Future of IMC rating?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future of IMC rating?
I've read and heard various things about the future of the UK IMC rating in the last year or so. I've seen this on various threads but didn't want to hijack them so I'm posting this. My question is 'Is it worth doing an IMC or is it going to be ditched sooner or later?'
By 'ditched' I mean replaced with an IR rating of some description. I know a few of you (notably bose-x) are involved with AOPA(?) steering this in the right direction so I'd like some clarification as to what the situation would be for the holders of an IMC in the new system, ie:Grandfather rights (no new IMCs issued but keep what you've got) or a shed load of expensive training required for all IMCR holders.
The reason I ask is that I'm considering doing one (I already have a night rating) but, while no training is ever pointless, I don't want to spend a couple of grand on a rating that's going to be invalid or invalid without more money spent, in a year or two. I don't bother flying when the wx is possibly going to turn crap, I don't push my luck, so don't want to go the whole hog on an IR but appeciate that for safety, an IMC would be nice.
Any comments from the great and the good (in fact, anyone!) with more definative info than the magazines (contradictory) can give would be welcome.
Blue skies to all
Be seeing you...
dB
By 'ditched' I mean replaced with an IR rating of some description. I know a few of you (notably bose-x) are involved with AOPA(?) steering this in the right direction so I'd like some clarification as to what the situation would be for the holders of an IMC in the new system, ie:Grandfather rights (no new IMCs issued but keep what you've got) or a shed load of expensive training required for all IMCR holders.
The reason I ask is that I'm considering doing one (I already have a night rating) but, while no training is ever pointless, I don't want to spend a couple of grand on a rating that's going to be invalid or invalid without more money spent, in a year or two. I don't bother flying when the wx is possibly going to turn crap, I don't push my luck, so don't want to go the whole hog on an IR but appeciate that for safety, an IMC would be nice.
Any comments from the great and the good (in fact, anyone!) with more definative info than the magazines (contradictory) can give would be welcome.
Blue skies to all
Be seeing you...
dB
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: England
Age: 60
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have any info about the future of the IMC or the new "IR Lite". But my advice would be to go and do the IMC and then use it regularly.
There seems to be two schools of thought on the IMC, one is to keep it up your sleeve and "it will get you out of trouble", the other is that it regularly enables you to fly in poorer conditions. I'm afraid that not using it regulalry WILL get you into trouble. I use my IMC as much as possible. You have to keep current otherwise in twelve months time when it turns a bit horrible, if you are not crisp, that's when the trouble starts.
Secondly, take Cardiff for example, it has numerous VFR routes in and out. Strangley they aim you straight at some very large TV masts but they expect you to be as low as possible. Going to new airfields for the first time, its not always easy to locate all these VFR reporting points. Programming them all into your GPS is an option, but takes a long time. Why not get the IMC and ask for radar vectors to the ILS? This is all done at a very safe height and once under radar control, they line you up with the runway, couldn't be simpler.
Go and do it, you wont regret it.
There seems to be two schools of thought on the IMC, one is to keep it up your sleeve and "it will get you out of trouble", the other is that it regularly enables you to fly in poorer conditions. I'm afraid that not using it regulalry WILL get you into trouble. I use my IMC as much as possible. You have to keep current otherwise in twelve months time when it turns a bit horrible, if you are not crisp, that's when the trouble starts.
Secondly, take Cardiff for example, it has numerous VFR routes in and out. Strangley they aim you straight at some very large TV masts but they expect you to be as low as possible. Going to new airfields for the first time, its not always easy to locate all these VFR reporting points. Programming them all into your GPS is an option, but takes a long time. Why not get the IMC and ask for radar vectors to the ILS? This is all done at a very safe height and once under radar control, they line you up with the runway, couldn't be simpler.
Go and do it, you wont regret it.
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malmesbury VRP
Age: 48
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point in the original question is will the IMC rating still be valid when the "IR lite" comes in to play. What a waste of a few grand if you have to bin the IMC and start again.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. As we all know the IMCR is a UK national rating. It is difficult to see how EASA could "withdraw" the rating for those who have obtained the rating but I suppose given the current "proposals" regarding the life long CAA license anything is possible.
2. If they do, the "carrot" maybe to give some credit against the PPLIR, and indeed it has been suggested this will be so.
3. In any event the time would be well spent. In my experience the training given for the IMCR is around 50% of what is required for an IR. I know pilots with an IMCR used regularly which has enabled them to achieve the standard of an IR.
Aside, if IMCR privileges are withdrawn from those who already hold the rating it would be scandalous. We should jump up and down and write to AOPA (who wont do anything) and generally create. Exactly the same is true of those who hold a life CAA license. I have already written in this regard to the CAA and will be writing to my MP if I do not receive a satisfactory reply.
2. If they do, the "carrot" maybe to give some credit against the PPLIR, and indeed it has been suggested this will be so.
3. In any event the time would be well spent. In my experience the training given for the IMCR is around 50% of what is required for an IR. I know pilots with an IMCR used regularly which has enabled them to achieve the standard of an IR.
Aside, if IMCR privileges are withdrawn from those who already hold the rating it would be scandalous. We should jump up and down and write to AOPA (who wont do anything) and generally create. Exactly the same is true of those who hold a life CAA license. I have already written in this regard to the CAA and will be writing to my MP if I do not receive a satisfactory reply.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA will have the power to stop national licenses and ratings. This is what the UK signed up for, and if you don't like it, it's too late.
Whether they will use this is debatable. IMV there is no chance of them blocking it until there is a similarly accessible replacement. To do so would look terrible on the safety front - forcing a few thousand UK pilots to scud run and to do dodgy VFR approaches.
As to when a replacement will come, that's been done to death here recently. I think it's fair to say nobody really knows.
But I reckon that when it does come, previous instrument training will count towards any minimum flying time requirement.
If I was after IFR capability now, I would absolutely definitely not hang around waiting for some "new IR". I would just get on with it. Any kind of instrument rating is seriously hard work, and having say 50-100 hours under under the IMCR privileges is going to make it far easier than doing it from scratch as a pure VFR pilot. The IMCR is really useful for getting about the UK. The full IR is really for European IFR touring (it's great for that) but to do that you need to have an aircraft access deal suitable for taking it away for decent periods, etc.
If you want to fly IFR for real, instrument training will never be wasted. The only thing which is a bit wasteful is training in a plane that's very different from the one you will eventually be flying. Training in a really crappy C152 with crap avionics is not going to be helpful for flying IFR in something modern. Currency on type is what matters.
Whether they will use this is debatable. IMV there is no chance of them blocking it until there is a similarly accessible replacement. To do so would look terrible on the safety front - forcing a few thousand UK pilots to scud run and to do dodgy VFR approaches.
As to when a replacement will come, that's been done to death here recently. I think it's fair to say nobody really knows.
But I reckon that when it does come, previous instrument training will count towards any minimum flying time requirement.
If I was after IFR capability now, I would absolutely definitely not hang around waiting for some "new IR". I would just get on with it. Any kind of instrument rating is seriously hard work, and having say 50-100 hours under under the IMCR privileges is going to make it far easier than doing it from scratch as a pure VFR pilot. The IMCR is really useful for getting about the UK. The full IR is really for European IFR touring (it's great for that) but to do that you need to have an aircraft access deal suitable for taking it away for decent periods, etc.
If you want to fly IFR for real, instrument training will never be wasted. The only thing which is a bit wasteful is training in a plane that's very different from the one you will eventually be flying. Training in a really crappy C152 with crap avionics is not going to be helpful for flying IFR in something modern. Currency on type is what matters.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA will have the power to stop national licenses and ratings.
However, I have read comment that whilst they will certainly be able to withdraw recognition outside the UK, it may be more difficult within the UK. Mind you I dont know the basis of this comment and I suppose it may turn on whether the CAA retain any authority over the sovereignty of our airspace (whcih you might expect they would). Whilst this is not a lot of help to CAA lifetime licenses (unless you never intend to fly outside the UK) the IMCR was always a national rating and therefore this element of the restriction would remain unchanged.
I suppose it may turn on whether the CAA retain any authority over the sovereignty of our airspace
Watch this space!
I hear that the CAA has just informed the unelected public servants of EASA that it won't take their intention of scrapping National Licences and Ratings lying down. Abolishing 'Grandfather Rights' for the mere administrative convenience of EASA would undoubtedly face legal challenges - and, should EASA then be overruled, they would have a hefty legal bill to face.
I hear that the CAA has just informed the unelected public servants of EASA that it won't take their intention of scrapping National Licences and Ratings lying down. Abolishing 'Grandfather Rights' for the mere administrative convenience of EASA would undoubtedly face legal challenges - and, should EASA then be overruled, they would have a hefty legal bill to face.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no mileage for EASA to abolish national licenses. It would achieve exactly nothing and would create an uproar. There are enough hot potatoes for them.
On the same argument there is no mileage in abolishing the N-reg scene.
I guess all this will happen one day but only in the context of a much bigger change, involving a major airspace redesign throughout Europe. At the moment, airspace is a mess.
On the same argument there is no mileage in abolishing the N-reg scene.
I guess all this will happen one day but only in the context of a much bigger change, involving a major airspace redesign throughout Europe. At the moment, airspace is a mess.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it worth doing an IMC or is it going to be ditched sooner or later?
You have to many question marks at this moment about a LIR (light instrument rating ?) or MIR (minimum istrument rating?)
If you will need to study or train to hard now, i guess you will be happy when your in the coulds sweating your pants off in unexpected bad weather and surviving it due to your intense training.
I myself will immediatly as soon as possible after my PPL go into IR because of the reasons IO540 wrote. Just go for it!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see how EASA could remove the IMC privlidiges for those who already hold the rating, without there being a riot! Has such a thing ever happened wihtout those being affected, being given grandfather rights to something else?
I would say that the three most likely senarios are
1) Those who already old an IMC rating keep the privlidges within UK airspace, but noone new can get the rating, or
2) EASA introduce it's own IMC rating, and UK IMC holders are given a free EASA IMC rating in return for their UK one, or
3) All those with an IMC rating loose the IMC rating and are given a free IR, but with the conditions that it can't be used in class A airspace, can't be used outside the UK and whatever other conditions are required to ensure that it's basically the same as the existing IMC rating.
I think there is plenty of precidents for any of these options, but none for the complete withdrawal of privlidges without any replacement.
If an IMC rating was available to me, I'd do it straight away, and wouldn't be worried about what might happen with EASA. I'd do this because
a) I agree that it would be a good stepping stone to a full IR, and
b) there is a very good chance I'd benefit in some way in the conversion process, and
c) It's an extremely useful rating to have now.
dp
I would say that the three most likely senarios are
1) Those who already old an IMC rating keep the privlidges within UK airspace, but noone new can get the rating, or
2) EASA introduce it's own IMC rating, and UK IMC holders are given a free EASA IMC rating in return for their UK one, or
3) All those with an IMC rating loose the IMC rating and are given a free IR, but with the conditions that it can't be used in class A airspace, can't be used outside the UK and whatever other conditions are required to ensure that it's basically the same as the existing IMC rating.
I think there is plenty of precidents for any of these options, but none for the complete withdrawal of privlidges without any replacement.
If an IMC rating was available to me, I'd do it straight away, and wouldn't be worried about what might happen with EASA. I'd do this because
a) I agree that it would be a good stepping stone to a full IR, and
b) there is a very good chance I'd benefit in some way in the conversion process, and
c) It's an extremely useful rating to have now.
dp
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the thread on pilot drop out, IO540 put links to CAA pilot licence and rating statistics. I was staggered to find that until the JAR PPL training requirements came in in 2000, that new IMC rating issues were running steadily at 1000 per year, about 1/3rd of new PPL issues. This compares with an average of just about 40 pa for PPL/IR. As IO said, everything has gone downhill since then.
Doing a bit more reasearch, I have been told that the CAA have issued about 17,000 IMC ratings. There will always be a significant drop out rate in licences and ratings, but I would expect those going the extra mile for the IMCR will be better 'stayers' than basic PPL holders. This could mean that of the 20,000 PPL(A) with current medical, perhaps 50% hold the IMCR, which is a simar figure to the proportion of US PPLs with IR. Certainly every one of my PPL acquaintences at my home base has an IMCR or IR
All of this shows the IMCR to have been an absolute stunning success.
Other threads have commented that 'see and be seen' just does not work well enough. Since 1990 there has been an average of one mid air every two years involving a Group A aircraft, but all are in VMC. Over the last 30 years (I didn't go back further) there has NEVER been a mid air in IMC in uncontrolled airspace involving a light aircraft .
Statistics show that there are 10 times as many airproxs between 0 and 3000ft, as compared with a similar height band 4000 to 7000 ft, where the quadrantals and LARS reign. But even in clear weather, you should have an IMCR or IR to go up there because of the unpredictable British weather at your destination.
The sheer delight of flying on top in silky smooth 'see forever' conditions, compared with grotty bumpy scud running below, just adds to the benefit of it being much, much safer. Despite the very large numbers of holders, there is no record in all the years I have been reading the CAA qrtly Occurrance Reports of anything unsatisfactory in the IMCR. Just as there is no poor record of FAA PPL/IR flying N reg. We just a lot of what IO540 calls 'slagging off' with absolutely no history to justify it.
The actual stunning success of the IMCR should be blasted about as loudly as possible to counter the 'slaggers'.
Reading a report on the PPL/IR Europe website, the work that Bose X and others have been doing so assidously doesn't seem as if it will produce that much improvement to the PPL/IR syllabus, unless Bose knows more. Nowhere near the FAA one. I even heard the other day from someone 'high up' that there is pressure within EASA to abandon the PPL/IR altogether, and make everyone get a CPL/IR to fly in airways.
Doing a bit more reasearch, I have been told that the CAA have issued about 17,000 IMC ratings. There will always be a significant drop out rate in licences and ratings, but I would expect those going the extra mile for the IMCR will be better 'stayers' than basic PPL holders. This could mean that of the 20,000 PPL(A) with current medical, perhaps 50% hold the IMCR, which is a simar figure to the proportion of US PPLs with IR. Certainly every one of my PPL acquaintences at my home base has an IMCR or IR
All of this shows the IMCR to have been an absolute stunning success.
Other threads have commented that 'see and be seen' just does not work well enough. Since 1990 there has been an average of one mid air every two years involving a Group A aircraft, but all are in VMC. Over the last 30 years (I didn't go back further) there has NEVER been a mid air in IMC in uncontrolled airspace involving a light aircraft .
Statistics show that there are 10 times as many airproxs between 0 and 3000ft, as compared with a similar height band 4000 to 7000 ft, where the quadrantals and LARS reign. But even in clear weather, you should have an IMCR or IR to go up there because of the unpredictable British weather at your destination.
The sheer delight of flying on top in silky smooth 'see forever' conditions, compared with grotty bumpy scud running below, just adds to the benefit of it being much, much safer. Despite the very large numbers of holders, there is no record in all the years I have been reading the CAA qrtly Occurrance Reports of anything unsatisfactory in the IMCR. Just as there is no poor record of FAA PPL/IR flying N reg. We just a lot of what IO540 calls 'slagging off' with absolutely no history to justify it.
The actual stunning success of the IMCR should be blasted about as loudly as possible to counter the 'slaggers'.
Reading a report on the PPL/IR Europe website, the work that Bose X and others have been doing so assidously doesn't seem as if it will produce that much improvement to the PPL/IR syllabus, unless Bose knows more. Nowhere near the FAA one. I even heard the other day from someone 'high up' that there is pressure within EASA to abandon the PPL/IR altogether, and make everyone get a CPL/IR to fly in airways.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20,000 PPL(A) with current medical
I don't doubt this, but where did you get this, Mike? It's not on the CAA website, AFAIK.
I agree the IMCR has been a super success. However, a lot of "traditionally minded" gold plated IR holders don't like the fact that the IMCR gives you essentially the same privileges as the full IR, except Class A.
I even heard the other day from someone 'high up' that there is pressure within EASA to abandon the PPL/IR altogether, and make everyone get a CPL/IR to fly in airways.
This is a standard comment, among many similar ones, coming out of the elitist aviation regulatory establishment which (all around Europe) is stuffed with superior ex air force and superior ex national flag carrier airline types. Most of these people have never flown "IFR GA" and haven't got a clue about it.
A requirement for a CPL for airways flight is utter stupidity. You sit there, FL100-150 or whatever, in a great void with no traffic, and you'd be lucky to spot another plane over a 700nm flight.
Last year I went to an event at the West Drayton ATC centre. Interesting it was, but the usual bundle of prejudices came out. According to them, the CAA will ban all single pilot jets. Clearly they thought that there will be 10,000 VLJs flying out of Luton. The good news is that these are just ATCOs who went to some CAA or NATS presentation, and none of the people involved are the real policymakers. Recently, Germany proposed to require an ATPL for any jet - they would have fun squaring that with ICAO. If however one took all this stuff at face value, one would just push one's plane off Beachy Head and take up knitting.
The Americans call this "FUD" - fear, uncertainty, doubt. It takes only one old ex ATP codger somewhere "high up" to start off a rumour like this.
I wouldn't worry about it
I don't doubt this, but where did you get this, Mike? It's not on the CAA website, AFAIK.
I agree the IMCR has been a super success. However, a lot of "traditionally minded" gold plated IR holders don't like the fact that the IMCR gives you essentially the same privileges as the full IR, except Class A.
I even heard the other day from someone 'high up' that there is pressure within EASA to abandon the PPL/IR altogether, and make everyone get a CPL/IR to fly in airways.
This is a standard comment, among many similar ones, coming out of the elitist aviation regulatory establishment which (all around Europe) is stuffed with superior ex air force and superior ex national flag carrier airline types. Most of these people have never flown "IFR GA" and haven't got a clue about it.
A requirement for a CPL for airways flight is utter stupidity. You sit there, FL100-150 or whatever, in a great void with no traffic, and you'd be lucky to spot another plane over a 700nm flight.
Last year I went to an event at the West Drayton ATC centre. Interesting it was, but the usual bundle of prejudices came out. According to them, the CAA will ban all single pilot jets. Clearly they thought that there will be 10,000 VLJs flying out of Luton. The good news is that these are just ATCOs who went to some CAA or NATS presentation, and none of the people involved are the real policymakers. Recently, Germany proposed to require an ATPL for any jet - they would have fun squaring that with ICAO. If however one took all this stuff at face value, one would just push one's plane off Beachy Head and take up knitting.
The Americans call this "FUD" - fear, uncertainty, doubt. It takes only one old ex ATP codger somewhere "high up" to start off a rumour like this.
I wouldn't worry about it
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not see any reason why you shouldn't go for the IR now except money.
I suspect for many the money is actually a long way down the list.
At the top of the list would be the huge amount of pointless theory and the essentially class room based strategy to the theory element. Most PPLs (who are really PPLs and not commercial aspirants) neither have the time nor inclination.
i guess you will be happy when your in the coulds sweating your pants off in unexpected bad weather and surviving it due to your intense training.
Perhaps to go out on a limb flying light aircraft on instruments is a very practical art. All the theory in the world will only help so far. The IMCR holder is only less well equipted because he has less hours in IMC and the standards required of his flying are to a lower tolerance. The fact that he has to understand this is the case is no different than the PPL who has just qualifed and would be at risk if he flew in conditions with which he could only cope when he had a few hundred hours more to his credit.
I have said it before, but I will say it again, if the IMCR is abolished on the back of an IR light that is little removed in achievability from the existing IR avaition safety in this country will have suffered its greatest below yet. The authorities will be culpable, we should all write to our MPs and hopefully AOPA will finally wake up and actually do something about it.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i guess you will be happy when your in the coulds sweating your pants off in unexpected bad weather and surviving it due to your intense training
Hardly. One is only as good as one's recent currency on type.
Training which one got some years ago is almost irrelevant.
Hardly. One is only as good as one's recent currency on type.
Training which one got some years ago is almost irrelevant.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Gods Chosen Country
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMC
Why not go the commonly used FAA IR route and get your IMC on the back of that. The FAA IR seems to be fairly stable, reasonable to achieve in both cost and requirements plus it gives you an additional avenue of use if you so choose
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malmesbury VRP
Age: 48
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by On the Spot
Why not go the commonly used FAA IR route and get your IMC on the back of that. The FAA IR seems to be fairly stable, reasonable to achieve in both cost and requirements plus it gives you an additional avenue of use if you so choose
If thats the case sounds good to me.
Then my next question would be how easy would it be to transfer an FAA IR from my piggy backed FAA PPL to and FAA CPL when I get it?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Gods Chosen Country
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faa Ir
That is exactlly what I intend to do at the appropriate point in time that I decide to shell out for a JAA medical and revalidate my CAA PPL. For the moment I am happy and able to move around solely on my FAA PPL and $50 medicals.
Assuming you got it attached to your PPL SEL I believe you would have to retest, rather than retrain, the IR anyway for class of aeroplane you are flying (ME for instance) and Licence to which it is added i.e. CPL when you get to that point. Retest if reqd is simple as it requires 3 hours instrument instruction in the preceeding 90 days and an FAA instructors endorsement to sit the test.
The training for the initial IR is more than the IMC :- 40 hours instrument or simulated instrument time, inc 15 hours instruction and 3 of those in the last 90 days. But at US prices I don't think the difference is significant.
Assuming you got it attached to your PPL SEL I believe you would have to retest, rather than retrain, the IR anyway for class of aeroplane you are flying (ME for instance) and Licence to which it is added i.e. CPL when you get to that point. Retest if reqd is simple as it requires 3 hours instrument instruction in the preceeding 90 days and an FAA instructors endorsement to sit the test.
The training for the initial IR is more than the IMC :- 40 hours instrument or simulated instrument time, inc 15 hours instruction and 3 of those in the last 90 days. But at US prices I don't think the difference is significant.