Restricted Instrument Rating Questions

[londonblue]

I'm thinking of doing an IMC, or restricted instrument rating as it now seems to be called, but I have a couple of questions.

Firstly, does that allow me to take off into IMC, or should it really only be used as a back up should the weather get bad en-route?

Secondly, to reduce costs I'd prefer to do the training in the plane in which I have a share, but I don't know if it's equipped well enough. Does anyone know what you need in terms of avionics?

[AD Jackson]

instrument flight safety is dependent on your skill set and currency. That said flying in smooth conditions with minimum maneuvering is relatively simple, I find it easier than VFR especially if relying on radar guidance. Flying IMC with no Radar cover is in my opinion foolhardy as you have no way of knowing whats out there.

Coping with heavy turbulence is another thing. you will be working very hard to control the aircraft and single pilot IFR is hard work even having another pair of hands to cope with radio and setting up NAV is helpful and reduces the workload.

Minimum instruments required depends on whether you want legal IFR minimum or added safety.

Really for flight in the UK with IRR your limited to non airways and without de-ice your stuck with above freezing levels .

There has been a nasty reduction in the number of VORs in the UK recently which means getting a VOR approach is virtually impossible so you are limited to ILS NDB or a small number of Radar surveillance approaches. To be legal you need NAV boxes that are FM immune which most of the old kit does not have, though for training you can get away with it.

I did my initial IR training in a basic trainer in cloud not simulated which looking back was very good training tho at the time was scary! The visual minimum for take off landing is 1800 m which means with high power runway lighting pretty poor vis. Actually, anything below VMC minimum require instrument qualifications so the answer to your question is yes 1800m is below VFR so thats IMC conditions - but its not the same as en route in cloud vis which is pretty much 0m.

When I did my IR training it seemed scary at first but you get confidence with time and really the key is very gentle inputs and correct trim. Its well worth doing an IRR just for the added ability you gain even if you don't want to plan IFR trips. Also remember non IMC trained pilots last a very short time in IMC so having the skills is a good idea.

[foxmoth]

I used to fly from Goodwood and lived North of the Downs, it was possible to set off knowing that North was clear but Goodwood would be rain and low cloud so useful to be able to set off North in IMC but knowing it was clear where I was going. It would also often be the case that I would climb a couple of thousand feet and be sitting in clear skies on top flying towards a destination that was clear, or at least had higher cloud base. As far as VOR goes, yes these are reducing, but only because GPS is being more accepted and I believe in the future more airfields will end up with a GPS approach.

[alexbrett]

Firstly, does that allow me to take off into IMC, or should it really only be used as a back up should the weather get bad en-route?

The legal requirement for an IMC/IR(R) holder is to have 1800m visibility for take-off and landing (there's a slight oddity in that under EASA rules you only need 1500m for VFR which can be a workaround in some cases if its borderline).

There's a lot of debate about whether the rating should be seen as a "back up" or whether it should be used - as instrument skills are very much linked to currency (they degrade very rapidly) I personally think it should be used. That being said, there's a difference between flying when you're going to have to do approaches down to close to minimum to get back, and doing so when you might have some cloud en-route to fly through etc - it's ultimately down to the level of risk you're willing to take yourself, particularly if flying single engine, e.g. imagine you're flying on a day where it's OVC008 and the engine fails on you...

Does anyone know what you need in terms of avionics?

I'm not sure what the legal requirements are, but to get the most out of training you're going to want:
* Transponder
* ADF
* DME
* VOR (ideally x2)
* ILS

I'm not sure also if IMC/IR(R) training has to be done under the auspices of an ATO, if so then they'd have to be happy taking your aircraft onto their books as it were...

[S-Works]

Enough kit to do at least two types of approaches and meet the UK requirement for IFR flight.

I would be happy to do it in your own aircraft.

[Mach Jump]

Firstly, does that allow me to take off into IMC...

Yes, it does.(The min. vis of 1,800m is in the process of being changed to 1,500m to eliminate the anomaly) Whether you feel you are current enough, is up to you.

Does anyone know what you need in terms of avionics?

As Bose suggests, you need the basic six IFR instruments, (preferably, but not necessarily in the 'six pack' configuration) plus at least one navaid that gives lateral guidance, such as VOR, or ADF.

Technically you could complete your training with just a VOR, and do an SRA or PAR for your second approach, if all you want is an 'IMC' badge to wear.

If, however, you want an IMC/IR(R) Rating you can actually use to fly approaches at most places in the UK, you will, as Alexbrett suggests, need an aircraft with at least; VOR, ILS, DME, ADF, and Transponder.

I'm not sure also if IMC/IR(R) training has to be done under the auspices of an ATO...

No, it doesn't. :)


MJ:ok:

[foxmoth]

Not sure how much use an ADF is these days!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Not sure how much use an ADF is these days!
Depends where you are, there are still some NDBs around.

And of course if you don't update your GPS' database you can Direct To the decommissioned NDBs!

[tmmorris]

Mach Jump don't both approaches for the test have to be pilot-interpreted?

[thing]

Not sure how much use an ADF is these days!It's used purely to make IR(R) renewals a bloody misery.

Doncaster which is my local 'go to' NDB approach sees me once every two years...can't see the point of them, flying holds over them is a pain, they drop out, point the wrong way in bad weather. I hate them. WWII technology and here we are 75 years later in the age of GPS, ILS. RNAV and we still have to trot out the 'We'll do a hold to NDB/DME approach for your second PIA.' You may as well add 'And we'll do it in a Sopwith Camel.'

[Mach Jump]

Mach Jump don't both approaches for the test have to be pilot-interpreted?

No. You only have to do one approach in the Test. The other Is completed and certified during training.

From CAP804 Part II Section 5 Part E Page 4


2.3.3 Approach and Let-Down

Use of approach charts, Decision Height/Minimum Descent Height calculations using
the recommended minima for the IMC Rated pilot given in the UK AIP forming a mental
picture of the approach, initial homing, achieving the overhead/approach fix, holding
procedures, achieving the horizontal and vertical patterns, calculation of rate of descent,
go-around, missed approach procedure.

Applicants are to be trained in at least 2 instrument approach procedures using VOR,
ADF, ILS, GPS, radar or VDF of which at least one must be pilot interpreted. Completion
of a notified recognised civil or military instrument approach procedure during training,
is to be certified in the applicant’s flying book. Note that GPS approaches are defined
as those notified by the Authority in the AIP and flown using equipment certified for the
conduct of such approaches in the aeroplane’s Pilots Operating Handbook or Flight
Manual; overlay approaches or privately designed approaches are not acceptable.

2.4 Flight Test Syllabus

a)

b)

c)

d) Let-down and Approach Procedures

Let-down and approach to Decision Height, Minimum Descent Height and missed
approach procedure using a pilot-interpreted aid, carry out a recognised instrument
approach procedure to Decision Height, Minimum Descent Height hence the
appropriate go-around and missed approach procedure.


MJ:ok:

[Mach Jump]

...we still have to trot out the 'We'll do a hold to NDB/DME approach for your second PIA.'

For an IMC/IR(R) Revalidation, only the first approach is required to be completed under the same rules as an Initial test.(Pilot interpreted) The second approach, whether completed during the Test or in the intervening period between Tests, can be any other

From CAP804 Part II Section 5 Part E Page 4

2.6 Revalidation Flight Test

2.6.1 The Flight Test required after initial qualification for the purpose of revalidating the
Rating will comprise items b), d) and e) of the initial Flight Test (see paragraph 2.4). The
type of approach aid used must be entered in the log book. A revalidation Flight Test
that is a first multi-engine test must include (f) at paragraph 2.4.

2.6.2 The applicant is also to show log book evidence that, in the period between initial and/
or re-validation flight tests, he has successfully completed a let-down and notified
approach to DH/MDH, a go-around and a missed approach procedure using an aid of a
different type from that used during item d) of the test. This shall be accomplished to
the satisfaction of an instructor qualified to give instrument flying instruction.

Alternatively the candidate may carry out two approach procedures using different aids
during the re-validation flight test


MJ:ok:

Ps. Thing: Personally, I would get my ADF working properly, and stick with the NDB approach. It's still the most common alternative to an ILS at most places.

[thing]

It's still the most common alternative to an ILS at most places.

I know, but don't you find that appalling?

[BEagle]

thing wrote: ....we still have to trot out the 'We'll do a hold to NDB/DME approach for your second PIA.'

There is no such requirement in any IMCR / IR(R) test unless ATC so direct. In which case it must be flown correctly.

But many FE dinosaurs are still obsessed with making NDB holds into an art form, with their 'gates' and 'rules of thumb'....:rolleyes:

[tmmorris]

All very useful and time-saving, thanks, as for my last couple of renewals we've schlepped over to Brize for the NDB, dodging the C17s; now I know that I will suggest PAR and ILS at home for the two approaches!

[TheOddOne]

I did an SRA and an ILS on my reval. test last month. 2 approaches 25 quid, plus the cost of the a/c and the examiner. Pretty good value, I thought.

The ADF doesn't work in the a/c and there are no plans to repair it. The money will be spent on a new 8.33 radio instead...

TOO

[foxmoth]

Whilst I do not think ADF is that common as an approach these days I am surprised about how hard people seem to find it, learn the right techniques and it is no harder than a VOR!

[MrAverage]

London Blue!


Unless I'm mistaken you cannot train for the initial issue of any rating in a shareoplane unless it is maintained to public transport standards. Is the engine below hour and calendar TBO?

[thing]

Whilst I do not think ADF is that common as an approach these days I am surprised about how hard people seem to find it, learn the right techniques and it is no harder than a VOR!

I can do them, I just don't like them. I've never used one in anger, nor am I liable to TBH. I can do ILS and PAR in my sleep. Why in all honesty would anyone choose to do an NDB/DME approach at an airfield that also has ILS? Don't forget I'm not a commercial pilot or instructor so I'm not shooting approaches a dozen times a week. If you do them all the time then yes, I suppose they do become easier, but in a fixed card spammy I wouldn't choose to do one over an ILS.

[foxmoth]

When I first started DI was a "ribbon" DI, then an ADF WAS hard to do, as soon as we got the compass rose orientation is became a piece of cake, I would certainly agree that an ILS is a lot easier, and having the lower minima helps, but if you want the easiest approach, fly a PAR!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Whilst I do not think ADF is that common as an approach these days I am surprised about how hard people seem to find it, learn the right techniques and it is no harder than a VOR!

Well a bit harder than a VOR, as there's more mental arithmetic involved mostly.

But I'd not wish to be without one yet, there's quite enough airports still routinely using NDB approaches, including my home base at EGTC.

G

[foxmoth]

No more mental arithmetic than a VOR if you do it right - mentally superimpose the needle over the DI, then use the HEAD of the needle as a fly left/right indicator if it is left or right of your required track, works both inbound and outbound.

[AD Jackson]

Using the NDB to get to the ILS is one good reason to use one. There does seem to be a fear factor with NDBs even though its just a dumb needle pointing at the beacon some folks feel uncomfortable with using one and the fixed card just makes this worse.

The biggest problem with them is the ability for it to point in the wrong direction, like at the nearest Cb which will totally mess up your approach. Additionally, its quite often the case that towards the end of the outbound part of the procedure it will loose the signal and point anywhere but at the beacon which happens with CIT.

The question is should you be flying in IMC if you cant cope with an NDB? Radar approaches are indeed very easy but a 2mile SRA isn't much good with a very low ceiling.

[londonblue]

MrAverage.

I believe the engine is fine in that respsect. However, I'm surprised to hear you say that since someone I know did their complete PPL on a plane they had a share in.

Yes, he bought a share of the plane before he started training. However, one of the other share owners was the FTO itself, so that might be why?

[londonblue]

The really frustrating thing for me at the moment is I can't remember what we have in the plane! I might have to pop down and have a look tomorrow!

But from this list:

Transponder
ADF
DME
VOR (ideally x2)
ILS

I know we have a DME, Transponder, and one VOR/ILS. I'm pretty sure we don't have an ADF, but not 100% sure.

Assuming that is accurate, is that good enough? And when I say good enough, I really mean to use in anger, not just to pass a test.

[alexbrett]

Not having an ADF would be a problem if you're expecting to regularly use somewhere where all/most approaches rely on one. For example I fly out of Cambridge, and *all* approaches there require use of ADF (even the SRA and GPS approaches as part of the missed approach procedure)...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I know we have a DME, Transponder, and one VOR/ILS.
So if your one NAV radio fails you're left looking for somewhere that can give you a radar talkdown? - which might be tricky if you've got just one NAV/COM and it's the whole box that's failed.

[porterhouse]

. For example I fly out of Cambridge, and *all* approaches there require use of ADF (even the SRA and GPS approaches as part of the missed approach procedure)...
I don't know about UK but in the US we are allowed to substitute GPS for ADF for determining position fixes so even if approach plate says 'ADF required' you don't need one provided your GPS receiver is approach certified. You only need one if you are actually flying an NDB approach and then you must use ADF for flying the final approach course. With this in mind and because there are so few NDB approaches left, modern GA aircraft don't even bother to have one installed.

[thing]

I don't know about UK but in the US we are allowed to substitute GPS for ADF for determining position fixes so even if approach plate says 'ADF required' you don't need one provided your GPS receiver is approach certified.

Yeah but you're in a forward thinking GA friendly country. We may have the same privileges in a couple of centuries or so.

[howzitt]

Hi All,
What kind of time scale should I set aside to complete the course,any recommendations of providers that have an accelerated course available,taking into account that I may require some extra hours to complete the course,thanks,
Al.

[S-Works]

I generally do it in a week for most people. It can be done quicker in your own aircraft dedicated 1-1 but most people struggle with more than about three hours in a day.

[alex90]

I am sure bose-x is probably right.

I think the most important is to get the theory out of the way first - that really helped me limit the number of hours in the plane.

Personally I don't think I could have done more than about an hour and a half to two hours a day. I found the approaches to be quite taxing, and reflection time to be important. I also needed some time to go over plates. Due to work commitments I flew once a week, and had to cancel a couple of weeks due to (very) low clouds, and CB in the vicinity. So I let that span over I believe 11 or 12 weeks and passed with around 16hours of instruction time, 13hours of which were under hood / actual IMC.

Although most people learn better / faster when everything is bunched up (bose-x) I actually found that taking my time and revisiting elements over a longer period made me much more confident.

With regards to your first question, a lot of people say "Oh no - don't use the rating, it is for emergencies only!" (I quote a CFI at a club where I did some training) but I argue my point that if I don't use it - then I'll be completely out of practice when I actually need to use it (which was later backed up by the instructor who taught me the IMC and another who taught me my night rating at a different club).

I do use my rating, I took off just before the solar eclipse with a cloud base of 500ft, and 2500m visibility (along with quite a few others). Came on top of the clouds at around 2000ft, and came back in to land vectored onto the ILS broke through at around 600ft dead-on the centreline of the runway - too easy!

The only frustrating thing is that it is only valid in the UK. I was grounded for 3 days in Brittany due to low cloud. I could see the edges of the sun, and there were reports of being VFR on top at around 1500ft on all 3 days!! That's why I am now working through my ground exams for the full EASA/IR!

Hope you have fun flying in IMC! :)

[londonblue]

Guys, I appreciate all the comments, and may have to speak with a local instructor to see if he would be happy to use my plane given its limited panel.

One other question I have, and I want to ask it here where i'll get a neutral answer as opposed to the answer an instructor may give.

I'm based at Elstree which doesn't have any instrument approaches or departures, so how would I get back there in lowish cloud? I have been told that you can use a nearby airfield's approach procedures to break cloud, and then fly under the cloud back to Elstree (assuming it's safe of course).

But how does this work in the real world, i.e. what nearby airport would you use, and how would they charge you if you're not actually landing?

The reason I want a neutral answer is that if it isn't going to be of any practical use I don't really see the point of handing over any cash.

[gemma10]

I like many others did an SRA and an ILS all at Southend, and I did have to show competence in flying to and from an NDB. But NDB holds are another thing, and trying to remember the arithmetic of the three different sectors and then trying to remember which way in, which way round.... I`m going dizzy just thinking about it!

[Above The Clouds]

londonblue
I'm based at Elstree which doesn't have any instrument approaches or departures, so how would I get back there in lowish cloud? I have been told that you can use a nearby airfield's approach procedures to break cloud, and then fly under the cloud back to Elstree (assuming it's safe of course).

But how does this work in the real world, i.e. what nearby airport would you use, and how would they charge you if you're not actually landing?


Do an ILS at Luton or a PAR at Northolt and then low level transit.

[thing]

With regards to your first question, a lot of people say "Oh no - don't use the rating, it is for emergencies only!"

I've never understood that. I use mine regularly, how are you supposed to remain competent if you don't use it? Besides that, I'm one of those weirdos that enjoy flying on instruments.

[150 Driver]

Alex90, isn't it a legal requirement to have 600 feet cloudbase to be legal ? At least I thought so in SEP, maybe you were in a twin ?

[Mach Jump]

...isn't it a legal requirement to have 600 feet cloudbase to be legal?

No. The only legal requirement, is that you must have a visibility of at least 1,800m(Soon to be reduced to 1,500m) for take-off and landing.


MJ:ok:

[thing]

The only frustrating thing is that it is only valid in the UK. I was grounded for 3 days in Brittany due to low cloud. It's amazing you know how many times I've crossed the channel back to UK and been met with a solid wall of IMC right on the edge of the UK FIR...

[alex90]

isn't it a legal requirement to have 600 feet cloudbase to be legal ?

I think you may be thinking of a myth which is circulated, and even mentioned in the IMC ground exam. This relates to "out-of-practice IR and IMC holders recommended minima".

Legally speaking, the IMC rating allows you to fly "Let-down and Approach Procedures to published Decision Height or Minimum Descent Height and to undertake missed approach procedures." which means for me at Biggin Hill, I could legally go down to 373ft QFE on the ILS. Whether or not that is a "wise" decision is up to interpretation, (pilot skill, plane you are flying, hours of experience in situation, currency, weather... All play a part). I am sure if you ask, most IMC rated GA pilots most will know their own limitations.

Do an ILS at Luton or a PAR at Northolt and then low level transit. that is definitely an option! But it really depends on the conditions. Cloud-base at 500ft, I wouldn't attempt that low level transit - I would divert to Southend Airport and take the train back into London.

The reason I want a neutral answer is that if it isn't going to be of any practical use I don't really see the point of handing over any cash. I disagree here - the training was invaluable to my flying. I have gone flying with bright sunshine at 8am, forecasts were for clouds at 2000ft around midday, when I crossed the Thames around 10.30, I was in Solid IMC at 1800ft and Biggin had a cloud base of 800ft QFE. Even without the ILS, I could have done a bad-weather / low level circuit and land safely. Without the rating, I would have had to turn back into the sunshine, and possibly land at Cambridge where the weather stayed like this for several days. I have also flown several times in IMC whilst navigating despite both departure and destination airports were in bright sunshine. It opens up your options, especially for longer flights in the UK.

Do the training, it taught me how to use all the instruments properly, and how to navigate in poor visibility. (invaluable).

Best.
alex (ps: sorry for the long post)

[slip and turn]

As Elstree approaches in IMC figures as an underlying question in this thread might it still be worth remembering even after 40 years how it can be got wrong (https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5422f6a040f0b61342000593/14-1976_N6645Y.pdf)? As an aside, I think there used to be a local rumour that the radio masts mentioned in this report could in some way be used as a beacon (via ADF??)?

Once ended up catching the train from Southend myself, but had an instructor onboard to impart the wisdom of that decision! Wisdom like that doesn't always come to the fore so easily when you are on your own ...

Also the Appendices to the AAIB report (https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5422f6a0e5274a13140005d1/14-1976_N6645Y_Append.pdf) might also visually illustrate some of the problems of negotiating Elstree local terrain under low cloud.

One (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/328868-graham-hill-crash-what-verdict.html) or more of the PPRuNe threads on that particular accident are of course also worth a read.

[alex90]

Hmm a little grim on the topic of IMC flying courses... But poignant learning point I guess!

I think that flight was doomed from the moment the pilot considered attempting to "have a look" at Elstree when the reported visibility was only 800m on the ground. Even if there was a radio mast that could have acted as an NDB, doing a non-precision approach doesn't mean that you can land on instruments it is merely a means to align oneself with the runway until you break free from the cloud base at a minimum safe height, then proceed to land visually. Not sure how 800m visibility warranted an attempt.

What myself and others were referring to, was going through the cloud base that could have been at say... 1000ft or even up to 1500ft (a sensible height), use an approach elsewhere to break through the cloud base safely and break off for a little VFR scud running up to Elstree (of course abiding by the 500ft / glide clear rules). Which can and has been done safely many times before.

As I said though - I'd divert to Southend, do the ILS and take the train back home. It may not be the most convenient, but you can't beat being safely on the ground, and only a 50min train journey to Liverpool Street.

[thing]

break off for a little VFR scud running up to Elstree (of course abiding by the 500ft / glide clear rules). Which can and has been done safely many times before.

Only flown into Elstree the once but was distinctly nervy about the glide clear. There wasn't much as I recall taking off to the west. It was Elstree that got me into the habit of looking at Google Earth before I went somewhere new. I'm sure regular operators there have their own pre selected areas that they know about.

[Mach Jump]

...the habit of looking at Google Earth before I went somewhere new

I recommend this habit to all my students, and everyone else.


MJ:ok: