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.

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).]

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).]

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.

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).]

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).]

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.

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.

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'?

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).]

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!

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).]

BEagle: Crystal clear mate!

NIMBUS: Pull your head in 'sepo! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

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).]

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 :)

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

Yogi: Great suggestion... start anothe rthread on the idea of IMC access to lower airways. Perhaps we should lobby through AOPA?

Andy

NIMBUS - genuine question...how many hours on average to people take to get the FAA IR?
Ian

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......... :)

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.

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).]

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.

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.

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!

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 CFIT´s.

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 don´t the CAA ban the practice? I mean it. Why don´t 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

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.

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

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.

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).]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 54N. 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

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 http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif ). 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.

------------------
-.-- --.- -..-

Statiscally, there are fewer accidents per flying hour at night than there are during the day. Probably because people take more care at night.

[This message has been edited by TooHotToFly (edited 07 February 2001).]

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

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.

------------------
-.-- --.- -..-