Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

IMC Minima help please

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

IMC Minima help please

Old 29th Mar 2007, 12:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Darkest Midlands
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IMC Minima help please

I have an IMC that has just lapsed, and also happen to have just joined a new club. I was discussing doing some refresher training with the CFI, and was discussing minimums. I always believed that the minimum landing weather conditions for an IMC holder were 1800m vis and system minima + 50ft PEC + 200ft DH/MDH (with an absolute minimum of 500ft DH and 600ft MDH). As I flew from Cardiff, I always used 500ft as my Decision height.

This new CFI tells me that the rules have now changed, and said rather dismissively that if I did that nowadays, it would be illegal. Whilst I don't relish the idea of flying in pea soup type weather, I would like to know the actual minimums. I have trawled through LASORS, and found a mention of 'Schedule 8 of the ANO'. When I look this up, it doesn't mention weather minima. Can anybody point me in the right direction please?
troddenmasses is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 12:41
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ...back of the drag curve
Age: 61
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the ANO:

Instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes)

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the rating shall within the United Kingdom:

(a) entitle the holder of a United Kingdom Private Pilotís Licence (Aeroplanes) or a United Kingdom Basic Commercial Pilotís Licence (Aeroplanes) to fly as pilot in command of an aeroplane without being subject to the restrictions contained respectively in paragraph (2)(c) or (f) of the privileges of the United Kingdom Private Pilotís Licence (Aeroplanes) or (3)(g) or (i) of the privileges of the United Kingdom Basic Commercial Pilotís Licence (Aeroplanes);

(b) entitle the holder of a JARĖFCL Private Pilot Licence (Aeroplane) to fly as pilot in command of an aeroplane in Class D or E airspace in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules.

(2) The rating shall not entitle the holder of the licence to fly:

(a) on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than 3 km; or

(b) when the aeroplane is taking off or landing at any place if the flight visibility below cloud is less than 1800 metres.
'Chuffer' Dandridge is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 12:52
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Darkest Midlands
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK, so if i'm talking about flying home to Filton or Cardiff, which has class D airspace all around it, if the weather is poor, and i'm returning IFR, I can fly with a visibility under cloud of 1800m - same as I ever could. Now how about the decision height. Say I'm using the ILS - can I still go down to 500ft? As I say, the CFI says that I can't, but I would like to see it somewhere - it isn't an easy one to find.
troddenmasses is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 12:53
  #4 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Minimums are the same as for the IR with regards DH / MDA.....
englishal is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 13:00
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Darkest Midlands
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was absolutely sure that when I did my IMC originally, that 200 or 300 feet needed to be added for an IMC holder, and that the minimum DH was 500ft, and that the minimum MDH was 600ft. I have now been told by the CFI that this has increased substantially - are you saying that this isn't true, and that I can now fly down to IR minima? I would be very shocked at that - it doesn't seem the type of thing that the CAA would do.
troddenmasses is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 13:13
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
minima are the same for both IR & IMC... BUT very strongly recommendaed to use the revised minima you suggest.
vetflyer is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 13:13
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This has been debated a number of times. I have never seen any legal references other than that quoted in post 2. I believe that it is 'recommended' (maybe in LASORS) that minima similar to what you have described apply. In addition, I believe that is what you are tested on and strongly encouraged to use as your absolute minima. However, I believe Englishal is correct - and this is not a recent change.
mm_flynn is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 13:15
  #8 (permalink)  

Why do it if it's not fun?
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The increases in DH/MDH which you learnt when you did your IMC rating were, and always have been, recommended, but not legal limits. Chuffer's quote confirms this. I think you will find the recommendation somewhere in the AIP (not the ANO), but it is not mandatory. The minimum viz, however, is mandatory.

As for any recent changes, I don't know of any, and I have no idea what your CFI is talking about.

FFF
--------------
FlyingForFun is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 13:15
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Darkest Midlands
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you very much for that. Can anybody point me in the correct direction to find minima? Many thanks in advance.

Posted at the same time as the above - I'll go have a nice browse of the AIP then..... Should while away the hours
troddenmasses is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 13:41
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not again! (no disrespect TMs).

The position with regards to IMCR minima is clearly set out in the ANO.

The only possible debate is what is meant by the use of the words either side of recommended - some take the view the higher minima are recommended others that they are mandatory.

There was a very lengthy debate on this forum about this within the last year (use the search function) with both sides of the arguement being put.

At the time I wrote to the CAA and I for one was absolutely satisfied from their response beyond any possible doubt that the CAA consider the recommended higher minima are just that - recommended.

If you are in any doubt the best you can do is write to them for yourself - they are really very helpful, and I suspect have answered this question more than a few times.

That means your CFI is wrong and you might want to suggest to him if he is teaching the IMCR he should also write to the CAA so he can teach the rating correctly!
Fuji Abound is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 13:43
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The minima in law to land is 1800m forward viz. the minima for approach is 1800m forward met viz and the DH/MDA of the approach.
The recommndations to add 200ft plus PEC with suggested minima of 500ft PA 600ft NPA are contained in a PINK AIC.
An IMC only not in VERY current practice would be VERY stupid to attempt an approach beyond the 500/600ft recommendations In fact I would suggest even those are too low if you are not CURRENT.
S-Works is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 13:59
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Darkest Midlands
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you very much for that information. Believe me - I hate flying in poor weather, but believe the IMC to be a critical piece of training for flying in the UK. I have no intention of disappearing into nasty weather, just because my license says that I can.

What I don't like is being told by an authority figure that I can't do something because it's against the law, and then not going on to prove it. If it is against the club rules, fair enough - but don't quote rules as being from the CAA if they aren't.

Fuji Abound - Sorry if this has been asked before, but as I don't spend THAT much time on here, I haven't seen that particular question asked before. It isn't quite as popular as the 'Can I log time spent flying next to my friend as P1s' or 'Can I wear gold braid'. I did try the search function, but didn't really come up with a satisfactory answer. I suppose that when using any search function, you really have to know the key words to use. If you don't, then you will come up with nothing.

BOSE - X. I have searched through every pink bulletin that is on the ais website, and found nothing. Sorry.

Thanks for your help, though - I will keep on searching, and when I find the correct page, I will print it out and give it to the CFI. I don't think that the confrontational method is best when it will be he doing the test.
troddenmasses is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 14:15
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I did try the search function, but didn't really come up with a satisfactory answer.
Here it is.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ght=imc+minima

but don't quote rules as being from the CAA if they aren't.
Exactly - a bit pointless really.

An IMC only not in VERY current practice would be VERY stupid to attempt an approach beyond the 500/600ft recommendations In fact I would suggest even those are too low if you are not CURRENT.
Does it really matter what you have or havent - if you are not current, then dont do it, if you are current have your own minima and apply them. Same goes for an IR, aerobatics, you name it.
Fuji Abound is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 14:28
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry Fuji what was the point of your statement?

Was the fact that the words VERY & CURRENT were in BLOCK CAPITALS not enough of an indication that I was refering to CURRENCY and not qualifications?
S-Works is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 14:29
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Darkest Midlands
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you all who have helped. I have finally found the passage that I'm interested in - AIP AD 1.1.2 It says:
3.3.2 IMC Rating holder in current practice
3.3.2.1 Pilots with a valid Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Rating are recommended to add 200ft to the minimum DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500ft for a precision approach and 600ft for a non-precision approach.


At least I have something to print out now to pop under the nose of the CFI to prove that it hasnt changed recently, as he told me.
troddenmasses is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 14:42
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having spoken to countless instructors, I know for a fact that most of them don't know that an IMCR holder can legally fly to the minima published on the approach plate.

The mistaken belief that the +200ft / 500ft / 600ft / whatever is law is really widespread.

Of course the pilot needs to be current, and needs to be flying a suitably equipped plane, and this is where judgement has to come in. Not everything can be written down in black and white. But this is true for all IFR operations, not just flying some instrument approach. Flying an ILS down to 200ft, over flat as a pancake East Anglia, is a lot safer than flying say the NDB/DME 20 IAP into Shoreham down to its MDH of 800ft.
IO540 is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 14:51
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The word that usually causes the difficulty in the AIP entry that you correctly quote is "absolute". It is tempting to interpret it as "mandatory, not recommended" but I believe that someone (IO540?) has a note from the CAA confirming the intention as "absolute, not relative to the minimum DH/MDH".

I find the use of absolute values rather strange. If you feel you need a cushion to avoid obstacles by more than the PANS-OPS margins, add a cushion. But it really doesn't matter what height above the threshold that corresponds to.
bookworm is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 16:21
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry Bose - you are correct.

I know sometimes posters take pleasure in thinking IMCR holders as opposed to IR holders have to be in some way more current. I appreciate that was not your position and I am always conscious that with an IR I need to be current before flying to minima.
Fuji Abound is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 17:10
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The South
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I find the use of absolute values rather strange. If you feel you need a cushion to avoid obstacles by more than the PANS-OPS margins, add a cushion. But it really doesn't matter what height above the threshold that corresponds to.
I'd agree for a non-precision approach but following an ILS does get more and more tricky as you get closer to the threshold so I think the 500ft recommendation has some merit. I've no idea what the 600ft height is for though. Sounds like a committee meeting in which someone proposed the 500ft value and someone else said "and NPAs are less accurate so we should recommend a higher minimum for those"...

M.
mark147 is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2007, 18:38
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
but following an ILS does get more and more tricky as you get closer to the threshold so I think the 500ft recommendation has some merit
Fair enough, but adding 200 ft to the ILS minimum DH results in a DH of at least 400 ft. Is that sooooo much harder to fly down to than 500 ft?!
bookworm is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.