IMC rating in theUK?
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that anyone who has switched from a UK/CAA CPL/ATPL to a JAA, they no longer have this privelage.
My PPL is JAA...with an IMC rating. Why should it be any different for ATPLs?
They do have to take the IMC rating test though...which is something the old CAA ATPL I think allowed you to bypass.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on guys....Zorst registered just a couple of days ago, and his few posts have been rants that could only come from someone with either little or no knowledge of the issues, or someone looking to create an argument with a hidden agenda.
As IO says...he's a troll. Don't fall for it.
dp
The question is who's behind the troll.......
As IO says...he's a troll. Don't fall for it.
dp
The question is who's behind the troll.......
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CT,
I think Ballsout thought you were implying that a JAA ATPL automatically got an IMCr, ingrained as part of the licence without having to apply for it or keep it current. That I think applied to old CAA issued licences.
You are of course correct in that there is nothing to stop a JAA ATPL holder adding an IMCr to their licence.
dp
I think Ballsout thought you were implying that a JAA ATPL automatically got an IMCr, ingrained as part of the licence without having to apply for it or keep it current. That I think applied to old CAA issued licences.
You are of course correct in that there is nothing to stop a JAA ATPL holder adding an IMCr to their licence.
dp
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the IMC is to survive then I believe that the quality of instruction needs to be improved
"I think you will find that anyone who has switched from a UK/CAA CPL/ATPL to a JAA, they no longer have this privilege."
That is correct.
However, the CAA decided a year or so ago that JAR-FCL IR multi-pilot rated pilots would no longer have automatic UK IMCR privileges on single-pilot aeroplanes.
They did this without any consultation or Regulatory Impact Assessment...
Whereas at least EASA is determined to find an acceptable European solution.
The JAR-FCL IR (single-pilot aeroplanes) is a gold plated solution which is out of the reach of most GA pilots. The FAA IR is much more accessible; however, the UK IMCR provides elements of IMC flying which are all most people actually need. It is a proportionate solution to a requirement - and has proved to be a very good safety investment for many pilots.
Flight's report is a bit of a disappointment; the last thing the UK wants is a '4 year battle'. Rather, we seek to elicit the concerns from those who have yet to be convinced of the value of te UK IMCR and to address those concerns.
In the UK, IMC flight outside CAS is permitted; in other EU states it is not. Hence the solution must be a Rating with the following objective:
To enable pilots of light aeroplanes to cope safely with non-VMC weather in EU airspace without the requirement to hold a full IR.
Such a Rating would provide the pilot with the following privileges:
That is correct.
However, the CAA decided a year or so ago that JAR-FCL IR multi-pilot rated pilots would no longer have automatic UK IMCR privileges on single-pilot aeroplanes.
They did this without any consultation or Regulatory Impact Assessment...
Whereas at least EASA is determined to find an acceptable European solution.
The JAR-FCL IR (single-pilot aeroplanes) is a gold plated solution which is out of the reach of most GA pilots. The FAA IR is much more accessible; however, the UK IMCR provides elements of IMC flying which are all most people actually need. It is a proportionate solution to a requirement - and has proved to be a very good safety investment for many pilots.
Flight's report is a bit of a disappointment; the last thing the UK wants is a '4 year battle'. Rather, we seek to elicit the concerns from those who have yet to be convinced of the value of te UK IMCR and to address those concerns.
In the UK, IMC flight outside CAS is permitted; in other EU states it is not. Hence the solution must be a Rating with the following objective:
To enable pilots of light aeroplanes to cope safely with non-VMC weather in EU airspace without the requirement to hold a full IR.
Such a Rating would provide the pilot with the following privileges:
- To fly IMC/IFR in permitted airspace other than Class A.
- To navigate the aircraft by sole reference to instruments under circumstances which require mandatory compliance with defined routes.
- To fly instrument approaches for which they have logbook endorsements to IAM +200 ft for precision approaches and +250 ft for non-precision approaches.
Last edited by BEagle; 26th Jan 2008 at 07:25.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: london
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I joined pprune at the time the IMC debate began and I have been disappointed with criticism levelled by some on this and other posts .
It is often quoted that this is only 15 hours training (the required minimum) but as with PPL training I am sure that many do more to satisfy their own requirement for competence rather than just the minima for exams.
I was taught by an IR holder and I requested that I was trained to the standards that I would need if I go on to the IR. I chose to do 40 hours training so that I thought I could fly myself safely in IMC and an ILS in IMC. I keep current in IMC and fly IAPs whenever available at destination. I fly 3 hours a week most of the time and I don’t believe that those who have trained for the IMCr and continue to keep current have the easy option was out referred to here. I suspect I will do the IR but I feel this was a good place to start.
The improvement this makes in safe flight in VMC as well cannot be forgotten.
I know this has been debated fully in recent posts but I felt I could not let the comment above pass with no response.
It is often quoted that this is only 15 hours training (the required minimum) but as with PPL training I am sure that many do more to satisfy their own requirement for competence rather than just the minima for exams.
I was taught by an IR holder and I requested that I was trained to the standards that I would need if I go on to the IR. I chose to do 40 hours training so that I thought I could fly myself safely in IMC and an ILS in IMC. I keep current in IMC and fly IAPs whenever available at destination. I fly 3 hours a week most of the time and I don’t believe that those who have trained for the IMCr and continue to keep current have the easy option was out referred to here. I suspect I will do the IR but I feel this was a good place to start.
The improvement this makes in safe flight in VMC as well cannot be forgotten.
I know this has been debated fully in recent posts but I felt I could not let the comment above pass with no response.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK 'Class A' could be considered a euphemism for, 'enroute airspace in which passenger transport operates'. Which is why we have low level Class A out to the CI for the altitude impaired Islanders.
Almost nowhere else in Europe (Italy excepted) creates this Iron Wall between totally controlled and totally uncontrolled airspace. If there is any chance of explaining the IMCr concept to our colleagues in Europe, we need a more general description of the airspace in which this rating would be valid.
It is also worth remembering that European transport aircraft fly with VFR traffic separated only by 500 feet in and across the airways. As well, unfortunate experience shows that Jet Transport are not really capable of 'seeing and avoiding' in VMC, so you could argue that having more aircraft IFR in the 5 to 15k foot range would reduce collision risk (which is what I am assuming is the concern in Airline and Regulator world).
As there is no general EU harmonisation of airspace and associated regulation, it must be for individual states to define the airspace in which the EU Class 2 IR may be used in IMC or under IFR.
Perhaps the first privilege should thus be re-stated as:
Perhaps the first privilege should thus be re-stated as:
- To fly IMC/IFR in permitted airspace.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the first privilege should thus be re-stated as:
To fly IMC/IFR in permitted airspace.
To fly IMC/IFR in permitted airspace.
It would allow individual countries to not classify any airspace as permitted if they didn't want to.
It might also allow sceptical countries to start off with just class G being permitted, and they may get more used to the idea as time goes on and start adding other classes.
dp
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Echobeach
You are absolutely right, and there are many pilots who like you use the IMCR seriously. I was doing ~ 150hrs/year when I had just the PPL and IMCR.
One problem is that there is always somebody who thinks such and such privilege is not adequately gold plated, and this is demonstrated here by the troll "zorst".
The other problem is that a lot of people cannot get it into their heads that ultimately it is up to the pilot to realise what he can and cannot do. There is no legislation (nor IMHO should there be, although curiously a lot of regs could be made far better if there was) saying that to fly in IMC one needs a £200k IFR spaceship, but obviously if you do have a £200k IFR spaceship then all of IFR becomes a relative piece of cake. But if somebody tried serious IFR in a 1970 C150 with its single VOR receiver about to fall out of the panel, the pilot workload would be, shall we say, rather high. Not everything can be regulated and some people cannot accept that.
For a change (for a regulator), EASA is taking a sensible view on this stuff.
You are absolutely right, and there are many pilots who like you use the IMCR seriously. I was doing ~ 150hrs/year when I had just the PPL and IMCR.
One problem is that there is always somebody who thinks such and such privilege is not adequately gold plated, and this is demonstrated here by the troll "zorst".
The other problem is that a lot of people cannot get it into their heads that ultimately it is up to the pilot to realise what he can and cannot do. There is no legislation (nor IMHO should there be, although curiously a lot of regs could be made far better if there was) saying that to fly in IMC one needs a £200k IFR spaceship, but obviously if you do have a £200k IFR spaceship then all of IFR becomes a relative piece of cake. But if somebody tried serious IFR in a 1970 C150 with its single VOR receiver about to fall out of the panel, the pilot workload would be, shall we say, rather high. Not everything can be regulated and some people cannot accept that.
For a change (for a regulator), EASA is taking a sensible view on this stuff.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But if somebody tried serious IFR in a 1970 C150 with its single VOR receiver about to fall out of the panel, the pilot workload would be, shall we say, rather high. Not everything can be regulated and some people cannot accept that.
In Euroland we like to make it a big deal, which is why the JAA IR has become so sufficiently gold plated that no normal PPL can justify doing one. Equipment is another issue. In USALand, you can fly your experimental IFR (Equv. of UK permit aeroplane more or less). You can fly your ex-mil jet IFR, and even shoot a GPS approach in it with suitable kit. In Euroland they like to gold plate the kit you need too, which doesn't encourage private IFR (E.g. my aeroplane has a VOR, NDB etc....but I can't fly IFR because my radio is not FM immune.....and my GPS is not IFR certified and I have no DME).....In the states I'd be perfectly legal to fly IFR, shoot a VOR, LOC, ILS or Back Course approach......
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Gusto
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahem , no troll here. I don't stand under bridges.
(I don't often stand under T67s on spinning exercises or R22s regardless of phase of flight, either).
If you find the truth painful, move on.
Echobeach, why don't you just get an IR, if you're so sharp? (I know it's out of fashion, and a trifle uncool).
(I don't often stand under T67s on spinning exercises or R22s regardless of phase of flight, either).
If you find the truth painful, move on.
Echobeach, why don't you just get an IR, if you're so sharp? (I know it's out of fashion, and a trifle uncool).
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: HARROGATE
Age: 64
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I happen to be a UK PPL holder and take extreme offence at some jumped up jerk calling me this:- "In my honest opinion, that post is utterly typical of the dim-witted, thick-skulled, UK PPL community: always justifying their petty little ways with twisted interpretations of the real world".
It usually takes a reasonable amount of SPARE cash to learn to fly and to then move on to further training etc. Agreed you may find some born wealthy types. But most of the pilots i know are business men etc. Hardly fitting of the dim-witted thick skulls title are they? So please explain how, when sitting in your ivory tower watching your EFIS screens and playing with the FMS etc, you will avoid an aircraft who has strayed into your path who has no T/P? Rendering your TCAS readout ineffective
Also if your training, briefing, CRM etc are so much better than a "cheap and nasty rating", how come you need EGPWS? Why on earth would your flight profile be anywhere near ground you weren't expecting? Only conclusion one could draw from that is the higher powers that be, expect your type(ATPL's) to make mistakes and so give you the tools to do the job safely. Lastly, if the IMCR is so "cheap and nasty" then why are there not hundreds of files at AAIB into all the accidents were having?
Sorry to other ppruners, but i cant stand people making assumptions of thousands of PPL holders from an experience of a few!
Sir you are a
and i would love to meet you for a beer one day
It usually takes a reasonable amount of SPARE cash to learn to fly and to then move on to further training etc. Agreed you may find some born wealthy types. But most of the pilots i know are business men etc. Hardly fitting of the dim-witted thick skulls title are they? So please explain how, when sitting in your ivory tower watching your EFIS screens and playing with the FMS etc, you will avoid an aircraft who has strayed into your path who has no T/P? Rendering your TCAS readout ineffective
Also if your training, briefing, CRM etc are so much better than a "cheap and nasty rating", how come you need EGPWS? Why on earth would your flight profile be anywhere near ground you weren't expecting? Only conclusion one could draw from that is the higher powers that be, expect your type(ATPL's) to make mistakes and so give you the tools to do the job safely. Lastly, if the IMCR is so "cheap and nasty" then why are there not hundreds of files at AAIB into all the accidents were having?
Sorry to other ppruners, but i cant stand people making assumptions of thousands of PPL holders from an experience of a few!
Sir you are a
and i would love to meet you for a beer one day
. Do you mean to say you are Zorst bose?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that it's reasonable to suggest that IMC training is poor or of a low standard.
Generally, I think that the standard of instruction for the IMC rating is very high and perfectly designed to equip IMC rating holders to exercise those priviliges which the rating affords.
My only concern about the IMC rating is currency. I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of rolling currency brought in, as is currently the case with the FAA IR. Then again, this doesn't seem to be a source of accidents - so if it aint broke - don't fix it?
Generally, I think that the standard of instruction for the IMC rating is very high and perfectly designed to equip IMC rating holders to exercise those priviliges which the rating affords.
My only concern about the IMC rating is currency. I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of rolling currency brought in, as is currently the case with the FAA IR. Then again, this doesn't seem to be a source of accidents - so if it aint broke - don't fix it?
It may interest you to know that here in OZ we have introduced a ppl imc rating a couple of years ago following years of lobbying the powers that be. While it does not allow instument approaches as it is an enroute instument rating it sounds simular to the UK one. I can only say it was a long time coming here and thankfully it has finally become possible to legally fly in cloud enroute and save many anxious moments trying to stay visual in marginal conditions and therefore must be safer.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mostly,
Can you explain how that works? If a pilot departs, and climbs into cloud, and is allowed to fly there or above enroute, how do they get back down, if not flying an appraoch? Does it mean that the cloud base must be fairly high to start with, to facilitate an enroute letdown (which will be above MSA)?
If that was the case, what's the need for the imc enroute?
I'm just curious to understand how it works
dp
Can you explain how that works? If a pilot departs, and climbs into cloud, and is allowed to fly there or above enroute, how do they get back down, if not flying an appraoch? Does it mean that the cloud base must be fairly high to start with, to facilitate an enroute letdown (which will be above MSA)?
If that was the case, what's the need for the imc enroute?
I'm just curious to understand how it works
dp