difference in IR and IMC rating

[bpilatus]

I would agree with 540 the IMC rating is only applicable in UK airspace. I do not subscibe to being able to fly out of sight of the surface (IMC) when overseas.

In connection with a couple of recent points; an IMC holder can leave via a SID provided he doesn't enter Class A. If the SID goes into class A at some point he would have to make clear to ATC that he isn't able to comply. I suspect that if s/he made this clear before departure it is unlikely that he would be given a SID departure. If he only discloses the limitations of his licence when in the air I can imagine the controller wouldn't be too pleased.

DFC, filing IFR does not mean one has to depart via the SID, excluding class A. For the avoidance of doubt IFR has nothing to do with met conditions. A basic PPL holder can file IFR.

Julian, whilst you consider the exams might be meaningless surely the majority of the subject matter is worth learning about.

[IO540]

BP

This is regurgitating old stuff all over again, but the IMCR gives you two distinct things: (a) IFR privileges for Class D-G (limited to UK only by the ANO), and (b) the removal of the in sight of surface requirement (no geographical restriction). I have this in writing from the CAA, as have many others, and it is well established by now.

The reason this keeps coming up is the way the ANO is written in this regard, as a collection of restrictions in different contexts and different places. If there was a section stating: "Privileges of the IMC Rating are: ...." it would be clear.

You make a good point about not being given a SID. From what I have come across, if the ATCO is also a pilot (many are, even today) and is trying to be helpful, and suspects the pilot is an IMCR one, he might give a departure clearance which lists the SID bit by bit ("after departure, climb to 2000ft, then turn to DET...") rather than give the SID name which would be usual if doing it properly. Once, departing airways from Biggin, I was given a long list of stuff which was the exact SID

I don't think a non-IR PPL, keeping legal, would get very far on an IFR flight plan starting with a typical SID departure...

Julian is right, and the negligible stats on IR issue to UK NON commercial pilots confirm it.

As for the ATP subject matter, the question is whether it is all needed for the private flying context. One can always make a "safety" case for anything additional. Like "do you agree that children should be protected from abuse" anyone disagreeing is on a hiding to nothing.

[Julian]

Julian, whilst you consider the exams might be meaningless surely the majority of the subject matter is worth learning about.

Nope, not at 12 months study time and a lot of expense! I would also disagree in that a majority of the subject matter taught on the ATPLs is related to IR flying - 14 x A4 lever arch files taking up a small library space .

If I wanted to learn the excess information out of interest I would buy a book for £30.

As I have said before, what we need is a stand alone exam for the IR which concentrates purely on IR issues and not areas which are covered by other licences and/or ratings.

Julian.

[Fuji Abound]

I am pleased to say that I have received a very helpful reply from the CAA with regards IMCR landing minima.

Firstly, if anyone wants written clarification that the landing minima are recommended and not compulsory then please email the CAA from:

[email protected]

Secondly, you should watch GASIL!


For fear of repeating myself, you can rely on your own interpretation of the legislation, believe hearsay or DFC or even me for that matter, or you can write to the CAA - it is up to you.

[Rivet gun]

Wow, what a thread.

Of course Fuji is right about the advisory nature of the IMCR DH/MDH. It has always been that way since the IMC rating was invented. When I did my IMCR there was no mandatory DH/MDH at all for non public transport flights, but now the IR minima are mandatory. The 1800 m vis is mandatory.

There are various ways to get IMC rating privilages in addition to a PPL holder doing an IMC rating course. For example a current airline pilot with a CAA issued JAR ATPL (not uk national ATPL) may want to put an IMC rating on his licence if he wants to fly a single pilot aeroplane on his days off. This he will get without need for training or testing assuming he has a airline LPC in the previous 24 months.

Should a current ATPL holder voluntarily restrict himself the advisory DH/MDH? Of course he would be advised to be in current practice with single pilot instrument flying before shooting approaches IFR for real.

[DFC]

Julian,

First I should have used 100 hours as the figure and not 75!

All this talk about taking years and such like to study for what are relatively simple exams not set at the ATPL level is either utter tosh or if it is a true statement says something about the learning abilities of people who hold other instrument qualifications.

The exams are very easy. Perhaps some of those that have passed them would like to make out they are difficult or represent some great educational experience but they do not. Or perhaps the providers would like that perception in order to justify their fees.

---------

Bpilatus and IO540,

Much of what you talk about regarding SIDS clearly show that you think it is OK for unqualified people to get more out of the system to the possible detrement of the qualified. Training flights are given a lot of sympathy by operators but even with that they must take the lowest priority. However when it is not a training flight, people are not happy that the capacity of the system is reduced by people who expect some form of special treatment.

Does anyone honestly think that an operator who pays through the nose to fly IFR is going to be happy waiting at the hold while the ATCO does what IO540 says in explaining a SID to someone who does not hold an IR and does not pay (as they see it).

IMC holders are often their own worst enemy;

Operating to minima that are not backed up by any form of training, checking or safety case.

Ducking under when not visual at minimums.

Using a one size fits all minima regardless of the procedure or environment.

Operating on the basis that holding is optional in the IFR environment!

Expecting special handling from ATC

These are all issues that can only help people who want to justify the restriction or withdrawl of the rating.

Will EASA issue IMC ratings? - Not in the plan at present. What then?

The IMC rating if used properly could be used as a shining example of the kind of things that could be acheived by establishing a Europe wide mini-IR with well defined high minima. Unfortunately I do not think that anyone in their right mind would try to use the IMC rating as a shining example of anything other than confusion, poor operating practices and placing an inappropriate extra load on the ATS system for no return in terms of safety.

As I said previously, the IMC rating needs a big image change and the place to start is by putting in place appropriate, clearly defined, easily applied and well understod minima.

Regards

DFC

Fuji,

We are not deaf. No need to daily repeat yourself. Why is it that I have simply said a long time ago that if evidence is produced to show that the CAA have changed their position then I will happily accept that and left it there while you can not stop repeating, repeating, repeating the same hearsay while being unwilling to accept that there could be another position.

Don't keep asking the CAA the same question. Ask them to let you pass on the information provided to fellow pilots. They will not object.

[IO540]

RG

A small point, but do you have a reference for the grandfather method of getting an IMCR?

A colleague who is a current UK (old CAA) ATPL and a training captain looked into this recently. He reported that he gets an automatic IMCR if he has the old CAA (not JAA) ATPL. The JAA ATPL is worthless for this and a different process needs to be followed, and it may depend on whether a UK PPL was ever held.

Another way to get an IMCR is with the old CAA (not JAA) CPL. You don't even need to have ever held an IR. And if you are really really ancient, you could have got the CPL through grandfather rights from a BCPL, which you could have got through grandfather rights from the good ole days when a PPL could teach a PPL (30+ years ago?). So you can be an instructor teaching the IMCR, without you ever having received instrument training. Even if true, I'd think these must be few and far between now.

Fun stuff

The process of getting a single crew IR is also simpler if going from an old UK multi crew ATPL, than from a JAA multi crew ATPL. I know somebody who has just done that.

[Julian]

DFC,

I think you are missing my point that a pilot wanting to study for an IR should not have to go through all that cr@p!

£2000 for the course and then £60 per exam to the CAA, plus 2 weeks B&B if you dont live nr a training provider. So now our £12000 JAA IR has become something approaching £15-16,000! Dont forget that there is a mandatory minimum numbers of hours study as well!!!

All this talk about taking years and such like to study for what are relatively simple exams not set at the ATPL level is either utter tosh or if it is a true statement says something about the learning abilities of people who hold other instrument qualifications.


No-one is saying the exams are difficult, in fact its widely acknowledged that they are roughly A Level standard. Its the amount of information they want you to absorb that takes the time. Go on any provider website and you will see 9-12 months quoted for self study and if you look on these forums you will see that is what students generally allow.

Maybe you can explain why, even though the exams are easy, you think someone should pay for exams he may never use rather than have an IR exam and study for ATPLs at a later date if they want to go that route?

If you want to argue about the merits of JAA IR Vs abilities of people who hold other instrument qualifications then you need to start up another thread as that one has been done to death numerous times on here.

[Send Clowns]

Slight correction to IO540's, to avoid a common confusion. The IMC rating gives the privilege to fly IFR in IMC in class G airspace. You can fly IFR in VMC in class G airspace without it (and I would encourage anyone who is thinking of going commercial to do so as it instils some discipline) - otherwise you could never use your night rating outside controlled airspace! I would also add that if I recall correctly, like the IR it reduces the visibility requirements for flying SVFR from 10 km to 3 km.

What he said about SIDs and STARs was spot on, and the comment on safety culture very true!

[Fuji Abound]

“Operating to minima that are not backed up by any form of training, checking or safety case.”

Your position has always been the landing minima are mandatory not advisory - unless you have now changed your position? If you were correct no one is ducking under the minima. As you are not correct then still no one is doing what you allege. Moreover if the training is incorrect I think you should tell the instructors so, that is where the problem is and doubtless when the CAA carnify the position in GASIL those who didn’t know will be in no doubt.!

“Using a one size fits all minima regardless of the procedure or environment.”

What is that all about then? Minima are always based on the procedure or environment.

“Ducking under when not visual at minimums.”

So I assume you have the evidence that IMCR holders are routinely doing so?

DFC - it really is not personal, but you infer you are an instructor, and then you infer the CAA have given you a different interpretation of the legislation and so I thought it helpful to tell you who to contact and to PM me so we can sort out why you have been given one explanation and I quite a different one. It seems to me so simple that technical threads such as these should reach a conclusion if at all possible and clearly this one can and nearly has.

I know you don’t “like” the IMCR and that is fine - as I have said before I happen to strongly disagree with many of the reasons you have set out and on that we will have to beg to differ.

At least I am very pleased to see you are very close to conceding you were wrong on the IMCR landing minima - I guess the weight of evidence eventually becomes compelling!

Oh and dont worry if you do eventually concede the point - I am sure we will all look forward to your posts as we do now.

[bpilatus]

Originally Posted by IO540

BP
This is regurgitating old stuff all over again, but the IMCR gives you two distinct things: (a) IFR privileges for Class D-G (limited to UK only by the ANO), and (b) the removal of the in sight of surface requirement (no geographical restriction). I have this in writing from the CAA, as have many others, and it is well established by now.

a) presumably you mean IMC, in class D-G. At the risk of repetition anyone can fly IFR, even a NPPL.
b) I hadn't realised that the CAA had dealt with this. Thanks for pointing it out. Can you shed any light on flying airways (IFR, at odds and even FL. Not +500ft) in France for a IMC pilot. I think it is class E below 11,500ft and D above. Presumably this is ok for an IMC pilot.

Julian, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. If I understand you correctly you see no point in learning what you consider unrelated, superfluous material. Most (all) vocational courses worth their salt push the boundaries to give the student a rounded and comprehensive understanding. Interestingly I never hear of anyone complaining about the depth of PPL subject matter yet one could equally ask why it is all necessary.

[IO540]

BP

The IFR privileges of the IMCR are limited to UK and certain dependent territories only. It's in the ANO, but as usual it's phrased in the negative so you have to rummage around to find it. The 2005 ANO is at

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051970.htm

So you can't use it to fly IFR outside the UK, end of story. Not even in VMC.

As for France, their "airways" are just lines on the chart; you can fly them VFR up to FL195 (in general). Class D base is usually at FL115, IIRC so below that it is even less of a problem. You'd fly them at even+500 or odd+500 as normal for VFR.

Flying these routes VFR is the easiest way to fly in France, not least because they avoid most of the vast amount of restricted/prohibited military airspace which covers France. That's why their bases are usually FL065 or so.

Whereas in the UK "airways" are usually Class A.

In fact the whole business of VFR is far easier outside the UK.

There is a vast volumetric difference between the ATPL study material and the PPL study material, in terms of what someone with a job and a life can manage to swat up. If you believe that people should be loaded up to the limit to sort men from sheep (a widely held POV especially in the very traditional world of aviation where things should be "hard", where old grey haired men tell you that you can fly to Mongolia with just a map and a compass) that's one thing, but ask yourself how the FAA manages to run a private (PPL/IR) population which exceeds the rest of the world's PPL/IR population by at least an order of magnitude, on about 1/10 of the ground school but learning everything that's relevant, and without a statistically worse accident record? I've done the FAA IR and it is about 6 months' study - hard (especially with the thorough 2-3hr oral you get just before the checkride) but managable in the overall context of everything else including the commitment which aircraft ownership inevitably involves. The JAA ATPL study material is managable only in the context of someone with years to play with, while waiting for a P2 seat on a cargo turboprop, or a 737 if they get lucky.

[Fuji Abound]

540 - and of course the FAA IR is a far better test of the pilots skill flying an actual IFR sector than ours - but then thats another debate.

Far easier to pass our IR flight test and far easier to pass the FAA IR theory - guess who has got it the right way around.

[Rivet gun]

IO 540,

For those of us who have a UK national CPL or ATPL the privilages of the IMC rating are contained in the privilages of licence itself as defined in the ANO (also a waiver of the 1800 m vis rule). There is therefore no need to add a IMC rating to a UK national CPL or ATPL and there is no revalidation requirement. Training to at least IMC rating standard was part of the CPL even without the IR.

With the JAR professional licences the situation is different. There are no instrument flying privilages in the licence independant of the IR. Most people getting a JAR CPL/IR will do their initial IR single pilot and thus have full IR privilages for the first 12 months.

In airline operations the pilot will revalidate his IR as part of a multi pilot LPC. This does not count for revalidating single pilot IR privilages, and therefore for single pilot flying the licence reverts to VFR only.

In order to be nice to airline pilots who want to fly light aircraft on their days off, but who don't want to do a single pilot IRPC every 12 months, the CAA allows a IMC rating to be put on a JAR CPL/IR or ATPL. This IMC rating would of course be valid for 25 months from the initial IR skill test.

The question is, does the airline multi pilot LPC count in lieu of a IMC rating flight test for revalidating the IMC rating? I have found one link which suggests it does, and this comes from a certain examiner in the BOH area who was previously associated with the CAA. However I could not find the reference in the current LASORS.

http://www.flightexaminers.com/FAQs.htm

As far as SIDS go, I think if a IMC rated pilot wants to fly IFR out of a airfield in class D which has SIDS that clear the zone to class G it would be his responsibility to ensure he was competant to fly the SID. Most such SIDS are not complex or difficult.

I know of no STARS which arrive direct from class G into class D so if the standard holding stacks are in class A, the pilot (however qualified) arriving from class G should expect that he might be instructed to remain clear of controlled airspace until he can be fitted in the traffic. In that case he just has to hold on any convenient VOR DME fix that keeps him outside controlled airspace.

There is plenty of precident in the licencing system for pilots being lawfully allowed to do things which they nevertheless should not do without first acquiring additional competance beyond the training syllabus. Aerobatics and close formation flying are examples. Flying a SID on an IMC rating, or indeed flying to IR DH/MDH on an IMC rating fall into the same category.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

Far easier to pass our IR flight test and far easier to pass the FAA IR theory - guess who has got it the right way around.

Can you detail these differences that make our flight test so easy please, or are they in a secret email from the FAA/CAA/EASA/JAA/Kelloggs? [delete as applicable]

I'm always keen to learn new stuff, and this is certainly new.

TIA

[Julian]

BP,

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. If I understand you correctly you see no point in learning what you consider unrelated, superfluous material. Most (all) vocational courses worth their salt push the boundaries to give the student a rounded and comprehensive understanding.

Yes that is exactly the view I hold!

Imagine if when you did your A Levels you wanted to get Maths A Level, but to geti t you also had to study French, Biology, Car Mechanics, Home Economics and Indonesian Basket Weaving. If you pass them all you get your Maths Level ....... fine you are a more rounded person but completely pointless course and nothing to do with the end objective!!!!!!!

As IO540 says there are vast differences in PPL & ATPL. PPL takes someone who knows absolutely nothing about aviation and teaches them the technical & theoretical knowledge required to operate an aircraft in UK Airspace. I will agree that there were some bits nearly sent me to sleep whilst reading through the TT books but on the whole the PPL study was relevant.

I do not think that giving a student superfluous material to study is pushing the boundaries of the student - more likely just boring them to death and costing them a lot of time/money. If the exam was IR specific you could very easily push them - and you would be pushing them in the relevant areas!

The time/cost element is a big reason why a lot of pilots are going the FAA route. The FAA IR is not superior or inferior to the JAA one but is certainly a whole lot cheaper if you take the ATPL exams into account as well as the exam is included in the FAA course - £4,000 Vs £15,000.

Suggest you read 'The Killing Zone' if you have not already. There is a very good reason why the FAA decided to make the IR more accessible to pilots by reducing the number of hours required to commence the course and it had the desired results. Would be a big leap forward if we followed suit....

Julian.

[IO540]

The FAA IR written exam is (as I wrote) perhaps 6 months study to reach a 90%+ pass mark (assuming a competent IMC Rated pilot), doing it in between work and other stuff.

An IMC Rated pilot who "knows it all" would get about 50-60% in the FAA IR exam; not anywhere near enough to pass.

The books and the computer revision aids come to perhaps £100. The actual exam costs about $100 if sat in the USA, or about £230 if sat in the one place I know of in the UK that still does it.

I think the exam content was about 95% relevant to actual flying. In comparison, Trevor Thom (for the PPL) manages perhaps 50%, if that.

Funnily enough, a UK/JAA PPL who has done the 7 or so exams would never pass the single FAA PPL written exam either. I've done al that stuff, and there is extra stuff in the FAA exam, on instrument nav for example. Nor would he pass the FAA checkride, most likely.

An accessible IR will probably never happen in Europe. There are too many people in too many positions who think that if you share the airspace with ATPs then you should have sat the same exams. Like the "child abuse" argument, this is hard to argue with. The FAA method is miles outside the box for these people.

There is another thing which prevents a number of pilots ever doing the JAA IR: the stupid JAA audiogram test. This is in the Class 1 medical but is chucked in if you do a PPL/IR too. I know of a number of people who have one ear (only) that is out of spec; all of these cannot ever do a JAA IR but all of them could (medically) be 747 captains in the USA. This is not ICAO and is not FAA; it is just Euro-style gold plating for no apparent purpose other than sorting men from sheep. The CAA has put out a proposal to relax the db limits (basically, to bring the initial limits down to the renewal limits) but this has been out for a while.

Thanks to ICAO, and to all the rich and influential people that own N-reg turboprops and bizjets (N-reg piston GA doesn't count at all in this), we have the FAA option and it may well be around for a long time.

If it wasn't for ICAO, there would be just two kinds of flying in Europe: VFR, and airlines. Plus oddball privileges like the UK-only IMCR.

[2Donkeys]

Has anybody heard of "GroundHog Day". This thread has certain similarities

[Fuji Abound]

Rustle

You are of course correct.

If I told you I would have to shoot myself, having shot you first!

Love the bit about Kelloggs though, made me smile!!

(PS a good paper could be written on the subject "compare and contrast the content of the FAA and JAA written IR papers" - there is already some material available from the posts on this thread - when you have finished watch all the vested interests surface)

[rustle]

Originally Posted by rustle

Can you detail these differences that make our flight test so easy please, or are they in a secret email from the FAA/CAA/EASA/JAA/Kelloggs? [delete as applicable]

I'm always keen to learn new stuff, and this is certainly new.

TIA

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

Rustle

You are of course correct.

Now I really am confused

Which bit am I correct about?