IFR in kitplanes

[europaflyer]

I know that it is illegal to fly in IMC in kitplanes, regardless of the panel fit. I also know that people do fly in IMC illegally. I am looking at building an RV8 and wondering if it is worth fitting an IFR panel (with a view to 'illegally' flying in IMC).

Does the CAA knowingly overlook this, or is it liable to pick out people to prosecute to make an example? Also surely there is a risk of getting denied clearance if ATC realise what you're up to?

[Katamarino]

I'd say go for it. You never know when the bizarre old rules about no IFR will be brought into the modern age; I've seen kit panels that rival airliners, and are certainly far more capable than many of the traditional CofA machines that are according to the CAA much safer for IFR .

No reason not to have the safety net in case of inadvertant IMC, too...

[Mark 1]

There are a few people in the LAA actively pursuing that.
It is common practise here in the US, where you just need an IR and the specified equipment (DME, ADF not needed unless you're shooting an approach that calls for them).

Flying IFR in Class G airspace is virtually undetectable and quite within the capability of suitably trained pilots in suitably equipped aircraft whether homebuilt or otherwise.

Maybe worth checking on the LAA boards what the current status is.
The RV8's a great plane anyway, but most people would want some kind of autopilot for regular IFR flying.

[Fitter2]

Given the relatively low cost of IMC capable kit nowadays, and the possibility of unplanned need to fly IMC, it would be silly (IMHO) not to go for a decent fit.

I would rather fly illegally but appropriately equipped than figure in an accident report through lack of useful kit. And if I had the kit, I would make sure I was trained to use it, and current.

Unless you are a purist restoring a vintage aircraft....

[IO540]

You are never going to get done for flying "VFR" in IMC enroute, and many people do it all over the world.

What you do not want to do is end up at say 5000ft overhead La Rochelle, whose metar is OVC002, and call them up for a VFR approach ;) So if you are going to do stunts, you need to know what you are doing :)

Regarding getting IFR approval, I cannot see this ever happening for the vast majority of homebuilts. Lightning protection is one of many things. The CAA would have to be happy with a sub-ICAO category on this (like the U.S. Experimental Category) and I can't see it happening. And even if they did it, it would never be any good abroad, and probably all you could do is overtly fly approaches in UK Class G.

The real value comes from being able to fly an ILS but ILS kit is not that cheap - a few k is probably the minimum.

[Sir George Cayley]

EASA is the way forward. We need to press on with trying to preserve the UK IMCR and then get Permit a/c with the appropriate kit installed cleared to make use of the safety benefits.

I'm hoping to go to the LAA Rally next month and if the Campaign are there I'll be telling them this straight.

Sir George Cayley

[europaflyer]

Thanks folks, that pretty much goes with what I was thinking.

But what of actually flying under IFR, rather than 'stealth mode' VFR in IMC? The fundamental question is can you actually get away with flying IFR, in controlled airspace to or from a 'proper' airport, in a Permit aircraft?

[Fuji Abound]

Flying in IMC in a kit aircraft or without a rating to do so is not illegal, or at least it is only illegal if you do so intentionally. :)

If you find yourself in a situation when you have no other choice it may be the only option so it is no bad thing to have the kit and the training to do so safely. I'd not fly a kit aircraft unless I knew I had the basic equipment to cope with an unexpected incursion into IMC, and any pilot I taught to fly I would expect to be able to do a basic job on instruments.

[Rod1]

“The fundamental question is can you actually get away with flying IFR, in controlled airspace to or from a 'proper' airport, in a Permit aircraft?”

No, you will get caught. A Europa pilot was recently caught asking for an IFR clearance through EMA (in IMC), the rumour is he is to be prosecuted, but even if this is not the case he was caught. There are some “grey” areas which might allow you to bend the rules. If you build a Falco, you may get away with it as this aircraft was factory built and IFR approved, as well as being kit built, so most airports would assume an IFR arrival in a Falco would be Factory built and OK, but an RV or Europa would not stand a chance in my view.

The LAA were very bullish on getting IFR approval in the medium term, but I am not up to date on this.

Rod1

[Sir George Cayley]

Microlights are not allowed in Class A airspace but how many ATCOs know the weight of say a Jabiru or Eurostar?

SGC

[IO540]

A formal IFR flight has to be filed via IFPS (Eurocontrol), on routes approved by the computer in Brussels.

It would be fun to know whether IFPS check that a given ICAO aircraft type designator is capable of being IFR approved. It would be an easy check, and you would get nicked as soon as the flight plan was filed.

Anyway I would never even try it. Formally, ATC are not the police, but some of them know about planes, and in some countries (Germany?) ATC is a kind of a branch of the police. You would need only one ATCO along the route to pick up on it...

Flying IFR in a proper IFR type but without any licenses/IR etc is much more doable and reportedly many have done it. If you know the flying protocol, the lingo, do the radio professionally, you will get away with it 100% - until you get a random ramp check. Or perhaps until somebody who knows you at your base airfield reports you following an IFR departure.

In the UK, IFR in Class G, undetectable enroute but you would likely get picked up asking for an instrument approach in IMC. The only way to fly an IAP would be on a mayday.

Certainly, if I was flying a non-IFR type I would have an ILS receiver (as well as a full IFR GPS etc) in there because ILS is the ultimate lifesaver.

[cessnapete]

Presumably the CAA has approved the above for Steve Noujaims RV7 Capetown record attempt in Sept/Oct.
The trip could not be done day/VFR.

General approval for IFR in controlled airspace is not likely in the near future, EASA/CAA inertia and their lack of inhouse knowledge of modern avionics/kitplanes.

You do not need 'approved' avionics in a kit plane to have IFR capability.
I recently flew an RV10 in USA with Dynon glass cockpit. Stand-by battery backup, dual screens for flight information and engine management. Autopilot with alt hold/Nav/GPSS coupling, dual AHRS, and ILS feed to the glass from garmin vhf/nav sets, and mode S.
All this equipment available in use in the UK at a fraction of the 'approved' cost
The system is lighter than a clockwork cockpit and no heavy unreliable vacuum system reqiured.
Far more capable than the average IFR approved spamcan!

[IO540]

You do not need 'approved' avionics in a kit plane to have IFR capability.

Sure, as a sub-ICAO concept.

Sub-ICAO, you could strap a pair of wings to the top of a Zanussi (not Miele; too good quality) washing machine and have it IFR approved :) (I will resist saying that rather a lot of them have been sold ;) )

no heavy unreliable vacuum system reqiured.

One can have that in the "proper" stuff too but it can be a bit involved. With two alternators (one of which can be just a little one) you can certainly go all-electric nowadays. I am looking at doing that, one day, but the paperwork is too much right now.

[cessnapete]

The RV10 owner had not fitted a back-up alternator as the glass screen kit have built in batt back-up of at least 30mins.
He also had a stand alone standby battery for Screens/GPS ,No.1 vhf/nav,and transponder with min one hour use as a get on the ground capability.

The N reg Allison engined P210 conversion I fly in UK, mainly IFR, has only one starter/generator.
The drive sheered last week en route at FL180!
There is no provision for a back up alternator, but it also has a large main batt and dedicated stby avionics batt. Combined, good for at least for 1 and 1/2 hours after gen failure, ample to get on the ground in IFR conditions.

[Sir George Cayley]

A number of Cirrus flight plans have apparently been seen with the note 'ADF inop'.

I've heard rumoured the reason in some cases is that it's not actually installed, but owners feel that filing IFR with this on the FPL somehow covers them. A technicality now as the CAA are removing ADF from the relevant carriage requirement in the ANO.

Maybe, until EASA come round to the pragmatic solution we shouldn't shout too loudly and just get on with it?

Sir George Cayley

[cessnapete]

Ditto GPS Approaches in UK. Or lack of.
I use an aircraft in UK, which in the USA with our avionics kit, (Includes dual WAAS approved GPS sets) is able to carry out RAIM monitored, GPS LNAV/LPV letdowns, (approx Cat1 ILS limits) to over 1500 rural airfields.

Using EGNOS over here, we have a let-down to our strip with FAP and MAP fixes/GPS co-ords, measured on the ground under the flyover points.
This brings us within the strip width every time at our MAP of 500ft AGL.
This procedure is only used in VMC of course.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Passing thoughts:

- LAA will approve just about any instruments you want in your permit aircraft so long as you go through the normal mod approval process.

- You can always fly IFR in VMC in anything, quite legally; you can also ask for an any level of ATC service. Just don't accept an ATC clearance that would take you IMC (or in a permit aircraft, over built up areas, or in single engined aeroplanes contravene rule 5). I've done this in a flexwing through southampton zone, declined an ATC clearance over the city, and been given an alternative that suited everybody. This really isn't that difficult.

- If you are flying VFR, inadvertently go into IMC and use instruments to escape it safely, nobody is ever going to criticise this, so long as you didn't actually plan to go IMC, nor stay in it for prolonged periods.

- There are many VFR flights where IMC capability provedes a definite safety benefit. For example, I have quite a few times flown a track en-route to Scotland that took me straight from Rhyll to somewhere west of Carlisle. With that long sea crossing, I routinely don't have an kind of visual horizon - I'm legally VFR, but no way I'd want to do it without at-least an AI and turn indicator.

- You can save a lot of money by going for cheaper uncertified instruments, but if the LAA don't ensure "certified-like" checks on the quality of the installation, then you certainly should.

- All of the above equally applies to any 3-axis microlight (personally I'd not take a flexwing IMC if humanly possible, I'd rather land it in the nearest available field, and on one occasion have done).

- Needless to say, it would be a really good idea to get IMC training if flying with IMC instruments. It's not something to make up as you go along.

G

[BillieBob]

Maybe, until EASA come round to the pragmatic solution....EASA will not come around to any conclusion, pragmatic or otherwise, as kit-built aircraft are nothing to do with them. Along with all other Annex II aircraft, kit-builds will continue to be administered by national authorities so, in the UK, it's the CAA or nothing. For EASA to assume responsibility for any current Annex II aircraft will require a change in EU law, which EASA do not want and the EC is far to busy to contemplate.

[IO540]

The RV10 owner had not fitted a back-up alternator as the glass screen kit have built in batt back-up of at least 30mins.I am not a specialist on this but AFAIK this is no good for IFR cert. Aspen have the same issue with their EFD-1000; the built-in battery is "nice" but your only legal IFR options are (a) a separate big battery or (b) a vacuum AI. I have the FAA reference somewhere if you email me. And EASA is even more anal about this.

A technicality now as the CAA are removing ADF from the relevant carriage requirement in the ANO.They have been "removing" it for at least five years now.

Using EGNOS over here, we have a let-down to our strip with FAP and MAP fixes/GPS co-ords, measured on the ground under the flyover points.Maybe some confusion here. EGNOS/WAAS is relevant only to LPV and similar approaches (GPS-synthesised glideslope). There is no way AFAIK to get any IFR LPV-capable GPS to provide a vertical guidance for an approach not in its database, and there are AFAIK no such approaches anywhere in Europe, yet.

Maybe some "homebuilt market" GPS can provide LPV guidance? For example the Garmin 496 can be configured to display a virtual ILS, which IIRC takes you down to 500ft AGL. I have the setup procedure somewhere; never tried it on mine. Apparently, some pilots use this as a double check when flying an ILS :)

What you can of course do is load a few waypoints, set the GPS to 1nm FS, fly to the IAF, then set the GPS to 0.3nm full-scale, fly to the FAF, and doing your own VNAV you fly effectively a DIY GPS approach. Lots of pilots, myself included, fly published nonprecision navaid-based approaches in this way (using the OBS mode to fly the published procedure track, rather than loading user waypoints which is a bit dodgy if you drop a digit, etc ;) ) but then WAAS/EGNOS is not relevant (except for the extra assurance, but you don't need the extra accuracy to hit the runway in the centre) because you are doing your own VNAV.

You can always fly IFR in VMC in anything, quite legally; you can also ask for an any level of ATC service. Just don't accept an ATC clearance that would take you IMC (or in a permit aircraft, over built up areas, or in single engined aeroplanes contravene rule 5). I've done this in a flexwing through southampton zone, declined an ATC clearance over the city, and been given an alternative that suited everybody. This really isn't that difficult.Sure, though IMHO there is no point in doing this (UK only) exercise, other than to impress ATC and perhaps be more likely to get a transit :)

There are many VFR flights where IMC capability provedes a definite safety benefit.I think you meant to say There are many VFR flights where radio navigation provedes a definite safety benefit. :)

I would very much argue that IMC capability is highly desirable for VFR flights, but for other reasons ;)

FWIW, one of the best things to have in a plane for going places, VFR or IFR, is an autopilot. The U.S. Experimental market ones are pretty impressive, especially for the prices, but I don't think they are light enough for many UK homebuilts.

[englishal]

which IIRC takes you down to 500ft
You can set the VNAV profile to zero & 500 fpm and then make your GPS approach start somewhere "safe" and intercept the VNAV profile which theoretically will take you down to almost zero by the threshold (or wherever the GPS waypoint for the aerodrome is - probably mid field). Of course this is GPS altitude so going down to zero might be pushing your luck unless you have no other option.

[IO540]

The Garmin 496 GPS-derived altitude is a helluva lot more accurate than an altimeter, especially with EGNOS.

Especially if you don't quite know the QNH for the place you are going to ;)

[hoodie]

(or in a permit aircraft, over built up areas...)

That one's no longer relevant - the permit restriction for flying over BUA was rescinded (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3194) in 2008 (for sub-1500kg aircraft - and strictly it is an "exemption from a prohibition").

Here's the LAA paper (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/pdf/Consultation/Permit%20Conditions%20Proposal%20For%20Change.pdf) (by John Brady) that successfully proposed its removal. :D

Otherwise: Interesting thread, this. :ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

The Garmin 496 GPS-derived altitude is a helluva lot more accurate than an altimeter, especially with EGNOS.

Especially if you don't quite know the QNH for the place you are going to ;)

Garmin's GPS will give you geopotential altitude, which is best for terrain avoidance, although non-conservative. RPS is more conservative.

It will not give you pressure altitude, which you need for quadrantial/semicircular rule, it will not give you separation from controlled airspace, and it will not have you using the same reference as anything else out there that may fly into you.


Incidentally you said earlier that I didn't mean IMC capability on some VFR flights wihout a clear horizon, I actually meant radio navigation capability. Nope, I meant what I said - loss of attitude information will kill me quite quickly, loss of positional awareness VFR will take until I run out of fuel and whilst it's a very good thing to know where I am, it's a much better thing to know which way is up.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

That one's no longer relevant - the permit restriction for flying over BUA was rescinded (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3194) in 2008 (for sub-1500kg aircraft - and strictly it is an "exemption from a prohibition").

Here's the LAA paper (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/pdf/Consultation/Permit%20Conditions%20Proposal%20For%20Change.pdf) (by John Brady) that successfully proposed its removal. :D

Otherwise: Interesting thread, this. :ok:

Actually, it's http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4_807.pdf (here).

But thanks for reminding us of that.

(Nonetheless, I'll personally continue to avoid overflying built up areas in any single engined aeroplane myself).

G

[hoodie]

Genghis, I was correcting you - not reminding you. :}

Villages and small towns don't bother me; obviously overflight isn't the issue - 'glide clear' is.

[IO540]

RPS is more conservative.Sure, in the sense of fairly uselessly adding 1000ft to everything, on some days :)

It will not give you pressure altitude, which you need for quadrantial/semicircular rule, it will not give you separation from controlled airspace,If a GPS delivers true altitude, then it's good for CAS separation where CAS is defined as altitude.

Obviously I agree re the other reasons for barometric altimetry... I was just being provocative :)

I posted this (http://s101.photobucket.com/albums/m74/peterh337/?action=view&current=gps-altitude.jpg) a while ago. That is an old GPS, without EGNOS. For some reason I didn't include the yoke-mounted Garmin 496 which uses EGNOS and is super accurate in altitude.

[Rod1]

“You can always fly IFR in VMC in anything, quite legally”

Absolutely not allowed, if you do this overtly you will get reported as you are in breach of your permit to fly which states daytime VFR only, flying under IFR is not allowed on a permit!

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

“You can always fly IFR in VMC in anything, quite legally”

Absolutely not allowed, if you do this overtly you will get reported as you are in breach of your permit to fly which states daytime VFR only, flying under IFR is not allowed on a permit!

Rod1

Which is a silly bit of wording, since you can be IFR and VFR simultaneously in VMC. It, of-course, means, stay VFR.

If a GPS delivers true altitude, then it's good for CAS separation where CAS is defined as altitude.

Obviously I agree re the other reasons for barometric altimetry... I was just being provocative

And wrong. If CAS is defined by altitude, it's defined by pressure altitude on the appropriate QNH, not by geopotential altitude. If it's not defined by that, it's on flight level, which is still pressure altitude, but on 1013.25hPa.

G

[europaflyer]

<quote>
Which is a silly bit of wording, since you can be IFR and VFR simultaneously in VMC. It, of-course, means, stay VFR.
</quote>

Don't think so. You can be either under IFR or VFR in VMC, not both by definition, just as you can be either IFR of VFR in IMC - although obviously the VFR option is to be avioded :)

So, we seem to have concluded that flying under IFR or in IMC in kitplanes is a no-go. A shame, as as people have pointed out the panel fits in some kitplanes is far better and safer than most of the rusty scrapheaps in Group A which are lucky enough to have a mound of happy rubber-stamped paperwork attached - which, of course, doesn't and never has made the ground any softer...

I agree with previous posts that getting the CAA to change its mind is impossible - we've enough on trying to fight off the Europeans which none of us voted for, wanted or need, and exist solely to perpetuate their own beaurocracy.

/rant mode off/

[IO540]

If CAS is defined by altitude, it's defined by pressure altitude on the appropriate QNHI wonder where this is stated.

If CAS is defined by altitude, it is defined by altitude, which is defined as the height above sea level.

Is there anything in e.g. the ANO which says that the only acceptable means of determining altitude is using barometric altimetry?

It would imply that non-radio flight OCAS is illegal, because the only way to obtain the QNH is using a radio. And the RPS is no good for CAS avoidance; in fact it could easily result in a bust.

It would also make all modern GPWS systems illegal because they use GPS derived altitude, and they compute whether the trajectory conflicts with anything in their internal terrain database. Using GPS altitude enables the system to function even if the pilot has set the wrong QNH somewhere.

So, we seem to have concluded that flying under IFR or in IMC in kitplanes is a no-go. A shame, as as people have pointed out the panel fits in some kitplanes is far better and safer than most of the rusty scrapheaps in Group A which are lucky enough to have a mound of happy rubber-stamped paperwork attached I agree, but IFR is a bit like no longer being a virgin; it is all or nothing. And many "homebuilt/sports" types (I use the term loosely) are self evidently flimsy. I am going to draw the usual flak here from the usual people but there are loads of in-flight structural failures in these categories, and this puts a question mark on flying in IMC, where there is often a great deal of turbulence. And IFR in VMC is a very peculiar UK-only concept which is almost without any utility value.

Sure some homebuilt types are very strong, etc, but who is going to look at a structure and say this one is OK but this one is not OK. For many types, detailed design data either doesn't exist or (as with that type recently grounded by the FAA; can't remember its name - was it Czech?) the test flight data (particularly Vne+ tests to check for flutter) may have been, shall we say, obtained using less than comprehensive means. I am Czech myself ;)

So I think nobody wants to get very involved in allowing blanket IFR in non-CofA types. At best, it would have to be limited to OCAS, which would eliminate a lot of the utility value, and if it was not thus limited, you could do full Eurocontrol IFR flights in a 450kg machine which can do say 80kt, say 30kt GS in a decent headwind, and getting agreement for this from all interested parties might be tricky.

Maybe those who have been saying that IFR for homebuilts is just around the corner know something I don't know (highly likely) but at best there will be a lot more to this than meets the eye.

The avionics issue (which is what most people think of when they talk "IFR") is fairly trivial, and in any case could be sidestepped simply by installing the legally required IFR fit using certified avionics, which isn't exactly a lot of expensive stuff... a clapped out VOR receiver and I think that's about it :)

And an avionics fit which is truly useful for IFR (VOR, ADF?, DME, LOC/GS, IFR GPS, autopilot!!) is simply not going to feature in most homebuilts, due to cost and weight.

It is bizzare that clapped out 1970s iron can be IFR approved, but there we are... they got in by the back door, in the goode olde days, but this argument cannot be used to let other types in.

[englishal]

The Garmin 496 GPS-derived altitude is a helluva lot more accurate than an altimeter, especially with EGNOS.
Though I seem to remember something (from "satellite and Microwave systems & radio Navigation" from 20 years ago at University !!:eek:) about GPS receivers showing geodetic altitude or ellipsoidal altitude which uses a mathematical model in the GPS software which roughly approximates the geodetic model of the earth and reference altitude to this model. The problem is that in places like the Himalayas where you have lots of mass, this model creeps up above the true surface of the earth due to the additional mass. In some other places is becomes lower than sea level due to the opposite.

So I wouldn't trust the GPS altitude under 100' agl that is for sure!

[IO540]

Correct, but an IFR GPS contains (as a cert requirement) correction for this. It can be done with a polynomial but AFAIK most units do it with a lookup table which is interpolated.

At high altitudes, a GPS is potentially far more accurate than a baro altimeter because baro altimetry assumes things like the temperature gradient. One can often see this, by dialling the QNH of an airport one is overflying at say FL150; the GPS and the altimeter can differ by 500ft quite easily, while a GPS should be within say 20ft of the known airport elevation when on the ground (and better with EGNOS).

[Genghis the Engineer]

Even if GPS is more accurate, this is irrelevant. There are numerous standards that can be used to define altitude. Geopotential (GPS, very long ruler, being on top of a surveyed mountain...), pressure, temperature.

Everybody else uses pressure, so the airliners in the CAS just above you are setting altitude by reference to a pressure datum.

If that datum is causing them to be lower than would be "correct" by reference to a geopotential datum, then the arrogant PPL who thinks that his GPS is "more accurate" could well be inside what the airliner pilot believes to be his airspace.

The good news is that in all likelihood, only the PPL and his passengers will get killed by this piece of stupidity, or better it'll just result in a diversion, delay, several thousands pounds of extra costs, and removal of the PPL's licence - but since there's a risk that he might take 300 airliner passengers and crew with him, on the whole I think that he should be strongly encouraged to stick to using the pressure altimeter required by law to be fitted to his aeroplane.

G

[bingofuel]

I always thought the procedure when flying under a TMA was to set the QNH of the adjacent aerodrome. After all is that not why a TMA is there in the first place, to allow aircraft to safely manoeuvre in the area of the terminal aerodrome.

[Duchess_Driver]

I maybe an old fart - but am I the only person who would question the suitability of someone to hold a licence who states....

(with a view to 'illegally' flying in IMC).:ugh:

Oh, it's okay, my medical only expired yesterday.

Where does this attitude eventually lead us? :=

[W2k]

And an avionics fit which is truly useful for IFR (VOR, ADF?, DME, LOC/GS, IFR GPS, autopilot!!) is simply not going to feature in most homebuilts, due to cost and weight.

It is bizzare that clapped out 1970s iron can be IFR approved, but there we are... they got in by the back door, in the goode olde days, but this argument cannot be used to let other types in.
Please, do explain what exactly is the problem with flying IFR in a bit of "1970's iron" (say, a PA-28) that has dual VOR, ADF, DME, LOC/GS, GPS and a KAP-100?

I'm a low hour PPL with a view to getting an IR at some point and of course the flying club I'm in has a bunch of ancient PA-28s from the 70's and 80's that are all flying along very happily, despite their age. Compared to a modern SEP like a Cirrus or Diamond, what, in your view, makes these old aircraft unsuitable for IFR ops?

[Pilot DAR]

but am I the only person who would question the suitability of someone to hold a licence who states....

No, you're not!

Happily, I have zero hours flying legal IMC/IFR in singles. I do have a few hundred filed IFR/IMC hours in properly equipped twins though, and that teaches me how happy I am to not have attempted it in singles. I do concede that in warmer parts of the world, IMC can be flown more safely in singles than here in Canada, but the possibility of airframe ice encounters, and failures in non redundent systems scares the heck out of me! Twice, I have survived in flight emergencies in IFR twins, which resulted from unforecast icing encounters. Several of my friends have not been so lucky.

My personal comfort level is that IFR/IMC in singles is a near emergency situation. Have I done it illegally? Yes. Was it planned, or a good idea? Never! It was done only because conditions had changed, or simply not ever had been forecast, and now I was there. For the most part, it was VFR on top (which at the time in Canada was still IFR). Instrument flight in cloud has the potential to be safer that scud running, but neither are a good idea in a single in my opinion. The only time I have ever had an artificail horizon roll over and die was within seconds of entering a cloud out of necessity, in a single. No dual systems, so some rather quick diagnosis to partial panel flying.

With a few exeptions, most light piston singles just are not designed for "hard" IMC flying. I agree that IFR filed for navigational convenience is generally not at all "hard" IMC, but you still have the potential to end up there! With a very few production singles actually being properly equipped for IFR these days, I think amature built aircraft are generally less likely to be so well equipped, tested and qualified.

My two cents worth...

[bingofuel]

Pilot DAR
I generally agree with your comment but am a little confused by your post. I may be misreading but are you advocating VFR on top in a SEP is okay, or was that one of the events that occurred due to unforeseen circumstances?

Okay, icing is not really an issue VFR on top, but other system failures could be, and you still have to descend through the cloud.

Apologies in advance if I misunderstood.

Duchess Driver
That has been my thought throughout this thread.
I am concerned that so many advocate deliberate violation of the rules. It does make you wonder about the airmanship of some licence holders.

[tmmorris]

Also, Pilot DAR, worth remembering that the typical British summer serves up lots of overcast/broken at 1500, tops at 2000 kind of weather, surface temperature 15-20 deg, so icing isn't a problem. In North America you are much less likely to be in IMC where icing isn't a factor, so a non-deiced single (which most are) would indeed be a bad option. Here, there is plenty of the year where a non-deiced single is still a useful IFR machine.

Tim

[Pilot DAR]

I may be misreading but are you advocating VFR on top in a SEP is okay, or was that one of the events that occurred due to unforeseen circumstances?

Over the span of my flying career, VFR on top in Canada has gone from being not legal, to legal, when properly rated, planned and equipped. I advocate flying within the regulations. That does not mean that sometimes things happen, but advanced planning to operate outside the regulations, your capabilities, and those of the aircraft, is just plain wrong.

So your standard equipped light aircraft has enough instrumentation that flight without reference to the ground is possible, but that does not make it safe or legal. There is usually a minimum redundancy designed into these systems, but you have to be a pretty sharp pilot on instruments (read IFR rating here) to manage well on partial panel, if you even recognize that's required after a failure.

I'm not saying that it cannot be done safely, there are obviously many who do. As the original question seems to have centered on amature built aircraft, I hold the opinion that they are one step further removed from the design requirements necessary for redundant systems, and truly safe IMC flight. That does not mean it can't be done, but I would expect that those who have a firm grasp of the practical, and regulatory requirements for the aircraft, probably would not be enquiring generally here (no disrespect intended to the original poster).

Climate plays a role in the circumstances conducive to icing, and I agree the summer in the UK is less conducive than Canada generally (though you are further north than I). That said, my second scariest icing encounter ever was day IFR in a Twin Otter southbound over Nice, France in August, during which we literally fell, while maintaining our attitude, through about 6000'. Yes, we had allowed swiss chees holes to line up, and thus were partly the cause of our circumstances, but it still happened fully legal IFR. Then, later in the flight, over Africa, where ice was not much of a risk, the instrument failures began. Flying an ILS down to minimums in a sandstorm, with nothing more than the magnetic compass for heading reference, is not too much fun either!

Last fall, while flying a Hughes 500D helicopter down from Alaska, I was reminded that fooling with the weather is a really bad idea in a poorly equipped aircraft. This helicopter had no gyro horizon or attitude indicator, no turn or slip indicator. It had a compass, ASI, altitude, VSI, and the engine instruments. That makes you think long and hard about what you need to be able to see in front of you in flight!

IMC is not to be tinkered with. Either stay out, or properly prepare, equip, train and file for the flight. I hold that generally light singles struggle to maintain the minimum of "equip".

[bingofuel]

IMC is not to be tinkered with. Either stay out, or properly prepare, equip, train and file for the flight.

Very good advice, sums it all up very well.

[europaflyer]

Duchess Driver/Pilot DAR

My comment about flying 'illegally' in IMC (as I put it) referred to flying behind a full panel of certified avionics in a strongly built kitplane such as a Vans (which is at present illegal in the UK, legal in the US, but I don't know about Canada). I wasn't for a moment thinking about some flimsy fibreglass contraption with a cheap Chinese 'glass panel'. Nor was I advocating flying in IMC without an IR - proven time and again to be suicide.

I don't know if this changes your views about my post, but you are certainly right that I should have been more cautious, lest it be misinterpreted by a novice pilot, so thank you. A culture of rule-breaking is something to be avoided. However, I stand by the idea that flying behind a new certified panel fit in a decent kitplane is no more dangerous than in many Group A aircraft - anyone who has seen an ageing Cherokee flying in to the unknown with a panel full of U/S stickers, creaky gyro instruments and lying engine gauges will know what I'm talking about.

As for the argument against flight in IMC in singles, Canadian weather is doubtless more volatile and extreme at times than in the UK. IFR in singles is routine here, although it is true that a twin with deicing kit is no bad thing anywhere. If icing or turbulence is kept in mind and avoided, then it would seem to me that for flying in the UK the safety gap between twins and singles is not too much more significant than in VMC, although obviously an engine failure in a single in IMC is a scary prospect.

[Rod1]

“but there are loads of in-flight structural failures in these categories,”

OK give us a reference!

In a recent study covering 20 years of accidents in the UK the CAA accepted that there were less structural failures in LAA permit aircraft than C of A. The result of this was to remove the over flight restriction.

I am sure there will never be a blanket approval for IFR, just as there is no blanket approval for Mogas. My expectation is that initially there will be a small list of types, which will be allowed provided certain conditions are met. For example, the Falco has been factory built and fully approved. It is perfectly possible to build an exact replica of a factory built Falco with a certified instrument fit (you can do this right now under LAA rules). Very hard to justify not allowing such a machine to do what it was originally designed to do.

Rod1

[steveking]

Very interesting post. I have an RV6 which is well equipped including a full 2 axis auto pilot linked to the GPS. I recently completed the IMC course and can now fly VFR on top quite legally in it. Would be just nice to be able to carry out an approach if I had to. Not suggesting I want to start doing airways flights but IFR OCAS would be very handy for those days when most VFR flights end up scud running when just popping above a thin overcast would be much safer.

Still wishfull thinking and reality are two different things and im sure I will be old and grey before that happens.

[Contacttower]

I've just read the flight test in Pilot of the Ravin 500, a kit based on the old PA24 Comanche, it looks very good and has a claimed cruise speed of 220mph at 75% power. I reckon you could just pass it off as an original PA24 and fly it IFR without anyone noticing....:E

[barne_as]

Does anyone have any infomation on the current status of the talks to enable us to use the IMC rating in a Permit to Fly aircraft?

Im assuming that we are waiting for the inital decision of whether the IMC rating is here to stay and then it will be decided whether the above is possible?

Anybody with any info?