IMC in uncontrolled airspace.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In an ideal world everyone flying in IMC outside CAS would be getting a RAS. Unfortunately, regardless of the rating (IMC or IR) and regardless of whether or not you have filed a flight plan there will be occasions when you have to descend through cloud in the open FIR without a radar service. If that becomes illegal then the UK will either have to dramatically increase radar coverage and ATC staffing levels (Hmmm I doubt it with PPP) or a major amount of flying will no longer take place.
The statistics show that colliding with another aircraft while IMC is far less likely than CFIT. Off the top of my head I can't think of a collision between two aircraft in IMC in the UK (Apart from a few I have read about during the second world war).
It can be a very emotive issue, mainly because the pilot does not (is not) in control of his or her destiny, but there have been many more fatalities as a result of landing accidents/fuel starvation/CFIT/mechanical problems/loss of control/mid airs in VMC/medical problems etc. etc.
That said, common sense would strongly suggest that you don't practice holds in IMC at a VOR in a busy area without a RAS.
The statistics show that colliding with another aircraft while IMC is far less likely than CFIT. Off the top of my head I can't think of a collision between two aircraft in IMC in the UK (Apart from a few I have read about during the second world war).
It can be a very emotive issue, mainly because the pilot does not (is not) in control of his or her destiny, but there have been many more fatalities as a result of landing accidents/fuel starvation/CFIT/mechanical problems/loss of control/mid airs in VMC/medical problems etc. etc.
That said, common sense would strongly suggest that you don't practice holds in IMC at a VOR in a busy area without a RAS.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi BEagle,
Yes, I see your point.
Then again, if IMC conditions (in the clouds!) were restricted to IR rated pilots on a flight plan, then in effect it would become 'controlled' airspace.
I just don't like the idea of planes wandering in and out of IMC with no control!
As a matter of interest, how much training is involved in the IMC rating?
PS. I guess I'm just spoiled by the more extensive radar coverage in the US!
[This message has been edited by NIMBUS (edited 03 February 2001).]
Yes, I see your point.
Then again, if IMC conditions (in the clouds!) were restricted to IR rated pilots on a flight plan, then in effect it would become 'controlled' airspace.
I just don't like the idea of planes wandering in and out of IMC with no control!
As a matter of interest, how much training is involved in the IMC rating?
PS. I guess I'm just spoiled by the more extensive radar coverage in the US!
[This message has been edited by NIMBUS (edited 03 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
NIMBUS - Restricting it so that only IR rated pilots with on a flight plan could fly IMC would still not give you 'controlled' airspace in the open FIR.
Just to add another element (OK, rare I know), but what about sailplanes on cloud climbs?
The training for the IMC rating is 15 hours with a written exam.
Just out of interest the JAR training for a full IR is...
Hold minimum of PPL with Night rating.
Then...minimum of 200 hours ground school (Interestingly the JAA have defined an hour as being 60 minutes in their documents, wonder how long it took them to do that?)
50 hours flight training (single) or 55 hours flight training (twin).
Ian
[This message has been edited by IanSeager (edited 03 February 2001).]
Just to add another element (OK, rare I know), but what about sailplanes on cloud climbs?
The training for the IMC rating is 15 hours with a written exam.
Just out of interest the JAR training for a full IR is...
Hold minimum of PPL with Night rating.
Then...minimum of 200 hours ground school (Interestingly the JAA have defined an hour as being 60 minutes in their documents, wonder how long it took them to do that?)
50 hours flight training (single) or 55 hours flight training (twin).
Ian
[This message has been edited by IanSeager (edited 03 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'll fly IMC without radar on occasion and done in such a way as to minimise the risk. It's difficult to say that it's more dangerous than joining the circuit in good VMC when everone else is doing the same thing and ATC have lost the plot. It *may* be more dangerous but I'd challenge all of these people who religiously perceive it to be more dangerous to back up their perception with some facts.
On the other hand, the more of you that think it's too dangerous and won't do it, the safer it will be for me when I do.
On the other hand, the more of you that think it's too dangerous and won't do it, the safer it will be for me when I do.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well,
If I ever have to have surgery, I'd prefer to have a qualified surgeon, rather than one who quit school after learning the basics
As I see it, the IMC rating is a mid-way point between VFR and IFR. Maybe if used responsibly, its relativly safe. I don't know about statistics, but it seems that mid-airs can happen any time. The chances of it happening in the middle of a cloud have to be greater.
Pondlife,
If more people are afraid of it, and don't do, that makes it safer. However, if nobody does it, its even safer.
The UK is the only place, I think!, where it exists. Are UK clouds a lot thinner, or are UK pilots better than everybody else?
No. I'll leave it to you.
I value my life too much to take the cheap option.
PS. Ian,
Thanks for the info. Also, I know it would not be 'controlled' in the open FIR, but with limited access it would serve the same purpose!
[This message has been edited by NIMBUS (edited 03 February 2001).]
If I ever have to have surgery, I'd prefer to have a qualified surgeon, rather than one who quit school after learning the basics
As I see it, the IMC rating is a mid-way point between VFR and IFR. Maybe if used responsibly, its relativly safe. I don't know about statistics, but it seems that mid-airs can happen any time. The chances of it happening in the middle of a cloud have to be greater.
Pondlife,
If more people are afraid of it, and don't do, that makes it safer. However, if nobody does it, its even safer.
The UK is the only place, I think!, where it exists. Are UK clouds a lot thinner, or are UK pilots better than everybody else?
No. I'll leave it to you.
I value my life too much to take the cheap option.
PS. Ian,
Thanks for the info. Also, I know it would not be 'controlled' in the open FIR, but with limited access it would serve the same purpose!
[This message has been edited by NIMBUS (edited 03 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
The IMC Rating also requires a test with an Examiner - it is NOT just a question of training and a written exam. The flight test consists of climb, climbing turns, level off, unusual atttitude recoveries on full panel plus radio navigation. Plus flight on turn and slip (or turn co-ordinator), altimeter, ASI, VSI and magnetic compass alone, including recoveries from unusual attitudes. It also requires a full-panel pilot-interpreted approach or 2, plus a go-around and poor visibility visual circuit. All except the visual circuit must be flown in simulated IF using foggles or screens. The candidate will NOT pass unless the Examiner is fully satisfied with the level of skill demonstrated, basic IF proficiency will be assessed far more critically than a NDB approach, for example.
Your touching faith in the protection afforded by an 'IFR flight plan' would be of no use whatever in the UK, even with an IR, unless you were in Controlled Airspace. But the fools who fly IMC with no radar service are a danger both to themselves and to all other airspace users.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 03 February 2001).]
Your touching faith in the protection afforded by an 'IFR flight plan' would be of no use whatever in the UK, even with an IR, unless you were in Controlled Airspace. But the fools who fly IMC with no radar service are a danger both to themselves and to all other airspace users.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 03 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
BEagle - thanks for adding the part about the test. I did know but hadn't made it clear in my post.
Although as I said, in an ideal world all IMC flight would be with a radar service it just isn't possible all of the time. I don't agree with the suggestion that it should be banned, there are alraedy too many restrictions on flying in the UK/Europe, and banning things when there are no statistics to illustrate the danger is a dangerous precedent in my opinion.
Although as I said, in an ideal world all IMC flight would be with a radar service it just isn't possible all of the time. I don't agree with the suggestion that it should be banned, there are alraedy too many restrictions on flying in the UK/Europe, and banning things when there are no statistics to illustrate the danger is a dangerous precedent in my opinion.
Guest
Posts: n/a
NIMBUS
You don't seem to be getting the point - it makes no difference in the'open' FIR if you have an IMC or IR - it is NOT controlled airspace. Correct me if I'm wrong but in the USA most airspace above 1200' AGL is effectivley Class E ie IFR flight is only allowed with ATC permmission and control. Thats a great way to work if the ATC services are funded by the taxpayer and not by user charges as ours are.
You don't seem to be getting the point - it makes no difference in the'open' FIR if you have an IMC or IR - it is NOT controlled airspace. Correct me if I'm wrong but in the USA most airspace above 1200' AGL is effectivley Class E ie IFR flight is only allowed with ATC permmission and control. Thats a great way to work if the ATC services are funded by the taxpayer and not by user charges as ours are.
Guest
Posts: n/a
JL,
I do get the point! Its' just that we're getting hung up on definitions and semantics, rather than on reality!
Air is air! Makes no difference if its called 'controlled' or 'uncontrolled'
My understanding is that its LEGAL to fly in IMC without a flight plan, and without an instrument rating, in the UK, in 'uncontrolled' airspace. Fine.
I also think its dangerous, and I don't care about statistics.
As far as I know, in the US you cannot go into a cloud, no matter what kind of airspace it's in, without an instrument rating and ATC communication (Flight plan!). Non-IFR rated pilots must maintain VFR minimums everywhere.
Flying from Point 'A' to Point 'B',in IMC, on a filed flight plan, with ATC control (advisories!) is safe, if other aircraft are also part of the system! If part of the flight is through 'uncontrolled' airspace, there is a greater POSSIBILITY in the UK that someone with the minimal training of an IMC rating can also be there, unannounced.
The increased risk is obvious!
15 hours of training is only enough to a 180 and make a instrument approach in MARGINAL VFR conditions. The fact that it can be used to avoid possible routing delays makes it less expensive, more useful, etc. Thats fine if the priority is saving money.
IFR flight is demanding, and by its very nature should be controlled! The pilot is effectively blind!
Freedom is nice, but with it should come responsibility! Part of that responsibility should be getting enough training, and staying current and proficient. If finances don't allow this, then don't do it in the first place!
ATC should be funded by tax money. Its' primary purpose is safety, not profit. The IMC rating appears to me to be a neat way to make pilots think they are getting value for money!
As far as banning something without statistics to back it up, what's the alternative? Wait until you have the statistics? How many dead bodies are needed to qualify as 'statistics'?
I do get the point! Its' just that we're getting hung up on definitions and semantics, rather than on reality!
Air is air! Makes no difference if its called 'controlled' or 'uncontrolled'
My understanding is that its LEGAL to fly in IMC without a flight plan, and without an instrument rating, in the UK, in 'uncontrolled' airspace. Fine.
I also think its dangerous, and I don't care about statistics.
As far as I know, in the US you cannot go into a cloud, no matter what kind of airspace it's in, without an instrument rating and ATC communication (Flight plan!). Non-IFR rated pilots must maintain VFR minimums everywhere.
Flying from Point 'A' to Point 'B',in IMC, on a filed flight plan, with ATC control (advisories!) is safe, if other aircraft are also part of the system! If part of the flight is through 'uncontrolled' airspace, there is a greater POSSIBILITY in the UK that someone with the minimal training of an IMC rating can also be there, unannounced.
The increased risk is obvious!
15 hours of training is only enough to a 180 and make a instrument approach in MARGINAL VFR conditions. The fact that it can be used to avoid possible routing delays makes it less expensive, more useful, etc. Thats fine if the priority is saving money.
IFR flight is demanding, and by its very nature should be controlled! The pilot is effectively blind!
Freedom is nice, but with it should come responsibility! Part of that responsibility should be getting enough training, and staying current and proficient. If finances don't allow this, then don't do it in the first place!
ATC should be funded by tax money. Its' primary purpose is safety, not profit. The IMC rating appears to me to be a neat way to make pilots think they are getting value for money!
As far as banning something without statistics to back it up, what's the alternative? Wait until you have the statistics? How many dead bodies are needed to qualify as 'statistics'?
Guest
Posts: n/a
JL - well, we've tried to explain it to him, but he is either unable to understand English, or chooses not to comprehend.
Are there yet sufficient dead body statistics in the US to consider restricting the sale and ownership of firearms?
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 04 February 2001).]
Are there yet sufficient dead body statistics in the US to consider restricting the sale and ownership of firearms?
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 04 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey BEagle,
When one of your students seems to misunderstand something you explained, do you make the same kind of arrogant and condescending remarks?
This particular ‘Johnny foreigner’ is quite familiar with the English language.
My point, should YOU choose to comprehend it, is that a pilot with only minimal training, in other words, an IMC rating, has no business in a cloud, regardless of what kind of airspace it's in! Nit-pick over the legal definitions of controlled or uncontrolled airspace, and what you may or may not do, all you want to, but the fact remains, it IS dangerous!
To quote from YOUR previous posts…
<<..if you're just going from A to B (remaining outside controlled airspace), even if you think that you'll need to fly in a bit of IMC en-route (at which point you'll be flying IFR), you don't need to file any sort of flight plan in the UK! No flight plan needed just to climb up through a bit of cloud to VMC on top!!..>>
That implies you can go up through a layer, fly through EN-ROUTE CLOUDS, and get down again without an IFR rating. (You were, after all, referring to an IMC rating!)
<<..to anyone brought up under the FAA system, the freedom of flight without a Flight Plan may seem utterly alien, but that's the way it is in the UK..>>
Even you, with your often expressed ‘British-is-Best’ attitude, have to admit that freedom to fly in the US is far greater than in the UK or Europe!
<<..I vehemently disagree with the ridiculous idea of flying in IMC without any radar service, unless in a controlled environment on a procedural clearance. That is positively inviting disaster ANYWHERE in the UK these days..>>
That is the point I was making. Nobody should be allowed into IMC without clearance from ATC, which means a flight plan of some kind. Don’t nit-pick about uncontrolled space, or all the elements of a flight plan, please! If ATC knows your route, you don’t NEED radar service ALL the time. The interior of a cloud should automatically become controlled airspace, anyway.
<<..Flight Information Service is NOT a suitable alternative in IMC, in my view, because in the UK you may not be talking to someone who can see you on the screen. The selection of the appropriate type of service is taught to all PPL students (which makes re-training those who learned to fly at a US flight school important..>>
Again, that was also my point (except for the jab at the "johnny foreigner’s"!)
I fully understand all the points you, and others, made about the airspace!
When one of your students seems to misunderstand something you explained, do you make the same kind of arrogant and condescending remarks?
This particular ‘Johnny foreigner’ is quite familiar with the English language.
My point, should YOU choose to comprehend it, is that a pilot with only minimal training, in other words, an IMC rating, has no business in a cloud, regardless of what kind of airspace it's in! Nit-pick over the legal definitions of controlled or uncontrolled airspace, and what you may or may not do, all you want to, but the fact remains, it IS dangerous!
To quote from YOUR previous posts…
<<..if you're just going from A to B (remaining outside controlled airspace), even if you think that you'll need to fly in a bit of IMC en-route (at which point you'll be flying IFR), you don't need to file any sort of flight plan in the UK! No flight plan needed just to climb up through a bit of cloud to VMC on top!!..>>
That implies you can go up through a layer, fly through EN-ROUTE CLOUDS, and get down again without an IFR rating. (You were, after all, referring to an IMC rating!)
<<..to anyone brought up under the FAA system, the freedom of flight without a Flight Plan may seem utterly alien, but that's the way it is in the UK..>>
Even you, with your often expressed ‘British-is-Best’ attitude, have to admit that freedom to fly in the US is far greater than in the UK or Europe!
<<..I vehemently disagree with the ridiculous idea of flying in IMC without any radar service, unless in a controlled environment on a procedural clearance. That is positively inviting disaster ANYWHERE in the UK these days..>>
That is the point I was making. Nobody should be allowed into IMC without clearance from ATC, which means a flight plan of some kind. Don’t nit-pick about uncontrolled space, or all the elements of a flight plan, please! If ATC knows your route, you don’t NEED radar service ALL the time. The interior of a cloud should automatically become controlled airspace, anyway.
<<..Flight Information Service is NOT a suitable alternative in IMC, in my view, because in the UK you may not be talking to someone who can see you on the screen. The selection of the appropriate type of service is taught to all PPL students (which makes re-training those who learned to fly at a US flight school important..>>
Again, that was also my point (except for the jab at the "johnny foreigner’s"!)
I fully understand all the points you, and others, made about the airspace!
Guest
Posts: n/a
For the last time:
1. In the UK, the IMC Rating and the IR are both 'IFR ratings'.
2. Filing a Flight Plan is NOT required for ANY flight outside CAS in the UK -there is NO SUCH THING as ATC 'clearance' outside CAS.
3. Safe separation in IMC is only available with a radar service. It is the responsibility of the aircraft commander to request either a RIS or RAS at the time with the ATCRU with whom communication is established.
4. Stick-and-rudder skills are comprehensively tested in simulated or actual IF by Examiners in both the IR and IMC Rating Skill Tests.
5. The IMC Rating does not permit flight in Class A airspace, the IR does.
6. Because the procedures are DIFFERENT in the UK to the US, re-training US-trained PPL holders IS essential. Perhaps I should have said 'further training'; this is not meant to imply that US pilots are necessarily inferior.
7. 'Nit-picking about definitions' is not what we've been doing in this thread. It is VITAL to know and understand the REQUIREMENTS for flight in the UK and especially for safe flight in cloud and/or reduced visibility. It is also essential that pilots understand the privileges of their licences and associated ratings.
8. In case you missed it, A FLIGHT PLAN GIVES NO GUARANTEE OF SAFE SEPARATION IN IMC IN THE UK!!! Nor can ANY 'clearance' be given outside controlled airspace.
Have a nice dayee........
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 05 February 2001).]
1. In the UK, the IMC Rating and the IR are both 'IFR ratings'.
2. Filing a Flight Plan is NOT required for ANY flight outside CAS in the UK -there is NO SUCH THING as ATC 'clearance' outside CAS.
3. Safe separation in IMC is only available with a radar service. It is the responsibility of the aircraft commander to request either a RIS or RAS at the time with the ATCRU with whom communication is established.
4. Stick-and-rudder skills are comprehensively tested in simulated or actual IF by Examiners in both the IR and IMC Rating Skill Tests.
5. The IMC Rating does not permit flight in Class A airspace, the IR does.
6. Because the procedures are DIFFERENT in the UK to the US, re-training US-trained PPL holders IS essential. Perhaps I should have said 'further training'; this is not meant to imply that US pilots are necessarily inferior.
7. 'Nit-picking about definitions' is not what we've been doing in this thread. It is VITAL to know and understand the REQUIREMENTS for flight in the UK and especially for safe flight in cloud and/or reduced visibility. It is also essential that pilots understand the privileges of their licences and associated ratings.
8. In case you missed it, A FLIGHT PLAN GIVES NO GUARANTEE OF SAFE SEPARATION IN IMC IN THE UK!!! Nor can ANY 'clearance' be given outside controlled airspace.
Have a nice dayee........
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 05 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
BEagle: Crystal clear mate!
NIMBUS: Pull your head in 'sepo!
Everyone else: Isn't it just sooooo American to presume that the rest of the world must be either the same as it is in the US, or else somehow inferior!
Andy
For those that don't know, "'sepo" is a contraction of septic... see http://www.controversycorner.com/docs/glossq-t.html for more...
------------------
"Andy sang, Andy watched, Andy waited 'til his billy boiled..." (It was written for me!)
[This message has been edited by Aussie Andy (edited 05 February 2001).]
NIMBUS: Pull your head in 'sepo!
Everyone else: Isn't it just sooooo American to presume that the rest of the world must be either the same as it is in the US, or else somehow inferior!
Andy
For those that don't know, "'sepo" is a contraction of septic... see http://www.controversycorner.com/docs/glossq-t.html for more...
------------------
"Andy sang, Andy watched, Andy waited 'til his billy boiled..." (It was written for me!)
[This message has been edited by Aussie Andy (edited 05 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK! Pistols at dawn!
Loser buys the drinks!!!
BEagle,
I know! I'm not disputing the legalities. I'm merely saying that the system contains some serious flaws! It is reduced training to save money!
Knowing and understanding the legal requirements are not as vital as being able to operate the aircraft on instruments as safely as possible!
Aussie Andy,
Yes. You're right! Many Americans do feel that way. Its' lucky they all have accents, or you'd think they were Australians!
By the way, I'm not American, but I've spent considerable time in both Australia and America. I prefer America
Loser buys the drinks!!!
BEagle,
I know! I'm not disputing the legalities. I'm merely saying that the system contains some serious flaws! It is reduced training to save money!
Knowing and understanding the legal requirements are not as vital as being able to operate the aircraft on instruments as safely as possible!
Aussie Andy,
Yes. You're right! Many Americans do feel that way. Its' lucky they all have accents, or you'd think they were Australians!
By the way, I'm not American, but I've spent considerable time in both Australia and America. I prefer America
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now,now,now, boys and girls. No need to go on like this.
I’m getting a little confused now. What is an IMC rating for...if not flying in IMC. A holder is not allowed in class A airspace so there are only the open FIR and the lower categories of CAS left. If a radar service is available, you use it, if not, too bad. Before we get too excited about the insanity of it all, lets remember what the conditions were when the quadrantal system was first devised. Most aircraft were non-radio and radar wasn’t invented. There were probably not a lot fewer aircraft about (and a vast increase during the war) so what scenario were its inventors contemplating?
Improbable though it may seem this version of Russian roulette doesn’t produce a crop of collisions. Like IanSeager, I can’t recall one since Richard Hillary, 1942, Spit/Oxford (?) though there must have been some, whereas I can recall easily, periodical VFR mid-airs.
Perfect safety is an illusion. We can have degrees of safety at different prices. The UK IR was always very expensive. Perverse nonsense about training to a high standard from which you were expected to deteriorate. The advent of JAR has now put its cost onto a stratospheric trajectory. £15K upwards. 6 weeks off work for groundschool and exams. The IMC rating though, costs about £1500 and a few evening classes. No time off work necessary. No contest. Difference in cost 10:1 Diff. in utility 2:1 Diff. in safety ?:1
BTW, please can someone tell me what is so miraculous about the airspace south of 50º N that, instantaneously, all the rules should change? Semi-circular rule applies; VFR allowed on lower airways at L+500’; IMC rating not recognised (although I read that the French recognise its advantages and are starting to train and test for it in the UK!).
I appears to be common ground that the JAR is a disaster for GA. Just as we start to regain independence from our American friends and allies after nearly sixty years of neo-colonial rule ;-), we hand the initiative back by producing gobbledygook like this. Is it another manifestation of the sort of European restrictive practices and bureaucracy that hobble us commercially? The NPPL gets around one part of the problem that JAR has created. To overcome the stratospheric cost of an IR, what about allowing IFR on the lower airways, up to FL115 say, by IMC rating holders after a supplementary test? Where better to start a ‘pilot’ scheme for this than on Alpha 25? Glasgow to Toulouse via points west. Introduced nationally, this one move would reduce at a stroke a lot of the off airway flogging around in IMC, which is actually the most taxing IFR regime on the pilot. It would make for a much more relaxed and safe environment for all. Might increase ATC workload a mite............
Since I have drifted far from TFG’s original quick question, I’ve started another thread. Whaddyathink?
------------------
Yaberdaberdoo
That's OK Boo-Boo
I’m getting a little confused now. What is an IMC rating for...if not flying in IMC. A holder is not allowed in class A airspace so there are only the open FIR and the lower categories of CAS left. If a radar service is available, you use it, if not, too bad. Before we get too excited about the insanity of it all, lets remember what the conditions were when the quadrantal system was first devised. Most aircraft were non-radio and radar wasn’t invented. There were probably not a lot fewer aircraft about (and a vast increase during the war) so what scenario were its inventors contemplating?
Improbable though it may seem this version of Russian roulette doesn’t produce a crop of collisions. Like IanSeager, I can’t recall one since Richard Hillary, 1942, Spit/Oxford (?) though there must have been some, whereas I can recall easily, periodical VFR mid-airs.
Perfect safety is an illusion. We can have degrees of safety at different prices. The UK IR was always very expensive. Perverse nonsense about training to a high standard from which you were expected to deteriorate. The advent of JAR has now put its cost onto a stratospheric trajectory. £15K upwards. 6 weeks off work for groundschool and exams. The IMC rating though, costs about £1500 and a few evening classes. No time off work necessary. No contest. Difference in cost 10:1 Diff. in utility 2:1 Diff. in safety ?:1
BTW, please can someone tell me what is so miraculous about the airspace south of 50º N that, instantaneously, all the rules should change? Semi-circular rule applies; VFR allowed on lower airways at L+500’; IMC rating not recognised (although I read that the French recognise its advantages and are starting to train and test for it in the UK!).
I appears to be common ground that the JAR is a disaster for GA. Just as we start to regain independence from our American friends and allies after nearly sixty years of neo-colonial rule ;-), we hand the initiative back by producing gobbledygook like this. Is it another manifestation of the sort of European restrictive practices and bureaucracy that hobble us commercially? The NPPL gets around one part of the problem that JAR has created. To overcome the stratospheric cost of an IR, what about allowing IFR on the lower airways, up to FL115 say, by IMC rating holders after a supplementary test? Where better to start a ‘pilot’ scheme for this than on Alpha 25? Glasgow to Toulouse via points west. Introduced nationally, this one move would reduce at a stroke a lot of the off airway flogging around in IMC, which is actually the most taxing IFR regime on the pilot. It would make for a much more relaxed and safe environment for all. Might increase ATC workload a mite............
Since I have drifted far from TFG’s original quick question, I’ve started another thread. Whaddyathink?
------------------
Yaberdaberdoo
That's OK Boo-Boo
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having just read the last few pages of this topic it seems that those who fly/teach in large jets,fly commercially and have the luxury of every concievable nav aid, IFR flight and radar for the whole journey are against the IMC rating, or that it should only be used with the protection of radar.
Those of us that fly in uncontrolled airspace in small 30yr old planes would do a lot less flying if every flight where conditions were a bit cloudy had to file a flight plan!
Are people suggesting that flying through a layer of cloud to get on top and enjoy a fabulous flight in sunshine above clouds should either be made illegal, or legal only if you had radar coverage?
As has been mentioned the quadrangle rule is there to give a degree of seperation in level flight in cloud.
Getting a RAS or RIS is not always practicable for short flights etc..
There is a risk in flying and I do not see any evidence that light aircraft are colliding in cloud.
I certainly do not agree with making it illegal, where would this attitude get us all in the end? Flight only when there is ten kilometers vis, no cross wind at departure/destination, no cloud anywhere, sun shining, no rain, drizzle or threat of it within 24hrs of the flight.........
Those of us that fly in uncontrolled airspace in small 30yr old planes would do a lot less flying if every flight where conditions were a bit cloudy had to file a flight plan!
Are people suggesting that flying through a layer of cloud to get on top and enjoy a fabulous flight in sunshine above clouds should either be made illegal, or legal only if you had radar coverage?
As has been mentioned the quadrangle rule is there to give a degree of seperation in level flight in cloud.
Getting a RAS or RIS is not always practicable for short flights etc..
There is a risk in flying and I do not see any evidence that light aircraft are colliding in cloud.
I certainly do not agree with making it illegal, where would this attitude get us all in the end? Flight only when there is ten kilometers vis, no cross wind at departure/destination, no cloud anywhere, sun shining, no rain, drizzle or threat of it within 24hrs of the flight.........
Guest
Posts: n/a
As a humble PPL with the intention of acquiring an IMC rating soon, I cannot see the problem with filing a flight plan to fly IMC, and I would NEVER comtemplate flying IMC without at least a RIS. So what if I am precluded from Class A airspace. I think the IMC privilages are valuable and well worth retaining, provided they are not abused.
Guest
Posts: n/a
valerian - My heartfelt congratulations, it's nice to know there are PPL holders out there with some common sense.
Yogi-Bear wrote: What is an IMC rating for...if not flying in IMC
The IMC rating was originally devised as a means of giving a better than even chance of survival to those who, through inadequate planning or plain bad luck, found themselves stuck above cloud and needed to get home. It was never envisaged that the IMC rating holder should plan to fly in IMC.
mickeypitch wrote: "Those of us that fly in uncontrolled airspace in small 30yr old planes would do a lot less flying if every flight where conditions were a bit cloudy had to file a flight plan!
Errr, yes - your point being?
"Are people suggesting that flying through a layer of cloud to get on top and enjoy a fabulous flight in sunshine above clouds should either be made illegal, or legal only if you had radar coverage?
Errr, no - that has never been suggested.
"As has been mentioned the quadrangle rule is there to give a degree of seperation in level flight in cloud."
Quadrangle????? Now I begin to understand.
"There is a risk in flying and I do not see any evidence that light aircraft are colliding in cloud."
Because, thankfully, the morons who engage in the mind numbingly stupid practice of flying in cloud without radar cover are in a sufficiently small minority.
[This message has been edited by rolling circle (edited 05 February 2001).]
[This message has been edited by rolling circle (edited 05 February 2001).]
Yogi-Bear wrote: What is an IMC rating for...if not flying in IMC
The IMC rating was originally devised as a means of giving a better than even chance of survival to those who, through inadequate planning or plain bad luck, found themselves stuck above cloud and needed to get home. It was never envisaged that the IMC rating holder should plan to fly in IMC.
mickeypitch wrote: "Those of us that fly in uncontrolled airspace in small 30yr old planes would do a lot less flying if every flight where conditions were a bit cloudy had to file a flight plan!
Errr, yes - your point being?
"Are people suggesting that flying through a layer of cloud to get on top and enjoy a fabulous flight in sunshine above clouds should either be made illegal, or legal only if you had radar coverage?
Errr, no - that has never been suggested.
"As has been mentioned the quadrangle rule is there to give a degree of seperation in level flight in cloud."
Quadrangle????? Now I begin to understand.
"There is a risk in flying and I do not see any evidence that light aircraft are colliding in cloud."
Because, thankfully, the morons who engage in the mind numbingly stupid practice of flying in cloud without radar cover are in a sufficiently small minority.
[This message has been edited by rolling circle (edited 05 February 2001).]
[This message has been edited by rolling circle (edited 05 February 2001).]