IMC Rating
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 1
From: England
It will all be in Lasors.
AIRC you get 5 hours off for a CPL but nothing for an IMC.
Remember the IR is a JAR qualification and the IMC is a regional (CAA) anomoly.
If you do a FAA IR you can do the 15 hour conversion (although you will probably need more).
Basically, if you want an IR go and get one. If all you want to do is fly IMC in the UK an IMC will provide the legal mechanism to do it.
AIRC you get 5 hours off for a CPL but nothing for an IMC.
Remember the IR is a JAR qualification and the IMC is a regional (CAA) anomoly.
If you do a FAA IR you can do the 15 hour conversion (although you will probably need more).
Basically, if you want an IR go and get one. If all you want to do is fly IMC in the UK an IMC will provide the legal mechanism to do it.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,626
Likes: 12
From: UK
The IMC rating does not count because the training for it is not approved. The experience gained will be of use, and considering that the first time pass rate for an IR is currently less than 50% any additional training must be an advantage.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
If you do a FAA IR you can do the 15 hour conversion (although you will probably need more).
The average FAA IR holder is an awner of an IFR capable aircraft and does quite a lot of flying.
The average UK JAA IR holder does very little flying, while waiting for an airline job
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
From: Over Mache Grande?
FAA Vs JAR
I've seen loads of people at our club either doing a full IR, or converting - none of the FAA guys have managed it in just 15 hours.
Getting an IMC rating is good if you want to be able to fly to places and know you've got a good chance of getting home agian should the weather deteriorate - but that's all it is - a "get you home rating"
It doesn't give you enough training for prolonged IFR flight, and isn't recognised outside of the UK.
It's a topic of much debate, but having something like the FAA IR rating availbe would probably save some lives - there can't be many PPL's prepared to fork out £10k+ for an IR, and there's nothing inbetween that and an IMC.
As previously mentioned, there is no credit for the hours, but it does make the IR easier when you get round to it.
Getting an IMC rating is good if you want to be able to fly to places and know you've got a good chance of getting home agian should the weather deteriorate - but that's all it is - a "get you home rating"
It doesn't give you enough training for prolonged IFR flight, and isn't recognised outside of the UK.
It's a topic of much debate, but having something like the FAA IR rating availbe would probably save some lives - there can't be many PPL's prepared to fork out £10k+ for an IR, and there's nothing inbetween that and an IMC.
As previously mentioned, there is no credit for the hours, but it does make the IR easier when you get round to it.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
As per the previous replies, the IMC rating does not give you any time off the JAR IR.
However, you can use the time on your IMC course towards an FAA IR. This is because the FAA IR calls for x number of hours with an FAA CFII, to be included in y number of hours instrument flying (sorry, can't remember the exact numbers). The difference between x and y can be made up by any other instrument flying..... including your IMC training, and any IMC flying you do in the UK once you get your rating (and also the instrument flying you did on your PPL course).
Once again, as per the previous replies, to convert your FAA IR to a JAR IR is then 15 hours of flying (as well as the JAR written exams).
Also:
Just to clarify, because the wording is a little ambiguous... I think what 18greens means is that the CPL gives you 5 hours off of the IR course. The IMC rating does not give you time off of any JAR course.
FFF
-------------
However, you can use the time on your IMC course towards an FAA IR. This is because the FAA IR calls for x number of hours with an FAA CFII, to be included in y number of hours instrument flying (sorry, can't remember the exact numbers). The difference between x and y can be made up by any other instrument flying..... including your IMC training, and any IMC flying you do in the UK once you get your rating (and also the instrument flying you did on your PPL course).
Once again, as per the previous replies, to convert your FAA IR to a JAR IR is then 15 hours of flying (as well as the JAR written exams).
Also:
AIRC you get 5 hours off for a CPL but nothing for an IMC.
FFF
-------------
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,804
Likes: 1
Getting an IMC rating is good if you want to be able to fly to places and know you've got a good chance of getting home agian should the weather deteriorate - but that's all it is - a "get you home rating"
I don't know much about the IMC training due to getting given one on the back of my IR. But there is a big argument to include some form of 90 day rule that you have to have flown an instrument approach in the last 90 days or you stay out of the clouds. Its more like a rating to get you into something you can scare yourself with.
One of the times I scared myself as an instructor was when I stupidly thought I could make it to an airport IMC for a procedural NDB to ILS. Hadn't used my IR for 6 months. Work load through the roof, behind the aircraft. One of those I learnt from that. So even though I was doing 100 hours a month VFR flying with a full IR it wasn't pretty. Gawd knows what it must be like for someone who did the 15 hour course and does 5 hours a month.
MJ
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
"get you home rating"
"That use of the IMC scares the hell out of me with PPL's"
PLEASE don't start that silly argument again!!! The above statements are utter rubbish.
It's all down to currency and what sort of plane one can get one's hands on.
Somebody who has a PPL with an IMCR, owns a decent IFR aircraft and does say 100hrs a year is going to be a lot more current (and safe) doing instrument approaches than somebody who did their JAA ATPL a few years back, is now looking for an airline job, never flies in IMC, and just manages to dig out enough money to renew their IR on a sim or in a flight once a year.
The FAA is right to have their rolling currency requirement. JAA (or the CAA, with the IMCR) doesn't have this and one could have a debate on this, but this is NO justification for slagging off the IMCR.
The FAA IR is held and kept current by an awful lot of PPLs in the USA and elsewhere. The JAA IR, on the other hand, tends to exist in two camps: high-hour working commercial pilots, and very low-hour wannabe commercial pilots. The JAA *PPL*/IR population is almost insignificant.
So, due to the number of JAA IR holders who practically never fly in IMC (in that I include those who pass their time doing PPL training) I would suggest that an FAA IR-style rolling currency requirement for the JAA IR would be exceedingly unpopular!
After a year or two and a lot of flying, the min 15hr IMCR requirement v. the min 50hr JAA IR requirement becomes insignificant, especially when one considers one pilot could be flying a battered C172 with no kit and the other could be flying a new IFR tourer with everything. In fact, the typical UK-style Class G IFR flight (own navigation in IMC, no ATS service, etc) is more demanding than flying airways; in the latter one spends most of the time being radar vectored and the workload is minimal.
It's sad that most UK IMCR holders are unsuspecting people who were sold it by their school - another nice £3k for the school - without anybody telling them they can't do much with it, short of buying a (or a share in) £100,000 (min) plane. So it's a jolly good job these people didn't do the much more costly full IR because with that they would be in exactly the same useless position.
One can fly in IMC in something much cheaper, which is fair enough but in that case one is unable to safely fly to the full privileges of the IMCR. But again that's no different to having an IR.
The IMCR is a fantastic privilege which is regularly slagged off, but those doing this keep picking the wrong reasons.
FFF
The FAA IR training requirement can be done with any "authorised instructor"; the term is used but not defined in the FAR/AIM and has been variously interpreted. Some people, without any apparent basis, say this means any ICAO IR instructor. However people going to do the IR in Florida normally get any UK training accepted for this purpose. An FAA CFII is not required for any of it.
The requirement for an FAA CFII (or CFI if doing just the PPL) comes from the need to get signed off as ready for the checkride, by a CFII. Now, in practice no CFII will sign you off unless he knows you can fly! Together with the requirement to do the last 3 hrs in the 60 days before the checkride, this effectively (but not as a legal requirement) means that the last 3 hrs in the last 60 days need to be done with a CFII - who then signs you off.
But all the FAA logbook requirements (e.g. the 250nm x/c airways flight) can be done with a JAA instructor in a G-reg. This very usefully avoids the need to comply with the U.S. TSA requirements, because nobody needs to claim (at that stage) that that flight is towards the FAA IR. This way of doing it is handy for people who want to do most of their FAA IR training in the UK but (due to the problems in getting FAA examiners to come here) have to go to the USA for the checkride. Do all the training here, sit the written here (or LeBourget), then go to Florida for a week or two. Obviously you still have to reach the standard but if you have been instrument flying here, meet the FAA test standards here (a real CFII or somebody who knows the expectations helps a lot for that) plus a week or two out there, should be enough.
The requirement for a CFII to do all FAA IR training is routinely dished out by UK based FAA training outfits, for revenue generation.
"That use of the IMC scares the hell out of me with PPL's"
PLEASE don't start that silly argument again!!! The above statements are utter rubbish.
It's all down to currency and what sort of plane one can get one's hands on.
Somebody who has a PPL with an IMCR, owns a decent IFR aircraft and does say 100hrs a year is going to be a lot more current (and safe) doing instrument approaches than somebody who did their JAA ATPL a few years back, is now looking for an airline job, never flies in IMC, and just manages to dig out enough money to renew their IR on a sim or in a flight once a year.
The FAA is right to have their rolling currency requirement. JAA (or the CAA, with the IMCR) doesn't have this and one could have a debate on this, but this is NO justification for slagging off the IMCR.
The FAA IR is held and kept current by an awful lot of PPLs in the USA and elsewhere. The JAA IR, on the other hand, tends to exist in two camps: high-hour working commercial pilots, and very low-hour wannabe commercial pilots. The JAA *PPL*/IR population is almost insignificant.
So, due to the number of JAA IR holders who practically never fly in IMC (in that I include those who pass their time doing PPL training) I would suggest that an FAA IR-style rolling currency requirement for the JAA IR would be exceedingly unpopular!
After a year or two and a lot of flying, the min 15hr IMCR requirement v. the min 50hr JAA IR requirement becomes insignificant, especially when one considers one pilot could be flying a battered C172 with no kit and the other could be flying a new IFR tourer with everything. In fact, the typical UK-style Class G IFR flight (own navigation in IMC, no ATS service, etc) is more demanding than flying airways; in the latter one spends most of the time being radar vectored and the workload is minimal.
It's sad that most UK IMCR holders are unsuspecting people who were sold it by their school - another nice £3k for the school - without anybody telling them they can't do much with it, short of buying a (or a share in) £100,000 (min) plane. So it's a jolly good job these people didn't do the much more costly full IR because with that they would be in exactly the same useless position.
One can fly in IMC in something much cheaper, which is fair enough but in that case one is unable to safely fly to the full privileges of the IMCR. But again that's no different to having an IR.
The IMCR is a fantastic privilege which is regularly slagged off, but those doing this keep picking the wrong reasons.
FFF
The FAA IR training requirement can be done with any "authorised instructor"; the term is used but not defined in the FAR/AIM and has been variously interpreted. Some people, without any apparent basis, say this means any ICAO IR instructor. However people going to do the IR in Florida normally get any UK training accepted for this purpose. An FAA CFII is not required for any of it.
The requirement for an FAA CFII (or CFI if doing just the PPL) comes from the need to get signed off as ready for the checkride, by a CFII. Now, in practice no CFII will sign you off unless he knows you can fly! Together with the requirement to do the last 3 hrs in the 60 days before the checkride, this effectively (but not as a legal requirement) means that the last 3 hrs in the last 60 days need to be done with a CFII - who then signs you off.
But all the FAA logbook requirements (e.g. the 250nm x/c airways flight) can be done with a JAA instructor in a G-reg. This very usefully avoids the need to comply with the U.S. TSA requirements, because nobody needs to claim (at that stage) that that flight is towards the FAA IR. This way of doing it is handy for people who want to do most of their FAA IR training in the UK but (due to the problems in getting FAA examiners to come here) have to go to the USA for the checkride. Do all the training here, sit the written here (or LeBourget), then go to Florida for a week or two. Obviously you still have to reach the standard but if you have been instrument flying here, meet the FAA test standards here (a real CFII or somebody who knows the expectations helps a lot for that) plus a week or two out there, should be enough.
The requirement for a CFII to do all FAA IR training is routinely dished out by UK based FAA training outfits, for revenue generation.
Last edited by IO540; 23rd October 2005 at 17:28.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
mad_jock
I always have a go at people who criticise the IMCR Or GPS
You are right, but currency is just as important with an IR.
And currency, and particularly currency in something suitable (not to mention legal) for IFR is the bit that's so hard to get unless one spends a whole bundle of dosh.
I always have a go at people who criticise the IMCR
Or GPS You are right, but currency is just as important with an IR.
And currency, and particularly currency in something suitable (not to mention legal) for IFR is the bit that's so hard to get unless one spends a whole bundle of dosh.
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
From: uk
I've just started doing my IMC training and finding it good fun, if anything I thing it sharpens up your handling skills and makes you think twice about flying into bad weather!!! I still think the IMC is useful for making it legal to climb thoughthe crud too get on top instead of bouncing around underneath with the gliders and 12 hours a year boys!!
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,804
Likes: 1
Currency for the IR should be exactly the same as for IMC.
2 approaches in a suitably kitted single, one ILS and another approach would do. No instructor required just a safety pilot unless flying in IMC, could do it without a hood then. Say within 90 days otherwise no pax until you have.
Go on then tell us the right reasons to slag it off 
2 approaches in a suitably kitted single, one ILS and another approach would do. No instructor required just a safety pilot unless flying in IMC, could do it without a hood then. Say within 90 days otherwise no pax until you have.
The IMCR is a fantastic privilege which is regularly slagged off, but those doing this keep picking the wrong reasons
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
A valid criticism might be that the 15hrs min training is almost certainly not sufficient for the privileges, which in terms of skills required to fly safely are practically the same as the full IR.
But then one could say the same for the basic PPL. For example, no way to do dead reckoning in 3000m viz. It isn't a reliable nav method at the best of times, no matter how careful you are.
Another one, as I've said already, is that it isn't made clear that the new IMCR holder probably can't get hold of a suitable aircraft. To be really useful it needs to be legal for IFR in Class D. Not many of those for self fly hire!
So I can't offer you very much really!
Never moan about privileges, especially as there is no statistical evidence to support additional regulation.
But then one could say the same for the basic PPL. For example, no way to do dead reckoning in 3000m viz. It isn't a reliable nav method at the best of times, no matter how careful you are.
Another one, as I've said already, is that it isn't made clear that the new IMCR holder probably can't get hold of a suitable aircraft. To be really useful it needs to be legal for IFR in Class D. Not many of those for self fly hire!
So I can't offer you very much really!
Never moan about privileges, especially as there is no statistical evidence to support additional regulation.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Huddersfield
Following the IMC debate with interest. I'm just coming to the end of my training and it's taken me almost ten months. I've flown about 50% more hours than the minimum for IMC. My instructor has insisted I do everything on the syllabus (as is proper). He's also had me flying all these procedures in cloud not just with foggles in good VMC. I'm luck in that some of the aircraft on the hire fleet I use are ex British Airways trainers, so they're all airways equiped. I agree that 15 hours is a joke. You have learned just enough to get you into trouble but not enough to get out by then! The IMC isn't intended to be an IR. But if it's taught properly and with regard to the practicalities, rather than legal minima I think it's a very useful rating. I can now fly in cloud (and I actually have done) whilst navigating and remaining in control. Granted I've done extra hours but I've enjoyed them and it's improved my general flying too. So it surely can't be all bad???
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 17
From: U.K.
As an IMC and IR instructor I would definately second the idea of currency being the most important thing in keeping you alive, rather than the type of rating you hold.
I have flown with experienced IR holders who have almost fainted at the thought of using an RBI and "lesser" IMC holders who would have been fine no matter what was thrown at them.
If you are trained properly and fully, then you are unlikely to finish the course in 15 hrs. It is the same for the PPL itself. 45 hrs is a legal minimum, but not IMHO a realistic one for safe and competent pilots.
I would suggest that all PPL's do an IMC rating, if only to give you something new to help keep your interest in flying. It can be a valuble safety aid and I'd rather someone had it than not, but it is not a get out of jail free card. If you have got yourself in trouble it gives you another possible exit, but that is all. It won't keep you alive if you are monumentally stupid, but it might stop you from putting yourself in that position in the first place.
Go to a school that can offer you training in a properly equipped machine. All ours have full equipment, with only one not being airways equipped. Having the extra kit is pretty essential in my eyes and I would never consider teaching someone without a full complement of aids (that work aswell!) Unfortunately many other places will try and teach on a/c that are eminently unsuitable.
If you are going to do the course, then you may as well get some use out of it, so find a school where they have the equipment that you will use for real and learn how to use it properly.
I have flown with experienced IR holders who have almost fainted at the thought of using an RBI and "lesser" IMC holders who would have been fine no matter what was thrown at them.
If you are trained properly and fully, then you are unlikely to finish the course in 15 hrs. It is the same for the PPL itself. 45 hrs is a legal minimum, but not IMHO a realistic one for safe and competent pilots.
I would suggest that all PPL's do an IMC rating, if only to give you something new to help keep your interest in flying. It can be a valuble safety aid and I'd rather someone had it than not, but it is not a get out of jail free card. If you have got yourself in trouble it gives you another possible exit, but that is all. It won't keep you alive if you are monumentally stupid, but it might stop you from putting yourself in that position in the first place.
Go to a school that can offer you training in a properly equipped machine. All ours have full equipment, with only one not being airways equipped. Having the extra kit is pretty essential in my eyes and I would never consider teaching someone without a full complement of aids (that work aswell!) Unfortunately many other places will try and teach on a/c that are eminently unsuitable.
If you are going to do the course, then you may as well get some use out of it, so find a school where they have the equipment that you will use for real and learn how to use it properly.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
I think the IMC rating for serious IFR work is hopelessly inadequate.
However as IO540 says it is a wonderful privilege particularly for what it intends to deliver.
The golden keys for those who intend to use the privilege regularly is to absolutely understand that the greatest care needs to be taken with how you develop your skills and the necessity that you have an adequate aircraft on which to do this.
I reckon flying a solid IMC sector with an approach to minimum or close to in a SEP without an autopilot and single pilot is one of the most difficult things we do (of anything). Even in a well equipped aircraft without an autopilot or someone to help in the cockpit and assuming you are current there is little reserve left to deal with emergencies and little redundancy of equipment. Most importantly there is no way to regain visual references and therefore no way of releasing the pressure.
Here is the test before you take on that sort of flying. You have solid IMC and cannot descend below the base, you get an unplanned diversion because your destination unexpectedly drops below minimum, your auto pilot has failed (if you have one) and maybe so has the AI. Confident you will survive?
However as IO540 says it is a wonderful privilege particularly for what it intends to deliver.
The golden keys for those who intend to use the privilege regularly is to absolutely understand that the greatest care needs to be taken with how you develop your skills and the necessity that you have an adequate aircraft on which to do this.
I reckon flying a solid IMC sector with an approach to minimum or close to in a SEP without an autopilot and single pilot is one of the most difficult things we do (of anything). Even in a well equipped aircraft without an autopilot or someone to help in the cockpit and assuming you are current there is little reserve left to deal with emergencies and little redundancy of equipment. Most importantly there is no way to regain visual references and therefore no way of releasing the pressure.
Here is the test before you take on that sort of flying. You have solid IMC and cannot descend below the base, you get an unplanned diversion because your destination unexpectedly drops below minimum, your auto pilot has failed (if you have one) and maybe so has the AI. Confident you will survive?
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
As a long-time IMC rating holder (who uses it often "in anger") and a more recent FAA IR holder, I get angry at some of the patronising twaddle spouted by folks who should know better. I'm not sniping at any in this place, but at the retired military and similar types who, without knowing me or my capabilities, proceed to tell me I'm a dangerous idiot for venturing into cloud with my useless IMC rating and/or my second-rate FAA IR. Yes, I've even had that in print from a very senior Air Vice something-or-other in one of the safety magazines.
As the wise above have said, it's all about training and currency, not the shape or colour of the bit of paper. To keep my FAA IR current, I have to do six instrument approaches, plus IFR route and holding every six months. If I'm out of that currency (which happens occasionally) then I invite an FI friend with a JAA IR to sit in the right seat while we go for lunch somewhere with the necessary approach aids.
The IMCR isn't a "get you home" rating. It's a valid, examined rating that allows a basic PPL to fly in IMC in Class D and below. Sadly, only in the UK at the moment, but maybe something will develop...
I've also been told that my IMCR is no use because the instructor and/or examiner was incompetent - this from people who've not met either of those fine gentlemen (and not flown with me). Their opinion is as valid as their knowledge of the facts.
There - I feel much better now!
As the wise above have said, it's all about training and currency, not the shape or colour of the bit of paper. To keep my FAA IR current, I have to do six instrument approaches, plus IFR route and holding every six months. If I'm out of that currency (which happens occasionally) then I invite an FI friend with a JAA IR to sit in the right seat while we go for lunch somewhere with the necessary approach aids.
The IMCR isn't a "get you home" rating. It's a valid, examined rating that allows a basic PPL to fly in IMC in Class D and below. Sadly, only in the UK at the moment, but maybe something will develop...
I've also been told that my IMCR is no use because the instructor and/or examiner was incompetent - this from people who've not met either of those fine gentlemen (and not flown with me). Their opinion is as valid as their knowledge of the facts.
There - I feel much better now!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Well said Keef.
Most Air Vice Marshalls have not flown a plane in decades. It's a desk job with an index linked pension of a percentage of final salary pro rated to # of years sitting at the desk, and the final salary is very good indeed.
SAS:
"with only one not being airways equipped"
So, only one doesn't have an approved BRNAV GPS installation?
Think about that one, in the context of a real airways flight.
Most Air Vice Marshalls have not flown a plane in decades. It's a desk job with an index linked pension of a percentage of final salary pro rated to # of years sitting at the desk, and the final salary is very good indeed.
SAS:
"with only one not being airways equipped"
So, only one doesn't have an approved BRNAV GPS installation?
Think about that one, in the context of a real airways flight.