ADF/DME for the IMC rating
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an argument (on which I have no view either way) that an ADF is not necessary to carry or to use in order to fly an NDB IAP in Class G.
In Class D (or higher) you have to carry an ADF simply because you need to carry one for IFR in CAS.
But there is no UK legislation prescribing equipment usage and this is what leads to the above view.
In the USA, the approach plates apparently form part of the aviation law (14 CFR) and an IAP over there does require the carriage of the implied equipment. But even there no usage is mandated (Part 91 of course).
Bit of a tangent really, but worth examining perhaps.
Bose-x is right about the big sky. I am also sure that a lot of U.S. VFR pilots do fly in IMC - they are just smart enough to not write about it. The FAA is much more proactive in going after violations than the CAA. If you depart "VFR" in the USA and zoom off straight into IMC and a few witnesses report you then AFAIK you are likely to get done for it. Whereas in the UK this is normal practice, especially in 2000kg+ twins. Over there you need to make sure nobody sees you, so basically you have to do it enroute only.
In Class D (or higher) you have to carry an ADF simply because you need to carry one for IFR in CAS.
But there is no UK legislation prescribing equipment usage and this is what leads to the above view.
In the USA, the approach plates apparently form part of the aviation law (14 CFR) and an IAP over there does require the carriage of the implied equipment. But even there no usage is mandated (Part 91 of course).
Bit of a tangent really, but worth examining perhaps.
Bose-x is right about the big sky. I am also sure that a lot of U.S. VFR pilots do fly in IMC - they are just smart enough to not write about it. The FAA is much more proactive in going after violations than the CAA. If you depart "VFR" in the USA and zoom off straight into IMC and a few witnesses report you then AFAIK you are likely to get done for it. Whereas in the UK this is normal practice, especially in 2000kg+ twins. Over there you need to make sure nobody sees you, so basically you have to do it enroute only.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
I am also sure that a lot of U.S. VFR pilots do fly in IMC - they are just smart enough to not write about it. The FAA is much more proactive in going after violations than the CAA. If you depart "VFR" in the USA and zoom off straight into IMC and a few witnesses report you then AFAIK you are likely to get done for it. Whereas in the UK this is normal practice, especially in 2000kg+ twins.
As someone who learned to fly in the US and then moved over to the UK, my view is the whole training and pilot culture is fundamentally different with regard to what I will call 'VFR in IMC'. From the very beginning you are taught
1 - you must be IFR rated and current to file and fly IFR
2 - if the weather is below VFR minimums you must be on an IFR flight plan
3 - if you can not see other aircraft (i.e. are IMC) then there is a significantly increased risk of collision.
In the UK the differences in the VFR and IFR rules is so small as to be negligible (other than the obvious one that if you are in IMC then you must be IFR) as compared to the US, where there are lots of instrument rules (i.e must be on a clearance, must have VOR check in 28 days, must have filed an alternate in certain weather, must carry increased fuel reserves, must be on an airway, above MORA or on a published approach, etc.)
Because getting an IR (and IFR clearance
) is so much more achievable (something like 40% of pilots have an IR) there is no excuse for operating IMC and not IFR. As such it is viewed by the regulator, the trade bodies and (I believe) by most US pilots as reckless.It took my a long time to come to grips with the fact that most UK IMC flight relies on statistics and a flat country to be safe, rather than ATC and charted IFR routes.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 - you must be IFR rated and current to file and fly IFR
2 - if the weather is below VFR minimums you must be on an IFR flight plan
3 - if you can not see other aircraft (i.e. are IMC) then there is a significantly increased risk of collision.
2 - if the weather is below VFR minimums you must be on an IFR flight plan
3 - if you can not see other aircraft (i.e. are IMC) then there is a significantly increased risk of collision.
.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The three points summarise IFR as it is seen in FAA land. As a long time resident over on this side of the water I am fully aware that 'VFR' flight is conducted in 500 OVC002. I am less sure if our continental cousins are quite as 'creative' with their interpretation.
Part of the difference is the FAA view that see and avoid works in VMC (hence the ability of IFR and VFR traffic to be in close proximity in Class E-C using eyes to avoid hitting each other and conversely the need to be on a clearance to operate in IMC) and the CAAs apparent belief that see and avoid doesn't work. Hence, allowing flight in IMC with no separation and the need to treat class D airspace as functionally equal to Class B.
Part of the difference is the FAA view that see and avoid works in VMC (hence the ability of IFR and VFR traffic to be in close proximity in Class E-C using eyes to avoid hitting each other and conversely the need to be on a clearance to operate in IMC) and the CAAs apparent belief that see and avoid doesn't work. Hence, allowing flight in IMC with no separation and the need to treat class D airspace as functionally equal to Class B.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An IR is readily achievable in the US and there is no excuse to fly otherwise.
and, absolutely crucially, they have plenty of airports with IAPs, so there is much less need to do DIY approaches out there in order to obtain utility value out of GA.
I do have an IR, right here in the UK, and an IFR plane which can do everything short of flying a synthetic (GPS) glideslope on the autopilot, yet much of the UK is not flyable much of the year. Well, it would be if I was willing to do GPS letdowns in OVC005 or my home airfield had an IAP with a ~ 500ft MDH so I could actually get back home afterwards!
This isn't going to get sorted anytime soon, because nobody is willing to pay for the ATC services to control IAP usage at non-ATC airfields. One could self-announce of course, but that needs far more imagination than is to be found in this business...
Re user fees, I read a couple of US mags (Flying and AOPA) and it's fun to see how US AOPA fights the FAA on everything. Their position on the latest IR currency proposals is interesting too, and not unreasonable IMHO.
If the USA got Euro-style >2000kg enroute charges all hell would break loose, with everybody going VFR, and they actually could, legally-ish much of the time due to the 18000ft VFR ceiling, whereas flying VFR around Europe is quite impossible to do without going into cloud on just about every flight.
and, absolutely crucially, they have plenty of airports with IAPs, so there is much less need to do DIY approaches out there in order to obtain utility value out of GA.
I do have an IR, right here in the UK, and an IFR plane which can do everything short of flying a synthetic (GPS) glideslope on the autopilot, yet much of the UK is not flyable much of the year. Well, it would be if I was willing to do GPS letdowns in OVC005 or my home airfield had an IAP with a ~ 500ft MDH so I could actually get back home afterwards!
This isn't going to get sorted anytime soon, because nobody is willing to pay for the ATC services to control IAP usage at non-ATC airfields. One could self-announce of course, but that needs far more imagination than is to be found in this business...
Re user fees, I read a couple of US mags (Flying and AOPA) and it's fun to see how US AOPA fights the FAA on everything. Their position on the latest IR currency proposals is interesting too, and not unreasonable IMHO.
If the USA got Euro-style >2000kg enroute charges all hell would break loose, with everybody going VFR, and they actually could, legally-ish much of the time due to the 18000ft VFR ceiling, whereas flying VFR around Europe is quite impossible to do without going into cloud on just about every flight.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"introduction" of user fees.. You are joking - that is light years away.
AOPA is so strong here in the US, that this is going to be an interesting fight and the battle plan is already in place.
AOPA is so strong here in the US, that this is going to be an interesting fight and the battle plan is already in place.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Way up north
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pls gentlemen, could anyone be so kind as providing a foreigner with a link or name of publication in which I can find regs on the mentioned IMC Rating?
Tried the CAA webpage, but stopped short of the language barrier.
Regards, NR
Tried the CAA webpage, but stopped short of the language barrier.
Regards, NR
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Way up north
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to disturb the ongoing dogfight, but could anyone in UK be so kind as to enlighten me regarding the IMC-rating?
Someone in norway had heard about it, but nobody here seem to have any details. We are curious as to what it means.
Regards, NR
Someone in norway had heard about it, but nobody here seem to have any details. We are curious as to what it means.
Regards, NR
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nardi Riviera
Firstly, it is a UK only rating which explains why most Europeans have not come across it. Moreover, it only extends your rights in the UK, with the small exception that for UK pilots it removes the restriction of flying above an undercast in VMC in Europe.
In the UK many would say it is a poor man's IR. Some would say its sole purpose is to "get you out of trouble" and some would say it is very good for "getting you into trouble". Equally there are those who use it in earnest, and are as competant on instruments as those with an IR and better than those with a rusty IR!
However to achieve the rating I think you are currently required to undertake around 15 hours of in flight training and sit one multiple guess paper. You should end up being reasonably proficient on instruments, but would do well to gradually gain more expereince if you intend to use the rating like an IR.
Within the UK you can then do pretty much everything you could do with an IR in IMC except fly in class A or depart or arrive when the flight vis is less than 1,800 m. There are those who will tell you the minima for an approach are higher than for those with an IR - but they are wrong.
Why do we have the rating. Not sure really, maybe goes back to a time when the powers that be realised the weather is rubbish most of the time and the rest of the time the forecasting was even less predictable here than in Europe with the lack of information of weather coming of the Atlantic. It would never happen to day and doubtless the rest of Europe would love to see the end of the IMCR. In fact if only the rest of Europe knew I suspect the pilots would love to see a Europe wide IMCR or at least a sensible private SEP IR.
Never thought about whether you could tag an IR on to say a Norwegian PPL for use in the UK in a G reg or perhaps with consent from the CAA in a Norwegian reg - I guess you could not.
Firstly, it is a UK only rating which explains why most Europeans have not come across it. Moreover, it only extends your rights in the UK, with the small exception that for UK pilots it removes the restriction of flying above an undercast in VMC in Europe.
In the UK many would say it is a poor man's IR. Some would say its sole purpose is to "get you out of trouble" and some would say it is very good for "getting you into trouble". Equally there are those who use it in earnest, and are as competant on instruments as those with an IR and better than those with a rusty IR!
However to achieve the rating I think you are currently required to undertake around 15 hours of in flight training and sit one multiple guess paper. You should end up being reasonably proficient on instruments, but would do well to gradually gain more expereince if you intend to use the rating like an IR.
Within the UK you can then do pretty much everything you could do with an IR in IMC except fly in class A or depart or arrive when the flight vis is less than 1,800 m. There are those who will tell you the minima for an approach are higher than for those with an IR - but they are wrong.
Why do we have the rating. Not sure really, maybe goes back to a time when the powers that be realised the weather is rubbish most of the time and the rest of the time the forecasting was even less predictable here than in Europe with the lack of information of weather coming of the Atlantic. It would never happen to day and doubtless the rest of Europe would love to see the end of the IMCR. In fact if only the rest of Europe knew I suspect the pilots would love to see a Europe wide IMCR or at least a sensible private SEP IR.
Never thought about whether you could tag an IR on to say a Norwegian PPL for use in the UK in a G reg or perhaps with consent from the CAA in a Norwegian reg - I guess you could not.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Way up north
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you very much, Fuji.
Where can I find the CAA reg's on the rating? (Don't know what you call them in the UK.) If on their webside, I was hoping for a link?
We were thinking more along the lines of whether our own CAA might find the idea interesting in some foreseeable future.
Regards, NR
Where can I find the CAA reg's on the rating? (Don't know what you call them in the UK.) If on their webside, I was hoping for a link?
We were thinking more along the lines of whether our own CAA might find the idea interesting in some foreseeable future.
Regards, NR
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Front of Beyond
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nardi,
You can find all you need to know about the IMC rating in Lasors, which you can download for free (its about the only thing the the CAA gives away). See section E3.
Brooklands
You can find all you need to know about the IMC rating in Lasors, which you can download for free (its about the only thing the the CAA gives away). See section E3.
Brooklands
LASORS section E3 gives information on requirements for obtaining and revalidating the IMC rating. (Note that this is an 8 MB document covering corresponding issues for all UK and JAR-FCL licences and ratings.)
The Air Navigation Order 2005 Schedule 8 Part B describes its privileges.
The Air Navigation Order 2005 Schedule 8 Part B describes its privileges.
