IMC in uncontrolled airspace.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rolling Circle, you wrote that "It was never envisaged that the IMC holder should plan to fly in IMC".
As far as I can establish, the IMC rating certainly was introduced for flight in IMC. I am trying to determine why so many think otherwise.
The earliest reference I can find to a suggestion that the IMC rating is not for flight in IMC is in the CAA safety sense leaflet No 23 of 1998 which states that flying in Instrument Conditions without an Instrument Rating is "extremely unwise to say the least". (In the context in which this is written it is refering to flight in IMC with an IMC rating but not an IR.) I also understand that this was one man's opinion at the CAA, and not necessarily a generally held view there. If anyone can quote me an official reference from the time of the introduction of the IMC rating suggesting that it was not designed for flight in IMC I should be grateful. I know of no such description.
Before I got an IR, I often planned and safely made flights in IMC as the holder of an IMC rating, however, safe IMC flight is all about planning, the weather, and what you are going to do if the weather is not as forecast. It is also about remaining current.
I'm far closer to the views of WWW than most others in this thread, but it all depends on planning, and sensibly assessing the risks.
In poor weather, more people hit the ground than hit other aircraft.
If some people won't fly in IMC without a radar service, then thats fine by me. In some circumstances I will, in others I won't. Similarly, I know people who won't fly S/E aircraft at night under any circumstances. I'm quite happy to respect their decision, but I don't expect them to criticise my S/E night flights without reasoned arguments.
As far as I can establish, the IMC rating certainly was introduced for flight in IMC. I am trying to determine why so many think otherwise.
The earliest reference I can find to a suggestion that the IMC rating is not for flight in IMC is in the CAA safety sense leaflet No 23 of 1998 which states that flying in Instrument Conditions without an Instrument Rating is "extremely unwise to say the least". (In the context in which this is written it is refering to flight in IMC with an IMC rating but not an IR.) I also understand that this was one man's opinion at the CAA, and not necessarily a generally held view there. If anyone can quote me an official reference from the time of the introduction of the IMC rating suggesting that it was not designed for flight in IMC I should be grateful. I know of no such description.
Before I got an IR, I often planned and safely made flights in IMC as the holder of an IMC rating, however, safe IMC flight is all about planning, the weather, and what you are going to do if the weather is not as forecast. It is also about remaining current.
I'm far closer to the views of WWW than most others in this thread, but it all depends on planning, and sensibly assessing the risks.
In poor weather, more people hit the ground than hit other aircraft.
If some people won't fly in IMC without a radar service, then thats fine by me. In some circumstances I will, in others I won't. Similarly, I know people who won't fly S/E aircraft at night under any circumstances. I'm quite happy to respect their decision, but I don't expect them to criticise my S/E night flights without reasoned arguments.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Consider these situations:
Cloud from 2000 ft to 5000 ft. Very few light aircraft flying due to the weather. You're flying outside CAS at 4500 ft following the quadrantal rule (even without a RAS).
CAVOK Sunday afternoon. You and the other 10 aircraft from your local school are practicing stalls and steep turns in the local training area which also happens to be one of the most common transit areas for pilots flying cross country.
I'm pretty sure that it has been statiscally proven that the latter results in more accidents.
Cloud from 2000 ft to 5000 ft. Very few light aircraft flying due to the weather. You're flying outside CAS at 4500 ft following the quadrantal rule (even without a RAS).
CAVOK Sunday afternoon. You and the other 10 aircraft from your local school are practicing stalls and steep turns in the local training area which also happens to be one of the most common transit areas for pilots flying cross country.
I'm pretty sure that it has been statiscally proven that the latter results in more accidents.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ian,
Average time for the IFR is around 55-60 hours, I think.
I know a few people who did it in less than 40. Depends on where and how they did the course.
Monkeypitch,
I don't (can't!) fly or teach in jets. My only commercial flights are as a passenger, and most of the aircraft I fly are 30yrs old or more. I just think that 15 hours of training in enough to instil a false confidence.
I have to admit that I've never flown in the UK or Europe, other than some VFR. However, from what I can see, the FAA system is certainly better, not because its "American" but because it just makes more sense.
Can someone explain the benefits of those strange QFE/QNE/QNH altimeter settings?, or why transition level should vary? Over complicates what should be a pretty straightforward activity! There is nothing special about the weather to justify it. East Coast USA weather, especially in Winter, is just as bad.
General Aviation in Europe is just not as accessible, because some see it as only for the elite, and commoners should not be allowed in!
15K+ for an IR is robbery. Four times the price I paid for what seems to be a lot more training than a UK/Europe ticket.
The IMC rating has advantages, but I defy anyone to say that using it as more than a 'get-out-of-trouble' tool is safe!
Average time for the IFR is around 55-60 hours, I think.
I know a few people who did it in less than 40. Depends on where and how they did the course.
Monkeypitch,
I don't (can't!) fly or teach in jets. My only commercial flights are as a passenger, and most of the aircraft I fly are 30yrs old or more. I just think that 15 hours of training in enough to instil a false confidence.
I have to admit that I've never flown in the UK or Europe, other than some VFR. However, from what I can see, the FAA system is certainly better, not because its "American" but because it just makes more sense.
Can someone explain the benefits of those strange QFE/QNE/QNH altimeter settings?, or why transition level should vary? Over complicates what should be a pretty straightforward activity! There is nothing special about the weather to justify it. East Coast USA weather, especially in Winter, is just as bad.
General Aviation in Europe is just not as accessible, because some see it as only for the elite, and commoners should not be allowed in!
15K+ for an IR is robbery. Four times the price I paid for what seems to be a lot more training than a UK/Europe ticket.
The IMC rating has advantages, but I defy anyone to say that using it as more than a 'get-out-of-trouble' tool is safe!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting debate. I can see all the points of view quite clearly.
I think we should disregard the issue of whether or not the IMC rating is valuable/useful/safe. Its been around for a very long time, there have been very few incidents of IMC holders cocking up in any spectacular way and I bet my bottom dollar its save a few CFITīs.
Back to the meat of the matter - IMC flight without radar or procedural seperation.
If it really is the "mind numbingly stupid pracrice of Morons" (to paraphrase slightly) then why donīt the CAA ban the practice? I mean it. Why donīt they? Then there would be no pressure on pilots to do so.
Few people seem willing to address my earlier substantial point. That of commensurate risk.
And please. Lets not start pulling each others hair and treat each other like fellow professionals. Nobody here is in the habit of donning stetsons and spurs I am sure.
Cheers,
WWW
I think we should disregard the issue of whether or not the IMC rating is valuable/useful/safe. Its been around for a very long time, there have been very few incidents of IMC holders cocking up in any spectacular way and I bet my bottom dollar its save a few CFITīs.
Back to the meat of the matter - IMC flight without radar or procedural seperation.
If it really is the "mind numbingly stupid pracrice of Morons" (to paraphrase slightly) then why donīt the CAA ban the practice? I mean it. Why donīt they? Then there would be no pressure on pilots to do so.
Few people seem willing to address my earlier substantial point. That of commensurate risk.
And please. Lets not start pulling each others hair and treat each other like fellow professionals. Nobody here is in the habit of donning stetsons and spurs I am sure.
Cheers,
WWW
Guest
Posts: n/a
QNH 1013 - You haven't read my previous post thoroughly. Of course the IMC rating was introduced to allow flight in IMC, but only in cases when VFR flight went wrong and it unexpectedly became necessary to fly through cloud to get home. It was never intended that the holder of the IMC rating should plan to fly in IMC.
It has, not surprisingly, become clear since the introduction of the rating that its benefits only marginally (if at all) outweigh its drawbacks and that it is routinely being abused. The AAIB has recommended withdrawal on a number of occasions having identified abuse of the rating as a contributing factor in fatal accidents.
It has, not surprisingly, become clear since the introduction of the rating that its benefits only marginally (if at all) outweigh its drawbacks and that it is routinely being abused. The AAIB has recommended withdrawal on a number of occasions having identified abuse of the rating as a contributing factor in fatal accidents.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rolling circle,or going round in circles,
From my experience those with an IMC mainly use it to get above a thin cloud layer to fly on top, I do not know anyone who uses it to fly up and down the country in IMC without radar cover, or plan to do so.
I think the difference here is that holders of an IMC who fly LOCALLY will use it for getting above the cloud.
I think you have the impression that holders are flying 100 miles at a time in thick cloud. I do not think this is the case at all.
Those of us who have an IMC rating: I wonder how many who are stating they use radar all the time actually DO for short stints in cloud! Not much honesty going on here me thinks!
It is easier to go with the crowd than state what is actually happening and be slated for doing so........
Happy flying
From my experience those with an IMC mainly use it to get above a thin cloud layer to fly on top, I do not know anyone who uses it to fly up and down the country in IMC without radar cover, or plan to do so.
I think the difference here is that holders of an IMC who fly LOCALLY will use it for getting above the cloud.
I think you have the impression that holders are flying 100 miles at a time in thick cloud. I do not think this is the case at all.
Those of us who have an IMC rating: I wonder how many who are stating they use radar all the time actually DO for short stints in cloud! Not much honesty going on here me thinks!
It is easier to go with the crowd than state what is actually happening and be slated for doing so........
Happy flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
ICING !!!
In Northern Europe this is the problem. It's all very well flying IFR in IMC but in a single you have no de-icing kit.
And I think the Cessna 310 is one of the few multi's that is cleared for moderate icing, so most are only light icing.
With icing levels on the deck or thereabouts for much of the winter, the best place for non IR heavy metal pilots is in the bar beside a log fire with a large Grouse.
In Northern Europe this is the problem. It's all very well flying IFR in IMC but in a single you have no de-icing kit.
And I think the Cessna 310 is one of the few multi's that is cleared for moderate icing, so most are only light icing.
With icing levels on the deck or thereabouts for much of the winter, the best place for non IR heavy metal pilots is in the bar beside a log fire with a large Grouse.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Isn't that the best place to be anyway? For all the winter months?(Laphroaig rather than Grouse in my case!)
None of us wants a mid-air dent in the cowling. But some people (including me) are happy to use their IMC rating as a backup so they can fly in VMC at this time of year, especially. If you don't want to, then don't.
If, in the worst case scenario, 2 aircraft flying in IMC in class G airspace (obeying the quadrantal rule) collide, then presumably both of them knew the risks they were taking. They reduce the risks by talking to the local radar service provider (who may not be able to provide RIS because of geography, but FIS is better than being silent) or London Info, but at the end of the day it is up to each individual pilot to make his/her own choices as to what is safe.
Some people don't even think it's safe enough to fly in any GA aircraft in CAVOK, even though it's perfectly legal and most people disagree.
I think the rules are clear. Whether you think it's safe or not depends on you.
[This message has been edited by flyingbird (edited 06 February 2001).]
None of us wants a mid-air dent in the cowling. But some people (including me) are happy to use their IMC rating as a backup so they can fly in VMC at this time of year, especially. If you don't want to, then don't.
If, in the worst case scenario, 2 aircraft flying in IMC in class G airspace (obeying the quadrantal rule) collide, then presumably both of them knew the risks they were taking. They reduce the risks by talking to the local radar service provider (who may not be able to provide RIS because of geography, but FIS is better than being silent) or London Info, but at the end of the day it is up to each individual pilot to make his/her own choices as to what is safe.
Some people don't even think it's safe enough to fly in any GA aircraft in CAVOK, even though it's perfectly legal and most people disagree.
I think the rules are clear. Whether you think it's safe or not depends on you.
[This message has been edited by flyingbird (edited 06 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rolling Circle, you said:
"The AAIB has recommended withdrawal on a number of occasions having identified abuse of the rating as a contributing factor in fatal accidents."
Really?
Realy?
When and in what reports? Its not that I don't believe you but just back in November I was at the AAIB to discuss Flight Safety with the UK Flight Safety Council. Whilst in discussions about recent incidents we touched upon IMC holders and accidents. At no time was the topic of withdrawl of the scheme raised.
Cheers,
WWW
ps the substantive point of commensurate risk has still not been addressed by anyone.
"The AAIB has recommended withdrawal on a number of occasions having identified abuse of the rating as a contributing factor in fatal accidents."
Really?
Realy?
When and in what reports? Its not that I don't believe you but just back in November I was at the AAIB to discuss Flight Safety with the UK Flight Safety Council. Whilst in discussions about recent incidents we touched upon IMC holders and accidents. At no time was the topic of withdrawl of the scheme raised.
Cheers,
WWW
ps the substantive point of commensurate risk has still not been addressed by anyone.
Guest
Posts: n/a
RC you say it was never intended that IMC rating holders PLAN to fly in IMC. My personal advice to all my IMC students and holders is that the only flight that should be undertaken in IMC is that which has been thoroughly planned.
As for getting out of trouble, if you hadn't planned to fly IMC then trying to locate your flight bag, extract the appropriate plates, work out a diversion on the hoof because your PLANNED destination doesn't have an approach etc etc etc is not conducive to maintaining controlled flight which is the only part of the IMC training which we are now apparently supposed to use.
So why not PLAN the flight, PLAN to make an approach at the other end, and then if the weather does turn to **** there are no surprises to catch you out.
I don't think this is an abuse of the rating.
As for the radar service, it was always part of the BCPL/CPL flight test that on the IMC leg you HAD to upgrade your RIS/FIS to a RAS.Are there different rules before Public Transport flights can be deemed to be complying with IFR ? - well apart from it just not being allowed single engine anyway.
Is full radar cover available on trans oceanic flights ? I'm sure it hasn't always been. Still not recommending you go IMC without a radar service but just a thought.
As for getting out of trouble, if you hadn't planned to fly IMC then trying to locate your flight bag, extract the appropriate plates, work out a diversion on the hoof because your PLANNED destination doesn't have an approach etc etc etc is not conducive to maintaining controlled flight which is the only part of the IMC training which we are now apparently supposed to use.
So why not PLAN the flight, PLAN to make an approach at the other end, and then if the weather does turn to **** there are no surprises to catch you out.
I don't think this is an abuse of the rating.
As for the radar service, it was always part of the BCPL/CPL flight test that on the IMC leg you HAD to upgrade your RIS/FIS to a RAS.Are there different rules before Public Transport flights can be deemed to be complying with IFR ? - well apart from it just not being allowed single engine anyway.
Is full radar cover available on trans oceanic flights ? I'm sure it hasn't always been. Still not recommending you go IMC without a radar service but just a thought.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The view at my Training Organisation is that the IMC Rating should NOT be used for the purpose of planned cruising in IMC. However, the Rating is quite adequate for making a climb through cloud under a radar service in order to reach VMC. Similarly, it allows the IMC Rating holder to descend through cloud under a radar service to 'VMC below' or to fly an approach under IFR at destination. To plan an entire flight to operate in IMC is, as RC states, not really what the IMC Rating was intended for.
No, radar service is not available across the entire Atlantic. After leaving UK radar cover, you are on a Procedural Service on an internationally agreed route until you reach radar cover on the other side. Note that it's only 'agreed'; some years ago I was on a pond crossing when we were given the 'heads-up' on Guard from an American voice as 2 Bear Hs crossed our route at right angles on the way to Cuba, no doubt!
There is absolutely no 'requirement' to 'upgrade' to RAS on encountering IMC if you have previously been receiving RIS. However, I am still of the opinion that it is essential to have some type of radar service in IMC; whether RIS, RAS or Radar Control depends upon the circumstances at the time. But pilots should only request the level of service they actually NEED.
No, radar service is not available across the entire Atlantic. After leaving UK radar cover, you are on a Procedural Service on an internationally agreed route until you reach radar cover on the other side. Note that it's only 'agreed'; some years ago I was on a pond crossing when we were given the 'heads-up' on Guard from an American voice as 2 Bear Hs crossed our route at right angles on the way to Cuba, no doubt!
There is absolutely no 'requirement' to 'upgrade' to RAS on encountering IMC if you have previously been receiving RIS. However, I am still of the opinion that it is essential to have some type of radar service in IMC; whether RIS, RAS or Radar Control depends upon the circumstances at the time. But pilots should only request the level of service they actually NEED.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think one, has to be aware of their own limitations and currency on the IMC issue. However, Beagler - do you not find it bemusing that your training organisation uses it as a tool to get to VMC when as part of the IMC test, you are asked to plan a whole flight within IMC? - My one for example was from Fairoaks to Cardiff!
GV
GV
Guest
Posts: n/a
WWW - Yes really. The last time, as I recall, was after a fatal accident at or near Booker some years ago. I can't remember the exact date and so cannot quote details. However, one recommendation was that the IMC rating either be withdrawn or subject to a significant increase in training and testing. The SACPL considered it at the time and went some way towards making the requirements for the IMC rating more stringent. However, in the end, AOPA managed to strangle the whole thing - as usual, cheap flying was seen as more important than flight safety.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Personally, I don’t go for the idea that an IMC rating is only for getting you out of the ****. It was probably one of the thoughts when the rating was introduced, but why do we have to be stuck with just that. By definition it is unplanned and leads demonstrably to CFITs. I’ve had to do it but it frightens me. Whereas I have no problem carefully planning an entire route and then going and flying it as planned. No hasty ad hoc decisions which overlook the fine detail on the chart. But the flying club’s hired Warrior won’t quite do.
Off the top of my head I can think of four CFITs in recent years resulting from unplanned IMC. There are plenty more.
1. Tobago Blackpool to Mull scud-running hit lump on Jura at 1800’
2. Mooney inbound to Sleap scud-running, hit The Wrekin circa 1350’
3. Banderante Southend to Glasgow on off-airway VFR flight hit hill below 2000’ near Ravenglass.
4. Arrow in IMC hit Snaefell. Pressure very low and failed to realise that FL?? was below 3200’ hilltop. This flight might conceivably have been planned in which case pilot was well below sector safety altitude.
At least two of those pilots would have been better off without their IMC ratings. Then they might not have been tempted to fly through a dropper that turned out to be solid….
I’d still like to hear an instance of an IMC mid-air at any time with or without a radar service.
I’m no statistician but the relative risks are obviously not commensurate!
About radar cover. There will always be gaps unless we can fly higher and even then. Two examples spring to mind. Flying from Scotland to England down the west coast, Scottish Info lose interest in you by 54N. Warton can’t help until you reach Morecambe Bay. Pennine can’t help because you are too far west for them. So over the Lakes you’re on your own. A similar gap exists in mid-Wales between Cardiff and Shawbury. Chivenor closing has probably created another gap between St. Mawgan and Cardiff.
Y-B
Off the top of my head I can think of four CFITs in recent years resulting from unplanned IMC. There are plenty more.
1. Tobago Blackpool to Mull scud-running hit lump on Jura at 1800’
2. Mooney inbound to Sleap scud-running, hit The Wrekin circa 1350’
3. Banderante Southend to Glasgow on off-airway VFR flight hit hill below 2000’ near Ravenglass.
4. Arrow in IMC hit Snaefell. Pressure very low and failed to realise that FL?? was below 3200’ hilltop. This flight might conceivably have been planned in which case pilot was well below sector safety altitude.
At least two of those pilots would have been better off without their IMC ratings. Then they might not have been tempted to fly through a dropper that turned out to be solid….
I’d still like to hear an instance of an IMC mid-air at any time with or without a radar service.
I’m no statistician but the relative risks are obviously not commensurate!
About radar cover. There will always be gaps unless we can fly higher and even then. Two examples spring to mind. Flying from Scotland to England down the west coast, Scottish Info lose interest in you by 54N. Warton can’t help until you reach Morecambe Bay. Pennine can’t help because you are too far west for them. So over the Lakes you’re on your own. A similar gap exists in mid-Wales between Cardiff and Shawbury. Chivenor closing has probably created another gap between St. Mawgan and Cardiff.
Y-B
Guest
Posts: n/a
WWW:
As a matter of debate/logic, I'll try this point: I would suggest that this point is being addressed. However it is being done in an individual and anecdotal fashion, not with any sort of scientific rigour.
For risks to be described as commensurate requires, by definition, some measurement to allow direct comparison. No-one has been able to produce statistically valid data to support their viewpoint (of course that data may not exist
). The only activities mentioned here for which data are available is a comparison of the risks of day vs night flying: the risks are greater at night on the numbers published.
I would suggest that for each of the other issues of risk raised here, no-one has produced anything other than a personal opinion with anecdotal examples for support. Each has done with this issue what every pilot does on every flight. They make decisions based on incomplete or imperfect information. They look at their situation and decide go/no-go. That decision is based on experience, information, or lack of it and Factor X. What is being discussed here indirectly is Factor X - does it feel right; how important is this flight; what's my way out - that sort of thing.
At the end of this thread each of you will have aired your opinions and discussed specifics based on qualitative not quantitative data. The matter of commensurate risk will still be as nebulous as when you started, possibly because some of the quantitative measurements needed to assess commensurate cannot be made.
------------------
-.-- --.- -..-
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">ps the substantive point of commensurate risk has still not been addressed by anyone</font>
For risks to be described as commensurate requires, by definition, some measurement to allow direct comparison. No-one has been able to produce statistically valid data to support their viewpoint (of course that data may not exist
). The only activities mentioned here for which data are available is a comparison of the risks of day vs night flying: the risks are greater at night on the numbers published. I would suggest that for each of the other issues of risk raised here, no-one has produced anything other than a personal opinion with anecdotal examples for support. Each has done with this issue what every pilot does on every flight. They make decisions based on incomplete or imperfect information. They look at their situation and decide go/no-go. That decision is based on experience, information, or lack of it and Factor X. What is being discussed here indirectly is Factor X - does it feel right; how important is this flight; what's my way out - that sort of thing.
At the end of this thread each of you will have aired your opinions and discussed specifics based on qualitative not quantitative data. The matter of commensurate risk will still be as nebulous as when you started, possibly because some of the quantitative measurements needed to assess commensurate cannot be made.
------------------
-.-- --.- -..-
Guest
Posts: n/a
Code Blue, a fair point well made.
I guess what would be more accurate to say is percieved commensurate risk. We will have to stay subjective as there are no relevant stats to draw on.
However. The anecdotal evidence by Yogi-Bear is compelling. I would add to it the C172 "LJ" crash in the Berwyns in Feb 1999 killing three.
I have experienced radar service (mil) being terminated because its 5pm on a Friday - its uncontrolled IMC flight time again! How would we legislate for that?
Rolling Circle, OK I believe you but the AAIB are certainly not pushing for changes to IMC rating or uncontrolled/ATCseperated IMC flight at the present time.
Good debate chaps, do keep it up.
WWW
I guess what would be more accurate to say is percieved commensurate risk. We will have to stay subjective as there are no relevant stats to draw on.
However. The anecdotal evidence by Yogi-Bear is compelling. I would add to it the C172 "LJ" crash in the Berwyns in Feb 1999 killing three.
I have experienced radar service (mil) being terminated because its 5pm on a Friday - its uncontrolled IMC flight time again! How would we legislate for that?
Rolling Circle, OK I believe you but the AAIB are certainly not pushing for changes to IMC rating or uncontrolled/ATCseperated IMC flight at the present time.
Good debate chaps, do keep it up.
WWW
Guest
Posts: n/a
TooHotToFly:
Precision with data is crucial. I too was imprecise with my statement about night vs day flying.
The NTSB database shows IFR night flying to have a greater number of accidents than day IFR. The denominator, ie hours flown, is a matter of choice because of the way flying hours are documented. Thus a prevalence for accidents in these 2 categories is difficult to arrive at and thus a direct yes/no comparison isn't possible. Interestingly the Cessna 210 has such a high accident rate at night that it equals that of all other singles in the US.
Whether or not the UK AAIB figures are similar or completely different I do not know, but a comparison would be interesting. The data may be 'out there' but the analysts are often not pilots and are looking at the figures with a completely different mindset.
------------------
-.-- --.- -..-
Precision with data is crucial. I too was imprecise with my statement about night vs day flying.
The NTSB database shows IFR night flying to have a greater number of accidents than day IFR. The denominator, ie hours flown, is a matter of choice because of the way flying hours are documented. Thus a prevalence for accidents in these 2 categories is difficult to arrive at and thus a direct yes/no comparison isn't possible. Interestingly the Cessna 210 has such a high accident rate at night that it equals that of all other singles in the US.
Whether or not the UK AAIB figures are similar or completely different I do not know, but a comparison would be interesting. The data may be 'out there' but the analysts are often not pilots and are looking at the figures with a completely different mindset.
------------------
-.-- --.- -..-
