The UK IMC Rating - Safe?

[Finals19]

Having gained my PPL rating in the UK, I am now undertaking a Canadian CPL/ Multi IR in Vancouver, Canada.

In Canada, there is no equivalent to the IMC rating, just a straight 50hr IFR rating, with all the normal IFR privileges. However, here it is largely frowned upon to even contemplate single pilot IMC work of any kind, due to the workload involved in various procedures therein. Furthermore, in built up areas (which of course abound in Blighty) you are always under radar control and must be on an IFR flight plan.

Perhaps I am being naive here, but am I correct in understanding that the 15hr IMC rating allows you to do solo holding, VOR let downs and ILS? From what I have been told the only difference is that with an IMC rating, your MDA's or DH's are much higher? I have about 15hrs sim time logged to date on IFR procedures, and cannot even imagine how its possible to do something like a VOR hold followed by an ILS as a one pilot op after 15hrs..how can that be safe?

Most keen to find out if my interpretation of IMC rating is correct or perhaps it is a privilege that allows you transistion through cloud to VFR on top? Any ideas?

[Awyrennwr]

The biggest difference the way I see it is the IMC rating does not allow the holder to fly IFR, only to fly in IMC conditions.
Insrument procedures are part of the sylabus and 15hrs is enough for most pilots to be able to rumble round a hold and execute an approach, although not to the same standard as the Insrument rated pilot, hence:-
DA/MDA's are all a minimum of 200ft higher than IR pilots.
Min Vis are greater.
I concider the IMC my saftey net until I get further instrument training.
I think it's a great rating that really improves a pilots skills early on in their training, but has to be treated sensibly and not confused with an instrument rating.

[Charlie Papa Lima]

Why not fly IFR if you hold an IMC rating?

The link below explains the IFR rule. Basically you can fly IFR even if you only have a basic PPL............:confused:

http://www.higherplane.flyer.co.uk/faq.htm

Check out question number 17.

I think that it explains it quite nicely.

[GoneWest]

Finals (which should be SINGULAR, no 'S' - you said UK PPL)...

The higher minima for MDH/DH etc. are ADVISORY not regulatory.

An IMC rated pilot is, apparently, legally entitled to go down to 200' on a precision approach if they are daft enough to do it - the RECOMMENDATION is 500" (with exceptions) for exactly the reasons you specify.

[2Donkeys]

The biggest difference the way I see it is the IMC rating does not allow the holder to fly IFR, only to fly in IMC conditions.


I think that must get the "howler of the week" prize. So if you are flying in IMC, are you VFR then? Perhaps you could explain how that works? Note this is not random abuse. Keep reading...



The IMC rating is undoubtedly a good way for a PPL to enhance their overall flying skills. Skills like accurate trimming, that will often have been neglected, start to get very important in IFR flight, and are therefore emphasised. Accurate VOR tracking, ADF tracking and the ILS should be taught. These are things that are either completely ignored, or given only a cursory glance in the PPL training.

However having acquired these skills, IMC-rated pilots are really only taught to shoot approaches and to handle basic attitude flying. The course does not really cover the vital subjects of weather and cross-country IFR flight planning in anything like the appropriate level of depth.

Two other factors combine to further weaken the rating:

1) The quality of teaching for the IMC rating is exceptionally variable, with many instructors holding only IMC ratings themselves. The lack of thoroughness in their own training means that their are numerous popular fallacies transferred from teacher to pupil. The misunderstandings displayed above relating to such basic concepts as IFR/IMC and VFR/VMC is so common amongst IMC holders that there is probably at least one thread a week on Pprune in which somebody trots it out.

2) The IMC rating is regarded by many holders, (and by the CAA) as something of a get-out-of-trouble rating, to be used when circumstances catch you unawares, rather than to be used to plan IFR x-country flights in IMC. This attitude almost guarantees that the rating of such pilots when pressed into action is rusty and potentially dangerous.


So on balance, it is a bit of mixed bag. Nobody could object to a pilot receiving extra training, and there is no doubt that some of the techniques and information learnt will make a PPL into a better pilot. On the other hand, many IMC-rated pilots are dangerously un-current and poorly informed. We can only hope that they choose through common sense not to exercise the full privileges of the rating they have earned.

[Fly Stimulator]

Skills like accurate trimming, that will often have been neglected, start to get very important in IFR flight

Shouldn't that be 'in IMC flight'? It's no harder flying poorly trimmed in VMC under IFR than in VMC under VFR. It's the IMC that makes it harder, not the IFR.

[2Donkeys]

Nice try FS, but I stand by what I wrote.

IFR flight requires a degree of altitude discipiline regardless of the weather conditions in which you are flying.

Good news I suppose that this is the only feedback you appear to have on my posting :cool:

[Hersham Boy]

A prize to the first person in flying history who can create anm easy to understand ready-reckoner regarding IFR, VFR, IMC, VMC, airspace rules (incl. the old SVFR chestnut) and conditions based flying minima.

I myself was confused about the IFR in VMC issue until is was explained very logically to me and then it became obvious. Why should't I fly under the Quad Rule in perfectly good visual conditions, for example.

There must be one single, simple, logical source out there that could be referred to easily (possibly in-flight, if looking for clearance into a non-F/G class when entitled, for example?)... I'd love to see it!

Personally, I don't feel I understand enough - despite having passed all the exams through learning Thom) to even consider asking for a clearance into something unusual and would probably seek to skirt around, which might be safe but is not really how it should be done.

And now I'm doing IMC training there are even more sets of relevant conditions and minima to learn. How am I going to keep all this fresh in my head whilst flying?!

I guess I'm putting myself forward as a bit of a dummy, but there you go... :O

Hersh

[Irv]

A prize to the first person in flying history who can create anm easy to understand ready-reckoner regarding IFR, VFR, IMC, VMC, airspace rules (incl. the old SVFR chestnut) and conditions based flying minima.

I think I've got close to that, but you don't need a ready reckoner, it's very easy to remember when explained the right way - and it's MUCH easier when you rip up those VFR diagrams (the ones that split it by airspace...)
I explained it to someone the other week and they said "but my instructor says it depends on passengers or solo..." (Sigh - that went out over 10 years ago) :rolleyes:

However, I'll answer properly offline for reasons you'll see - Prize is a pint please, as you'll also see.

[Doghouse]

The IMC rating, like all flying, depends on currency. I'd rather fly with a current IMC pilot than out-of-current IR any day.

I think the IMC course is perfectly adequate to gear people up to fly a hold, a procedure and any approach they select - provided they keep practising it. In some ways the hold is harder than an IR because it's usually done with an RBI ADF.

The IR is looking for absolute accuracy whereas the IMC has some leniency here. I think the bigger problem is the confusion about how the rating should be used (ie get you home v. a 'mini IR'). For those who think it's a get you home, it's barely used at all between renewals; and then questions about their safety can be raised. I believe it should be regularly used and IMC holders should plan to enter genuine IMC on a regular basis. I also think (both for the IR and IMC) there should be a solo element in it at the end of the course - we send our new IMC holders on a little solo route with ILS let down at the end (with weather conditions of cloud base above MSA, so they could just descend if it got out of shape). For the IR and IMC you have have fully rated pilots who have never seen what it's like to fly into clouds!

FINALS, remember that you are going through a more demanding course on a multi-engine aircraft. I would say that a PPL holder should, after 15 hours of IMC training, not only be able to fly a hold and ILS let down, but also do it well.

[FlyingForFun]

At the risk of dragging this thread back onto topic and actually answering Finals19's question:

Yes, Final, your understanding is absolutely correct.

As to whether it's safe or not, all I can say is that I know many people who fly in IMC regularly on this rating, and none of them are dead yet.

Only 3 hours into my IMC course, so I'm not in a position to comment with authority, but, for what it's worth, I believe that the key to being safe in IMC is regular practice. Many people get the IMC rating and treat it as a safety net. That's fine, of course - they don't plan on doing long cross countries, and wouldn't be safe to do so if they tried because of lack of practice. On the other hand, if you fly on instruments regularly, I think planned cross-country flight in IMC is perfectly acceptable with an IMC rating.

You make a valid point about built up areas. Flight in IMC in the UK is generally much less regulated than in the US (I don't know what Canada's rules are like, but I'd guess they are similar to the US). It is normal to fly in IMC in Class G for extended periods. The though of this often scares the cr@p out of American pilots I've spoken to. However, although the airspace is uncontrolled, a radar service is available over most of the country, and it would be very unusual to fly in IMC without having either a Radar Information Service (controller will give you traffic information, and, when requested, advice on traffic avoidance) or Radar Advisory Service (controller will give you traffic information, and traffic avoidance instructions, which you must either comply with or cancel the service if you are unable to comply).

As for single-pilot IFR flight, I think it's simply a case of being used to the workload. Of course it's busy, but in order to pass the skills test, you have to demonstrate that you're capable of handling it. Personally, I'm more concerned about single-engine IMC flight - if the engine quits, you have to have enough room below the cloudbase to be able to carry out a safe forced landing. And over built up areas, that might be quite high.

Hope that answers the question!

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

[Adrian L]

I concur with Irv's comments. I recently attended one of his master classes and had such technicalities explain very clearly. You can indeed fly IFR in VMC - and why not? (but not in class A). I would highly recommend attending one of his master classes.

My take on the IMC rating. I am just about to start an intensive 7 - 9 days course. I hope it will teach me to fly better, safer and with more confidence. I expect to be able to better understand what all those dials and digital thingies do in my airplane, I expect to be able to "go" more often when VMC would mean I couldn't, I expect to be able to get myself out of trouble should I find myself getting into trouble (as much in IMC as VMC). I expect to trust my instruments, I expect….

I agree the quality of teaching for IMC is variable, as is it for the PPL. Flying training is in my opinion not adequately regulated and you have to shop around not for the best price, but for the best training at an acceptable price to you. I also believe you never stop learning. Flying is not like riding a bike - once you have learnt you never forget - you can't afford to fall off and have to force yourself to get back on again. You need to practice your flying skills constantly and if you are a little rusty - take a safety pilot with you in good weather, make sure you are safe and practice - after all - flying is flying.

IMC rating has got to be good - if you never flying beyond your current personal limitations.

[Doghouse]

FFF, I totally agree with your viewpoint (glad I'm not alone on this one) but I don't think FINAL19's understanding is correct.

The IMC rating allows you to fly single pilot IFR (with certain restrictions, eg class A airspace) and make an instrument approach to minima. It's not limited to VOR holds or ILS approaches. In the UK, they could do NDB, ILS, VOR, SRA & PAR approaches (there are probably others that I've forgotten).

[knobbygb]

Personally, I'm more concerned about single-engine IMC flight

Yes, but what about IMC flight with the non-redundant instruments found in the average SEP? I've had an AI faliure (in perfect VMC) and would be scared stiff of this happening in IMC.

[pondlife]

This debate seems to happen everso regularly - not just in these forums but all over the place.
As an inexperienced IMC rating instructor, a slightly more experienced PPL instructor, and an IR holder, I'm convinced that the safety or otherwise of the IMC (or IR) rating use will be dictated much more by the attitude of the holder than of the number of hours training undertaken.
I'm fully aware that 15 hours isn't a lot but if I can get the basic skills to a safe standard in that time and teach the student to appreciate the limitations of the instruction and of his own abilities then that student can go on to develop his skills safely on his own as he uses the rating.
The PPL's pretty much the same, as is car driving, in that it's a rare student who is as good a pilot immediately after getting the licence is he will become when he has used it for a while.
It's the attitude of the student which will dictate wether he understands enough of what he's not good at yet to subseqently learn at a sensible pace in relative safety.

Personally, I consider that when I used to use my IMC rating a lot I was just as safe as when I had just finished my IR training. I don't use either so much now and so, although I have my IR, I may well be not as safe as I used to be before I got it.

[FlyingForFun]

Doghouse, I agree - I think we've interpreted the original post slightly differently, not sure which interpretation Final intended but you certainly are allowed to carry out all types of approach on an IMC rating.

Adrian L said: "You can indeed fly IFR in VMC... but not in class A." I'm sure this is just a typo - but you can fly IFR in VMC in Class A. In fact, all flight in Class A must be either IFR or SVFR, regardless of met conditions.

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

[Fred]

Back to the original question about safety. I am one of the aforementioned remaining IMC-holders who regularly flies in IMC and is not dead yet ("not long to go then", many of you are probably thinking). I do not consider myself the world's greatest instrument pilot, but I do think my operations are safe because I am reasonably current (e.g. around 40 hours in actual IMC in the last year, and probably 15-20 or so approaches of one type or another). When I first got the rating there was no way I was ready to do that as bizarrely all my training had been in VMC, so I bought some extra time with an instructor to ease me in to the whole IFR in IMC process. Then I began with just a few minutes at a time spent in cloud (e.g. climbing/descending through a thin layer) moving on to more prolonged periods in the clag until eventually I was making three-hour journeys with no view out of the window except for the first and last few hundred feet. Not saying I'm anywhere near IR standards, just that currency and experience are the important factors here.

What's much less safe is the plane. Last weekend I had a temporary AI failure and had to fly partial panel (which really must be regularly practised) in solid IMC for 5-10 minutes. Was about to divert when it gradually righted itself and I spent the rest of the flight cross-referencing it even more carefully than usual with the ball & TC, HI and GPS track-indicator. Always assume your AI is on the point of toppling.

[bcfc]

I'm close to my IMC exam, have had 15 IMC lessons and had 3 incidents when the AI was 'un-reliable' in 3 different aircraft. Subsequent investigation hasn't revealed any faults.

Totally agree with Fred when he says "Always assume your AI is on the point of toppling" - my partial panel flying is getting a lot of practice.

If nothing else, doing the IMC has been great for keeping the winter flying interesting and regular.

[Ludwig]

As a holder and user of an IMC my tupence worth is that saftey; its all down to three things:

Training: if people scratch around trying to save a few quid and skimp on hours just go to the cheapest rather than the best, there will always be training quality variables. This could be ironed out to some extent if it was examined by external examiners rather than allow schools to examine their own. When I did my initial training, and annualy since then, I did stuff that was beyond the strict requirements of the IMC "sylabus". Some people with IMC's to whom I speak seem to barely do more than the absolute minimum. What training you get all depends on where you go, and the quality of your "pass" depends on the examiner. As has been pointed out there are IMC instructors who only do IMC under the hood and have never been anywhere in IMC conditions and only do approachs at their local instrument equipped airfield. There are others who go all over the place and do all types of things.

A/c servicablility. I have been fortunate in never having instruments go u/s in IMC, but perhaps there is merit in a small rule change to make say a second altimeter and AI a requirement to fly in IMC.

Luck; when you are flying in a cloud you can noever me absolulty positive nothingis coming the other way, or the donkey is not going to stop. I cannot be the only one who has had RAS and pass other a/c that have not be advised, unnerving in vmc, but I suppose not a worry in IMC as yu wouldn't feel a thing!

[Tinstaafl]

Always assume your AI is on the point of toppling.

Slight point: Always assume each of your instruments is failing, and continually cross check it's info with all the others.

I've had ASI, AI, vac pump (losing both AI & DG), TC, & navaids fail at different times. Some were day VMC, others night, others IMC.

As for the IFR/VFR operation, I still find it weird that people without some form of an IR can operate IFR ie without training. Certainly different to other parts of the world I've flown in. Elsewhere it's the IR that grants access to operating IFR, including IMC. The concept is that an IFR flight is expected to be capable of IMC, a VFR flight not.

[englishal]

Agree with Tinstaafl...if your AI is dodgey, assume all vacuum driven instruments are. Forget the HI, use the compass. By all means reference the GPS, but there is an inherrent danger in these "panel" looking GPS's...they're not gyroscopic...

Back to the original question: The IMC makes a pilot relatively safe to fly in IMC in my opinion. 15 hrs will give the basics of attitude flying and approaches [at least precision approaches]. Its a licence to learn. You soon realise that an aircraft doesn't just fall out of the sky when you can't see out of the window :D The IR has more emphasis on en-route procedures.

If you can't handle an aeroplane by sole reference to the instruments, you won't pass the IMC GFT.

I think it is a good rating to have, and think that it is a logical step up from PPL, for anyone who whats to use an aircraft as a form of transport rather than just a sight-seeing platform.I just wish it could be used outside of the UK.

Cheers
EA:D

[Tinstaafl]

I mean all instruments: gyro & pressure flight instruments, navigation instruments & engine parameters, not just gyro alone.

[englishal]

Ah I see....

What I meant was that I implicitly trust my instruments....if I detect a problem with one of the vacuum driven ones during my scan then I will ignore other vaccum driven ones, especially if in IMC......

cheers
ea:D