Lowering cloud base rising terrain
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bar shaker,
Nicely put! I knew exactly what you meant. We're pilots here; you didn't need to say, "I carefully did all my preflight checks, then taxied out, doing my taxiiing checks as I did so. I called the tower, wrote down all that they said, then I lined up on runway XX. When I took off I climbed to 500 ft as usual, then levelled off and at this point I realised that the visibility was down to.... (Yawn, yawn, yawn)
You made the point; it was perfectly clear; nice turn of phrase. May I steal it for an article some day please?
Unfortunately, however, this is PPRuNe.
I sometimes wonder if some people on here lie in wait, looking for a reason to attack. 
Since some of them seem to, I'm now more careful about what I write. It's a shame one has to be, but there it is.
Tyres all kicked, I took off. I couldn't see a bloody thing and flew a circuit back in."
You made the point; it was perfectly clear; nice turn of phrase. May I steal it for an article some day please?
Unfortunately, however, this is PPRuNe.
I sometimes wonder if some people on here lie in wait, looking for a reason to attack. Since some of them seem to, I'm now more careful about what I write. It's a shame one has to be, but there it is.
Last edited by Whirlybird; 4th Jun 2005 at 13:29.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
You do talks some dramatic crap sometimes.
Suggesting that a current IMC or IR holder is more likely to end it in the poo by climbing into IMC than making a precautionary landing is rubbish frankly. If you are correct, then we may as well take all IMC ratings off their owners and stick them in the bin.
Have you never asked for a pop-up IFR clearance? No I guess not. I have many times, and I have yet to kill myself.
Scud running at 900' just below the cloud with antenna up to 2000' around you is far more scary than sitting comfortably at FL45 planning your strategy.
I plan my flights VFR, but also alow for the fact that may have to go IFR for one reason or another. Its no big deal, really.....
The last precautionary landing I read about was carried out perfectly. The next day when the chief pilot came to retrieve the plane, he wrote it off by hitting a fence.....
ta ta
You do talks some dramatic crap sometimes.
Suggesting that a current IMC or IR holder is more likely to end it in the poo by climbing into IMC than making a precautionary landing is rubbish frankly. If you are correct, then we may as well take all IMC ratings off their owners and stick them in the bin.
Have you never asked for a pop-up IFR clearance? No I guess not. I have many times, and I have yet to kill myself.
Scud running at 900' just below the cloud with antenna up to 2000' around you is far more scary than sitting comfortably at FL45 planning your strategy.
I plan my flights VFR, but also alow for the fact that may have to go IFR for one reason or another. Its no big deal, really.....
The last precautionary landing I read about was carried out perfectly. The next day when the chief pilot came to retrieve the plane, he wrote it off by hitting a fence.....
ta ta
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal
Well said!
My last flight was throught the solent zone and then north to a private strip.
It started with a bid of scud running along the coast but I didnt fancy the lowering base north through the solent zone. The guys there kindly allowed me a circling climb offshore in IMC to reach mca, continue up to 4,500 in IMC and route north through their zone. By the time I was near where I wanted to be the undercast had sufficient holes to allow a safe descent with a RIS as there was no approach. On balance I was far happier IMC at a comfortable height given that from an earlier report I expected to find broken cover at the strip. My friend continued north VFR and was down around 500 feet for a short while, not that it was a problem and in any event he had no alternative as his aircraft was not IFR equipted. However I would always far rather start my climb knowing precisely what was ahead and would certainly as Englishal says be much happier in IMC than struggling on VMC.
Of course whether you have an IMC or IR rating you are only as good as you are current.
Well said!
My last flight was throught the solent zone and then north to a private strip.
It started with a bid of scud running along the coast but I didnt fancy the lowering base north through the solent zone. The guys there kindly allowed me a circling climb offshore in IMC to reach mca, continue up to 4,500 in IMC and route north through their zone. By the time I was near where I wanted to be the undercast had sufficient holes to allow a safe descent with a RIS as there was no approach. On balance I was far happier IMC at a comfortable height given that from an earlier report I expected to find broken cover at the strip. My friend continued north VFR and was down around 500 feet for a short while, not that it was a problem and in any event he had no alternative as his aircraft was not IFR equipted. However I would always far rather start my climb knowing precisely what was ahead and would certainly as Englishal says be much happier in IMC than struggling on VMC.
Of course whether you have an IMC or IR rating you are only as good as you are current.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
englishal,
DFC,
You do talks some dramatic crap sometimes.
Fuji Abound,
Well said!
A bit dramatic perhaps but crap?..............here is a quote from AOPA;
The number-one cause of weather-related accidents is continued VFR flight into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). A full quarter of these pilots are instrument-rated. The rate and severity of accidents classified as VFR-into-IMC haven't changed much since the mid-1970s, nor have the causal factors, according to a study by the University of Illinois published earlier this year. The aviation community hasn't had much success discouraging pilots from flying into weather for which they are neither equipped nor prepared. The distinguishing hallmark of a VFR-into-IMC accident is its devastating hand. Roughly 75 percent of these accidents are fatal, because they typically involve a loss of control that starts relatively soon after the airplane enters the clouds.
http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/2001/ounce0110.html
Of course ignoring information like that is why things are not changing.
There is nothing with planning ahead and being prepared to go IFR at some stage during the flight but that decision is made at the planning stage, not in the air.
Regards,
DFC
DFC,
You do talks some dramatic crap sometimes.
Fuji Abound,
Well said!
A bit dramatic perhaps but crap?..............here is a quote from AOPA;
The number-one cause of weather-related accidents is continued VFR flight into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). A full quarter of these pilots are instrument-rated. The rate and severity of accidents classified as VFR-into-IMC haven't changed much since the mid-1970s, nor have the causal factors, according to a study by the University of Illinois published earlier this year. The aviation community hasn't had much success discouraging pilots from flying into weather for which they are neither equipped nor prepared. The distinguishing hallmark of a VFR-into-IMC accident is its devastating hand. Roughly 75 percent of these accidents are fatal, because they typically involve a loss of control that starts relatively soon after the airplane enters the clouds.
http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/2001/ounce0110.html
Of course ignoring information like that is why things are not changing.
There is nothing with planning ahead and being prepared to go IFR at some stage during the flight but that decision is made at the planning stage, not in the air.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"There is nothing with planning ahead and being prepared to go IFR at some stage during the flight but that decision is made at the planning stage, not in the air."
That is just about the most sweeping conclusion I have ever seen.
Even more sweeping is the tenuous way you assoicate that with the AOPA quote.
The AOPA qutoe tells us that some instrument rated pilots were sadly not very good at making the transition from VMC to IMC. That is why I said an instrument rated pilot is only as good as he is current. The AOPA quote tells us that most of these accidents start relatively soon after the pilot enters cloud. NOT, my emphasis, during the unplanned instrument approach which could be the logical conclusion of the unexpected transition form VMC to IMC. Well I struggle to see how those same pilots would have faired any better had they planned the transition on the ground. I am also left wondering how many of those pilots, if they had struggled on in VMC would have also lost their lives.
My point, as I think was Englisal's, was that for a CURRENT instrument rated pilot, it is likely to be far safer transitioning to IMC and climbing to the MSA than struggling on in detiorating VMC until you end up having to make the transition from an unacceptably low height (below MSA) not knowing what is ahead.
Of course you are correct it is better to plan for an IFR flight when still on the ground. That is not the issue. The issue I think was you are unexpectedly (for whatever the reason) caught out in a lowering overcast and perhaps cant back track (again for whatever reason) - in this case what do you do if you are a CURRENT instrument rated pilot.
Are you seriously suggesting a CURRENT instrument rated pilot is incapable of transitioning unexpectedly form VMC to IMC? Are you suggesting a CURRENT instrument rated pilot would be better staying below a 500 foot overcast than climbing IMC to the MSA if those were the conditions he happened to encounter?
That is just about the most sweeping conclusion I have ever seen.
Even more sweeping is the tenuous way you assoicate that with the AOPA quote.
The AOPA qutoe tells us that some instrument rated pilots were sadly not very good at making the transition from VMC to IMC. That is why I said an instrument rated pilot is only as good as he is current. The AOPA quote tells us that most of these accidents start relatively soon after the pilot enters cloud. NOT, my emphasis, during the unplanned instrument approach which could be the logical conclusion of the unexpected transition form VMC to IMC. Well I struggle to see how those same pilots would have faired any better had they planned the transition on the ground. I am also left wondering how many of those pilots, if they had struggled on in VMC would have also lost their lives.
My point, as I think was Englisal's, was that for a CURRENT instrument rated pilot, it is likely to be far safer transitioning to IMC and climbing to the MSA than struggling on in detiorating VMC until you end up having to make the transition from an unacceptably low height (below MSA) not knowing what is ahead.
Of course you are correct it is better to plan for an IFR flight when still on the ground. That is not the issue. The issue I think was you are unexpectedly (for whatever the reason) caught out in a lowering overcast and perhaps cant back track (again for whatever reason) - in this case what do you do if you are a CURRENT instrument rated pilot.
Are you seriously suggesting a CURRENT instrument rated pilot is incapable of transitioning unexpectedly form VMC to IMC? Are you suggesting a CURRENT instrument rated pilot would be better staying below a 500 foot overcast than climbing IMC to the MSA if those were the conditions he happened to encounter?
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 6th Jun 2005 at 09:50.
I have a sneeking suspicion that many of those posting here have, like myself, never expereinced VFR into IMC.
The chances of a VFR pilot controlling an aircraft for more than two minutes, let alone avoiding terrain in such circumstances is only 25%.
The correct response I've been taught when faced with such a situation is "never put yourself in such a situation".
Against the day one does, I was shown how to do 180 degree steep turns at 500 feet at about 85 knots to keep things tight. But then of course the weather may have silently closed the back door anyway.
The chances of a VFR pilot controlling an aircraft for more than two minutes, let alone avoiding terrain in such circumstances is only 25%.
The correct response I've been taught when faced with such a situation is "never put yourself in such a situation".
Against the day one does, I was shown how to do 180 degree steep turns at 500 feet at about 85 knots to keep things tight. But then of course the weather may have silently closed the back door anyway.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One does wonder why anyone bothers to write anything in these forums. Participation in a web-based forum is very time consuming. The audience seems pretty small, but it probably isn't and I am sure that is why people here do come in to counter what they see as rubbish written by someone else.
I think picking on individuals is very poor practice but looking at what DFC writes I have to say that the really interesting thing would be to find out what sort of flying he actually does.
Looking at what he writes, he could be a keen GA follower who just reads the mags and has never actually flown. One can develop a lot of knowledge, easily enough to pass as a PPL instructor, this way.
He could be an old boy who flies some vintage type, daylight VMC only, reads every piece of paper emanating from the CAA, attends every CAA safety meeting and gets his logbook duly stamped at each one, and flies perhaps 10 hours a year.
At a real stretch, he could be an airline pilot who entered the profession (probably many years ago) via a direct airline pilot course thus avoiding any GA flying. I know airline pilots like that, and the thought of UK-style IFR flight (taking off into OVC005, flying in IMC or on top, then doing a DIY letdown 10 miles from the non-IAP destination with a GPS/VOR/DME or a radar assisted position fix) totally scares them. In fact I bet > 50% of them would disapprove. But that's life outside controlled airspace, in a country with grass airfields without IAPs.
He certainly doesn't do real-world flying from A to B in UK or Europe.
As Englishal and Fuji rightly say there is zero evidence that a transition to IFR (assuming the pilot is current on instrument flight, etc) is less safe than staying below the cloud and perhaps doing a prec landing.
The last straw DFC tries to grab hold of is whether the transition to IFR was pre-planned on the ground. Unless one is a long way down between hills/mountains, climbing straight ahead to the MSA is entirely safe, so that one doesn't wash either. And most pilots with instrument training will tend to plan flights at/above the MSA anyway, so IMC is a non-issue. It is only at the destination that things get tricky but that's a separate matter.
I think picking on individuals is very poor practice but looking at what DFC writes I have to say that the really interesting thing would be to find out what sort of flying he actually does.
Looking at what he writes, he could be a keen GA follower who just reads the mags and has never actually flown. One can develop a lot of knowledge, easily enough to pass as a PPL instructor, this way.
He could be an old boy who flies some vintage type, daylight VMC only, reads every piece of paper emanating from the CAA, attends every CAA safety meeting and gets his logbook duly stamped at each one, and flies perhaps 10 hours a year.
At a real stretch, he could be an airline pilot who entered the profession (probably many years ago) via a direct airline pilot course thus avoiding any GA flying. I know airline pilots like that, and the thought of UK-style IFR flight (taking off into OVC005, flying in IMC or on top, then doing a DIY letdown 10 miles from the non-IAP destination with a GPS/VOR/DME or a radar assisted position fix) totally scares them. In fact I bet > 50% of them would disapprove. But that's life outside controlled airspace, in a country with grass airfields without IAPs.
He certainly doesn't do real-world flying from A to B in UK or Europe.
As Englishal and Fuji rightly say there is zero evidence that a transition to IFR (assuming the pilot is current on instrument flight, etc) is less safe than staying below the cloud and perhaps doing a prec landing.
The last straw DFC tries to grab hold of is whether the transition to IFR was pre-planned on the ground. Unless one is a long way down between hills/mountains, climbing straight ahead to the MSA is entirely safe, so that one doesn't wash either. And most pilots with instrument training will tend to plan flights at/above the MSA anyway, so IMC is a non-issue. It is only at the destination that things get tricky but that's a separate matter.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NW England
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But just how far off track has this thread gone???
Where did IFR flying, transitioning from VFR to IMC ever come into it?
The original poster asked what people might do in VFR conditions caught in the rising ground (sorry - can't use word 'terrain') lowering cloud scenario.
Presumably the original poster, like myself, believes that very few Private Pilots have instrument ratings and therefore that option is a non starter. He was looking for real life practical advice as to how to extricate himself from the predicament.
It would make an interesting poll to see how many of the regular posters have an IR or IMC rating and how many are straightforward low time PPL's who fly as a hobby, purely for fun.
Tony
Where did IFR flying, transitioning from VFR to IMC ever come into it?
The original poster asked what people might do in VFR conditions caught in the rising ground (sorry - can't use word 'terrain') lowering cloud scenario.
Presumably the original poster, like myself, believes that very few Private Pilots have instrument ratings and therefore that option is a non starter. He was looking for real life practical advice as to how to extricate himself from the predicament.
It would make an interesting poll to see how many of the regular posters have an IR or IMC rating and how many are straightforward low time PPL's who fly as a hobby, purely for fun.
Tony
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For some reasons I have been thinking about these posts regarding transitioning form VMC to IMC.
As both instrument rated pilots and non instrument rated pilots read these threads I think it is important to try and give a balanced view.
In my opinion if you intend to fly regularly over distance in the UK and Europe an instrument rating is a really good thing to have.
With the rating and GOOD CURRENCY flying in IMC is what we do and we do it very safely. Not only do we do it but we do it often because that is the sort of weather we have most of the time.
Now let me put that in context. Setting off into a 500 foot overcast and doing a long sector in IMC with an instrument approach, concerns about the freezing level, turbulence and all without an auto pilot is hard - very hard. These are some of the most challenging flying conditions you will encounter and not surprisingly the risks are high unless the aircraft is properly equipped and the pilot REALLY CURRENT.
At the other extreme in my opinion transitioning through a high overcast to VMC with a 1000 or two of IMC and with a solid TAF at the destination (planned or unplanned) when, as is so typical visibility below the overcast is poor in haze, should be bread and butter to an instrument rated pilot - we do it all the time. The reason we do it is because we can conduct the flight far more safely and indeed enjoyably "on top".
Of course there are all sorts of permutations in between and all sorts of potential risks. Yes the METAR might end up being far worse at your destination than the TAF suggested and you might need to do an instrument approach to minimum, yes the AI might unexpectedly pack up on you etc., AND that means you need the training, currency and experience to assess the situation.
HOWEVER you should not be put off getting and using an instrument rating - it will add to your safety greatly. Yep we have all read about the study of the bunch of non instrument rated pilots who were taken into simulated IMC - the outcome was not surprisingly poor! In my opinion if you took a similar bunch of SEP CURRENT instrument rated pilots and gave them a totally unexpected transition from VMC to IMC the whole thing would be a non event. I accept that some of these might struggle if they then had to continue in IMC ending up with an instrument approach in IMC at a destination for which they did not have the plates - but I bet these would be the first to admit they weren’t really current.
I gave one recent example - it is what actually happens in the real world. On departure westbound the base was around 1,800 - not too bad. Viz beneath was not great - so typical in this country. En route TAFS suggested the base would come down to 1,000 but a local report from the destination strip suggested the weather was clearing nicely from the West with a broken overcast. The flight started VMC beneath along the coast because by remaining visual there was no need to rely on finding a "hole" at the strip (non published approach). The intention was to fly the whole route VMC. In fact the base came down to around 500 feet en route. A climb in IMC was initiated with a RIS. I was far happier above the MSA in IMC than fiddling around trying to spot masts at 500 feet. There was no risk of freezing, no CBs forecast and I knew (because I asked) the tops were at 4,500. When I got to the strip a let down through some very large "holes" still with a RIS served the job. If the holes had not been there I knew of an airport close by with an ILS and even if I had not had the plate I knew vectors would have been given. If that had not been an alternative I knew I had sufficient fuel to get back to base and was very familiar with the approaches there. Forgive me for setting that experience out again but it IS typical, we do it all the time, and we do it safely. I did not plan the flight IFR but by making the transition to IFR the flight was able to continue safely rather than perhaps returning straight to base. It means we can fly more safely and IMHO it should not be suggested otherwise because you WILL be a better pilot if you go out and get an instrument rating and use it.
Final thought I know many have no interest in flying in less than ideal conditions and / or do not have an instrument platform available. That is fine - long may they continue. I simply believe it is wrong to be put off getting an instrument rating by opinions expressed that do not reflect there real world application or the real world risk involved.
TONYHALLS - yep, sorry it has gone off thread but posts here typically do that and the debate is often as interesting in consequence.
I think most of us would agree that without an instrument rating transitioning into IMC is a killer - dont do it. That means any other alterantive is better. If you can back track do so, if you can continue low level at minimium safe speed - do so. If you cant do any of those things you are better off making a precutionary landing. IMHO pilots should practice flying low level when possible - we dont do much of it.
As both instrument rated pilots and non instrument rated pilots read these threads I think it is important to try and give a balanced view.
In my opinion if you intend to fly regularly over distance in the UK and Europe an instrument rating is a really good thing to have.
With the rating and GOOD CURRENCY flying in IMC is what we do and we do it very safely. Not only do we do it but we do it often because that is the sort of weather we have most of the time.
Now let me put that in context. Setting off into a 500 foot overcast and doing a long sector in IMC with an instrument approach, concerns about the freezing level, turbulence and all without an auto pilot is hard - very hard. These are some of the most challenging flying conditions you will encounter and not surprisingly the risks are high unless the aircraft is properly equipped and the pilot REALLY CURRENT.
At the other extreme in my opinion transitioning through a high overcast to VMC with a 1000 or two of IMC and with a solid TAF at the destination (planned or unplanned) when, as is so typical visibility below the overcast is poor in haze, should be bread and butter to an instrument rated pilot - we do it all the time. The reason we do it is because we can conduct the flight far more safely and indeed enjoyably "on top".
Of course there are all sorts of permutations in between and all sorts of potential risks. Yes the METAR might end up being far worse at your destination than the TAF suggested and you might need to do an instrument approach to minimum, yes the AI might unexpectedly pack up on you etc., AND that means you need the training, currency and experience to assess the situation.
HOWEVER you should not be put off getting and using an instrument rating - it will add to your safety greatly. Yep we have all read about the study of the bunch of non instrument rated pilots who were taken into simulated IMC - the outcome was not surprisingly poor! In my opinion if you took a similar bunch of SEP CURRENT instrument rated pilots and gave them a totally unexpected transition from VMC to IMC the whole thing would be a non event. I accept that some of these might struggle if they then had to continue in IMC ending up with an instrument approach in IMC at a destination for which they did not have the plates - but I bet these would be the first to admit they weren’t really current.
I gave one recent example - it is what actually happens in the real world. On departure westbound the base was around 1,800 - not too bad. Viz beneath was not great - so typical in this country. En route TAFS suggested the base would come down to 1,000 but a local report from the destination strip suggested the weather was clearing nicely from the West with a broken overcast. The flight started VMC beneath along the coast because by remaining visual there was no need to rely on finding a "hole" at the strip (non published approach). The intention was to fly the whole route VMC. In fact the base came down to around 500 feet en route. A climb in IMC was initiated with a RIS. I was far happier above the MSA in IMC than fiddling around trying to spot masts at 500 feet. There was no risk of freezing, no CBs forecast and I knew (because I asked) the tops were at 4,500. When I got to the strip a let down through some very large "holes" still with a RIS served the job. If the holes had not been there I knew of an airport close by with an ILS and even if I had not had the plate I knew vectors would have been given. If that had not been an alternative I knew I had sufficient fuel to get back to base and was very familiar with the approaches there. Forgive me for setting that experience out again but it IS typical, we do it all the time, and we do it safely. I did not plan the flight IFR but by making the transition to IFR the flight was able to continue safely rather than perhaps returning straight to base. It means we can fly more safely and IMHO it should not be suggested otherwise because you WILL be a better pilot if you go out and get an instrument rating and use it.
Final thought I know many have no interest in flying in less than ideal conditions and / or do not have an instrument platform available. That is fine - long may they continue. I simply believe it is wrong to be put off getting an instrument rating by opinions expressed that do not reflect there real world application or the real world risk involved.
TONYHALLS - yep, sorry it has gone off thread but posts here typically do that and the debate is often as interesting in consequence.
I think most of us would agree that without an instrument rating transitioning into IMC is a killer - dont do it. That means any other alterantive is better. If you can back track do so, if you can continue low level at minimium safe speed - do so. If you cant do any of those things you are better off making a precutionary landing. IMHO pilots should practice flying low level when possible - we dont do much of it.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 6th Jun 2005 at 15:31.
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I asked a very similar question a couple of years back:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=89539
My (probably rather naive) instinct was to climb to MSA, concentrate on straight and level and declare a mayday. As a lot of people have already pointed out, this is extremely risky without an instrument qualification.
The consensus of opinion was that it’s better to stick it down in a field and risk a low speed prang than climb into the unknown, where it would take all of your capacity just to maintain wings level.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=89539
My (probably rather naive) instinct was to climb to MSA, concentrate on straight and level and declare a mayday. As a lot of people have already pointed out, this is extremely risky without an instrument qualification.
The consensus of opinion was that it’s better to stick it down in a field and risk a low speed prang than climb into the unknown, where it would take all of your capacity just to maintain wings level.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO 540's comments of IFR operations in UK vs USA is very relevant to the AOPA quote.
In the US there is a very clear line between IMC and VMC flying.
If it is not VMC (i.e. 3 miles and 500 feet below cloud - generally meaning at least a 1000 ft cloud base then you are IFR and you must be in receipt of an ATC clearance.
In the UK in you just become IFR (and still wind up flying with the VFR chart because you can't go airways and you don't have a clearance).
I think this leads some IR rated pilots in the States to sometimes push on in reduced conditions trying to avoid going into cloud and then they unexpectedly loose visual contact close to the ground and are a statistic.
I am not aware of any significant risk with current IR/IMC pilots being confronted with declining weather and making a reasoned decision to transition to IFR - The risk is trying to fly visually in declining visibility. In fact, as Fuji Abound has so well articulated, this transition from VFR to IFR is a common feature of UK IMC flying.
In the US there is a very clear line between IMC and VMC flying.
If it is not VMC (i.e. 3 miles and 500 feet below cloud - generally meaning at least a 1000 ft cloud base then you are IFR and you must be in receipt of an ATC clearance.
In the UK in you just become IFR (and still wind up flying with the VFR chart because you can't go airways and you don't have a clearance).
I think this leads some IR rated pilots in the States to sometimes push on in reduced conditions trying to avoid going into cloud and then they unexpectedly loose visual contact close to the ground and are a statistic.
I am not aware of any significant risk with current IR/IMC pilots being confronted with declining weather and making a reasoned decision to transition to IFR - The risk is trying to fly visually in declining visibility. In fact, as Fuji Abound has so well articulated, this transition from VFR to IFR is a common feature of UK IMC flying.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Fuji Abound, good post. As a very recently qualified IMC rating holder I really enjoyed your last post which sets out a scenario I would like to aim to be current with, and which seems to be balanced in terms of risks etc. At the end of the day, as PIC we all have to judge the balance of conditions versus equipment, experience and currency for every flight.
Andy
Andy
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that a non-instrument qualified pilot (by that I mean IMC / IR) would be wise to do everything in their power to remain out of the cloud.
It may well be that IR'd / IMC pilots end up dead as well as DFC points out, but I suspect (and this is the crux) that they were not current.
It is also true to say that current IR'd pilots die in CFITs .....but this tends to be during the approach / departure phase rather than just spiraling out of the clouds. Either that or due to equipment failures (i.e. combination of events).
EA
It may well be that IR'd / IMC pilots end up dead as well as DFC points out, but I suspect (and this is the crux) that they were not current.
It is also true to say that current IR'd pilots die in CFITs .....but this tends to be during the approach / departure phase rather than just spiraling out of the clouds. Either that or due to equipment failures (i.e. combination of events).
EA
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with doing something and getting away with it is that often rather than learning a lesson and trying one's best not o do that again, it actuallt has the opposite effect and people can at times get the idea that if it was OK than time then it will be OK again, and again until their luck runs out.
-----
tonyhalsall,
You are totally correct this was about being VFR and I believe that the decision to turn back, divert and land is best made while still VFR.
------
Fuji Abound,
Now let me put that in context. Setting off into a 500 foot overcast and doing a long sector in IMC with an instrument approach, concerns about the freezing level, turbulence and all without an auto pilot is hard - very hard. These are some of the most challenging flying conditions you will encounter and not surprisingly the risks are high.............The intention was to fly the whole route VMC. In fact the base came down to around 500 feet en route...........I did not plan the flight IFR.........rather than perhaps returning straight to base
You seem to contradict yourself. If setting off into a 500ft overcast IFR is very hard then how is doing the same thing unplanned equal or less of a risk......isn't the risk greather?
However the CAA and AOPA and every other safety organisation warns us not to fly VFR into IFR unless it is an emergency and then warn us that we risk a sizeable chance of not making it.
But the most disturbing thing that I hear from pilots is that they continued "rather than perhaps returning straight to base" because regardless of if they made it easily or with difficulty, that statement shouts 'get-home itis' as the CAA call it.
Yes, flying along below a safe altitude in poor visibility is bad news but is it not better to take more time to improve one's ability to predict and evaluate the weather so as to decide in advance if the flight can be made safely in VMC or not? After all your own description of the weather available to you prior to departure says that VFR flight was at the very best going to be marginal.
When I fly round the FIR in the UK, I will only fly VFR if I can remain atleast 1000ft below cloud in 5K+ visibility regardless of what level I fly at. That ensures that not only can I divert early if the cloud base starts to lower but more importantly, I have some chance of spotting the flights that reguluarly drop out of an overcast in the middle of nowhere. However, that is a personal limit and everyone can have their own. What is important however is that having set a personal limit, one sticks to it.
Does the poor UK weather stop me from flying with such restrictive weather.......well yes it does stop flights that are for sightseeing or similar but if the we are going somewhere than we will decide in advance to go IFR and make the appropriate planning in advance or we can go down the pub insted (it's cheaper!). After all, it is flying for fun for recreation and for the joy of it. If we want to fly at all times we will move to where the climate suits that NOT take risks with what we have here.
In work I get to fly IFR all the time and zoom all over the place. It is not difficult, it is actually easier than VFR flying. However, the view usually isn't the same!
you WILL be a better pilot if you go out and get an instrument rating and use it
I disagree. Getting an instrument rating will give a different skill set and in some cases a bit more knowledge. It will not improve your ability as a pilot it will usually take a poor pilot and enable that pilot fly operate poorly both VFR and IFR!
The statement you make is simply a marketing tool used by schools to sell IMC and IRs no more.
One could even argue ( and I would agree in part) that pilots who fly mostly IFR find it hard to cope when having to fly VFR......thus the most regular users of the IR loose the origional VFR piloting skills.
As for the IMC rating. I remember when Ron Campbell got the idea accepted by the CAA. Let's just say that today's operation has less to do with the original idea. What is the rate of loss of control (VFR and IFR) and CFIT incidents on private flights like sine the IMC than before the IMC?
In my opinion if you took a similar bunch of SEP CURRENT instrument rated pilots and gave them a totally unexpected transition from VMC to IMC the whole thing would be a non event
Actually as stated previously, that is not the case even in the sim where as I said a large number of them killed themselves by omitting something as simple as switching on the Pitot Heat!
Very few PPL/IR holders are really current (suficient number of approaches and time in IMC in the past 28 days and recent emergency training) even less IMC holders.
Of course the stats don't tell us of the many pilots who just about escape hitting other aircraft, terrain or who loose control in IMC but manage to recover at a later stage before killing themselves.......imagine if every such case was reported!
Finally, look at the RAF......they have carefully selected highly trained and highly skilled pilots who considder a pull up into IMC from low level as a very serious situation and have a dedicated squalk to highlight their plight to every ATC unit and will obtain radar service ASAP. If these highly skilled and current pilots treat that situation so seriously, why is there constant peer pressure within GA that hey going VFR to IFR is no real problem........even if it will make your flight illegal?
Overall - if you are a PPL - precautionary landing is the only option. if you are an IMC holder or IR holder then only go IMC if the divert/ precautionary landing option is not available and then declare an emergency, get help and of course, report what happened when you land (hopefuly) safely!
Regards,
DFC
-----
tonyhalsall,
You are totally correct this was about being VFR and I believe that the decision to turn back, divert and land is best made while still VFR.
------
Fuji Abound,
Now let me put that in context. Setting off into a 500 foot overcast and doing a long sector in IMC with an instrument approach, concerns about the freezing level, turbulence and all without an auto pilot is hard - very hard. These are some of the most challenging flying conditions you will encounter and not surprisingly the risks are high.............The intention was to fly the whole route VMC. In fact the base came down to around 500 feet en route...........I did not plan the flight IFR.........rather than perhaps returning straight to base
You seem to contradict yourself. If setting off into a 500ft overcast IFR is very hard then how is doing the same thing unplanned equal or less of a risk......isn't the risk greather?
However the CAA and AOPA and every other safety organisation warns us not to fly VFR into IFR unless it is an emergency and then warn us that we risk a sizeable chance of not making it.
But the most disturbing thing that I hear from pilots is that they continued "rather than perhaps returning straight to base" because regardless of if they made it easily or with difficulty, that statement shouts 'get-home itis' as the CAA call it.
Yes, flying along below a safe altitude in poor visibility is bad news but is it not better to take more time to improve one's ability to predict and evaluate the weather so as to decide in advance if the flight can be made safely in VMC or not? After all your own description of the weather available to you prior to departure says that VFR flight was at the very best going to be marginal.
When I fly round the FIR in the UK, I will only fly VFR if I can remain atleast 1000ft below cloud in 5K+ visibility regardless of what level I fly at. That ensures that not only can I divert early if the cloud base starts to lower but more importantly, I have some chance of spotting the flights that reguluarly drop out of an overcast in the middle of nowhere. However, that is a personal limit and everyone can have their own. What is important however is that having set a personal limit, one sticks to it.
Does the poor UK weather stop me from flying with such restrictive weather.......well yes it does stop flights that are for sightseeing or similar but if the we are going somewhere than we will decide in advance to go IFR and make the appropriate planning in advance or we can go down the pub insted (it's cheaper!). After all, it is flying for fun for recreation and for the joy of it. If we want to fly at all times we will move to where the climate suits that NOT take risks with what we have here.
In work I get to fly IFR all the time and zoom all over the place. It is not difficult, it is actually easier than VFR flying. However, the view usually isn't the same!
you WILL be a better pilot if you go out and get an instrument rating and use it
I disagree. Getting an instrument rating will give a different skill set and in some cases a bit more knowledge. It will not improve your ability as a pilot it will usually take a poor pilot and enable that pilot fly operate poorly both VFR and IFR!
The statement you make is simply a marketing tool used by schools to sell IMC and IRs no more.
One could even argue ( and I would agree in part) that pilots who fly mostly IFR find it hard to cope when having to fly VFR......thus the most regular users of the IR loose the origional VFR piloting skills.
As for the IMC rating. I remember when Ron Campbell got the idea accepted by the CAA. Let's just say that today's operation has less to do with the original idea. What is the rate of loss of control (VFR and IFR) and CFIT incidents on private flights like sine the IMC than before the IMC?
In my opinion if you took a similar bunch of SEP CURRENT instrument rated pilots and gave them a totally unexpected transition from VMC to IMC the whole thing would be a non event
Actually as stated previously, that is not the case even in the sim where as I said a large number of them killed themselves by omitting something as simple as switching on the Pitot Heat!
Very few PPL/IR holders are really current (suficient number of approaches and time in IMC in the past 28 days and recent emergency training) even less IMC holders.
Of course the stats don't tell us of the many pilots who just about escape hitting other aircraft, terrain or who loose control in IMC but manage to recover at a later stage before killing themselves.......imagine if every such case was reported!
Finally, look at the RAF......they have carefully selected highly trained and highly skilled pilots who considder a pull up into IMC from low level as a very serious situation and have a dedicated squalk to highlight their plight to every ATC unit and will obtain radar service ASAP. If these highly skilled and current pilots treat that situation so seriously, why is there constant peer pressure within GA that hey going VFR to IFR is no real problem........even if it will make your flight illegal?
Overall - if you are a PPL - precautionary landing is the only option. if you are an IMC holder or IR holder then only go IMC if the divert/ precautionary landing option is not available and then declare an emergency, get help and of course, report what happened when you land (hopefuly) safely!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BS is flowing now
I really cannot believe you suggest that a current Instrument pilot should declare an emergency or make a precautionary landing in a field if they are going to have to enter IMC?
I fail to see how being a PPL has anything to do with it? I'm a PPL in JAR land, and a Commercial Pilot in FAA land. A CPL without an IR or IMC has no better odds of surviving than a PPL in unintened entry into IMC.....?
I'm sorry DFC, everyone is entitled to their view and all that, but you seem to have some very strange views for an experienced pilot? What is you day job that allows you to fly IFR all the time?
Ta ta
Overall - if you are a PPL - precautionary landing is the only option. if you are an IMC holder or IR holder then only go IMC if the divert/ precautionary landing option is not available and then declare an emergency, get help and of course, report what happened when you land (hopefuly) safely!
I fail to see how being a PPL has anything to do with it? I'm a PPL in JAR land, and a Commercial Pilot in FAA land. A CPL without an IR or IMC has no better odds of surviving than a PPL in unintened entry into IMC.....?
I'm sorry DFC, everyone is entitled to their view and all that, but you seem to have some very strange views for an experienced pilot? What is you day job that allows you to fly IFR all the time?
Ta ta
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You seem to contradict yourself. If setting off into a 500ft overcast IFR is very hard then how is doing the same thing unplanned equal or less of a risk......isn't the risk greather?"
I dont mean to be personal but it is difficult to have a constructive discussion if you dont want to read what is said. It still seems to be quite clear that I was not talking about setting off into a 500 foot overcast in isolation. I was considering a combination of factors that would make an IFR sector very tough even for an experienced pilot. In fact, and if there is any risk you are a commercial pilot with not a lot of SEP IR time, way above your ability to cope even if you had planned for it - and that is a constructive comment because I have had CURRENT high hours commercial pilots fly in a SEP IMC without an auto pilot and found the going very tough - and before you say it, that is why I have consistently said you must be SEP CURRENT.
"However the CAA and AOPA and every other safety organisation warns us not to fly VFR into IFR unless it is an emergency and then warn us that we risk a sizeable chance of not making it."
Is that another sound bite? Where do they say instrument rated pilots should not transition VFR to IFR. In fact I am even more sceptical because I suspect they would say "transition from VMC to IMC" since transitioning from VFR to IFR may mark no change what so ever in the met conditions.
"I disagree. Getting an instrument rating will give a different skill set and in some cases a bit more knowledge. It will not improve your ability as a pilot it will usually take a poor pilot and enable that pilot fly operate poorly both VFR and IFR!"
One suspects the reason why an increase in the instrument time for a PPL was introduced in the syllabus was because the CAA felt a pilot would be better able to cope with certain conditions. A different skill - yes, a more skilled pilot -definitely yes, therefore a more skilled pilot, ???????
"What is the rate of loss of control (VFR and IFR) and CFIT incidents on private flights like sine the IMC than before the IMC?"
I dont know - please enlighten us.
"Actually as stated previously, that is not the case even in the sim where as I said a large number of them killed themselves by omitting something as simple as switching on the Pitot Heat!"
I am a great believer in actually reading the research that was done. Unless I have missed something the researchers did NOT take a bunch of SEP CURRENT IR pilots.
"even if it will make your flight illegal?"
Now that really does take the biscuit. I dont mind people being rude or simply not knowing what they are talking about - all part of the fun on these forums but I do worry about the suggestion of doing something illegal. Please enlighten all of us?
As I said previously I have learned a great deal from this forum. As a new pilot it gave me much encouragement to do things like take on an enjoy instrument flying. Yep, I would be the first to accept the risks of instrument flying are greater than flying in good VMC but then so is flying a greater risk than driving your car. Flying is risk management at its best. Yep, as a very old and wise pilot once told me there is only one thing better than four engines and that is five.
However because of what I have gained from this forum I cannot accept postings that give such an unbalanced point of view and far more importantly appear to be supported by quotes taken out of context. That only discourages other new pilots from for example gaining an instrument rating - which IMHO is a very bad thing.
Constructively tell me I am wrong by all means, tell us of your own experience and we can have an interesting debate.
WR - I think on the whole we do respect each others opinions and certainly should. However as I have tried to explain opinions which are supported by research or information misquoted is dangerous as are unsupported suggestions we are behaving illegally.
I wholly take your other points and as I said before I respect any pilot who prefers never to fly on instruments for whatever reason. Frankly, as much as I enjoy instrument flying, I would far rather watch the scenery go by if I had to chose only one or the other.
Finally to stick my neck out if I were a CURRENT IR pilot I can think of very very few situations I would not climb IMC to the MSA in the circumstances you describe. One would be a serious risk of icing, another a risk of embedded CB's and the last not knowing what was ahead before I reached MSA. The first two I would want to know about before I ever set off and I would like to think I definitely would not have gone if either were a risk and I even might have to go IMC. That only therefore leaves the third - which is a problem as you say only resolvable at the time.
I dont mean to be personal but it is difficult to have a constructive discussion if you dont want to read what is said. It still seems to be quite clear that I was not talking about setting off into a 500 foot overcast in isolation. I was considering a combination of factors that would make an IFR sector very tough even for an experienced pilot. In fact, and if there is any risk you are a commercial pilot with not a lot of SEP IR time, way above your ability to cope even if you had planned for it - and that is a constructive comment because I have had CURRENT high hours commercial pilots fly in a SEP IMC without an auto pilot and found the going very tough - and before you say it, that is why I have consistently said you must be SEP CURRENT.
"However the CAA and AOPA and every other safety organisation warns us not to fly VFR into IFR unless it is an emergency and then warn us that we risk a sizeable chance of not making it."
Is that another sound bite? Where do they say instrument rated pilots should not transition VFR to IFR. In fact I am even more sceptical because I suspect they would say "transition from VMC to IMC" since transitioning from VFR to IFR may mark no change what so ever in the met conditions.
"I disagree. Getting an instrument rating will give a different skill set and in some cases a bit more knowledge. It will not improve your ability as a pilot it will usually take a poor pilot and enable that pilot fly operate poorly both VFR and IFR!"
One suspects the reason why an increase in the instrument time for a PPL was introduced in the syllabus was because the CAA felt a pilot would be better able to cope with certain conditions. A different skill - yes, a more skilled pilot -definitely yes, therefore a more skilled pilot, ???????
"What is the rate of loss of control (VFR and IFR) and CFIT incidents on private flights like sine the IMC than before the IMC?"
I dont know - please enlighten us.
"Actually as stated previously, that is not the case even in the sim where as I said a large number of them killed themselves by omitting something as simple as switching on the Pitot Heat!"
I am a great believer in actually reading the research that was done. Unless I have missed something the researchers did NOT take a bunch of SEP CURRENT IR pilots.
"even if it will make your flight illegal?"
Now that really does take the biscuit. I dont mind people being rude or simply not knowing what they are talking about - all part of the fun on these forums but I do worry about the suggestion of doing something illegal. Please enlighten all of us?
As I said previously I have learned a great deal from this forum. As a new pilot it gave me much encouragement to do things like take on an enjoy instrument flying. Yep, I would be the first to accept the risks of instrument flying are greater than flying in good VMC but then so is flying a greater risk than driving your car. Flying is risk management at its best. Yep, as a very old and wise pilot once told me there is only one thing better than four engines and that is five.
However because of what I have gained from this forum I cannot accept postings that give such an unbalanced point of view and far more importantly appear to be supported by quotes taken out of context. That only discourages other new pilots from for example gaining an instrument rating - which IMHO is a very bad thing.
Constructively tell me I am wrong by all means, tell us of your own experience and we can have an interesting debate.
WR - I think on the whole we do respect each others opinions and certainly should. However as I have tried to explain opinions which are supported by research or information misquoted is dangerous as are unsupported suggestions we are behaving illegally.
I wholly take your other points and as I said before I respect any pilot who prefers never to fly on instruments for whatever reason. Frankly, as much as I enjoy instrument flying, I would far rather watch the scenery go by if I had to chose only one or the other.
Finally to stick my neck out if I were a CURRENT IR pilot I can think of very very few situations I would not climb IMC to the MSA in the circumstances you describe. One would be a serious risk of icing, another a risk of embedded CB's and the last not knowing what was ahead before I reached MSA. The first two I would want to know about before I ever set off and I would like to think I definitely would not have gone if either were a risk and I even might have to go IMC. That only therefore leaves the third - which is a problem as you say only resolvable at the time.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 7th Jun 2005 at 15:31.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NW England
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the answer is to make an IR mandatory for a UK PPL??
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzz
Come on - most of us bimble around VFR quite happily and thank our lucky stars when once in a hundred or so hours or so we make a mistake and scrape our way out of it.
Getting an IR would bankrupt me and simply remove the pleasure I get from tootling above the English countryside in generally fair weather, not talking to anyone, not tracking any VOR's and not getting stressed out with overly complex systems and procedures. If the cloud comes down I curse myself and turn back from where I came.
Only on two occasions have I allowed myself to get into a situation where an IMC/IR rating would have extricated myself - but I got out anyway with little drama and only lightly soiled underwear.
Give me gentle zephyrs and fluffy cumulus any day. Perhaps there should be a section for us 'Sunday, fair weather flyers'
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzz
Come on - most of us bimble around VFR quite happily and thank our lucky stars when once in a hundred or so hours or so we make a mistake and scrape our way out of it.
Getting an IR would bankrupt me and simply remove the pleasure I get from tootling above the English countryside in generally fair weather, not talking to anyone, not tracking any VOR's and not getting stressed out with overly complex systems and procedures. If the cloud comes down I curse myself and turn back from where I came.
Only on two occasions have I allowed myself to get into a situation where an IMC/IR rating would have extricated myself - but I got out anyway with little drama and only lightly soiled underwear.
Give me gentle zephyrs and fluffy cumulus any day. Perhaps there should be a section for us 'Sunday, fair weather flyers'
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason people are having a go at DFC is because his view of a particular area of flying (pilots with current instrument skills, and using them) bears no relation to reality.
It's a bit like going to a CAA safety meeting. A mere mention of the dreaded 3-letter words (GPS or IFR) gets people hissing at you. Those meetings are aimed at very low hour VFR-only pilots, which is fair enough because they form undoubtedly the biggest single group in UK GA and they do keep having daft and easily avoidable incidents.
The problem is when people who preach that stuff refuse to accept that there is another group of pilots who have long since moved on.
I don't know why. Maybe they regard them as a threat of some sort?
It's possible, at a price, to get a plane that's well equipped, and it's possible to get trained up and with the application of some more money and time one can stay current with all that. But the old hands have a problem coming to grips with this. So we have for example the CAA "safety" leaflet #25 which contains mostly complete bull. This is largely why the bulk of GA is still firmly back in the 1960s rut and is gradually sinking deeper and deeper into it. The flying schools are losing students all the time; it's no wonder they are lobbying the CAA to hit the FAA option. A whole lot of good that would do; killing off the one group of pilots who have put in the time and money to get good machines and who stay current in them.
Here in the UK we have the IMC Rating which was an astonishingly imaginative and brilliant piece of progress, which I am certain nobody could bring in today. It has its faults; chiefly that the minimum training required is well behind its legal privileges, but one could say the same for the PPL and I doubt anybody wants to go down that road
A lot of IMCR holders are like most PPL holders: skint and doing too few hours, yet the traditionalists are slagging off the IMCR when really they should be asking why are people doing so few hours. A part of the answer is that one cannot get one's hands on a suitable plane unless one buys one or buys into one. But no IMCR instructor is going to tell you that!
Outside the UK, nothing short of a full IR is any good for serious flying, unless one is where the weather is nice, or in say the USA where one can fly VFR up to 17999ft.
A lot of the old timers that administer GA policy are quite old fashioned, and that's why there is this struggle around getting and maintaining European IFR privileges.
There is never likely to be a problem flying around VFR; that's a long accepted institution which, apart from local restrictions, is never likely to go away.
It's IFR flight that a lot of traditionalists have a problem with. This is what we see in this thread.
It's a bit like going to a CAA safety meeting. A mere mention of the dreaded 3-letter words (GPS or IFR) gets people hissing at you. Those meetings are aimed at very low hour VFR-only pilots, which is fair enough because they form undoubtedly the biggest single group in UK GA and they do keep having daft and easily avoidable incidents.
The problem is when people who preach that stuff refuse to accept that there is another group of pilots who have long since moved on.
I don't know why. Maybe they regard them as a threat of some sort?
It's possible, at a price, to get a plane that's well equipped, and it's possible to get trained up and with the application of some more money and time one can stay current with all that. But the old hands have a problem coming to grips with this. So we have for example the CAA "safety" leaflet #25 which contains mostly complete bull. This is largely why the bulk of GA is still firmly back in the 1960s rut and is gradually sinking deeper and deeper into it. The flying schools are losing students all the time; it's no wonder they are lobbying the CAA to hit the FAA option. A whole lot of good that would do; killing off the one group of pilots who have put in the time and money to get good machines and who stay current in them.
Here in the UK we have the IMC Rating which was an astonishingly imaginative and brilliant piece of progress, which I am certain nobody could bring in today. It has its faults; chiefly that the minimum training required is well behind its legal privileges, but one could say the same for the PPL and I doubt anybody wants to go down that road
A lot of IMCR holders are like most PPL holders: skint and doing too few hours, yet the traditionalists are slagging off the IMCR when really they should be asking why are people doing so few hours. A part of the answer is that one cannot get one's hands on a suitable plane unless one buys one or buys into one. But no IMCR instructor is going to tell you that!Outside the UK, nothing short of a full IR is any good for serious flying, unless one is where the weather is nice, or in say the USA where one can fly VFR up to 17999ft.
A lot of the old timers that administer GA policy are quite old fashioned, and that's why there is this struggle around getting and maintaining European IFR privileges.
There is never likely to be a problem flying around VFR; that's a long accepted institution which, apart from local restrictions, is never likely to go away.
It's IFR flight that a lot of traditionalists have a problem with. This is what we see in this thread.
Last edited by IO540; 7th Jun 2005 at 16:00.