtually none actually) are doing it for private flying. Most are heading for an airline and there they TELL you what to do :O Whereas somebody who flies on their IMCR, often in IMC, needs to work it all out and is probably doing DIY letdowns in all sorts of places. By all accounts, that sort of flying is a lot more challenging than flying an airliner from Luton to Paris.

Incidentally, one can get a RIS if VFR (I've had it plenty of times) but one is FAR more likely to get it if one says one is IFR. A RAS is a lot harder to get and I can't vouch for what one has to do to get it - I've had a RAS a few times in a few years. I had it explained once in an MCASD meeting that the generous separation rules for a RAS mean that it is a practical necessity for the pilot to be in IMC (therefore IFR) because that's the only time the number of radar returns is likely to be low enough to make it possible - when the weather is crap.

[FlyingForFun]

This rating is - whether those in authority like it or not - used to fly IFR, very probably often in solid IMC. Been there loads of times, eaten the T-shirt etc. But the instruction leaves a huge amount of gaps in the pilot's knowledge, eg in the areas of flight planning, IFR RT etc, and the obvious implication is that these are things only to be taught in the hallowed halls of the full IR. Can't have those IMC chappies getting in the way of the real IFR traffic, can we ?Interesting. I got my IMC rating almost two years ago. I passed my IR test earlier today. I'm not in any better or worse a position to answer Pipertommy's questions today than I was before I started the IR course, so I don't think that comes into it at all. Personally, I would like to see some of this type of thing on the IMC written exam, rather than all the route-plotting stuff which, let's face it, really isn't any different to VFR route-plotting.

FFF
-------------

[High Wing Drifter]

Having an IMC and having gone through the ATPLs then I agree with IO540. There is nothing in the theory to help you when planning with blank sheet. I suspect the IR is just more of the same but with narrower tolerances and at 140kts.

[pipertommy]

As stated the IMC course does not tackle these points i asked about,just planning and more planning.The written was close to my VFR nav test i feel alot is missing from the IMC course work.In the defence of my instructor he has asked me to come in for a chat to go through the points i asked on here,he can only teach what is on the course i guess.Anyway thanks for the replys GOOD information as usual!Cheers !

[spikeair]

Thought I'd add some somments.

Got my IMC around 18 months ago and have actively used it since. I had teh Trevor Thom book to revise from but found that there were some gaps. I think its liek the PPL, once you get that and actually get out there and do some flying, you pick up information that was no included in the course but is of use.

I plan my flights as IFR ones these days, in terms of navigation, I persoanlyl find it easier to route via VORs and NDBs than to fly visually with dead reckoning, it also means that because I have planned the flight assuming I'll be in cloud, when I actually go flying, the appearence of a cloud do not mean I have to replan in the air, its all been worked out previosuly.
I therefore plan to do instrument approaches avry time I fly just to keep in practice. Whilst in some circles it the rating might be considered a get out of jail card, you need to keep current on it to ensure that when you do need to an approach for real, you are not going to be rusty.
I feel that doing an instrument approach everytime, no matter what the weather is , helps with confidence.
My IMC training took place under the hood, whilst I was training , it just happended to be fine weather all the time. So when it came to flying in cloud for the first time, I took an instructor with me just to act as a safety pilot. In some ways it is easier in iMC than with a hood on, but it does feel quite different.
My first solo flight in cloud was , amd I'm being quite honest, quite scary at first, it felt very unnatural (as if flying is natural in the first place!) but after a few minutes settled down and actually started to enjoy it.
If its not too bumpy, then it not too bad but in bumpy conditions, you think to your self whether you have done the right thing.
One one occasion, I flew into some cumulus clouds and was being bumped around and struggling to maintain my altitude , gaing 200 ft one moment and then loosing 200 the next.
I'm glad it did it that if only to stretch my levels of experience.
I think the rating should include more information about the weather, I mean should you really avoid cumulus clouds al together?
With about a year or so of instrument approaches under my belt, I now look forward to doing these and for me , is the highlight of the flight. (Is that Sad?!)
Otehr than VOR/DME and NDB/DME, I've manegd to do the otehr remianing approaches. ILS is my favourite , perhaps no surprise there, but have managed to do a PAR for real and an SRA in low cloud along with some LLZ/DME approaches.
I would love to do an IR but can't really justify the cost. With the IMC, you have to on occassions beg for a radar service, don't get me wrong I have nothing against the ATCOs , I know that at times they are very busy.
For approach plates, I use the Aerad ones which I find very clear and easy to understand , but tehre are some approaches that seem to be an possile issue for an IMC rated pilot. Manchester is one that come to mind, the missed approach takes you inot Class A airspace, which you cannot go inot to, so what do in that case, presumably tell ATC who will hopefully sort you out?
Its also a shame that you can;t fly a lot of the SIDs and StARS as some of these are quite straightforward but again take you inot Class A airspace at some point.
Bottom line, a great rating to get but in retrospect , perhaps q bit more could be included.

[Obs cop]

Having just finished my IMCR, I can support most of the comments here.

IO540 is correct in pointing out the wide variances in the standard of instruction out there.;) But seriously this is quite a huge issue. The IMCR syllabus is not as closely controlled as the PPL, the only gauges are the written exam (no mention of flight plans there) and the skills test. Guess what's not in that test either.:ugh:

The net result of all of this is that the less willing instructors will teach what they know you need to pass, not what you need to know to keep yourself safe and unprosecuted. The flight plan stuff is in the Airlaw section of Trevor Thom and in theory at least ought to be known by a VFR PPL, but as with most things unless you use it you will lose it.

During the later flights of my IMCR, we tried to push the boundaries of the syllabus to add to my skills and knowledge. Likewise we went places and I accepted the additional charges of doing some ILS's at unfamiliar airports like East Midlands. Likewise, when my first few lessons were in an aircraft with single VOR/ILS and ADF, you really do learn how to navigate IMC with just the basics. Ultimately there are huge gaps in the syllabus so the onus is on the instructor to guide the student and for the student to ask questions outside of what is needed to pass the tests.

IMHO

Obs cop

[Charley]

Just to clarify the RIS/RAS thing and to back-up what Bookworm said, AIP ENR 1-6-1 (Use of Radar in Air Traffic Services) refers. Specifically, 3.1.1(a) of this sections states that for a Radar Advisory Service:

The service will only be provided to flights under IFR irrespective of meteorological conditions;

Point (b) of same states:

Controllers will expect the pilot to accept vectors or level allocations which may require flight in IMC. Pilots not qualified to fly in IMC should accept a RAS only where compliance with ATC advice permits the flight to be continued in VMC;

So while a pilot is not prevented from asking for a RAS while flying under VFR, they would be precluded from receiving it unless IFRs are adopted.

[IO540]

The IMCR syllabus is not as closely controlled as the PPL

I know some accuse me of being overly negative on this subject, but I think that people concentrate overly on the "insufficient" IMCR training while IMHO (and working on the assumption that the pilot actually wants to fly for real) PPL training is just as crap.

But in the PPL this is acceptable. It is accepted within the training industry that most PPLs will never be seen again, so why bother to teach them stuff they need to know for actually going somewhere.

Yet the IMCR attracts extra attention - perhaps because IR holders don't like the fact that an IMCR holder has for most GA purposes (non-deiced SEP etc) the same privileges. Especially given the poor availability of rentable planes that are legal for IFR in CAS.

What stops the great majority of IMCR holders flying all over the place and fully exercising their privileges is the same thing which IMHO stops most PPL holders from doing the same: lack of money and lack of aircraft of adequate quality and equipment.

If every new IMCR pilot went flying x/country 100hrs/year to their full privileges there would be a lot more accidents.

If every new PPL pilot went flying x/country 100hrs/year to their full privileges there would also be a lot more accidents, but they would attract a lot less patronising comment from the "old chaps" in this business, because "everybody knows" that the PPL is "a license to learn" etc etc.

In reality if one was training to fly somebody one cares about, and they wanted to fly for real rather than a little local bimble on sunny days, one would go way past the PPL. Even if the pilot wanted only VFR privileges (not very useful for x/country in the UK) one would still need to include substantial instrument skills (flight, and an ILS at least) for basic safety.

Presently, having got the training (PPL or IMCR) one is out there very much alone, and one has to learn as one goes along.

[Obs cop]

IO540,

Whilst some would see your arguments as harsh and unwarranted, I would have to agree wholeheartedly.

13 years ago I passed my motorcycle test and went off to buy a brand new sports bike. I had loads of near misses for the next 3 months whilst I found out on my own all of the things I feel I should have been told. It is the age old problem of instructors teaching to what the rather inadequate test requires.

I started a left hand bend, but was going too fast, only to find the bike gradually moving out to the middle of the road. On seeing an oncoming car and panicking, I grabbed a handful of front brake and found the bike sat bolt upright and tried to go in a straight line taking me ever closer to the oncoming car. So still in that split second of terror, I let go of the brake, leant the bike over as far as I dare and waited for the crash. Now I was fortunate that I responded like this and that the bike held, but many are not. Nobody had ever told me waht would happen if I used a handful of front brake in a bend, but that simple omission damn near killed me, and only luck saved my a$$.

This is my analogy of recreational GA. Once you qualify with your PPL and or IMCR you have passed a test, no more no less. Over the coming months if not years you will scare the sh1t out of yourself with many new and previously unwarned situations. Should the prospective pilot survive these scares then like me and my motorbike, they will learn and their ability to fly safely and well increase tenfold. My only concern is why it should be this way?

The NPPL was an ideal chance to review and tailor training specifically for the recreational pilot. Instead, I fear they just cut the PPL syllabus down. The hour ever 24 months with an instructor - should it not be more structured or direct?

But then maybe you can't train an idiot and there are certainly some of them out there.

Regards

Obs cop

[High Wing Drifter]

I agree with the apparent disjunction between passing the IMC and going IMC solo for the first time. I also agree that equipment levels should be pretty high with redundancy (2xVOR 1xADF, transponder, 2xCOMM as a minimum).

I can't agree with the comments on the PPL. I can't really see what more there was for me to do in training! Everything was well honed. Confidence was the only limiting factor. You can't have real confidence without getting out there and doing it.

Would I be alone in thinking that a less than pristine VFR aircraft helps make a more rounded pilot? I flew for months without an AI, a superfluous instrument in what most consider to be flyable weather. Neither would the lack of a DI trouble most people. A non-functional transponder is non-event and I never used VORs and ADFs when VFR except to maybe to practice or play.

[Max AirFactor]

Even though I'm not particularly interested in flying in poor vis, the recent threads on the IMC subject have convinced me to do the rating. And having sat on the beach at Shoreham last summer watching the fog build up, wondering if I'd get home......

Biggin is my local - can anyone recommend a specific instructor?

Apart from the silly prices and long holds, any other comments on using Biggin? Should I look further afield.

Also most people seem to be using the Thom book and IMC confuser?

Cheers, MAF