IMC Uncertainties

[Callsign Kilo]

I am an IMC rated PPL holder who is hoping to clear up a few uncertainties that I have regarding the rating. The way that I look upon the rating is that it provides greater piece of mind to the private pilot by increasing the priviledges of his/her licence. However where I am unlcear is how does flying under 'IFR' work with an IMC rated pilot?
I know the rating is restricted to the UK, however in what way is it practiced? Can you file IFR flight plans, even though you cannot fly in airways? Can you upgrade to IFR from VFR if the weather starts to get below VFR minima or if you need to decend through cloud to get into an airfield? What are the DH/MDH minimas for an IMC holder. For my test I was told to add 500 ft to the published minima + the Pressure Correction error for my aircraft. Does this still apply?

I would be grateful to anyone could help to clear up my issue. Many thanks

[stuartforrest]

As far as I am aware the answers are yes you can file and yes you can upgrade and the decision heights are not plus 500ft but down to a minimum of 500ft (200ft on IR) I think but that depends on the airfield as some will be higher.

I am sure I will get roasted now off the experts but it is pretty much something like that.

[JUST-local]

The holder of an IMC rating can fly IFR in uncontroled airspace and controlled upto class D. You can file an IFR flight plan or request an IFR clearance on route if you know what you want and ensure you are not directed through/via an airway or airspace above class D.
When I initially trained for the IMC rating I was told minimums of 1800 meters viz for departure and a cloud base not less than 700 feet? I think, Minimum for an approach procedure I was told was 700 feet for a non precision and 500 feet for a precison approach.
However another examinar told me that this was not in the air navigation order so was only advisory and you could effectivley use lower minimums if required, (he also said don't be a fool and ensure you are in current pracise, aircraft is properly equiped etc.) but I am unsure where the definitve answers can be found, hopefully someone can put a link up!

[Fuji Abound]

CK - I regret that these issues were not covered during your IMC training - becasue they should have been. Unfortunately this would seem too often the case.

There is a suggestion from your post you may not be clear on the difference between IMC and IFR. Any pilot can conduct an IFR flight however for that flight to continue into IMC then the pilot must have an IR or IMC rating.

You can file an IFR flight plan within the UK which may include flight in IMC and you can change from visual to instrument flight rules in flight because you have entered IMC.

Your landing minima are the same as the minima for IR holders (although this has been widely debated and there are those that would disagree.) Whether you should operate to these minima is another matter.

The rating is restricted to the UK but it does "lift" the requirment to remain in sight of the surface outside the UK - commonly know as VFR on top.

You are entitled to operate in IMC in all UK classes of airspace except for all types of class A.

Flying a solid IMC sector with an approach to or near minima followed by a possible diversion is not something the IMC rating has probably trained you to do safely (although it is within your priviliges) but there are many IMC rated pilots who with further training and experience do exactly this.

[rustle]

Your landing minima are the same as the minima for IR holders (although this has been widely debated and there are those that would disagree.) Whether you should operate to these minima is another matter.

You are entitled to operate in IMC in all UK classes of airspace except for all types of class A.



Er, no and no :)

You can fly down to IR minima cloudbase (but are advised by AIPs/Thom etc. to add 200' to any "IR minima").

You cannot land or take off if the viz is less than 1800 meters. (Whereas single pilot IR can takeoff in 0 and land in 800)

IFR (or IMC, which implies IFR) up to class D only. Not classes C, B or A.

[Fuji Abound]

Of course you are correct Rustle but CK asked about DH not landing viz.

I guess there is some C and B airspace in the UK but I have yet to come across it.

[FlyingForFun]

Callsign Kilo,

From your post, it seems there are some very large gaps in your knowledge. This is a pity, and my guess is that the root of the problem is that you were taught to pass the IMC test, rather than fly in IMC - probably by someone who believes the rubbish that an IMC rating should only be used to get you out of trouble.

To answer your questions as fully as I can on a forum like this:

However where I am unlcear is how does flying under 'IFR' work with an IMC rated pilot?

In the UK, you may fly IFR outside controlled airspace, using any combination of approved navaids. Probably the most common navaids for en-route navigation are VOR and GPS. You must comply with the rules of IFR flight - that is being 1000' above the highest fixed object within 5nm, and following the quadrantal rule if above 3000'. Assuming your aircraft has minimum level of equipment as required by the ANO, you can ask for, and may get, an IFR crossing of Class D/E controlled airspace such as control zones or control areas, but most of your en-route flying will take place outside of controlled airspace, where you should make use of whatever radar services you can get if you are in IMC.

I know the rating is restricted to the UK, however in what way is it practiced? Can you file IFR flight plans, even though you cannot fly in airways?

You can file a flight plan for any flight. You must file a flight plan if you are crossing the UK FIR boundary, and also if you plan on flying on airways. You are recommended to file a flight plan if flying in remote areas or over large bodies of water. You can file a flight plan for any other flight if you wish. As an IMC-rating holder, you do not need to consider flight plans any more than you did as a basic PPL holder. What I mean by that is that, if you are flying to France, you would have to file a flight plan whether you plan to use your IMC rating on the British portion of the route or not. On the other hand, if you are flying from Cranfield to Shoreham, you do not have to file a flight plan if you are flying VFR (although you may if you want), and you also do not have to file a flight plan if you are flying IFR (although, again, you may if you want).

Can you upgrade to IFR from VFR if the weather starts to get below VFR minima or if you need to decend through cloud to get into an airfield?

Yes. Outside controlled airspace, you can switch between IFR and VFR as often as you like, without having to inform anybody (although you might like to ask for, or cancel, a radar service). Inside controlled airspace, your clearance will be either VFR or IFR, and you must inform ATC if you wish to change flight rules.

Having said that, with limited experience, trying to plan an IFR route (or even half a route) on the hoof is not to be recommended. If there is even a slight chance of the weather being IMC, I would suggest planning the whole flight as IFR right from the start, then downgrade to VFR during the flight if appropriate. As you get more experience, you will become more comfortable with the idea of upgrading to IFR part way through a flight with minimal prior planning.

What are the DH/MDH minimas for an IMC holder. For my test I was told to add 500 ft to the published minima + the Pressure Correction error for my aircraft. Does this still apply?

I hope that's a typo. The recommendation is to add 200' to the published minima (plus PEC for a precision approach), and then to round this up to a minimum of 500' above ground for a precision approach, or 600' above ground for a non-precision approach. (If you prefer to fly instrument approaches on QNH - probably the most common scenario - rather than QFE, this takes a little bit of maths.) This is just a recommendation, but one I would suggest you stick to until you have more experience. (In any case, if you are flying a single-engine aircraft, would you really want to be flying if the cloudbase was below 500'???) This is described in detail in both the AIP and Trevor Thom book 5.

However, Fuji is wrong when he says "Your landing minima are the same as the minima for IR holders". [Edit to note that Rustle got in before me in spotting this.] Although the increase DA/MDA I've described above is just a recommendation, the increased visibility for IMC ratings vs IR is mandatory. It is 1800m for both take-off and landing. In the case of landing, what this means is that, on an approach, you may not descend below 1000' agl if the vis is less than 1800m. However, once you have descended below 1000', if the visibility subsequently deteriorates to below 1800m, you may still continue the approach, and you may land if you have acquired the necessary visual reference before DA or MApPt.

I hope that helps, but it really does sound, from your post, that you have been left with big enough gaps in your knowledge that you really need to spend some time with a competent instructor and/or experienced IMC-rating holder before attempting to use the rating in anger.

Good luck in acquiring the necessary knowledge, and using your rating's privileges!

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

[Callsign Kilo]

Thanks to everyone who has helped me out here!! Some valuable knowledge has been gained!

FFF and Fuji, I would admitt yes, I realised a bit of a void was left after I got my rating. I understood what was required to pass the IMC test, and I would also like to say that under the guidence of my instructor I was prepared to do this to a good standard. Practicing in the aircraft, along with the use of Flight Sim (plus the added benefit of my ATPL Radio Nav Textbooks) helped me get to grasp with the IMC course and impress the examiner enough to pass the skill test.

Whilst I would never look to intentionally use my rating in anger, I never actually know when it may or could be called upon. It has given me a little bit more confidence and piece of mind in my flying and has provided me with an appreciation for what is involved in the IR course (which I intend embark upon very soon). However as rightly noted, I didn't really have the knowledge of what a private pilot is entitled to with the IMC!

I am looking forward to investing a little time in refreshing my skills with an Instructor at my local club. It won't do any harm! Thanks once again

[IO540]

Oh dear this is going to be a long thread :)

I know the rating is restricted to the UK,

The IFR privileges are limited to UK only, but the removal of the requirement to remain in sight of the surface when flying under VFR is valid worldwide (I have this in writing from the CAA).

however in what way is it practiced? Can you file IFR flight plans, even though you cannot fly in airways?

Yes, though it is fairly pointless except for search/rescue purposes. An FP is mandatory only outside the UK, but you can't fly IFR outside the UK.

It's possible to file IFR flight plans with a route that keeps you below Class A but the UK doesn't really have a meaningful "system" for that, other than addressing such an FP like it was a VFR one, i.e. nobody en-route knows about you and you don't get any clearance into CAS other than what you are permitted as you progress along the route. The UK also has no enroute ATC service below the airways (mostly Class A) that is of any value; you can get a radar service from bits of LARS here and there but that's more or less it. So - if you still really want to file a flight plan - you may as well file a VFR one and then change to IFR when you feel like it (or when you see IMC ahead).

Perhaps the best use of filing an IFR FP is if you are heading for a major airport (in Class D or lower, obviously in your case) to land with an instrument approach; they will be more impressed than if you just turn up VFR and ask for an ILS - in fact some like Cranfield will refuse the ILS if the weather is actually VMC.

IFR flight plan filing is a big science / black art and if you get too smart and try to file an FP which looks like an airways one but is in fact below Class A, and that FP gets addressed to Eurocontrol (which controls airways routings in Europe) then it all gets very messy. In the UK, the Class A service is totally separated from all the dross flying below and they will assume you have an IR and can just send you off into Class A, and get totally confused if you refuse. The IMCR is to be used and enjoyed to get from A to B while legally drilling holes in clouds, not for flying pretend-airliner routes :)

Can you upgrade to IFR from VFR if the weather starts to get below VFR minima or if you need to decend through cloud to get into an airfield?

Yes, in the UK, outside CAS (OCAS), the VFR v. IFR state is entirely in your mind and you can change anytime. You can fly non-radio too! The only time it really matters is if you enter Class D; then you need clearance for a transit which will be authorised according to what you ask for (VFR or IFR) and you need to be clear about that.

In general you are more likely to get a radar service if you call up some radar unit as "IFR" :) But slick radio will also help.

What are the DH/MDH minimas for an IMC holder. For my test I was told to add 500 ft to the published minima + the Pressure Correction error for my aircraft. Does this still apply?

No, that's standard CAA disinformation. It's a recommendation, like so many things that take up bandwidth on pilot forums. The law (the ANO) does not restrict an IMCR holder over an IR holder on the minima. You need 1800m+ vis for departure or landing (or better if the aerodrome has its own vis minima). There are some extra SVFR privileges over a plain PPL but I never (knowingly) use SVFR so I don't know them.

Now, to fly an ILS down to 200ft you need to be pretty good and current, not the usual UK 10 hours/year average PPL (or whatever it is), as well as flying something a whole lot better than the standard piece of rental junk in which half the panel is duff - but we are talking legality here, not practicality :)

When you ask for an IFR clearance through some bit of airspace, on occassions you will be offered a transit through Class A. You have to refuse that with something like "unable to enter Class A" - they will then realise you have an IMCR and not an IR. This is rare however.

From your post, it seems there are some very large gaps in your knowledge

His instructor's knowledge, evidently.

you may fly IFR outside controlled airspace, using any combination of approved navaids

There is no specification on how navigation must be done, on private flights in the UK (or anywhere else I know of), VFR or IFR. It's true that IFR pilots tend to use GPS backed up by navaids i.e. VOR/DME and ADF and plan the route to use these as much as possible.

You must file a flight plan if you are crossing the UK FIR boundary

Perhaps worth a mention that one doesn't need an FP between England and Scotland for example, even though one is crossing an FIR.

and also if you plan on flying on airways

You must mean the very few bits of airways which are in Class D.

Would ATC treat that as an airway or as just a piece of Class D into which somebody who has just appeared (don't forget the IFR FP will not generally be addressed to enroute ATS units) has asked for transit of, along a route which just happens to be an airway higher up?

For Class D, no need for a filed ICAO FP. The IFR clearance request/granting is equivalent to filing an airborne FP. (One can do that for Class A too, on some occassions, with a full IR).

The plane needs to carry quite a bit of working equipment to be legal for IFR in CAS. I am sure the majority of rental spamcans are illegal for IFR in CAS.

As to realities:

I would suggest planning the whole flight as IFR right from the start

IMHO it is sensible to plan every A-B flight as IFR, and regard VMC enroute as a bonus :)

One nice advantage of flying IFR is that ATC doesn't ask you to go to some VRP which nobody except the local sheep farmer knows where it is (the "Nokia Factory", etc). You can navigate using IFR waypoints: navaids, airways intersections.

Whilst I would never look to intentionally use my rating in anger

Why not? You have the legal privileges; you paid for them, so use them. A bit at a time, with another experienced pilot perhaps, then some more. All those old farts who say it is a "get you out of trouble rating" etc etc should be drawing their Civil Service pensions by now.

[DFC]

Although the increase DA/MDA I've described above is just a recommendation, the increased visibility for IMC ratings vs IR is mandatory. It is 1800m for both take-off and landing. In the case of landing, what this means is that, on an approach, you may not descend below 1000' agl if the vis is less than 1800m. However, once you have descended below 1000', if the visibility subsequently deteriorates to below 1800m, you may still continue the approach, and you may land if you have acquired the necessary visual reference before DA or MApPt.

FFF,

You seem to have confused the approach ban and landing minima. They are two separate things.

An IR holder requires the RVR to be above the applicable minima before commencing an approach or descending below 1000ftAAL. If after passing the 1000ftAAL or equivalent point the RVR reduces, the IR holder can land provided that at DA or MDA, they have the required visual references. Thus the IR holder while limited in RVR to commence an approach can actually land in any RVR provided the visual references are available.

The IMC Rating holder on the other hand is also limited by the requirements of the approach ban (note some approach minima may be greather than 1800m RVR eg circling). But the IMC rating holder is also legally required by the ANO to have 1800m to land.

Thus for the IMC holder, the RVR reducing below 1800m even when below 1000ftAAL will require that a landing is not made.

In fact should the IMCrating holder become "visual" at say 1000ft but find that the flight visibility below cloud is only 1500m then since they do not have 1800m, they can not legally land despite perhaps having the threshold in sight.

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

You are probably right, DFC, but the 1800m min for the IMC pilot is reported met visibility, IIRC. The pilot himself has no way to tell if vis is 1000, 1500 or 2000m.

This figure is unlikely to change from say 2000m to 1500m as he descends down the approach.

It might do, but would the new value be reported to the pilot on his way down?

Also there won't usually be a reported vis at a non-ATC field. This brings us to the subject of DIY instrument approaches (which are legal)...........

So I don't think this is a practically enforceable detail.

[FlyingForFun]

Interesting, DFC. I have to admit I never thought of it that way.

The relevant part of the AIP - AD1-1-6 - is not on-line, so I can't check right now. If I get a chance at work today, I'll look up the exact wording.

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

[DRJAD]

and also if you plan on flying on airways
You must mean the very few bits of airways which are in Class D.
I believe there is some confusion amongst some, who refer to Class F Advisory Routes as (pseudo) airways. One can, of course plan as an IMCR holder to fly on these.

[IO540]

Does anybody actually use VFR advisory routes in the UK? It seems utterly pointless. Any pilot should be able to get the map out and plan a route which is outside Class D. One needs nothing less, nothing more. Sometimes a transit of D is worth asking for, but if one doesn't get it then one has to fall back to the original plan.

It's different outside the UK (where CAS transits of C or D are generally much more freely given) but an IMCR holder can't fly IFR there anyway.

[bookworm]

Does anybody actually use VFR advisory routes in the UK?

Who said anything about VFR advisory routes? Class F routes are helpful in providing separation for particpating IFR traffic.

[IO540]

Sorry bookworm I misunderstood. I just don't recall ever seeing class F routes anywhere.

[DRJAD]

Try Scotland! :)

[FlyingForFun]

Earlier, DFC discusses whether the 1800m visibility restriction for an IMC holder is to be interpreted as being applied for the purposes of the approach ban in the same way as an IR-holder would use the published minima, or whether the restriction applies even once an IMC holder has passed below 1000' on an approach.

I couldn't find anything in the AIP, but I did find the relevant legislation in the ANO.

Schedule 8 Part B contains the privileges of the IMC rating. Included in this is the following:
(2) The rating shall not entitle the holder of the licence to fly:

(b) when the aeroplane is taking off or landing at any place if the flight visibility below cloud is less than 1800 metres.
Note that it does not ban you from taking off and landing; it bans you from flying under certain conditions.

The legislation relating to the approach ban for non-commercial aircraft is in the AIP, and it's also in the ANO Part 5, paragraph 49(4):
(4) Without prejudice to paragraph (2) an aircraft to which this article applies when making a descent at an aerodrome to a runway in respect of which there is a notified instrument approach procedure shall not descend from a height of 1000 feet or more above the aerodrome to a height less than 1000 feet above the aerodrome if the relevant runway visual range for that runway is at the time less than the specified minimum for landing.
I don't think there's any doubt that the 1800m is "relevant", although it is a vis, not an RVR, so might not apply for the purposes of the approach ban? Also, I don't see anything in the approach ban which would override the general ban on flying when landing in less than 1800m vis.

So, in conclusion, I'm not really sure, but I think DFC is probably right. But, as IO540 says, it's completely academic in any case.

FFF
----------

[rustle]

So, in conclusion, I'm not really sure, but I think DFC is probably right. But, as IO540 says, it's completely academic in any case.

FFF
----------

I don't believe it is academic:

Class D airport, say Bournemouth for example.

IR pilot cleared on an approach passes through height 1000' descending, ATC may pass further viz/RVR and even if they do and it has dropped below 800m the pilot may continue the approach.

IMC rated pilot cleared on the approach passes through height 1000' descending, ATC may pass further viz/RVR and if it drops below 1800m the pilot must go around.

[IO540]

I think the real issue with the 1800m is for departures from an ATC airfield. The conversation gets recorded and also lots of people routinely listen in on handheld radios, including those who know you only have the IMC Rating ;)

That said, I have never heard of anybody getting done. There must be bigger fish to fry.

[bookworm]

IMC rated pilot cleared on the approach passes through height 1000' descending, ATC may pass further viz/RVR and if it drops below 1800m the pilot must go around.

Not so. The pilot must make an assessment of flight visibility below cloud. It would not be unusual for the met vis as reported by the tower to be very different from the flight visibility on approach to a particular runway. The RVR is significant only in relation to the absolute minimum RVR for the approach.

[funfly]

One point that is often overlooked is why should a pilot of a 'Permit' aircraft bother with IMC?
There is actually a very good reason, a 'Permit' aircraft is allowed to fly VMC which includes above cloud out of site of ground (subject to other criteria). A PPL cannot fly out of sight of ground unless he/she has the IMC rating.
Obviously, to maintain VMC conditions you still have to get through the cloud in a situation where you can see the ground but as long as you are 1,000' clear of clound you are VMC even if you don't see the ground.

[IO540]

Bookworm, I thought it was the met vis (not the pilot's own assessment) that mattered for the 1800m IMCR min. I am pretty sure you wrote that somewhere previously :)

Funfly, I don't get that. The holder of a UK CAA issued PPL (which includes a JAA PPL issued by the CAA) has to be within sight of the surface. It doesn't matter whether he is flying a microlight, a permit, a certified IFR spacewagon, or a 747 certified for single crew operation :)

If that PPL gets himself an IMCR or an IR, that requirement goes out of the window and he can now fly within the ICAO definition of VMC which is 1500m, clear of cloud, etc, and he does not have to see the surface. AFAIK that is true in any type of aeroplane.

The owner of a Permit plane has no use for the IMCR (or the IR) other than the above reason. He cannot officially fly IFR (in VMC or IMC). Of course he can fly IFR (in VMC or IMC) unofficially, it's unenforceable en route - what he cannot do is overt stuff like an IFR departure or an IFR arrival ;)

[FlyingForFun]

Bookworm,

You are quite correct that it is the in-flight visibility and not the reported met visiblity that is referenced in the IMC rating minima (see my quote from the ANO in my earlier post).

However, I ask you this: if the cloudbase is 300', and a pilot with an IMC rating is established on an ILS but not yet visual, how is he supposed to "make an assessment of flight visibility below cloud" to decide if he can continue below 1000'?

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

[BEagle]

If below 140KIAS and 3000 ft, VFR flights are permitted if in 1500m visibility as long as the aircraft is clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

[MikeJ]

I normally find myself agreeing with IO540 on nearly everything, but I must respond to his comment re Permit aircraft.
There are at least 3 reasons why a permit a/c pilot should have an IMCR, when flying strictly legally VFR.
1. As stated, it allows VFR 'on top' - but you have got to have holes to get down.
2. SVFR for me is important as I go to the CIs a few times a year. The Jersey Zone is Class A, apart from the local flying areas and Alderney-Guernsey route, which are class D up to 2000ft. The SVFR has a min of 10Km vis for non IMCR, but 3Km for IMCR pilots, all legal in permit aircraft. It is NEEDED, as in my opinion, over the sea one should not attempt to fly in less than 10km vis except on instruments, as there is no useful horizon or other visual clues unless very low. Add to that the unpredictability of vis in their maritime environment, and I wouldn't go there without an IMCR for personal safety reasons, let alone legality.
3. More generally, vis of between 5Km and 15Km even over land can, at altitude, leave one with the need to fly and navigate as if in IMC, especially if the sun is anywhere ahead, even though fully legal VFR in Class G. I have for 15 years flown a high performance PFA type, but never planned a flight when the forecast indicates that VFR may not be available. What such vis does is to encourage lower altitudes to give a reasonable horizon, against the interests of safety and avoidance of the higher density airspace, ATZs, Danger areas, MATZ, etc. Twice in the lovely weather a few weeks ago I did a day trip to Perranporth from the London area, at quadrantal levels FL60 going and FL50 returning when clear of the London TMA. Never near a cloud, unquestionably VFR legal, but on one of those trips, at those heights, it would have been impossible to fly and navigate visually. Lovely, silky smooth flights in complete relaxation. That's flying for me!

Apart from these reasons, it personally gives me comfort that being in current training on my current aircraft, in an emergency I would cope with confidence in cloud, if unpredicted weather would otherwise tempt me into one of those 'scud running' fatals. It has not, however, happened to me yet, in 40 years PPLing.

MikeJ

[bookworm]

Bookworm, I thought it was the met vis (not the pilot's own assessment) that mattered for the 1800m IMCR min. I am pretty sure you wrote that somewhere previously :)

The regulation of interest is Rule 24(3)
For the purposes of an aeroplane taking off from or approaching to land at an aerodrome within Class B, C or D airspace, the visibility, if any, communicated to the commander of an aeroplane by the appropriate air traffic control unit shall be taken to be the flight visibility for the time being.

It is part of Section V, Visual Flight Rules, and is entitled "Visual flight and reported visibility". The intention of the rule when introduced was very clear: it was to prohibit VFR arrivals and departures in visibility less than 5000 m.

An argument could be put (and I presume rustle would put it and I missed the subtlety of the class D reference ;)) that the rule also applies to an IMC-rated pilot flying under IFR in class D. I don't believe that that was the intention.

However, I ask you this: if the cloudbase is 300', and a pilot with an IMC rating is established on an ILS but not yet visual, how is he supposed to "make an assessment of flight visibility below cloud" to decide if he can continue below 1000'?

He has no obligation to do so. The approach ban applies only to the absolute minimum -- the IMC-rated pilot has only to go around before landing if the flight vis is below 1800 m.

[Keef]

Whilst I would never look to intentionally use my rating in anger, I never actually know when it may or could be called upon.

I don't think that's the right way to look at it. If you aren't prepared to use it "in anger", then you aren't going to be in sufficiently current practice to use it when it's called on.

I would suggest there are only two ways to use the IMC rating:

A. Practice regularly - like, try to do an instrument approach (under the hood or using foggles and with a safety pilot, if there's no IMC weather around) every month. If you haven't done one in several months, find an instructor and do some revision. Use the IMC "in anger" whenever you get the chance, to keep your hand in.

B. Not at all.

[IO540]

Beagle

If below 140KIAS and 3000 ft, VFR flights are permitted if in 1500m visibility as long as the aircraft is clear of cloud and in sight of the surface

The above is wrong for a bare UK issued PPL. The 1500m for VFR applies only to a UK issued PPL who also has the IMCR or IR, or to some non-JAA ICAO PPL holders (FAA being one of them).

MikeJ

I agree entirely. I avoid the SVFR stuff and to be honest can't remember the rules. I also think an instrument capability is all but necessary to fly safely to the limits of legal VFR (3000m in haze, for example) but a lot of people get jumpy when one suggests that. If I was teaching somebody (that I care about) to fly I would make sure they can fully radio navigate (GPS/VOR/DME) and can fly at least an ILS before going off anywhere - it's no rocket science. Unless one is exceedingly conservative in planning, it's only a matter of time before such an option will be the only one left.... well apart from calling up 121.50 and hoping they can get you down somewhere, which is how it's normally done.

[JW411]

I think it is quite important that a lot of you boys and girls out there sort out your RVRs and your visibilities. Despite the fact that several of you are using the expression vis/RVR in the same breath, THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT THE SAME THING!

For example, at an airfield with decent lighting a visibility of 200m would probably result in an RVR of 400m. In fact, under the Old Queen, we were allowed to double reported visibility at night to arrive at an RVR at airfields which could not report RVRs.

What I am driving at (just in case the penny has yet to drop) is that if you land at an airfield quoting an RVR of 1800m and you only have an IMC rating then you are likely to be breaking the law for your restriction is 1800m Visibility and not 1800m RVR.

[BEagle]

IO540, the UK VFR minima for ac below 3000ft and 140KIAS has nothing to do with licences, the point being that if flying in 1500m visibility under VFR, such an aircraft must also be clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

Licence privilege may further restrict the pilot's lawful VFR limits.

[MikeJ]

BEagle,
In view of the title to this thread 'IMC Uncertainties', I feel that I should add to your last post that this is another benefit of IMCR when VFR.

The ANO Schedule 8, Sect 1, Sub Sect 1 (2) (c) makes it clear that without IMCR, the absolute minimum for VFR is 3Km, and the 1500m limit is only available to IMCR holders.

This is briefly referred to in Pooley's page 5, which also gives the difference when SVFR. I believe it applies equally with permit and CofA aircraft.

MikeJ

[rightbank]

To be pedantic, I've got a feeling that the no descent below 1000ft if the rvr/vis is not adequate has been replaced by no descent below the final approach fix, the two not necessarily being the same.

[bookworm]

To be pedantic, I've got a feeling that the no descent below 1000ft if the rvr/vis is not adequate has been replaced by no descent below the final approach fix, the two not necessarily being the same.

I think you are mistaken. Arts 47, 48 and 49 all refer to 1000 ft aal. JAR-OPS1 refers to "the outer marker or equivalent position" but that obviously only applies to those operating under JAR-OPS1.

[pistongone]

MikeJ
you should read the rules of the air, as they state quite clearly that flights at speeds of less than 140Kn may be conducted with a flight visibility of <1500m
under VFR rules.Check your Pooleys for a quick reference or the ANO Rules of the air. Its also in Trevor Thom, air law. One point on the 1000ft DH rule, a normal approach profile of 3 deg gives appx 300 feet per mile decent. So 1500m or 1800m, means you will only be at 3-400 ft when coming visual. Main point to remember, they will only look at an aftercast if anything goes wrong, so what is stated therein will be the decider!! As for getting an IMCR and not knowing these rules, well ask your school for a refund under the "not fit for purpose" sale of goods act! Because thats what your imc rating is without this knowledge!

[MikeJ]

piston gone,
Yes the rules of the air do say that, but in THAT part they do not say the ratings required for this.
My previous post gives the exact reference from the ANO, schedule 8, which explicitly states that without an IR or IMCR, the minimum vis for a PPL is 3Km.
That schedule also gives the min vis. under SVFR for non IR/IMCR as 10Km, but 3Km with IR/IMCR.
Please read all of pages 2 - 5 in Pooley's, especially p5.
MikeJ

[dublinpilot]

Please stop referring to Poolies guide as an authoritative source. It's not...just a guide.

MikeJ, what you are referring to are the privileges for a UK issued PPL.

By way of example, I have an Irish issued JAA PPL without an IMC rating (we don't have one), and without an instrument rating. When I am flying in the UK airspace I am bound by the UK VFR rules (and the Irish ones if more restrictive).

I am not limited to the privileges of a UK issued PPL, only those of my Irish issued PPL which restricts me to VFR. Therefore the VFR rules is the only restrictions which are relevant to me. This is the subtlety that the others are trying to point out. Lots and lots of people operate in UK airspace without a UK issued PPL.

dp

[bookworm]

MikeJ, what you are referring to are the privileges for a UK issued PPL.

Well that's hardly surprising since the discussion is about the value of the IMC rating in changing those privileges.

[rightbank]

I think you are mistaken. Arts 47, 48 and 49 all refer to 1000 ft aal. JAR-OPS1 refers to "the outer marker or equivalent position" but that obviously only applies to those operating under JAR-OPS1.
Almost all of my flying is under JAR-OPS1 these days. Naive of me to assume that all the rules for everyone would all change at the same time. Thanks for the correction.

[MikeJ]

Well that's hardly surprising since the discussion is about the value of the IMC rating in changing those privileges.

Spot on Bookworm.
To tie this up with another point made earlier on this thread, The VFRules themselves allow, in the specified circumstances,
flight out of sight of the surface,
flight down to a vis of 1500m.
It is the ANO privileges of a UK issued PPL (sched 8, sub sect 1.1) that denies these facilities unless the holder has an IR or IMCR.

Dublinpilot, I originally quoted from the current text of the ANO not Pooley's.
This I have in full, by free download of CAP393.pdf from the CAA website. I got this a little while ago for study of a different subject.

MikeJ