Imc

[S-Works]

Blimey rustle, people will start talking about us!!!


IR focuses on sustained instrument flight, airways joining and leaving and RT in addittion to the skills taught in the IMC.

Procedures are flown to minimums and within tighter speed, height tolerances than those given for the IMC. Allthough my IMC was taught to the same standards as the IR by an excellant instructor and I know a good number of people who were also taught the same way.

It is basically the same thing with more practice!

There is a tendancy for those with higher qualifications to look down there noses at those "beneath" them. I don't believe that a ticket belies experiance. Give me a thousand hour PPL with current IMC experiance to match over a 250hr fATPL any day.

I keep saying this, currency and experiance count over any badge.

[IO540]

TwinAisle

"I don't know of any IMC rated pilots who would actually want to fly on a day when they are going straight into IMC for the duration anyway"
I know a few, including myself. If you have the Rating, you have the privileges, and if you have had the training, have the currency, have a suitably equipped aircraft, then not flying within limits of your privileges is just a waste of all the time and money spent learning the stuff.
"if you want to fly with the big boys"
That sort of patronising language is best kept out of any rational debate. Do you edit Gasil/Gasco by any chance?

skyrabbit

"Remember the ppl/imc that died trying to do an ILS approach into Le Touquet?"
Remember all those airline pilots and their passengers that died doing an ILS approach into [name an airport]. Loads and loads. An IMCR holder who cannot fly an ILS perfectly well should have had a decent instructor.

flower

"Those with IR ratings in the main have them as they wish to or either already do so fly commercially."
That is partially true (in the GA scene, many IRs are held by hour-building instructors and most of these either have no currency or are lapsed, and most instructors that might have had an IR but teach the IMCR let their IR lapse because they can't afford it) but is barking up the wrong tree. The reason why a lot of IMC Rated pilots have bad training and low currency is because most of the instructors that teach it shouldn't be teaching it, and most of the planes one can get one's hands on are junk (for IMC). If you compare an IMCR pilot (owner of a plane with all the kit, flies 100-200hrs/year) with an IR pilot (owner of a plane with all the kit, flies 100-200hrs/year) their IMC skills will be just the same after a year. Except airways, which is not in the IMCR privileges anyway. You are only as good as your currency on type, and just because most current IRs are flying a multi crew space shuttle (on which the autopilot is rarely disengaged) paid for by someone else this is not only outside the GA context but is also not a reason to criticise the IMC Rating.

So, all of you, please stop knocking the IMC Rating. It is a super privilege. Much more usefully, have a go at the training establishment which in the main treats it as just a way of getting another £3k out of somebody before he drops off the GA radar permanently as most do, and have a go at the GA training aircraft operators who think that spending 50hrs in a 30 year old piece of junk is the proper initiation ceremony for "proper pilots". The first is going to be a lot easier than the second

[S-Works]

Beautifully stated IO540, far better than my rambling attempt at saying the same thing!

[benhurr]

There are a few other differences between an IMC and an IR:

1. Hold entry/flying the hold.

2. IR's tend to be on a twin so you have asymmetric approaches.

3. Engine failure during a go around/asymmetric go around.

4. Airways.

5. Non precision approaches/Precision Approaches to much tighter limits.

6. SID's and STAR's


There really is no comparison between the two. And for those who say an IR is used multicrew - my IR is for single pilot commercial operations. However I can only use it commercially when I have 700 hours so most people do a multicrew IR when they do a type rating on a multicrew aircraft.

After saying all of that, I would say that an IMC is a useful rating, but as others have said currency and airmanship are the main issues. The IMC gives you a bit more help in a marginal "go/no-go" situation but it is not a "mini-IR" and should not be treated as such.

[drauk]

I don't think adding additional monikers (e.g. mini-IR) to a rating, or even comparing the abstract attributes (e.g. mostly done by this or that kind of flyer) of one with another, is very useful. Surely a rating is about the priviledges it gives you? If you need to fly airways, you need an IR. If you want to do approaches in Class D, you can do it with an IMC rating or an IR. And so on.

Furthermore, a rating and even the rights it gives you can end up having little to do with your knowledge or ability to operate safely and efficiently. For a start there is the oft-quoted example of a pilot who rating wise is allowed to fly in a way which his currency would not support. Or how about an FAA IR holder in an N-reg plane who would get quite a shock trying to fly IFR if that person had no exposure to GA airways flights in the UK, just like a PPL who gained his license in the Florida would.

It's all about the rules (where and what you can fly as per your ratings) and your skills (absolute ability, skill, experience). I think the rest is just clouding the issue.

[IO540]

Well, exactly, terms like "mini-IR" are completely unhelpful. It comes down to the privileges. The choice one is left with is whether

(a) an IMC Rated pilot should be allowed to exercise his privileges, or

(b) an IMC Rated pilot should not be allowed to exercise his privileges

There appears to be a group of traditionalists who believe in (b) but they never offer good reasons.

As a general rule (not just aviation) I believe that privileges should not be curtailed unless there is a good reason for it, and there is NO evidence that the IMC Rating is causing any harm. The holders can't mix it with the "big boys" (as someone derogatorily put it earlier) in the airways, and elsewhere it is pretty much a "PPL free for all" anyway. I bet that far more hassle is caused by basic PPL holders who cannot navigate than by IMC Rated pilots flying less than perfect holds, etc.

The IMC Rating is largely wasted, but that's a whole different subject. One could say exactly the same thing about the basic PPL. Most of them get chucked in too, after couple of years of negligible currency. So, should we curtail or abolish the PPL, just because most holders don't do much with it?

[c-bert]

Wow, seems I opened a real can o' worms on this one. Well, thanks for all your responses. At least I know the differences now!

[TwinAisle]

Well said, Benhurr/DRAUK.

For the record, my "big boys" comment was a quote from another poster.... and no, I have nothing to do with GASIL, or indeed the CAA - apart from being one of their customers.

Also for the record - I am NOT knocking the rating. My experience from having done one is that (a) it is extremely useful (b) has made my flying much more accurate (c) was great fun to do and to keep current.

BUT.

It is also (a) a bit of a cobbled-together rating (I have had loads of interesting discussions with a VERY experienced NATS controller mate of mine, who can highlight some of the bizarre issues from her end of things with the IMC), and (b) it does engender, in a few people I know, a sense of "go anywhere, go anytime".

It is also not a "mini-IR" - as many here agree.

As for using your license to the limits.... well, I could take a PA28 tonite at midnight, and take it on a spin around Tusker Rock. Legal. Within my license priviledges. Anyone wanna come with me?

Experience and a rating - Double Tick. Agree fully with Bose-X et al. But a little judgement as well goes a long way...

TA

BTW:

I think the rest is just clouding the issue

Was this a deliberate pun, DRAUK??

[drauk]

[owenlars]

For me the IR gives me the ability to sit in controlled airspace at FL100 above all the zones, areas, changes of QNH that make a long VFR flight quite stressful on occasions, especially flying low level VFR in France. (Incidentally you can use the airways in France as a PPL as long as you fly at quadrantal levels plus 500 ft) which is something you can't do in Blighty.

It also allows me to do approaches in IMC outside England. For me that is it's utility. IFR in Controlled Airspace is simpler, safer and considerably less stressful than the alternative. (Ice and Thunderstorms permitting of course).

In short it gives me greater utility.

[Fly Stimulator]

Incidentally you can use the airways in France as a PPL as long as you fly at quadrantal levels plus 500 ft

You no doubt meant semi-circular levels in France, not quadrantals.

IFR in Controlled Airspace is simpler, safer and considerably less stressful than the alternative.

All the IR pilots I know say the same, and it seems one of the big attractions of doing the rating if one needs to do that sort of flight.

[rustle]

I think it may have been 2Donkeys who wrote about some of the advantages of an IR over an IMC rating in terms of workload on a flight just within the UK...

(Assuming we are in an aircraft under 2t for sake of simplicity.)

With an IR, planned IFR: take off, maybe at an uncontrolled field, join CAS, single squawk (usually alloted whilst you're on the ground), seamless handovers from controller to controller until destination or you leave CAS to land at perhaps another uncontrolled field.

With an IMC rating, planned IFR: take off, try and get a service of RIS or RAS assuming controller workload permits and/or technical limitations don't prevent it, try and be passed from one LARS to another but often have to free-call and go through the whole "pass your message" again, assume you may have to avoid any class D zones in your path (you may not have to, of course) multiple squawks along the way...

That's why a lot of IR holders think it is easier

[bookworm]

The IMC gives you a bit more help in a marginal "go/no-go" situation but it is not a "mini-IR" and should not be treated as such.

It's this bit that troubles me.

The IMC rating is not designed to help you fly marginal VFR better. The training involves simulating flying in cloud, flying from beacon to beacon without visual reference, and flying instrument approaches. It doesn't take the hills away, it doesn't give you better X-ray vision and it doesn't make navaids suddenly appear where none were previously situated.

If the conditions are "marginal" for visual flight, all the more reason to plan and execute a proper IFR flight to reduce the risk. Plan the whole thing at a safe cruising altitude without the presumption that you'll be able to see out of the window. That's what instrument rated pilots do, and that's what IMC-rated pilots should be encouraged to do.

An instrument qualification is not a get-out-of-trouble rating -- it needs to be a don't-get-into-trouble-in-the-first-place rating. The CAA in its Safety Sense leaflets seems to have seized upon the idea that the IMC-rating is not intended to allow you to plan and execute an IFR flight but can be stuffed in your pocket like a get-out-of-jail-free card to be played when things go pear-shaped. IMHO that is more likely to get somebody killed.

[TwinAisle]

Now i reread the line that Bookworm quoted, I can see his/her point....

I agree almost entirely with BW. I tend to plan for IFR flights end-to-end if it looks marginal.

I have been caught once when a VFR flight had to turn IFR - a local flight where there was an entirely unforecast heavy rain storm, which left leaving filthy vis over my destination. Without the IMC, I would have diverted. With it, and my trusty Jepps plates, straight in.

I do wonder if the CAA is behind some of this confusion - and dare I say misselling? - of the IMC. They are the only authority that issues it or recognises it, perhaps they are trying to get shot of it as well??

TA

[IO540]

There is a body of people in GA who feel they are the elite and everybody else is an idiot. Some of these may be involved peripherally in the CAA but I doubt it.

It is understandable that if somebody has just sat 14 ATPL exams, taking 6 months off work in the process and perhaps working as a flying instructor for a few years on a retainer of £10/day, they might think the IMCR is a mickey mouse rating. They are wrong, but they ARE going to think that.

I once walked up to a CAA man at one of their safety presentations and suggested to him that he should give some credence to IFR flight generally (practically the whole seminar was aimed at stopping plain PPLs flying into hills in poor vis, and such). Somebody in the audience jumped up and said "you can fly EVERYWHERE VFR" and that was the end of it. There is ZERO interest in IFR at that level.

This isn't an argument we can win. Best to just enjoy flying. Probably less than 1% of active pilots have the time to read anything here, anyway

[S-Works]

The ones that insist you can fly everywhere VFR are the old farts mostly retired with nothing to do but sit around the flying club all day impressing others with there 500 years of flying experiance and going flying only when it s VFR!

IO540 is also right about the attitude of people taking the ATPL exams. Often what were perfectly reasonable people suddenly start looking down there nose at "plain" PPL just because they have sat through 14 exams. Yet they are still the same people who have less total flying hours than some of us have taxiing to the holds.

I wonder who really has more experiance the 200hr fATPL holder or the 800hr IMCR pilot?

I applaud anyone who is daft enough to go and do an ATPL in this day and age of no work (look at the latest articles in flyer etc.) but being fresh off the exams does not give anyone the right to look down there nose at "plain" PPL's. I know some of the wannabees find it hard to believe but not every one wants to fly an autopilot on a bus, there are people out there who actually want to fly for the enjoyment of it and are prepared to put in the time and effort to become competant at all aspects of there flying.

Doing 14 exams and a CPL/IR which then lapses due to lack of work and experiance makes no one a "big boy".

[benhurr]

Well I certainly dont consider myself one of the "big-boys" even though I passed the ATPL's and have a current CPL/IR. But there again I dont want to fly for an airline.

Although I agree that SOME might consider an IMC as a "mickey-mouse" rating, isn't it also true that some consider a CPL "just a PPL skills test flown to tighter tolerances" or an IR is just "an IMC with a few extra bits."

Of course the 800 hour IMCR pilot has more experience than the 200 hour fATPL holder, but potentially, both could learn from each other.

Bookworm, I apologise for the quote - I worded it badly. What I meant was that if the weather is marginal VMC then the flight could still go ahead with an IFR departure and planned route - indeed that is what I did for my CPL qualifying cross country.

[mad_jock]

I wonder who really has more experiance the 200hr fATPL holder or the 800hr IMCR pilot?

Never mind sitting the exams what about a FI(R) just out of school in there first week.

I felt such a fraud charging money to poeple with 2,3,4 times as many hours as me.

Personally I think the instrument appreciation given at PPL level is put in to try and show how difficult it is.

The IMC continues that training to a point that more likely than not your not going to kill yourself in the first 3 mins of entering cloud. And it will also give you confidence to think sod this and climb to MSA where as before they would have pushed an even worse situation. So in some ways its the fact you have done the IMC training which counts more than if you keep it current.

As for what you do with it. In a SEP there is not much difference between a IR holder and a IMC holder. Both are likely to have much the same currency level which is the thing that counts. Personally I have done the old IMC from loosing sight of the ground at 500ft to mins at the other end in a SEP. Would I do it again?

Proberly not unless the trip had to be done. Ie someones granny was in hospital in EDI or Glasgow and they needed to be down quick. The level of risk your exccepting by doing this in my view isn't exceptable in a SEP but thats only me. I don't have a problem with other people doing it.

And I agree with rustle flying IFR on a flight plan in controlled airspace is alot easier than IMC in class G. And in some ways easier than flying VFR.

MJ

[IO540]

I've got airborne into a ~200ft cloudbase, but that was with the runway end over the sea, with the liferaft on the other seat, the sea was flat, and water is the same everywhere I wouldn't have done that over land. I would prefer 500ft+ cloudbase if departing over land and even then no high ground or a built-up area.

No way would I fly if the cloudbase was in/under the terrain en-route. But that raises an interesting question about night flight in a SEP, doesn't it? Some nights are bright, many are not, and some which look bright at 5000ft are pitch black when lower down. This is another can of worms to open up... you can fly at night on a plain PPL (with the NQ), you could easily not see anything useful down below, yet you haven't been taught to navigate fully IFR.

Plenty here to keep pprune going I am off to France shortly (VFR )

[LowNSlow]

When I did my IMC (now lapsed) many moons ago, my instructor asked my how was I going to use it. I replied that I wanted it to be a useful rating. As it was Autumn in Wales there was real IMC aplenty. I think I only used foggles once. I spent the remaining 14 hours bouncing around in cloud in a C-150 and became quite comfortable with it. He taught to IR limits and insisted on mastery of holds and approaches. Taught like this and with experience built up in a sensible manner, the IMC Rating is FAR more than a get -you-out-of-trouble card. For somebody like bose-x who obviously uses his Cessna to go places on a regular basis then, if experienced and current within IMC, a pilot shouldn't need to upgrade to an expensive IR unless they want to exploit the ease of flight planning etc enjoyed by IR holders.



PS After the IMC Rating I bought an Aerobat and spent heaps on kitting it out as a reasonably practical IMC capable machine. It got wrecked in a gale. I bought a Cub with the insurance payment. IMC rating lapsed.......