IMC in practice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: South Manchester, UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMC in practice
Can anyone offer some example uses of the IMC rating, in particular with airfields which don't have ILS or even any radio navigation aids? For example, if you're planning from flying from airfield A to airfield B but it is overcast at 1000ft would this be possible with an IMC rating even if the destination doesn't have ILS?
Incidentally, I've been reading the IMC diary by OBS Cop and others which has been most enjoyable and informative reading - well done chaps and keep it up.
Incidentally, I've been reading the IMC diary by OBS Cop and others which has been most enjoyable and informative reading - well done chaps and keep it up.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are confident that airfield B can be approached and landed at whilst maintaining VMC, then you could certainly do that.
If you are going to find yourself in cloud as you approach B, then you are going to need some form of approach aid to get you below MSA for a visual approach.
If you are going to find yourself in cloud as you approach B, then you are going to need some form of approach aid to get you below MSA for a visual approach.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: South Manchester, UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't you simply position yourself above the airfield using radio navigation aids and then 'drop' down into the circuit?
Can an NDB used as an approach aid?
Say for example your destination was Caernarfon just west of Snowdonia with an MSA of 4,800ft. If there was a low cloud base would you still be able to land there?
Can an NDB used as an approach aid?
Say for example your destination was Caernarfon just west of Snowdonia with an MSA of 4,800ft. If there was a low cloud base would you still be able to land there?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I've found it very useful for this winter, with lots of inversions trapping cr@ppy viz, is to shoot an ILS in visibility of 4000-6000, when VFR is possible & legal but not much fun or very safe; an ILS is much easier.
Tim
Tim
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say for example your destination was Caernarfon just west of Snowdonia with an MSA of 4,800ft. If there was a low cloud base would you still be able to land there?
If you were over the sea, and knew you were over the sea, then no reasons why you shouldn't descend to 1000ft amsl.
The beauty of the IMC rating is it gives you options. If you can't get into the original destination (for example, Caernarfon) there's nothing to stop you :
a) asking Valley for an instrument approach and then, once VMC below continuing VFR to destination
b) if the weather is that bad that you can't achieve the above then you just land where you did the instrument approach and continue to original destination by road.
It also gives you reduced VFR minima, and allows you to fly on top - both extremely handy.
As for 'dropping into the circuit' - if you get down to 1000ft above the airfield and you still can't see the ground then - how much further are you prepared to descend? How do you know what the cloudbase is? Are you certain you know the surrounding terrain sufficiently well to continue lower?
CFIT will always be a killer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The great thing about the IMCR is as CM says - it gives you options. It gives you the IFR option, which in the UK is priceless. If you planned flights say 3 days ahead at random, you'd have to cancel perhaps 50% of them if you had to fly VFR (maybe less in the summer, nearer to 95% in the winter).
With an IFR option, this might fall to somewhere between 5% and 20% depending on whether you fly to airfields with an ILS for example.
The limiting factors that remain are
Currency (costs time and money)
Availability of a decent aircraft (costs money)
Icing conditions in IMC and below the MSA
and.....
Picky has picked on the #1 problem with instrument flight in the UK: the majority of airfields don't have official instrument approaches.
If the destination has
1) a confirmed cloudbase 1000ft AGL (say there is an ATC airfield 10 miles away, the weather is uniform, and you get their ATIS) and
2) there is no terrain for miles around and
3) one can do a position fix using at least TWO completely independent methods (of which a moving map GPS should be one) and
4) one can get a reliable QNH, say from a nearby ATC airfield
then I would be happy to descend, on QNH, to say 700ft AGL, and that would be my decision height.
600ft is the lowest I've been and I would never do that again - not because it was dangerous but because it was pointless; my alternate airport with ILS was 10 miles away and I had the plates, the ILS set up, and everything ready.
I've seen people go a lot lower. Over open flat countryside, or over the sea, they will get away with it.
A number of airfields have unofficial instrument approaches, using a navaid on the airfield or perhaps a few miles away. That's superficially a better way but is no different to the above rules.
1500ft cloudbase is a LOT better
Especially as a 1000ft base reported when you set off could actually be 800ft, and 600ft 10 mins later...
The safest way is to go down a nearby ILS and continue visually, and if you can't continue visually then climb to the MSA and go somewhere else.
With an IFR option, this might fall to somewhere between 5% and 20% depending on whether you fly to airfields with an ILS for example.
The limiting factors that remain are
Currency (costs time and money)
Availability of a decent aircraft (costs money)
Icing conditions in IMC and below the MSA
and.....
Picky has picked on the #1 problem with instrument flight in the UK: the majority of airfields don't have official instrument approaches.
If the destination has
1) a confirmed cloudbase 1000ft AGL (say there is an ATC airfield 10 miles away, the weather is uniform, and you get their ATIS) and
2) there is no terrain for miles around and
3) one can do a position fix using at least TWO completely independent methods (of which a moving map GPS should be one) and
4) one can get a reliable QNH, say from a nearby ATC airfield
then I would be happy to descend, on QNH, to say 700ft AGL, and that would be my decision height.
600ft is the lowest I've been and I would never do that again - not because it was dangerous but because it was pointless; my alternate airport with ILS was 10 miles away and I had the plates, the ILS set up, and everything ready.
I've seen people go a lot lower. Over open flat countryside, or over the sea, they will get away with it.
A number of airfields have unofficial instrument approaches, using a navaid on the airfield or perhaps a few miles away. That's superficially a better way but is no different to the above rules.
1500ft cloudbase is a LOT better
Especially as a 1000ft base reported when you set off could actually be 800ft, and 600ft 10 mins later...The safest way is to go down a nearby ILS and continue visually, and if you can't continue visually then climb to the MSA and go somewhere else.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone considering making a descent into an airfield with no instrument procedures please considder the following;
The legal requirment is that when IFR the aircraft must at all times be 1000ft above all obstacles within 5nm of the aircraft. The only exceptions to this are when following a published approach procedure or when visual and below 3000ft.
This means that if for example you decide to orbit your destination and descend as low as possible you are going to have to use the offical tolerances for VOR/NDB/DME which can cause a circle of error of some 2 to 5nm depending on how far you are away from the beacon(s) but let's say you are relatively close and the 2nm error applies..........Then you are going to have a turn radius of about 1nm around the airfield so that is now a circle of 3nm (6nm if a distance from the beacon). To this add the required 5nm for obstacle clearance bringing the circle to 8nm (11nm if a distant beacon).........Then allow for how acurate you fly so add on another 1nm for a proficient IR holder using a VOR/DME or another 3nm to 5nm for an IMC holder using crosscuts...........this brings the circle out to some 11 to 14nm.
A circle of 11 to 14nm around the destination could describe the area within which you must check for any obstacles and remain 1000ft above those obstacles to remain safe and legal.
Sounds a lot yes? But noe of that allows for wind drift while you fiddlw with the cross cuts or make sow's ear of the orientation!
Of course with say an NDB on the airfield then that circle could shrink to about 7 to 8nm for a slow aircraft.
However, when looking at the 1:500000 for obstacles remember that no terrain below 500ft is shown and no onstacles below 300ft AGL are shown. Thus you can have an unmarked 499ft hill with a 299ft mast on top. Most people understand that but remember that a place betwen the 500ft contour and the 1000ft countour could be 999ft tall with a 299 ft mast and right next to the 500ft contour cause it is a cliff!!!!!!!!
Airfields with instrument procedures spend thousands on accurate surveys...........even the 1:25000 Ordnance survey maps do not provide enough info for making a descent as low as 900ft AGL!
If you intend to fly IFR IMC at any stage and the destination does not have an IAP then the destination must have a ceiling above the MSA for -1 hr to +3 hours of ETA and you must have an alternate planned which has an IAP and is at the appropriate alternate minima!.
The most dangerous use of an IMC rating to ad-hoc IMC flying (not planned pre-flight).
Regards,
DFC
The legal requirment is that when IFR the aircraft must at all times be 1000ft above all obstacles within 5nm of the aircraft. The only exceptions to this are when following a published approach procedure or when visual and below 3000ft.
This means that if for example you decide to orbit your destination and descend as low as possible you are going to have to use the offical tolerances for VOR/NDB/DME which can cause a circle of error of some 2 to 5nm depending on how far you are away from the beacon(s) but let's say you are relatively close and the 2nm error applies..........Then you are going to have a turn radius of about 1nm around the airfield so that is now a circle of 3nm (6nm if a distance from the beacon). To this add the required 5nm for obstacle clearance bringing the circle to 8nm (11nm if a distant beacon).........Then allow for how acurate you fly so add on another 1nm for a proficient IR holder using a VOR/DME or another 3nm to 5nm for an IMC holder using crosscuts...........this brings the circle out to some 11 to 14nm.
A circle of 11 to 14nm around the destination could describe the area within which you must check for any obstacles and remain 1000ft above those obstacles to remain safe and legal.
Sounds a lot yes? But noe of that allows for wind drift while you fiddlw with the cross cuts or make sow's ear of the orientation!
Of course with say an NDB on the airfield then that circle could shrink to about 7 to 8nm for a slow aircraft.
However, when looking at the 1:500000 for obstacles remember that no terrain below 500ft is shown and no onstacles below 300ft AGL are shown. Thus you can have an unmarked 499ft hill with a 299ft mast on top. Most people understand that but remember that a place betwen the 500ft contour and the 1000ft countour could be 999ft tall with a 299 ft mast and right next to the 500ft contour cause it is a cliff!!!!!!!!
Airfields with instrument procedures spend thousands on accurate surveys...........even the 1:25000 Ordnance survey maps do not provide enough info for making a descent as low as 900ft AGL!
If you intend to fly IFR IMC at any stage and the destination does not have an IAP then the destination must have a ceiling above the MSA for -1 hr to +3 hours of ETA and you must have an alternate planned which has an IAP and is at the appropriate alternate minima!.
The most dangerous use of an IMC rating to ad-hoc IMC flying (not planned pre-flight).
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
I agree with the sentiments behind your posting. However, on a point of detail, when you write:
That does not accord with the rules of the air.
There is no exception relating to a "published approach procedure", rather, it is a more generic exception, the aircraft can descend below the minimum height specified in the IFR rules "when it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land".
2D
I agree with the sentiments behind your posting. However, on a point of detail, when you write:
The legal requirment is that when IFR the aircraft must at all times be 1000ft above all obstacles within 5nm of the aircraft. The only exceptions to this are when following a published approach procedure or when visual and below 3000ft.
There is no exception relating to a "published approach procedure", rather, it is a more generic exception, the aircraft can descend below the minimum height specified in the IFR rules "when it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land".
2D
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to the original question, I found that the only time I really used the rating was taking the Chippy up through cloud for a few aerobatics in clear blue skies!
Had to be careful to give time for the gyros to untopple before the letdown, though.
Had to be careful to give time for the gyros to untopple before the letdown, though.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're asking the question because you're trying to decide whether it's a good idea to go get the rating, then unless you're willing to seriously restrict your flying activities - don't waste any more time wondering, go get one.
I'd be amazed if anyone who has one - and who has used it for real - doesn't agree !
FF
I'd be amazed if anyone who has one - and who has used it for real - doesn't agree !
FF
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, got one, use it often, wouldn't be without it.
Only thing better would be an aeroplane with an N on the side, so that I can use the FAA IR that I added later on, and using mostly the training and hours from the IMC.
Only thing better would be an aeroplane with an N on the side, so that I can use the FAA IR that I added later on, and using mostly the training and hours from the IMC.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kilmacolm
Age: 47
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup I've got one and wouldn't be without it.
The only better thing would be an aircraft with an N on the side, preferably a de-iced twin, so I could use my FAA IR to its full potential.
The only better thing would be an aircraft with an N on the side, preferably a de-iced twin, so I could use my FAA IR to its full potential.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, also got one and am very glad to have it.
Two main reasons, I think:
i. As stated, it gives you options, and,
ii. the training gives one a feel for more accurate flying than is necessarily taught for vanilla PPL - and there is nothing, of course, to stop one at any stage from applying IR standards of accuracy - just that, have trained for an IMCR one has started to have a feeling for that desired accuracy.
Well worth the effort.
Two main reasons, I think:
i. As stated, it gives you options, and,
ii. the training gives one a feel for more accurate flying than is necessarily taught for vanilla PPL - and there is nothing, of course, to stop one at any stage from applying IR standards of accuracy - just that, have trained for an IMCR one has started to have a feeling for that desired accuracy.
Well worth the effort.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Error - you are correct.
It is a UK rating, which is only valid inside the UK. It allows a pilot to fly in IMC, but only in Class D or lower airspace (thereby denying access to the airways, which are all Class A in the UK, and restricting you to flying in Class G airspace for most of your flight). It also has much higher minima for approaches than an IR. On the plus side, though, it only requires 15 hours of training, and, more importantly, you don't have to go through the nightmare of the IR exams first, which is why it is far more popular amongst British PPLs than an IR.
FFF
--------------
It is a UK rating, which is only valid inside the UK. It allows a pilot to fly in IMC, but only in Class D or lower airspace (thereby denying access to the airways, which are all Class A in the UK, and restricting you to flying in Class G airspace for most of your flight). It also has much higher minima for approaches than an IR. On the plus side, though, it only requires 15 hours of training, and, more importantly, you don't have to go through the nightmare of the IR exams first, which is why it is far more popular amongst British PPLs than an IR.
FFF
--------------
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF
You omitted to mention that while the IFR privileges are UK only, the IMC Rating also removes the restrictions which the UK CAA added to the ICAO PPL, most importantly the need to be in sight of the surface, and this change is not limited to the UK. The CAA have confirmed this in writing.
This is very useful is most places south of the UK, where one can then fly VMC on top en-route. Depart the UK "IFR", climb on top by mid-channel, and land in some nice weather in S France. Same when returning. Very handy.
Perhaps more arguably, the increased IAP minima aren't legally binding. They are mere recommendations. They aren't in the ANO so they aren't law. The bit which is in the ANO is a minimum vis of 1800m for takeoff or landing.
The CAA license issue website suggests that since JAA, the number of IRs issued to noncommercial pilots is very close to zero... a really great safety improvement!!! (not)
You omitted to mention that while the IFR privileges are UK only, the IMC Rating also removes the restrictions which the UK CAA added to the ICAO PPL, most importantly the need to be in sight of the surface, and this change is not limited to the UK. The CAA have confirmed this in writing.
This is very useful is most places south of the UK, where one can then fly VMC on top en-route. Depart the UK "IFR", climb on top by mid-channel, and land in some nice weather in S France. Same when returning. Very handy.
Perhaps more arguably, the increased IAP minima aren't legally binding. They are mere recommendations. They aren't in the ANO so they aren't law. The bit which is in the ANO is a minimum vis of 1800m for takeoff or landing.
The CAA license issue website suggests that since JAA, the number of IRs issued to noncommercial pilots is very close to zero... a really great safety improvement!!! (not)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting points IO540 - thanks for the information. I had not appreciated the full implications of the issue ref. the CAA restrictions over the JAA PPL rules. However, I was aware of the advisory nature of the approach limitations.
In reference to your point about IR issue for non-commercial pilots, I must say I would go for an IR like a shot, if I could afford it. The examinations are not an issue. Until such time as affordability also becomes a non-issue I am very glad to have an IMCR.
In reference to your point about IR issue for non-commercial pilots, I must say I would go for an IR like a shot, if I could afford it. The examinations are not an issue. Until such time as affordability also becomes a non-issue I am very glad to have an IMCR.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arguably there is little point in an IR unless one wants to do European touring or business flying.
One can get adequately around the UK on the IMCR and I wouldn't go to the trouble of a JAA IR or an FAA IR unless I was going outside the UK, IFR.
One can get adequately around the UK on the IMCR and I wouldn't go to the trouble of a JAA IR or an FAA IR unless I was going outside the UK, IFR.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, I would like to say that good IF training is invaluable, and will improve the accuracy of your visual flying no end. I would like to add, however, that 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.