IMC Single Piston to Multi

[TallyhoRoger]

If I do the MEP rating after the changes when the IMC is discontinued but because I am an IMC holder for an SEP could I still gain the IMC for a MEP?

Obviously I would love to kill to birds with one stone and do both at the same time but the funds are just not there...boohoo!

Any reply will be greatly appreciated!

[Pace]

tallyHoRoger

There is no single engine IMCR or twin engine IMCR only an IMCR! In 2012 by EASA land standards the IMCR will no longer exist!
There is talk that existing IMCR pilots can in UK airspace continue with those privalages although in EASA land the IMCR will be dead and buried.
EASA have suggested the new EASA EIR.
The IMCR will count towards the new EIR. The EIR will allow flight in enroute airways the IMCR doesnt!
The EIR doesntr allow instrument approaches or departures! The IMCR does although at reduced minima.
Put the two together and voila !!! with the grandfather righted IMCR you will lierally hold an IR in UK airspace.
My advice keep the IMCR current. add the multi and the EIR and what do you have ?
A Euopean IR Limited to UK airspace which is better than before as it will alow departures and approachies as well as the rights to fly airways.
What a mad world?
But do the IMCR and you can literally hold an EASA IR?????????????????
Mad but the stuff that comes out of EASA usually is!!!

Pace

[TallyhoRoger]

Well that is definitely a better reply than expected! It seems the more dialogue I read into the more I get confused but I understand fully what your saying! For such a safety critical environment they do make it hard work but I am slowly getting used to this!

I think Christmas just came early!

Thanks Pace!

[Mark 1]

Pace,

The only reduced minimum that the IMC holder is subject to is the 1800m visibility requirement for take-off and landing.

The higher MDH and DH figures often quoted are only recommendations.

[Pace]

Mark

Visibility is proveable cloud base is not or rather when you become visual with the numbers and runway is not.

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

Pace,

The only reduced minimum that the IMC holder is subject to is the 1800m visibility requirement for take-off and landing.

The higher MDH and DH figures often quoted are only recommendations.

Not quite.

The 1800m RVR is certainly always true.

However the 500ft MDH for a PA, and 600ft MDH for an NPA are mandatory for an IMCR holder.

There are recommended, and frankly over-complex, other methods for determining these figures - but bar to pass the IMCR test(s), there is absolutely no point to these since 500/600 is invariably the actual MDH and the rest is there because Trevor Thom liked over-complicating his books and too many people since have taken that as gospel.

G

[500 above]

The 1800m RVR is certainly always true.

Not quite boffin at large. RVR implies visibility is below 1500m.

I also think you will find the IMCR minima's are NOT indeed mandatory either, only recommended.

[mrmum]

UK AIP AD 1.1.2 AERODROME OPERATING MINIMA
8 Determination of DH/MDH
8.2 IMC HRating Holder in Current Practice
8.2.1 Pilots with a valid Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the minimum applicable DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non-precision approach.
That's always seemed a little ambiguous to me. It depends whether you think the word "recommended" applies to everything subsequent to it in that sentence, in which case the 500 ft and 600 ft aren't mandatory. If the "recommended" qualifier only applies up to the comma, then they are. I guess it just comes down to how you read it and what your individual interpretation is. I've not seen any clarification on this anywhere from the CAA, it may take a prosecution and court case to get a definitive answer.

[TallyhoRoger]

Originally posted by Bear555

I have decided to revalidate my IMC in a multi-engined type to allow me to use the IMC in twins as well as singles.


Your saying that by the time the changes come into play, if I have IMCR for SEP but I am not current IMCR in a MEP I will not be able to be rated for IMC in an MEP full stop? Or would it just be the case of just going to my school for a currency check?

I thought that if you had an IMCR it could be used for either SEP or MEP without needing re-validating prior to the changes, providing you are current in either or both? Or have I completely missed your point? :confused:

[Pace]

There is only one IMCR not a single IMCR and a twin IMCR as seperate ratings!
Maybe you have to demonstrate competancy to use it on a twin but as far as I know there is only one IMCR not an IMCR 1 and an IMCR2

Pace

[RTN11]

I teach the absolute minima stated as being the law, it saves ambiguity for the student. The IMCR isn't really intended for people to set off into a 200' cloud base, it's more to get you out of trouble at the other end if you need it. Bear in mind it will mostly be in SEP anyway, where you want 1000'+ AGL cloud base in case the donkey quits.

[mrmum]

I teach the absolute minima stated as being the law
That's interesting, do you have other "opinions" you teach to your students as the law? ;)
you want 1000'+ AGL cloud base in case the donkey quits.
Really, why's that then?

[Pace]

MrMum

Really, why's that then?

Not a good idea to be flying over fog banks if the Donkey quits in a single! Would imagine would get quite exciting just as the tree trunk appeared just before impact at 70kts.
1000 feet 500 feet gives you more time to select a landing area as well as transitioning from IMC flying to visual.
Flying a single where there is only one way and down unless you like playing Russian roulette probably requires putting weather and night limitations on what you do.
Quite sensible unless you like dying :E

Pace

[mrmum]

Hi Pace,

Yeah I know, just poking around for a reaction, bit bored after being groundbound for a couple of days. Just thought it was a bit of a sweeping blanket statement to say everyone needs at least 1000' between cloudbase and ground to do IMC in a SEP. For me personally I would probably be okay with your suggested 500'. Of course I concede that the bigger the gap, the more time you give yourself to react to what's presented to you as you pop out of the bottom. Everyone has their own acceptable level of risk and this will vary with experience, either way even, perhaps.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that with synthetic vision on the GPS, it would all be alright, even with a 100' or 200' cloudbase. Garmin do have pylons and (big) trees in the database don't they?:E

[RTN11]

When I teach 1000' cloud base, it is usually to a PPL student who only has the required 15 hours post PPL. With more experience, you can judge your own minima, it's your own risk assessment. I certainly wouldn't take 200' in a single, EFATO would just be awful. Having said that, I somehow justify night in a single.

Earlier, I was saying I teach them as law as an earlier post seem confused as to whether they were legal minima or recommendations. My perception is the 200' addition is a recommendation, but the legal minima is 500/600 as applicable to the approach.

[mrmum]

I'll also do night in a SEP with little concern really. I suppose it's the percieved low probability of a problem that let's us do it, because if it does occur, the consequences are likely to be unpleasant.
I think I justify it to myself along these lines, the chance of a well maintained O-320 failing ? The chance of that event happening during the 1-2% of time I fly at night ? Very similar situation to do you fly out of gliding distance of land around the British Isles, for me, yes not really a problem. I'll be as high as possible and have appropriate equipment though. Having said that, I draw my line at over-water at night :eek:. When I had to do a night cross-country for my pre-JAA CPL(A) i went to the IoM and back, but I went in a twin.

I agree a 1000' AGL is probably a very sensible recommendation for a IMCr student. Also the 500' and 600' DH/MDH for PAs/NPAs is again perhaps sensible for IMCr holders, or even higher depending on the individuals experience, ability and currency. However I still don't think you should be presenting these as legally mandated figures, as there does seem to be ambiguity as I posted earlier. Unless of course there's some other reference or clarification out there you can point us to.

[RTN11]

As you've already said, it is ambiguous, and with anything in aviation whenever you're not 100% sure, air on the side of caution. In this case, I'd rather it not be one of my ex-students who creates the court case which means we need a more definitive rule.