IMC question
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had two opinions on teaching IMC on a Private C.o.A a/c
One from my CFI and one from the CAA
Yes you can teach it & charge for it too!. Get out and do it.
If it is ab inito training you can't teach for an IMC rating even if you don't charge (even if you belong to the same group/syndicate), but you can keep pilots current skills up to standard.
You can guess which was which.
One from my CFI and one from the CAA
Yes you can teach it & charge for it too!. Get out and do it.
If it is ab inito training you can't teach for an IMC rating even if you don't charge (even if you belong to the same group/syndicate), but you can keep pilots current skills up to standard.
You can guess which was which.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
o get an IMC you have to demonstrate two approaches
Well, not if it's an NDB, VOR, VDF, SRA, PAR or (do they really exist?) MLS approach, obviously...
You can train on a group owned aircraft provided it has public CofA since the training comes within the definition of "Aerial Work".
I don't think you can pay to be trained on an aircraft with a Private CofA, because this is still aerial work, which is not covered on the private category.
"Subject to the provisions of this article, aerial work means any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight." S130(1) ANO
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact you only have to demonstrate one approach - you have to have recorded one other type in your log book - at least thats how my examiner interpreted the rules.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to exercise the privaleges you do not need ANY radio/nav eqpt. - ie climb up through cloud outside CAS (using your IMC privaleges) and let down the same - If the cloudbase is high enough you do not need to do an approach anywhere, but you HAVE used your IMC rating.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you people sure that there is a requirement for equipment for a plane used to TRAIN the IMC Rating, with an instructor acting as a safety pilot, with the flight taking place in VMC?
I did my IMCR is several planes; one had a working ADF (and was used for NDB holds) but the DME didn't work so if doing an NDB/DME approach the instructor held a handheld GPS (purchased from a camping shop in the USA for $100, he was very proud of it) and called out the numbers. Another had a working VOR so that was used for VOR tracking. None of them had working instrument/exterior lights (the bulbs blew years before) so could not be used for training after sunset.
I finally finished my IMCR in my own plane on which everything worked; the only such plane (out of a dozen or more) I ever flew in.
Also I would speculate that while there is definitely a requirement for IMC flight in CAS (VOR/DME/ADF etc etc) this may not apply as fully for IMC flight outside CAS. A transponder may not then be required for example. Anyone without an XP in IMC is nuts but that's another story...
I did my IMCR is several planes; one had a working ADF (and was used for NDB holds) but the DME didn't work so if doing an NDB/DME approach the instructor held a handheld GPS (purchased from a camping shop in the USA for $100, he was very proud of it) and called out the numbers. Another had a working VOR so that was used for VOR tracking. None of them had working instrument/exterior lights (the bulbs blew years before) so could not be used for training after sunset.
I finally finished my IMCR in my own plane on which everything worked; the only such plane (out of a dozen or more) I ever flew in.
Also I would speculate that while there is definitely a requirement for IMC flight in CAS (VOR/DME/ADF etc etc) this may not apply as fully for IMC flight outside CAS. A transponder may not then be required for example. Anyone without an XP in IMC is nuts but that's another story...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1800m limitation (vis required for take-off and landing) is published in Schedule 8 of the ANO, where the rating is defined.
The ceiling limits are published in the AIP, under the Aerodromes-General section AD 1.1.2. (Section 3.3.2)
Whereas most people are clear about the 1800m rule, the ceiling rules seem to cause confusion, with many people believing they are advisory only.
The advisory aspect is the advice to add 200 to the IR minima for a precision approach. However there is an "absolute minimum" for the DH of 500 feet. Similarly the "absolute minimum" for a non-precision approach is 600 feet.
My understanding is that these "Absolute Minima" are, as the name implies, legally binding.
Hope this helps.
2D
The ceiling limits are published in the AIP, under the Aerodromes-General section AD 1.1.2. (Section 3.3.2)
Whereas most people are clear about the 1800m rule, the ceiling rules seem to cause confusion, with many people believing they are advisory only.
The advisory aspect is the advice to add 200 to the IR minima for a precision approach. However there is an "absolute minimum" for the DH of 500 feet. Similarly the "absolute minimum" for a non-precision approach is 600 feet.
My understanding is that these "Absolute Minima" are, as the name implies, legally binding.
Hope this helps.
2D
Since this one just cam up in another place...
3.3.2 says Pilots with a valid IMC Rating are recommended to add 200ft to the minimum applicable DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500ft for a precision approach and 600ft for a non-precision approach.
The COED says 'absolute' means:
1 complete, perfect
2 pure
3 unrestricted, independent
4 not in usual grammatical relation
5 not relative or comparative; unqualified, unconditional
It's pretty clear to me that in the passage above 'absolute' means 'not relative [to the minimum applicable DH/MDH]'. It still appears to be a recommendation.
Additionally, the wording dates from before the days in which any AOM where mandatory for a private flight. The idea that a licence-privilege limitation would appear in the AOM section of the Air Pilot would have been absurd.
Finally, at the risk of seeming even more pedantic than usual, I'd point out that these are DH/MDH calculation, and not 'ceiling minima'. You may have a ceiling lower than this and get in, just as you may well have a higher ceiling but not get visual reference at the DH/MDH.
Single-engine aircraft flown for public transport do have a minimum celing for take-off.
3.3.2 says Pilots with a valid IMC Rating are recommended to add 200ft to the minimum applicable DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500ft for a precision approach and 600ft for a non-precision approach.
The COED says 'absolute' means:
1 complete, perfect
2 pure
3 unrestricted, independent
4 not in usual grammatical relation
5 not relative or comparative; unqualified, unconditional
It's pretty clear to me that in the passage above 'absolute' means 'not relative [to the minimum applicable DH/MDH]'. It still appears to be a recommendation.
Additionally, the wording dates from before the days in which any AOM where mandatory for a private flight. The idea that a licence-privilege limitation would appear in the AOM section of the Air Pilot would have been absurd.
Finally, at the risk of seeming even more pedantic than usual, I'd point out that these are DH/MDH calculation, and not 'ceiling minima'. You may have a ceiling lower than this and get in, just as you may well have a higher ceiling but not get visual reference at the DH/MDH.
Single-engine aircraft flown for public transport do have a minimum celing for take-off.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two points then:
Firstly, my reading of "absolute minima" was of the unconditional flavour - case 5.
The reasons for choosing to read it that way is, as bookworm is aware, the phrase absolute minima has a very clear meaning in the context of landing minima off IAPs. I read this as imposing just such "absolute minima" on IMC-rated pilots, albeit for different reasons. It is inconceivable to me that even the CAA would rely on two different meanings of the phrase "absolute minima" in two such related contexts.
Secondly, I am not convinced that the grammar of the sentence implies that the absolute minima are in some way a recommendation, the use of the word BUT implies a division between the recommendation and the requirement.
This does risk becoming one of those debates along the lines of the IMC rated pilots out of sight of surface outside the UK. Perhaps having lit the blue touchpaper it is time to retire to a safe distance. "The Volunteer" sounds appealing doesn't it bookworm
2D
Firstly, my reading of "absolute minima" was of the unconditional flavour - case 5.
The reasons for choosing to read it that way is, as bookworm is aware, the phrase absolute minima has a very clear meaning in the context of landing minima off IAPs. I read this as imposing just such "absolute minima" on IMC-rated pilots, albeit for different reasons. It is inconceivable to me that even the CAA would rely on two different meanings of the phrase "absolute minima" in two such related contexts.
Secondly, I am not convinced that the grammar of the sentence implies that the absolute minima are in some way a recommendation, the use of the word BUT implies a division between the recommendation and the requirement.
This does risk becoming one of those debates along the lines of the IMC rated pilots out of sight of surface outside the UK. Perhaps having lit the blue touchpaper it is time to retire to a safe distance. "The Volunteer" sounds appealing doesn't it bookworm
2D
The reasons for choosing to read it that way is, as bookworm is aware, the phrase absolute minima has a very clear meaning in the context of landing minima off IAPs. I read this as imposing just such "absolute minima" on IMC-rated pilots, albeit for different reasons. It is inconceivable to me that even the CAA would rely on two different meanings of the phrase "absolute minima" in two such related contexts.
The absolute minima term that you're thinking of is not one that occurs in AD 1.1.2 (even in the Approach Ban section), or the ANO, but rather in MATS Part 1 (SI 02/2001). I'm intrigued that it is surrounded by scare quotes there! However, I would still argue that absolute is not, even in this context, equivalent to mandatory. Mandatory minima may be considerably higher than the absolute minima mentioned there. But it does mean unconditional or not relative.
The phrase occurs on another occasion in the AIP AD 1.1.2:
9.1.2 Precision approaches, ILS and PAR, for which the absolute minimum is 200 ft above touchdown elevation, are normally based on a 3 degree glidepath.
Again it's clear that absolute is not equivalent to mandatory, as the mandatory minima may be dictated by the OCH/A.
But as you say, it's a conversation for a beer, particularly for anyone with an IR-SPA-ME
.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for the brief diversion within the thread but my first IMC rating 25-month renewal is due in May 2004 and I wanted to know what is the earliest I can take my renewal flight test and keep my May renewal date? I have looked in LASORS 2004 and it seems to cover everything other than the maximum permitted lead time for a renewal! I know for most other ratings its 3 months but thought it starnge I couldn't find a definitive statement under the IMC rating renewal section.
Thanks,
Phil
Thanks,
Phil
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil,
The validity of an IMC rating is always 25 months from the date of test. As it is a national rating the JAA rules don't apply. You can do the test at any time but you will only get 25 months validity. So to reduce your long term expense, do it as close to the expiry date as you can.
R
The validity of an IMC rating is always 25 months from the date of test. As it is a national rating the JAA rules don't apply. You can do the test at any time but you will only get 25 months validity. So to reduce your long term expense, do it as close to the expiry date as you can.
R
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However many PPLs will prefer to save time and money by doing both their IMCR renewal and their PPL renewal in one flight.
As the PPL lasts 24 months but the IMCR lasts 25 months, one is always going to waste a month on the latter.
As the PPL lasts 24 months but the IMCR lasts 25 months, one is always going to waste a month on the latter.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IMC minima are a bit confusing even to many instructors who teach it.
The 500ft precision and 600ft non-precision limits are absolute. The IMC rated pilot when calculating the appropriate minima for the approach can not use a DH of less than 500ft or an MDH of less than 600ft. The minimum visibility in all cases (take-off as well as precision, non-precision and visual approaches) is 1800m.
As well as causing confusion among pilots along with making the calculation of DH/MDH more complicated, the CAA have it seems allowed IMC rated pilots to use lower minima in the more demanding situation.
To explain this - Airfield X is in open level country and the NDB/DME approach has a published MDH of 300ft. The IMC adds 200ft to get 500ft but must add on a further 100ft to get the absolute minima of 600ft - very safe indeed.
However, Airfield Y is located in mountainous terrain with many obstacles and a tricky NDB only approach with an MDH of 800ft. Since this is equal to the absolute minima of 600ft, the IMC pilot can either add 200ft as recomended OR use the IR minima of 600ft.
More dangerous however is the fact that someone may try in error to use 600ft!!
Far far better for the CAA to simply state that IMC rated pilots must add 300ft to the IR minima. Then they can never use the IR minima.
The CAA has also made no allowance for PPLs flying faster aircraft than cat A.
A further gotya is the rule which says an IMC holder can not take-off or land when the visibility is less than 1800m. The VFR minimum visibility in class G for an IMC holder is 1500m. Thus, the IMC holder can fly VFR enroute through 1000 miles of class G in 1500m visibility but can not land at the destination until the visibility improves to 1800m.
Regards,
DFC
The 500ft precision and 600ft non-precision limits are absolute. The IMC rated pilot when calculating the appropriate minima for the approach can not use a DH of less than 500ft or an MDH of less than 600ft. The minimum visibility in all cases (take-off as well as precision, non-precision and visual approaches) is 1800m.
As well as causing confusion among pilots along with making the calculation of DH/MDH more complicated, the CAA have it seems allowed IMC rated pilots to use lower minima in the more demanding situation.
To explain this - Airfield X is in open level country and the NDB/DME approach has a published MDH of 300ft. The IMC adds 200ft to get 500ft but must add on a further 100ft to get the absolute minima of 600ft - very safe indeed.
However, Airfield Y is located in mountainous terrain with many obstacles and a tricky NDB only approach with an MDH of 800ft. Since this is equal to the absolute minima of 600ft, the IMC pilot can either add 200ft as recomended OR use the IR minima of 600ft.
More dangerous however is the fact that someone may try in error to use 600ft!!
Far far better for the CAA to simply state that IMC rated pilots must add 300ft to the IR minima. Then they can never use the IR minima.
The CAA has also made no allowance for PPLs flying faster aircraft than cat A.
A further gotya is the rule which says an IMC holder can not take-off or land when the visibility is less than 1800m. The VFR minimum visibility in class G for an IMC holder is 1500m. Thus, the IMC holder can fly VFR enroute through 1000 miles of class G in 1500m visibility but can not land at the destination until the visibility improves to 1800m.
Regards,
DFC
DFC
I think the absurdity that you point out in calculation of MDH only serves to support the view that "absolute" is used in contrast to the relative or incremental figures in the previous part of the sentence, not as a synonym for "mandatory" in contrast to "recommended".
I think the absurdity that you point out in calculation of MDH only serves to support the view that "absolute" is used in contrast to the relative or incremental figures in the previous part of the sentence, not as a synonym for "mandatory" in contrast to "recommended".
