Flight Plan-imc

[Obs cop]

Having just finished my IMCR, I can support most of the comments here.

IO540 is correct in pointing out the wide variances in the standard of instruction out there. But seriously this is quite a huge issue. The IMCR syllabus is not as closely controlled as the PPL, the only gauges are the written exam (no mention of flight plans there) and the skills test. Guess what's not in that test either.

The net result of all of this is that the less willing instructors will teach what they know you need to pass, not what you need to know to keep yourself safe and unprosecuted. The flight plan stuff is in the Airlaw section of Trevor Thom and in theory at least ought to be known by a VFR PPL, but as with most things unless you use it you will lose it.

During the later flights of my IMCR, we tried to push the boundaries of the syllabus to add to my skills and knowledge. Likewise we went places and I accepted the additional charges of doing some ILS's at unfamiliar airports like East Midlands. Likewise, when my first few lessons were in an aircraft with single VOR/ILS and ADF, you really do learn how to navigate IMC with just the basics. Ultimately there are huge gaps in the syllabus so the onus is on the instructor to guide the student and for the student to ask questions outside of what is needed to pass the tests.

IMHO

Obs cop

[Charley]

Conditions of a RAS

Just to clarify the RIS/RAS thing and to back-up what Bookworm said, AIP ENR 1-6-1 (Use of Radar in Air Traffic Services) refers. Specifically, 3.1.1(a) of this sections states that for a Radar Advisory Service:

The service will only be provided to flights under IFR irrespective of meteorological conditions;

Point (b) of same states:

Controllers will expect the pilot to accept vectors or level allocations which may require flight in IMC. Pilots not qualified to fly in IMC should accept a RAS only where compliance with ATC advice permits the flight to be continued in VMC;

So while a pilot is not prevented from asking for a RAS while flying under VFR, they would be precluded from receiving it unless IFRs are adopted.

[IO540]

The IMCR syllabus is not as closely controlled as the PPL

I know some accuse me of being overly negative on this subject, but I think that people concentrate overly on the "insufficient" IMCR training while IMHO (and working on the assumption that the pilot actually wants to fly for real) PPL training is just as crap.

But in the PPL this is acceptable. It is accepted within the training industry that most PPLs will never be seen again, so why bother to teach them stuff they need to know for actually going somewhere.

Yet the IMCR attracts extra attention - perhaps because IR holders don't like the fact that an IMCR holder has for most GA purposes (non-deiced SEP etc) the same privileges. Especially given the poor availability of rentable planes that are legal for IFR in CAS.

What stops the great majority of IMCR holders flying all over the place and fully exercising their privileges is the same thing which IMHO stops most PPL holders from doing the same: lack of money and lack of aircraft of adequate quality and equipment.

If every new IMCR pilot went flying x/country 100hrs/year to their full privileges there would be a lot more accidents.

If every new PPL pilot went flying x/country 100hrs/year to their full privileges there would also be a lot more accidents, but they would attract a lot less patronising comment from the "old chaps" in this business, because "everybody knows" that the PPL is "a license to learn" etc etc.

In reality if one was training to fly somebody one cares about, and they wanted to fly for real rather than a little local bimble on sunny days, one would go way past the PPL. Even if the pilot wanted only VFR privileges (not very useful for x/country in the UK) one would still need to include substantial instrument skills (flight, and an ILS at least) for basic safety.

Presently, having got the training (PPL or IMCR) one is out there very much alone, and one has to learn as one goes along.

[Obs cop]

IO540,

Whilst some would see your arguments as harsh and unwarranted, I would have to agree wholeheartedly.

13 years ago I passed my motorcycle test and went off to buy a brand new sports bike. I had loads of near misses for the next 3 months whilst I found out on my own all of the things I feel I should have been told. It is the age old problem of instructors teaching to what the rather inadequate test requires.

I started a left hand bend, but was going too fast, only to find the bike gradually moving out to the middle of the road. On seeing an oncoming car and panicking, I grabbed a handful of front brake and found the bike sat bolt upright and tried to go in a straight line taking me ever closer to the oncoming car. So still in that split second of terror, I let go of the brake, leant the bike over as far as I dare and waited for the crash. Now I was fortunate that I responded like this and that the bike held, but many are not. Nobody had ever told me waht would happen if I used a handful of front brake in a bend, but that simple omission damn near killed me, and only luck saved my a$$.

This is my analogy of recreational GA. Once you qualify with your PPL and or IMCR you have passed a test, no more no less. Over the coming months if not years you will scare the sh1t out of yourself with many new and previously unwarned situations. Should the prospective pilot survive these scares then like me and my motorbike, they will learn and their ability to fly safely and well increase tenfold. My only concern is why it should be this way?

The NPPL was an ideal chance to review and tailor training specifically for the recreational pilot. Instead, I fear they just cut the PPL syllabus down. The hour ever 24 months with an instructor - should it not be more structured or direct?

But then maybe you can't train an idiot and there are certainly some of them out there.

Regards

Obs cop

[High Wing Drifter]

I agree with the apparent disjunction between passing the IMC and going IMC solo for the first time. I also agree that equipment levels should be pretty high with redundancy (2xVOR 1xADF, transponder, 2xCOMM as a minimum).

I can't agree with the comments on the PPL. I can't really see what more there was for me to do in training! Everything was well honed. Confidence was the only limiting factor. You can't have real confidence without getting out there and doing it.

Would I be alone in thinking that a less than pristine VFR aircraft helps make a more rounded pilot? I flew for months without an AI, a superfluous instrument in what most consider to be flyable weather. Neither would the lack of a DI trouble most people. A non-functional transponder is non-event and I never used VORs and ADFs when VFR except to maybe to practice or play.

[Max AirFactor]

Even though I'm not particularly interested in flying in poor vis, the recent threads on the IMC subject have convinced me to do the rating. And having sat on the beach at Shoreham last summer watching the fog build up, wondering if I'd get home......

Biggin is my local - can anyone recommend a specific instructor?

Apart from the silly prices and long holds, any other comments on using Biggin? Should I look further afield.

Also most people seem to be using the Thom book and IMC confuser?

Cheers, MAF