IMC rating and approach/landing fees

[pilotbear]

I was wondering with the limited amount of time given (15hrs) what some of you guys concentrate on regarding instrument approaches. Do you teach all types or considering it is a get you out of the sh**e rating just work on RV ILS and Procedural NDB.
Also, how much emphasis do you put on the hold even though it is not asessed. I find this odd as every procedural approach requires a hold unless you are lucky with your heading.

Given also the extortionate rates that some airports charge for this 'service'.
For instance recently Southend charged us for three approaches, two NDB and one RV ILS and, get this; a landing fee on top:* . I think it came to nearly £50.:{

Anyone got any recommendations for training places for this. I have been to Norwich recently and they were very good, just £10 per approach, regardless of type or result. And they collected us in a bus to pay our fees :ok:

[FlyingForFun]

As a newly IMC-rated pilot, please teach all types of approach. It is not a "get out of the sh**e" rating. If some students intend to use it like that, that's just fine. But others, me included, will use it as a rating which allows me to plan to fly in IMC, in Class D or lower airspace, with minimums which have been increased to allow for the fact that I haven't received the same amount of training as an IR student. If you don't teach me every type of approach, I will suffer. I don't want to not be taught something which I'm allowed to use, and may have to use one day.

I hardly paid any approach fees for my entire training. Non-precision approaches can generally be done at any appropriate VOR/DME or NDB location. Just add 1000' to all the altitudes. Some of them may need a little modifications, and some of them which rely on the specific orientation of two aids relative to each other might not work, but you can certainly do enough to show what needs to be shown. For a practice ILS, we just called Farnborough, who don't charge a fee. There's no pre-booking, and if they're too busy you may get turned down - I wasn't turned down, but was once asked to go around at 700' because of a vehicle on the runway, which was fine.

My own personal view on holds is that they must be taught, as you say, but there's no need to be able to fly them deadly accurately. Personally, I try to be as accurate as possible when flying holds, but as long as it's safe it doesn't matter if it's not exactly 4 minutes, IMHO.

Just my opinion - as I said, from the point of view of someone who only got an IMC rating a couple of months ago but has no problem with using it.

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

[pilotbear]

It is designed as a get out of trouble rating, not for taking off intentionally to fly IMC. There is not enough experience in 15hrs to protect you if it all goes wrong. ie trying to fly an approach to minima in turbulance and rain at an airport you hadn't planned on. The IMC is relatively easy to pass, whilst the IR is an absolute nightmare.
I am not trying to rain on your parade or doubt your ability because I am very keen for people to have I/F training, but I think 25hrs training would be more realistic.
How many hrs training did you do? and how much I/F experience did you have prior to the IMC course? please be honest.
I am glad to see you are a conciencious pilot. I have a few of IMC rated pilots with whom I do an upgrade course with, not to gain a rating, just to make them better I/F pilots because like you they are interested. And as you are going to fly the hours anyway the small extra for dual is worthwhile.

I agree with you on holds, after all they are designed to oriente you for the approach procedure.
PB

I think this could prove an interesting survey.:)

[FlyingForFun]

Pilotbear,

Prior to starting my IMC training, my IMC experience consisted of that required for the PPL, a couple of check-outs at new clubs, and a dual cross-channel checkout which was in actual IMC all the way to the coast.

My IMC training took 14 hours and 55 minutes. At the end of my last lesson, my instructor had me do an extra low-level circuit to get the total time up to the required 15 hours. Most of my training was in actual IMC (I'd guess about 10 hours). My IMC skills test was flown in VMC, with the examiner keeping me away from the scattered CBs as best he could - the kind of conditions where I wouldn't even consider an IMC flight without weather radar.

My personal minimums are 1000' cloud base and 3km viz. However, at my home airfield, where there is no instrument procedure but a well-established unofficial NDB let-down procedure that gets you to within a couple of miles of the field, my viz requirements are 5km because I need to be sure I can see the field after I break out of clouds - so realistically, if I want to get home, I wouldn't take off into IMC in less than 5km forecast viz. Having said that, whenever I am flying a suitably equipped aircraft (about once a month), if the conditions are VMC, I will take a safety pilot and some foggles, and fly all approaches down to the recommended IMC minima - I work on the theory that if I can do this confidently in VMC then I can also handle my own higher limits in IMC.

Hope that answers the questions. As I said, I have no problem with anyone who wants to use their IMC rating purely to get out of trouble - but that's not the CAA's view, and it may not be the view of your students even if it is your own view. As an instructor who's instructing someone for a rating which allows them to fly in clouds, I think it's essential that you teach them to fly in clouds.

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

[Dan Winterland]

The IMC students I have taken through the course have had no problems with 15 hours (or 12 if they have a night rating). However, my club is based at a class D airspace airfield with all the aids and approaches you could possibly wish for.

I usually start with the ILS leading up to the non-precsion approach - ususally a procedural NDB/DME which I endeavour to get signed off on the course so that the student ends up with the ILS for the test. I also cover holds because at our airfield, they are common for the club aircraft as the bigger stuff gets priority and an IMC approach will sometimes start with a hold or two.

With regards to the hours, 15 is enough if you consider what the IMC rating is for - a safety rating to allow pilots to broaden their flying horizons in the generally pooh weather we get in the UK. It's not an instrument rating and is not designed for someone to fly in IMC to airports in controlled airspace. The issue I have is with the currency requirements. A pilot can legally fly an approach having not flown one in 2 years. This is where the real danger of the rating lies IMHO.

As an aside, I gather that now that I have a JAR licence and not a CAA licence, I can no longer assume atomatic rights to an IMC rating by holding an ATPL. This is because I also hold a foreign licence on which my current IR is held - my last JAA LPC/IR has expired. I mention this as I'm sure other instructors maintaining their IMC rating on the basis of their professional licences may be caught out by this.

[pilotbear]

Dan you are quite right, straight after the IMC test the candidate is up to speed, but the recency requirements are poor.
I have to renew my CAA IR every year and my Canadian one every two years. .
I will always teach in the clouds provided I can get a RIS or procedural approach control service. I also make them fly limited panel as soon as they can master it.
Do you include much partial panel?

The proper way to use the IMC is to follow the example of FFF , have personal minima, stick to it and keep current. That way when you need it you can do it.:ok:

[Dan Winterland]

Yes, I do teach a lot of limited panel. Although vaccum pumps are pretty reliable, they do fail and also it is possible to topple the AI in a violent UP. They take a long time to re-errect.

Partial panel (do you mean pitot/static failure) - I also cover that. i find just a quick demo sufffices just to get them thinking about the situation should it happen.

I also stress to my students that once they have their rating, it's a good idea to stay current by flying with a safety pilot. I point out that whan I was an instructor in the RAF, our currency requirement was one instrument approach every 31 days.

[BEagle]

DanW - as you are holder of a Non-JAA ICAO IR(A), you may have an IMC rating re-validated/renewed for a further period by the CAA on the basis of the most recent Non-JAA IR(A) flight test. However, a fee is payable......

See Section E of LASORS, page 12.

Now don't you go instructing any more applied instrument flying until you get your IMC rating re-validated! However, when was your last military or UK IR(A) test? Because you'll have 25 months of IMC Rating validity following that date in any case - and a re-validation with your friendly Examiner;) is all you'd subsequently need.

In fact I'd sooner examine a radar-vectored ILS on the test as the ability of people to fly accurately whilst following ATC instruction is very important. The Playstation Kids can play with MS Flightsim procedural apporaches for ever and a day - but absorbing ATC instructions whilst flying good IF is rather a different kettle de poisson!

[Dan Winterland]

Jolly fine book that LASORS. A right ripping read. Must buy one.

I'm OK for another 9 months from my last JAA LPC/IR, but will give you a call next April.

Cheers.

[RodgerF]

Just a few observations on this post.

pilotbear

I am sorry that you thought that Southend was expensive. Perhaps you should raise it with the airport management. OTOH they are in a strategic position in easy range of two other busy airfields that provide much I/F training. Southend has little commercial traffic so I have found that the students do not get messed about. The booking system also means that you get unfettered access to the aids and air traffic. If not it normally means that some p:mad:k can't plan to arrive on time.

You don't say where you are based, flying to a cheaper airfield is no benefit if the transit costs outweigh the approach savings.

From the point of view of training once students can fly the full panel with accuracy, I load then up by doing some SRAs for recovery before moving on to the pilot interpreted approaches. Agree that RV ILS should be taught, because its more common and its the most difficult.

FFF

quote:

but a well-established unofficial NDB let-down procedure that gets you to within a couple of miles of the field,

Oh dear. This sort of practice is really unwise. Not my words but those within CAP507. What minima does this procedure operate with? Presumably the 1000' cloud base you refer to a minima is aal not amsl. Is there no airfield nearby with an I/F approach procedure that you can use?

pilotbear

I think the idea of post IMC training is excellent, I have offered to go with former students if the weather is inclement so that they can see for themselves how hard it can become when things get tough.

[FlyingForFun]

RodgerF,

At risk of dragging this thread off-topic... ;)

I don't agree with you that this sort of practice is "unwise". I do think it's unwise to follow this sort of practice without studying all the available material very closely, and choosing appropriate minima.

This subject has been discussed not all that long ago, in the Private Flying forum. I've also done a bit of research into it myself.

My understanding is as follows. Under IFR, I must remain 1000' above the nearest obstacle within etc etc etc. Therefore, I can, perfectly legally, fly down to 1000' above any nearby objects. I use an NDB QDR which I know keeps me away from any such obstacles, just as I would for an en-route leg (someone else worked out this QDR for me, but I could have found it myself just as easilly - in any case, it will need checking from time to time as obstacles are built and magnetic variation changes, as would any en-route planning). If I become visual before this point, my flight then becomes a VFR flight. I can not find any suggestion that this is either illegal or unsafe.

If I decend below 1000' agl, the situation is less clear. The 1000' rule doesn't apply if I am (this is not an exact quote, don't have time to look up the relevant rules right now) carrying out an approach in accordance with normal aviation practice. The debatable point would be whether performing this approach is "normal aviation practice", and I couldn't find any definitive answer on this. The closest I found was a document on the CAA website (there's a link to it on the thread in Private Flying which I mentioned earlier, if you want to track it down) which proposes a change to the regulations. The proposed change would allow approaches to be published for airfields with an AFISO, but would ban anyone from circulating or using an approach procedure which has not been published by the CAA. The idea of the proposal was to encourage more airfields to upgrade from A/G to AFIS in order to be able to legally publish instrument approaches. As far as I know, it never got any further than the idea stage - but it did confirm that the CAA believe that carrying out this type of approach is currently entirely legal, otherwise the whole basis of the proposal would be invalid.

As for the safety aspect, you touch on this by asking what minima the procedure operates with. The "plate" says "MDH/MDA at pilot's discretion." I've told you what my minima are, but it would be up to the individual pilot to review the local terrain and decide on appropriate minima. Coincidentally (maybe!), my minima also keep me out of the grey area as far as the legal issues are concerned (or very nearly so, at least).

The nearest airfield with a publish instrument approach is Farnborough. The route from Farnborough to my home airfield crosses or takes me close to built up areas, the Blackbushe ATZ, and the Heathrow CTR. I think there may be a hill or two in there too, I can't remember and I don't have my chart to hand. I would much rather fly the NDB let-down than route home from Farnborough at low level. If the weather was such that I felt the NDB let-down was not safe, I'd land at Farnborough - I don't know what their landing fees are, or if they would waive them for a weather diversion, and I don't really care, I certainly would not fly that route at low level.

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

[Tinstaafl]

Interesting points, FFF.

To my mind there are a couple or few aspects to the problem.

1. The ludicrous CAA requirement that there must be at a least a FISO or ATC in attendance in order to have published - and then do - an instrument approach. What a load of crap. In the civilised world the demonstrated safety rate shows such requirements are unnecessary.

2. Lots of experienced pilots make full & sensible use of the rules to enable operations. Quite legitimately it includes flying however one wishes in IMC as long as the rules about terrain separation & nav. tolerances are observed. If you can maintain at least 1000' above terrain AND can ensure that required buffers are adhered to it matters not a jot if the flight path just happens to result in enabling VFR flight & subsequent flight to somewhere else such as an aerodrome.

A good example is the use of grid & sector LSALT. As long as the flight is confined within the relevent area then one can descend NO LOWER than the LSALT with impunity. The LSALT is published or can be calculated in accordance with defined principles so why not use it?

There is a catch though: Obstacles are not required to be reported if they are less than 360' above terrain (Oz rules. I'm pretty sure it's the same for the UK). That means that calculating a LSALT from topo charts requires at least 1400' to be added to terrain elevation.

3. Going below LSALT without meeting visual or VFR criteria etc is tantamount to Russian roulette.

[RodgerF]

FFF

If you had read my post carefully, the view I expressed was in fact quoted from CAP507 Chapter 10. This discusses approaches to aerodromes without published IAPs. It counsels against making approaches in bad weather. For the purpose of CAP507 bad weather is defined as cloud ceiling 1000’ or less, 3km in flight vis and 3k reported aerodrome visibility.

DIY IAPs are deemed to be unwise because amongst other things, the complexities of design, the need to ensure obstacle clearance and to conform with ICAO criteria.

The problem that you raise is that these procedures depend on local knowledge, ‘I know where the obstacles are’ is no basis for a safe procedure to be generally available. The whole point of an IAP is that you do not need to know where the obstacles are, conformance with the procedure will keep you safe. As to the remark “MDA/MDH at the pilot’s discretion” it is an oxymoron.

Below 1000’ you are obviously refering to the exemptions within Rule 29 and Rule 5. Subsection (a) of 29 provides an exemption ‘when it it necessary for the aircraft to take of (sic) or land’. The question is when does the landing start?

I am familiar with the proposal to amend Article 90 but I don’t see how this is relevant. If you are suggesting that the CAA believe that DIY IAPs are ‘currently entirely legal’ then this is at variance with the proposal. As you correctly say using procedures that are not ‘notified’ by the CAA would be a de facto offence. What the CAA are saying if appropriate IAPs have been designed within the ICAO criteria they can be notified and used without the requirement for full ATC. DIY IAPs would be prohibited. BTW I don’t think that the proposal has gone away. Consultation has closed, but as the change will require legislation via an SI it will be some time yet.

As an aside there have been CFIT accidents using ‘home grown’ procedures

Tinstaafl

The ‘ludicrous CAA requirement’ as you put it is so that pilots can comply with Articles 38-40 of the Air Navigation Order to determine the reported weather so that the approach can be attempted. Without someone at the arrival airfield this requirement cannot be met.

Quite agree with your point about sector altitudes, in the UK the obstacles could be up to 300’. The problem with terrain elevation is that it is apart from spot heights only reported at 500’ intervals.

[slim_slag]

The ‘ludicrous CAA requirement’ as you put it is so that pilots can comply with Articles 38-40 of the Air Navigation Order to determine the reported weather so that the approach can be attempted. Without someone at the arrival airfield this requirement cannot be met.

The requirement is met when you (the pilot) arrive at the MAP/DH and can determine whether you can see out of the window or not and how far you can see. As the observer at the airport is not at the DH/MAP how can he help you?

You do need an accurate altimeter setting but that can be provided by an automated weather station, or a nearby reporting station and a correction. IAPs with no human on the ground are safely used all over the US, including Cat I ILS approaches.

"Rolling your own" IAP is nuts. Total nuts.

[FormationFlyer]

Um...folks - ok caveat - im very very drunk - so dont crucify me - but pls remember being IFR ...

1. does not preclude flight in VMC
2. Does not mean you mean route 1000' above the highest fxed obstacle provided you are clear of cloud in sight of the surface anbd below3000' - see rules of the air.....

Regards,
FF

[destructor]

The 15 hrs for the IMC is not a bad time until JAR changes many IR students did that and passed the IR test so dont knock it on time. The cost of approaches is a factor and hinders some students. As to content I agree with most that the student should do holds in 4 mins as this is harder that an ILS and requires a higher mental application to adjust and get it right. I do this at a beacon with no pulished figures but with radar cover(mil) and above 4000 ft (heater must work), so no cost for that section. After the test you can always do ILS practise when the man says extend downwind and you have a safety pilot with you. We need to keep pilots doing this course and keeping current as the UK weather is cr*p.