IR to IMC
 

Hi guys,
The story is that my IR lapsed last month & just so I can get home again if the weather changes I want am IMC. What do I need to do? LASORS, as usual, is confusing me!
LASORS says
"An applicant who holds an ICAO IR or military green Instrument Rating (Aeroplanes) and have passed an IR test in the 24 months preceding the date of application for the IMC Rating will be exempt from taking the initial IMC Flight Test and written examination. Applicants will be required to apply for the issue of the IMC rating within this period, and the IMC granted will be based from the date the last IR test was passed."
So I can just send of the paper work, lots of money etc ...
It then says
"JAR-FCL CPL(A) and ATPL(A) licences does not have in-built IMC privileges. The holder of a JAR-FCL professional aeroplane licence without a valid IR(A)
who wishes to obtain an IMC Rating must complete the following:
I. 5 hours of applied dual instrument instruction in accordance with the IMC Rating syllabus and;
ii. pass an initial IMC Rating Flight Test."
Anyone have experience of this?
Thanks

Lasors contradicting itself? No, surely not.

The CAA are way too professional to let that happen, aren't they? That's what all the user fees are for.

Does this help?

From LASORS:

JAR-FCL Professional Aeroplane Licence Holders

JAR-FCL CPL(A) and ATPL(A) licences does not have
in-built IMC privileges. The holder of a JAR-FCL
professional aeroplane licence without a valid IR(A)
who wishes to obtain an IMC Rating must complete the
following:

i. 5 hours of applied dual instrument instruction in
accordance with the IMC Rating syllabus and;

ii. pass an initial IMC Rating Flight Test.

The holder of a UK issued JAR-FCL professional
aeroplane licence with a valid single-pilot IR(A) does
not require a separate IMC Rating endorsement as the
privileges are included within the IR(A) privileges. If,
however, you wish to obtain an IMC Rating you will
need to apply to PLD for endorsement. The normal IMC
rating issue fee will apply unless application is made in
conjunction with an Instrument Rating (IR). In this case,
the IMC Rating will be valid for a period of 25 months
from the date of the IR(A) skill test and will not need to
be revalidated if the IR(A) remains valid. If the IR(A)
lapses an IMC revalidation flight test is required.
The holder of a JAR-FCL professional aeroplane
licence with a valid multi-pilot IR(A) is not automatically
entitled to fly using the privileges of an IMC Rating in
single-pilot aeroplanes. They will be required to pass a
IMC Flight Test and apply to PLD for a separate IMC
Rating endorsement.

However, if when you do an SPA IR(A) revalidation/renewal flight, you ask the examiner to sign your IMC rating renewal page too - then it will remain current even if the IR(A) does lapse 12 months later.

At least, that's what the CAA said last time we spoke about it - probably changed their minds by now.

The holder an IR only needs to take the IMC Skill Test and apply for the rating.
When it comes to filling in the IMC application form you must show 15 hours IF training, you probably did 55 hours for the IR so you have more than you need.

The Reference in LASORS applies to a CPL without IR, you can't have an ATPL(A) without an IR so its clearly an error!

The holder of an IR needs to take an IMC skill test?

An error in Lasors?

After all these years of proof reading by industry experts?

So if its not valid and you want an IMC rating how else will you get it?

LASORS is only a guidance doc, bringing together lots of information from other sources. If you want to be sure that information is correct, you should always go to the prime source.

So, in the absence of a list of contents of what is correct, and what is incorrect, it confirms my comments that the entire book is absolutely worthless as, once you've found the answer in Lasors you then have to go look it up elsewhere to double check that the authors (who just happen to be the state legislators for the subject) have printed it correctly.

The CAA should stop selling the thing and most certainly stop referring pilots to it as a reference source.