IMC in practice
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in my opinion if you are going to plan to fly in IMC in the UK, you need a full IR, and a de-iced fully equiped twin. Anythig less and you are taking a real risk.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly: not having a fully de-iced twin, and not having a full IR, amount to a restriction in planning a flight which one applies to oneself.
The IMCR still allows more options than vanilla PPL in the UK - and the decision about whether to attempt any particular flight is, of course, informed by one's legal privileges, one's actual skill, one's currency, and the actual conditions pertaining.
Equally, more options would be available abroad with a full IR, but the IMCR is still valuable in the UK: less so if not kept current, more so with good currency.
The IMCR still allows more options than vanilla PPL in the UK - and the decision about whether to attempt any particular flight is, of course, informed by one's legal privileges, one's actual skill, one's currency, and the actual conditions pertaining.
Equally, more options would be available abroad with a full IR, but the IMCR is still valuable in the UK: less so if not kept current, more so with good currency.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a legal sense, not having a known-ice aircraft is going to impose far more restrictions on flight planning than not having a full IR.
In a plane not certified for known ice: if one is willing to risk climbing through freezing layers (which is generally fair enough if it is stratiform, one has a deiced prop, and the layer is evidently 1000-3000ft thick) then a full IR would help to get on top in much of UK's airspace.
Personally I find that I cancel flights if the 0C level is below the MSA, and flying a non-deiced plane in those conditions is something I wouldn't do. A full IR would still cause me to cancel.
I absolutely do not accept sweeping statements like "if you are going to plan to fly in IMC in the UK, you need a full IR". Trained to the privileges, and equally current, there isn't going to be much difference. Most noncommercial IRs you bump into are long lapsed, and you can be sure their currency went a long time before that
And what plane is the man with the gold-plated ATPL going to fly in IMC? Let's say it's a rented wreckage of a C172 with knackered avionics and no autopilot. That why sweeping statements are misleading.
In a plane not certified for known ice: if one is willing to risk climbing through freezing layers (which is generally fair enough if it is stratiform, one has a deiced prop, and the layer is evidently 1000-3000ft thick) then a full IR would help to get on top in much of UK's airspace.
Personally I find that I cancel flights if the 0C level is below the MSA, and flying a non-deiced plane in those conditions is something I wouldn't do. A full IR would still cause me to cancel.
I absolutely do not accept sweeping statements like "if you are going to plan to fly in IMC in the UK, you need a full IR". Trained to the privileges, and equally current, there isn't going to be much difference. Most noncommercial IRs you bump into are long lapsed, and you can be sure their currency went a long time before that
And what plane is the man with the gold-plated ATPL going to fly in IMC? Let's say it's a rented wreckage of a C172 with knackered avionics and no autopilot. That why sweeping statements are misleading.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I find that I cancel flights if the 0C level is below the MSA, and flying a non-deiced plane in those conditions is something I wouldn't do. A full IR would still cause me to cancel.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was talking about serious IMC flying. Climbing into cloud that is above safety altitude and below icing level for realistic training is one thing, but to say that you are going to fly from say Bristol to Newcastle next Thursday relying on your IMC rating if needs be is a different ball game. Note the often narrow gap between min safe and regulated airspace and you get the picture. I started commercial flying in Aztec days when bosses did their best to stop you using airways, and can vouch for being scared fartless on several occasions, and I was not the only one. If you are talking about serious IMC flying in the UK, I stand by my original statement.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Croqueteer
What is the problem with Bristol to Newcastle? If you are aware of an IMCR pilot who cannot plan that trivial route and fly it, I strongly suggest you report his instructor to the CAA.
The problem with the IMCR isn't the rating; it is those schools that see it as a way to shaft the student for another few k before he finally disappears for good like most of them do. Most of the instructors teaching it shouldn't be teaching instrument flight at all.
The route you describe is indeed trivial.
One needs currency (i.e. time and money), a suitably equipped aircraft (i.e. money, and since they are very hard to rent one pretty well needs to be an owner or a syndicate member, and few syndicates will agree on the degree of maintenance that's needed). The entry level for a "serious IFR plane" is probably £100k+. Nothing to do with the IMCR though!
One of the problems here is that most people look at things from the flying school spamcan point of view. Those planes are next to useless for IFR. But consider an aircraft owner who has bought something decent, and the time and money and a good instructor.
The IMCR is a fantastic privilege. Don't criticise it; instead have a go at the reasons why most people who paid for it can't make more than an occassional use of it.
What is the problem with Bristol to Newcastle? If you are aware of an IMCR pilot who cannot plan that trivial route and fly it, I strongly suggest you report his instructor to the CAA.
The problem with the IMCR isn't the rating; it is those schools that see it as a way to shaft the student for another few k before he finally disappears for good like most of them do. Most of the instructors teaching it shouldn't be teaching instrument flight at all.
The route you describe is indeed trivial.
One needs currency (i.e. time and money), a suitably equipped aircraft (i.e. money, and since they are very hard to rent one pretty well needs to be an owner or a syndicate member, and few syndicates will agree on the degree of maintenance that's needed). The entry level for a "serious IFR plane" is probably £100k+. Nothing to do with the IMCR though!
One of the problems here is that most people look at things from the flying school spamcan point of view. Those planes are next to useless for IFR. But consider an aircraft owner who has bought something decent, and the time and money and a good instructor.
The IMCR is a fantastic privilege. Don't criticise it; instead have a go at the reasons why most people who paid for it can't make more than an occassional use of it.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540, my last point. If you are flying IFR because the cloudbase is on or near the ground on your route, and the engine stops, you are deep in the poo. All flying should be organised so that you have get-out clauses, and if you regularly plan IMC flying in the average UK Wx in a single, you have straight away cut your options. I am not knocking the IMC rating, just trying to save lives. See the accident reports.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"and can vouch for being scared fartless on several occasions" (Croqueteer)
It would be interesting to know the circumstances.
In my opinion the average newly qualified IMC holder is poorly equipped to fly a hard IFR sector. The average newly qualified IR holder should be better equipped. In my view this is because most IMC training is based on the premise that the rating will be used to “get the holder out of trouble” whereas it is assumed an IR holder is likely to want to operate hard IFR. I have been particularly careful to use the word “average”. There are IMC instructors who approach the training like an IR.
That said, there are IMC holders who go on to use the rating in earnest. The “trick” is to realise your limitations in the early days so that you gradually increase your expertise hopefully with some more training on the way. I believe that if you take this course you will be as capable as the aircraft at flying any IFR sector.
I agree with IO540 that given the afore the critical component then becomes your assessment of the capability of your aircraft and the level of risk you are prepared to accept.
I recently started a thread about the minimum cloud base you would be prepared to accept flying in IMC. I can recall a flight from Leicester down south which was solid IMC pretty much all the way in a club Warrior. The aircraft had no autopilot, I hadn’t flown that particular aircraft before other than the trip up in good VMC, and the equipment only met the minimum legal requirements for IFR flight. I don’t want to recall the cloud base en route. In fact I was very current both in terms of flying very regularly and on instruments and despite hand flying single pilot operations (there was no one else with me to help!) the whole flight was pleasant and a complete non event.
In reality the problem was the aircraft had no reserve capacity. Had things started to go wrong there could have been a serious problem and now I would consider that flight in that aircraft was an unacceptable level of risk for me. Another person’s assessment of course might well be different.
The reason I come to that conclusion is this.
Cloud base. As the other thread suggests the chances of a successful forced landing with a low cloud base aren’t good. How low is a matter for each individual but I reckon 1,000 feet is about my limit. Of course on a SEP the assumption could be made that the chances of the donkey quitting on any aircraft are pretty remote and I would accept that again is a matter of personal decision. It may well be over cautious but I wouldn’t be happy flying an aircraft in challenging IMC unless I knew a bit about the service history of the engine and whilst the statistics I am sure don’t support this argument I would feel more comfortable in an aircraft that I knew had a reasonably low hours engine that was serviced and maintained by a reputable organisation.
Equipment level. However current you are the real problems start when systems start to go wrong and the workload accelerates. Of course you should be able to fly the approach with a failed AI but it is still a real emergency. So on your picking list you might well like a second AI, one electric one vacuum maybe, an injected engine so you aren’t worrying about carb. ice the whole time is not a bad idea, a really reliable radio kit rather than maybe just a good box 1 and the often slightly dodgy box 2, so when box 1 fails you have got a decent backup, for my money two GPS receivers etc.
Yes, of course, we would all like two engines (or maybe 5 would be better), weather radar, de-ice, cat 3 capability, etc., but I reckon IO540 has got it spot on, it all boils down to having an aircraft that is reasonably equipped for the mission which in my opinion whilst the typical IFR club trainer might meet the minimum legal requirements it will have little left in reserve if anything goes wrong, and is therefore not an adequate tool for the job – it is best kept for foguled training!
It would be interesting to know the circumstances.
In my opinion the average newly qualified IMC holder is poorly equipped to fly a hard IFR sector. The average newly qualified IR holder should be better equipped. In my view this is because most IMC training is based on the premise that the rating will be used to “get the holder out of trouble” whereas it is assumed an IR holder is likely to want to operate hard IFR. I have been particularly careful to use the word “average”. There are IMC instructors who approach the training like an IR.
That said, there are IMC holders who go on to use the rating in earnest. The “trick” is to realise your limitations in the early days so that you gradually increase your expertise hopefully with some more training on the way. I believe that if you take this course you will be as capable as the aircraft at flying any IFR sector.
I agree with IO540 that given the afore the critical component then becomes your assessment of the capability of your aircraft and the level of risk you are prepared to accept.
I recently started a thread about the minimum cloud base you would be prepared to accept flying in IMC. I can recall a flight from Leicester down south which was solid IMC pretty much all the way in a club Warrior. The aircraft had no autopilot, I hadn’t flown that particular aircraft before other than the trip up in good VMC, and the equipment only met the minimum legal requirements for IFR flight. I don’t want to recall the cloud base en route. In fact I was very current both in terms of flying very regularly and on instruments and despite hand flying single pilot operations (there was no one else with me to help!) the whole flight was pleasant and a complete non event.
In reality the problem was the aircraft had no reserve capacity. Had things started to go wrong there could have been a serious problem and now I would consider that flight in that aircraft was an unacceptable level of risk for me. Another person’s assessment of course might well be different.
The reason I come to that conclusion is this.
Cloud base. As the other thread suggests the chances of a successful forced landing with a low cloud base aren’t good. How low is a matter for each individual but I reckon 1,000 feet is about my limit. Of course on a SEP the assumption could be made that the chances of the donkey quitting on any aircraft are pretty remote and I would accept that again is a matter of personal decision. It may well be over cautious but I wouldn’t be happy flying an aircraft in challenging IMC unless I knew a bit about the service history of the engine and whilst the statistics I am sure don’t support this argument I would feel more comfortable in an aircraft that I knew had a reasonably low hours engine that was serviced and maintained by a reputable organisation.
Equipment level. However current you are the real problems start when systems start to go wrong and the workload accelerates. Of course you should be able to fly the approach with a failed AI but it is still a real emergency. So on your picking list you might well like a second AI, one electric one vacuum maybe, an injected engine so you aren’t worrying about carb. ice the whole time is not a bad idea, a really reliable radio kit rather than maybe just a good box 1 and the often slightly dodgy box 2, so when box 1 fails you have got a decent backup, for my money two GPS receivers etc.
Yes, of course, we would all like two engines (or maybe 5 would be better), weather radar, de-ice, cat 3 capability, etc., but I reckon IO540 has got it spot on, it all boils down to having an aircraft that is reasonably equipped for the mission which in my opinion whilst the typical IFR club trainer might meet the minimum legal requirements it will have little left in reserve if anything goes wrong, and is therefore not an adequate tool for the job – it is best kept for foguled training!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, the points you make (e.g. not flying SE in IMC when the cloudbase is somewhere below the ground ) are equally valid whether the pilot has an IMC Rating, a full IR, or an ATPL with 25k hours.
) are equally valid whether the pilot has an IMC Rating, a full IR, or an ATPL with 25k hours.
