IMC rating in theUK?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it is a priority (as soon as the airplane is recovered and flown, which basic IMC flying is part of the PPL training).
Because when you have no eyes anymore, and you are struggling to fly that airplane with no references, which requires most of your capacities, the ATC becomes your eyes, and your assistance !
And other pilots in IMC would be happy to know that someone can help them avoid you (which is also something interesting for you, by the way...).
I'm getting used to providing assistance to those VFR in trouble because of the weather, but I'll NEVER get used to those liars in VFR-IMC, and I'll do my best to fight these dangerous comportments.
French Frog, now completely convinced thanks to that thread that this IMC rating should be banned !
Because when you have no eyes anymore, and you are struggling to fly that airplane with no references, which requires most of your capacities, the ATC becomes your eyes, and your assistance !
And other pilots in IMC would be happy to know that someone can help them avoid you (which is also something interesting for you, by the way...).
I'm getting used to providing assistance to those VFR in trouble because of the weather, but I'll NEVER get used to those liars in VFR-IMC, and I'll do my best to fight these dangerous comportments.
French Frog, now completely convinced thanks to that thread that this IMC rating should be banned !
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frog ATC, an interesting and alarming tale that no sensible peson would condone or excuse.
But looking at it from another point of view, if France had the IMC rating those pilots (both UK and French) could be legal and France might not need to accept 80 GA deaths each year.
You do know that (from memory) the UK IMC accident rate is zero don't you?
But looking at it from another point of view, if France had the IMC rating those pilots (both UK and French) could be legal and France might not need to accept 80 GA deaths each year.
You do know that (from memory) the UK IMC accident rate is zero don't you?
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my opinion of course and carry on as you see fit, but it is one I am going to bow out of, other than the occasional gentle reminder that it may also devalue this excellent forum.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you have an opinion on the 'brevet de base' (I think that's how you spell it) frog ATC?
I'm just curious because from the UK perspective it does sound rather dangerous (just as you think the IMC rating is dangerous) and is possibly contribute to the considerably higher accident rate the French have compared to the British.
I'm just curious because from the UK perspective it does sound rather dangerous (just as you think the IMC rating is dangerous) and is possibly contribute to the considerably higher accident rate the French have compared to the British.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite this IMC Rating, the statistics in UK are not better than those in France.
So where is the improvement ?
There's none !
And I'm convinced that this is maybe even worse than nothing, by pushing those pilots to go in situations they would not have entered without that "rating".
But it seems like my opinion has no value, according to Fuji, because I have "no history on that forum".
I just have many years of flying, instructing, and controlling quite a lot of your G-reg airplanes, dear Fuji, in both JAR and FAA system.
Frog_ATC
So where is the improvement ?
There's none !
And I'm convinced that this is maybe even worse than nothing, by pushing those pilots to go in situations they would not have entered without that "rating".
But it seems like my opinion has no value, according to Fuji, because I have "no history on that forum".
I just have many years of flying, instructing, and controlling quite a lot of your G-reg airplanes, dear Fuji, in both JAR and FAA system.
Frog_ATC
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the "Brevet de Base" is a real good thing, because it is a step in your training, where you can only fly solo, local flight at small distance from your airfield, and back to your airfield.
I participated to brainstorming about "how to improve the PPL" in France, and one very bad point is that pilots are not trained to handle there passengers.
You fly your PPL checkride, and boom !
The day after you can fly with your wife or friend onboard.
But, if flying requires a lot of your energy, handling your passengers requires even more than that, and most pilots are not able to achieve both together just after their PPL when things go wrong.
This is the main reason why I think the Brevet de Base is a good thing, when integrated in a PPL cursus.
Moreover, the accident rate at the Brevet de Base level is very low.
There are some points that could be improved on that Brevet, but the principle is not a bad thing.
For example, I always required that my students are able to divert to another airfield in order to get there Brevet de Base, and most of them have nearly a PPL level when getting that Brevet.
I also prefer my students being rated by another instructor, and myself I endorsed that Brevet to other's instructors' students.
Last point : I do not know why you say there are really more accidents per flight hour in France than in UK, that does not seem to be the case according to the statistics I've read.
But I do not trust fully statistics most of the time, so this one may be wrong... as well as the one about your "zero accident rate" on the IMC rating, which I hardly believe !
regards
soon-sleeping Frog
I participated to brainstorming about "how to improve the PPL" in France, and one very bad point is that pilots are not trained to handle there passengers.
You fly your PPL checkride, and boom !
The day after you can fly with your wife or friend onboard.
But, if flying requires a lot of your energy, handling your passengers requires even more than that, and most pilots are not able to achieve both together just after their PPL when things go wrong.
This is the main reason why I think the Brevet de Base is a good thing, when integrated in a PPL cursus.
Moreover, the accident rate at the Brevet de Base level is very low.
There are some points that could be improved on that Brevet, but the principle is not a bad thing.
For example, I always required that my students are able to divert to another airfield in order to get there Brevet de Base, and most of them have nearly a PPL level when getting that Brevet.
I also prefer my students being rated by another instructor, and myself I endorsed that Brevet to other's instructors' students.
Last point : I do not know why you say there are really more accidents per flight hour in France than in UK, that does not seem to be the case according to the statistics I've read.
But I do not trust fully statistics most of the time, so this one may be wrong... as well as the one about your "zero accident rate" on the IMC rating, which I hardly believe !
regards
soon-sleeping Frog
Last edited by frog_ATC; 31st Jan 2008 at 23:23.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it seems like my opinion has no value, according to Fuji, because I have "no history on that forum".
If you read the 'sticky' thread (fourth from the top on the Private Flying index) someone posted this a little while ago, and it explains partly why we in Britain want to keep the IMC rating (although of course believing that a more accessible IR would be better) and why also we believe that in the UK we do have a better accident rate than France.
(Sorry it's a little out of context, that explains why it sounds a little strange at some points.)
Apologies for a similar posting in other fora, but I think the "French Lesson" is of vital evidence to us, literally a matter of life-and-death. It needs to be distributed as widely as possible.
The IMC rating in the UK, like the Instrument Rating in the USA, has democratised the life-saving skill of being able to fly and land on instruments safely.
There is evidence from France which suggests that our fatal accident rate COULD DOUBLE with the loss of the IMC rating.
This report was commissioned by the french ministry of transport, and was published in April:
http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfr...00415/0000.pdf
It shows that GA in France has twice the number of fatalities than either the UK, or the US (4.2 fatalities per 100,000 hours, versus 2.0 in the UK, and a similar level in the US)
Why?
Part of the reason is because both we and our American cousins have a large proportion of private pilots trained to fly on instruments, while the French PPL is almost strictly a visual flyer with no training or access to the safety of IFR when the weather turns bad.
So they have a far higher proportion of VMC to IMC related accidents: both loss of control and "classic" CFIT.
The sort of accidents which led to the introduction of the IMC rating in the UK by wise people, and there are plenty amongst the pilot population and their passengers (no doubt some reading this forum) who owe their lives to the IMC rating.
The report makes several recommendations, amongst which, relevant to this discussion, are the need for an accessible IR for private pilots in France; an IMC rating if you will.
Amongst interesting points in the report, is the fact that 80% of Accidents are due to "Human Factors". Furthermore when human factors were studied in depth, an analysis of 60 such accidents in france found that:
"The great majority (43 out of 60, with 98 fatalities) took place in unfavourable weather, underlining the problems with lack of training, over-confidence, poor decision-making and pre-flight preparation.
All areas which are dealt-with by the IMC rating.
It would be worth one of our representative bodies going to the expense of formally translating the "French Lesson".
The IMC rating in the UK, like the Instrument Rating in the USA, has democratised the life-saving skill of being able to fly and land on instruments safely.
There is evidence from France which suggests that our fatal accident rate COULD DOUBLE with the loss of the IMC rating.
This report was commissioned by the french ministry of transport, and was published in April:
http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfr...00415/0000.pdf
It shows that GA in France has twice the number of fatalities than either the UK, or the US (4.2 fatalities per 100,000 hours, versus 2.0 in the UK, and a similar level in the US)
Why?
Part of the reason is because both we and our American cousins have a large proportion of private pilots trained to fly on instruments, while the French PPL is almost strictly a visual flyer with no training or access to the safety of IFR when the weather turns bad.
So they have a far higher proportion of VMC to IMC related accidents: both loss of control and "classic" CFIT.
The sort of accidents which led to the introduction of the IMC rating in the UK by wise people, and there are plenty amongst the pilot population and their passengers (no doubt some reading this forum) who owe their lives to the IMC rating.
The report makes several recommendations, amongst which, relevant to this discussion, are the need for an accessible IR for private pilots in France; an IMC rating if you will.
Amongst interesting points in the report, is the fact that 80% of Accidents are due to "Human Factors". Furthermore when human factors were studied in depth, an analysis of 60 such accidents in france found that:
"The great majority (43 out of 60, with 98 fatalities) took place in unfavourable weather, underlining the problems with lack of training, over-confidence, poor decision-making and pre-flight preparation.
All areas which are dealt-with by the IMC rating.
It would be worth one of our representative bodies going to the expense of formally translating the "French Lesson".
. Must be my bed time too..
Last edited by Contacttower; 31st Jan 2008 at 22:46.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have some sympathy with Frog_ATC (and my Aunt is French too, she claims to come from the "oily" part of europe 
)......
I have seen some very poor decision making being done in the skies over France and the sourthern UK, though I don't think you can claim it is only IMCr holders. I have known "partial pass" JAA IR wannabes (JAA FI's would you believe) fly IFR into France on a VFR flight plan. I have seen VFR pilots take off into OC010 at L2K and I have seen JAA IR holders too scared to file IFR so they cross the channel at 400'
I have also known FAA IR holders shoot approaches into French airports in a G reg. I don't consider this last one a dangerous flouting of the law though....more of a flouting of adminsitration seeing as if you are a non EU resident the DGAC will give you a JAA IR based upon the FAA IR anyway......(N or G it is the same). Of course I'd never do this or condone it. I believe all these bad decisions could be avoided with an achievable instrument qualification valid Eurowide.
My ideal would be an "enhanced" IMC valid in Europe with slightly stricter restrictions applied, but with greater privileges. By that I mean you need an IFR clearance to enter some sort of "controlled airspace" with it and more controlled airspace available to IMCr holders (e.g. Charlie / Delta airways to FL100)....
The problem with the JAA IR is that unless you have £10,000 to spare and 3-6 months of study, and perfect hearing, it is not achievable. My wife would rather we had a new car than I had a JAA IR......It'd be much better to have an IMCr euro-wide which can then lead on to a full JAA IR with credit being given for experience later on and hence a modular IR achievable by those that need it......
)......I have seen some very poor decision making being done in the skies over France and the sourthern UK, though I don't think you can claim it is only IMCr holders. I have known "partial pass" JAA IR wannabes (JAA FI's would you believe) fly IFR into France on a VFR flight plan. I have seen VFR pilots take off into OC010 at L2K and I have seen JAA IR holders too scared to file IFR so they cross the channel at 400'
I have also known FAA IR holders shoot approaches into French airports in a G reg. I don't consider this last one a dangerous flouting of the law though....more of a flouting of adminsitration seeing as if you are a non EU resident the DGAC will give you a JAA IR based upon the FAA IR anyway......(N or G it is the same). Of course I'd never do this or condone it. I believe all these bad decisions could be avoided with an achievable instrument qualification valid Eurowide.My ideal would be an "enhanced" IMC valid in Europe with slightly stricter restrictions applied, but with greater privileges. By that I mean you need an IFR clearance to enter some sort of "controlled airspace" with it and more controlled airspace available to IMCr holders (e.g. Charlie / Delta airways to FL100)....
The problem with the JAA IR is that unless you have £10,000 to spare and 3-6 months of study, and perfect hearing, it is not achievable. My wife would rather we had a new car than I had a JAA IR......It'd be much better to have an IMCr euro-wide which can then lead on to a full JAA IR with credit being given for experience later on and hence a modular IR achievable by those that need it......
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that, it is really interesting.
As I said above, I hardly 100% trust statistics.
Why ? Because they only have the value they have, but numbers can be torned in all directions to make them say what you want them to say.
Your documents says that UK and US have approximately the same rate of accidents per hours, and France twice.
We studied some statistics 6 months ago to compare France and USA, which were very different, and all based on official sources (NTSB + BEA).
It appeared that the rate between France and USA was not 2... it was even worse!!!!!
Here are our results :
Commercial flights
- USA : 0.4 accidents for 1000 000 flight hours
- Europe : 0.7 accidents for 1000 000 flight hours
- Africa : 13 accidents for 1000 000 flight hours ...
General Aviation
USA : 600 000 pilots, 1.31 deaths / 100 000 flight hours (source NTSB)
Switzerland : 19 000 pilots, 4.63 deaths / 100 000 flight hours (source OFAC)
France : 7.67 deaths / 100 000 flight hours (source BEA + DGAC)
These statistics were done with the help of the BEA.
And they depict a real big difference with the numbers given in the other article.
I have to check the exact result we had for UK, because it was not the subject we were studying during that brainstorming (but I'll go and find it), but I remember we did not find the same as the US, absolutely not... it was more like France !
So you understand now why I do appreciate statistics, but always keep a kind of distance with them.
Whatever, one thing is sure : the more you limit the "sophistication" of the learning of piloting available to pilots, the more you increase your accidents rate.
Developping the IFR for private pilots is one of the keys, and I work actively on that.
But also, did you compare the accident rate of IFR-rated pilots with the one of VFR-only pilots ?
The IFR-rated have more accidents than VFR-only...
Does this mean that it is safer not to get an instrument rating ?
Of course not !!
But this means that the more you learn to fly in bad conditions, the more you fly in bad conditions.
So the more risks you take.
And if you take those risks, you have better be trained correctly and fully.
For me, entering in bad weather conditions SHOULD BE with a real IFR qualification, and with a real IFR equipped airplane !
You cannot be "half pregnant" : you need a real full IFR to fly in IMC !
And this IMC rating just make some pilots (not all of them I assume, I believe there are some serious.... but too many in my opinion and experience) think they are what they are not, without telling the other what's happening, just cow-boys through the clouds...
They just forget the sky does not belong only to them, and maybe the other do not want to get killed by them, especially in other countries were they do not expect to meet them, especially in controlled areas.
So at least, keep your IMC rating for your own country, fly VMC abroad, thanks !
Frog go to sleep
Remarks : About the one above telling that when you enter IMC in VFR you should lie to the ATC, he has better not having me as ATC next time he does that "joke" in France...
As I said above, I hardly 100% trust statistics.
Why ? Because they only have the value they have, but numbers can be torned in all directions to make them say what you want them to say.
Your documents says that UK and US have approximately the same rate of accidents per hours, and France twice.
We studied some statistics 6 months ago to compare France and USA, which were very different, and all based on official sources (NTSB + BEA).
It appeared that the rate between France and USA was not 2... it was even worse!!!!!
Here are our results :
Commercial flights
- USA : 0.4 accidents for 1000 000 flight hours
- Europe : 0.7 accidents for 1000 000 flight hours
- Africa : 13 accidents for 1000 000 flight hours ...
General Aviation
USA : 600 000 pilots, 1.31 deaths / 100 000 flight hours (source NTSB)
Switzerland : 19 000 pilots, 4.63 deaths / 100 000 flight hours (source OFAC)
France : 7.67 deaths / 100 000 flight hours (source BEA + DGAC)
These statistics were done with the help of the BEA.
And they depict a real big difference with the numbers given in the other article.
I have to check the exact result we had for UK, because it was not the subject we were studying during that brainstorming (but I'll go and find it), but I remember we did not find the same as the US, absolutely not... it was more like France !
So you understand now why I do appreciate statistics, but always keep a kind of distance with them.
Whatever, one thing is sure : the more you limit the "sophistication" of the learning of piloting available to pilots, the more you increase your accidents rate.
Developping the IFR for private pilots is one of the keys, and I work actively on that.
But also, did you compare the accident rate of IFR-rated pilots with the one of VFR-only pilots ?
The IFR-rated have more accidents than VFR-only...
Does this mean that it is safer not to get an instrument rating ?
Of course not !!
But this means that the more you learn to fly in bad conditions, the more you fly in bad conditions.
So the more risks you take.
And if you take those risks, you have better be trained correctly and fully.
For me, entering in bad weather conditions SHOULD BE with a real IFR qualification, and with a real IFR equipped airplane !
You cannot be "half pregnant" : you need a real full IFR to fly in IMC !
And this IMC rating just make some pilots (not all of them I assume, I believe there are some serious.... but too many in my opinion and experience) think they are what they are not, without telling the other what's happening, just cow-boys through the clouds...
They just forget the sky does not belong only to them, and maybe the other do not want to get killed by them, especially in other countries were they do not expect to meet them, especially in controlled areas.
So at least, keep your IMC rating for your own country, fly VMC abroad, thanks !
Frog go to sleep
Remarks : About the one above telling that when you enter IMC in VFR you should lie to the ATC, he has better not having me as ATC next time he does that "joke" in France...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Englishal
Thanks for your examples.
I've seen them also... all of them, and even worse.
I could tell stories all night long (don't worry, I won't :-) ).
About the FAA-rated IR in a JAA-reg airplane, yes it is not "dangerous", but in case of problem... No insurance !
Frog-dodo
Thanks for your examples.
I've seen them also... all of them, and even worse.
I could tell stories all night long (don't worry, I won't :-) ).
About the FAA-rated IR in a JAA-reg airplane, yes it is not "dangerous", but in case of problem... No insurance !
Frog-dodo
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no idea if it works the "other way" for example a French plane taking off into IMC to travel back to France though...Maybe they don't visit the UK because the food is not as nice 
I know for one I'd never dare to fly IFR in the USA without a clearance unless it was an emergency. This is the only trouble in the UK, the grey area between IFR and VFR. Without formality anyone can be IFR, nope VFR, nope IFR etc., which is not a good thing in my opinion. This probably also leads to people "pretending" to be VMC when in fact they are IMC - (not that it appears to have caused any accidents yet). Likewise this pseudo IFR does not help the pilot - I'd rather file a route, and have all airspace controllers on the route informed of it before I got there, so zone transits can be easily and quickly accomplished.
IMCr holders who use the rating must be pretty good though as it is the toughest sort of IFR flying in the world. You are resposible for flying and navigating in IMC, you are responsible for negotiating airspace transits and re-routing if nescessary, you are responsible for avioding all class A airspace, you are single pilot. By contrast flying airways is easy, join the airway, sit there, tune the radio, eat your sarnies.......
Regarding the stats, I can't remember where I saw them but yes, the UK is far worse than the USA re: fatality per 1000,000 flight hours but roughly half of where France is.........I'll see if I can find them.
I know for one I'd never dare to fly IFR in the USA without a clearance unless it was an emergency. This is the only trouble in the UK, the grey area between IFR and VFR. Without formality anyone can be IFR, nope VFR, nope IFR etc., which is not a good thing in my opinion. This probably also leads to people "pretending" to be VMC when in fact they are IMC - (not that it appears to have caused any accidents yet). Likewise this pseudo IFR does not help the pilot - I'd rather file a route, and have all airspace controllers on the route informed of it before I got there, so zone transits can be easily and quickly accomplished.
IMCr holders who use the rating must be pretty good though as it is the toughest sort of IFR flying in the world. You are resposible for flying and navigating in IMC, you are responsible for negotiating airspace transits and re-routing if nescessary, you are responsible for avioding all class A airspace, you are single pilot. By contrast flying airways is easy, join the airway, sit there, tune the radio, eat your sarnies.......
Regarding the stats, I can't remember where I saw them but yes, the UK is far worse than the USA re: fatality per 1000,000 flight hours but roughly half of where France is.........I'll see if I can find them.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be really careful having a debate with posters who have no history here.
Frog-ATC
You are blaming IMC Rated Brits for a problem which some pilots are guilty of worldwide.
The difference, whether you like it or not, is that the IMCR holder will be much safer doing it.
A while ago I was sitting at a certain southern French airport, and a load of French pilots departed for another French airport. In the conditions it was obvious they were going to be IMC enroute, and do a home-made letdown at the other end.
We could swap stories for ages, and it would lead nowhere.
The only answer is training. Not a legal prohibition. Training which is accessible to a broad spectrum of pilots. The IR isn't and never will be very accessible. If as you claim you hold an IR you will know how hard it was.
France already allows its PPLs to fly above a solid overcast. How do you handle those pilots who arrive at the destination, and find themselves still above a solid overcast?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Babies and bathwater
Hi frog ATC,
First of all, let me say how delighted I am to see posts from an ATCO on the other side of the Channel, who has experience of handling Brit private flyers in French airspace. I've often wondered how we are seen by people over there. (I wonder if you could be tempted to write an article for one of the UK private flying magazines: now that would be good).
On Pprune, we tend to see a fair number of very interesting posts from other English speaking countries, (US, Aussie, Canada, etc), but few from our immediate non English speaking neighbours in whose airspace we do a fair amount of flying.
I have understood the points you have made perfectly. (Your English is splendid, don't let anybody here tell you otherwise).
I think the only point I would make by way of reply would be to say that in any field of human endeavour standards of both training and of personal conduct are going to be variable. Flying is no different.
We recently read an account of a JAA qualified commercial pilot who didn't know that wind direction is expressed in terms of the direction the wind comes from, not the direction in which it is travelling! He was apparently sent for 'retraining'.
An instructor told me of an IMC holder on a revalidation checkride who, on being asked to pick up a particular radial from a VOR beacon, failed to find the radial and just continued round in a complete circle looking for it!
But to infer from encounters with a minority of under-performers that the qualification they have should be abolished is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. Perhaps what we need is better means of reporting these irresponsible people and getting them prosecuted and their IMC ratings removed.
I do hope more people from 'over there', ATCOs and others, will be encouraged to talk to us on Pprune, not only from France, but Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, etc. Do please stay with us.
Regards,
BroomstickPilot.
First of all, let me say how delighted I am to see posts from an ATCO on the other side of the Channel, who has experience of handling Brit private flyers in French airspace. I've often wondered how we are seen by people over there. (I wonder if you could be tempted to write an article for one of the UK private flying magazines: now that would be good).
On Pprune, we tend to see a fair number of very interesting posts from other English speaking countries, (US, Aussie, Canada, etc), but few from our immediate non English speaking neighbours in whose airspace we do a fair amount of flying.
I have understood the points you have made perfectly. (Your English is splendid, don't let anybody here tell you otherwise).
I think the only point I would make by way of reply would be to say that in any field of human endeavour standards of both training and of personal conduct are going to be variable. Flying is no different.
We recently read an account of a JAA qualified commercial pilot who didn't know that wind direction is expressed in terms of the direction the wind comes from, not the direction in which it is travelling! He was apparently sent for 'retraining'.
An instructor told me of an IMC holder on a revalidation checkride who, on being asked to pick up a particular radial from a VOR beacon, failed to find the radial and just continued round in a complete circle looking for it!
But to infer from encounters with a minority of under-performers that the qualification they have should be abolished is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. Perhaps what we need is better means of reporting these irresponsible people and getting them prosecuted and their IMC ratings removed.
I do hope more people from 'over there', ATCOs and others, will be encouraged to talk to us on Pprune, not only from France, but Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, etc. Do please stay with us.
Regards,
BroomstickPilot.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Save IMC R !!!
Hello every one.
I`d like to say that this is my first post.
I'm IMC student and i need 4 more Hours hopefully to complete the rating.I`d like to say that already IMC save my life ones, doing a night flight, wen suddenly lost visual with ground.The 180 turn from my JAR PPL training didn't work but the DTY VOR work fine...The ATC informed of course! I sag-est to every PPL holder in UK even if they stop the IMC R in the future to go for it.
I'm IMC student and i need 4 more Hours hopefully to complete the rating.I`d like to say that already IMC save my life ones, doing a night flight, wen suddenly lost visual with ground.The 180 turn from my JAR PPL training didn't work but the DTY VOR work fine...The ATC informed of course! I sag-est to every PPL holder in UK even if they stop the IMC R in the future to go for it.
(PS Sorry for my English but I`m Greek )
)Thx for Listening
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very good point I think. One presumes the mods can see the IPs and will be having a laugh, if what we suspect is true
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(unhappy tone)
IO540 :
If you think that your IMC rating makes you "safer" when IMC...
Maybe it helps you handle the airplane without getting upside down, which is a good thing (but I think all PPLs should be trained to do that), but please remember that NO RATING in your pocket will never protect you from another airplane in IMC in front of you !
No piece of paper will build a wall arround your airplane !
So play with your own life if you want, be non legal if you want, that's your own business, but stop flying wild IMC in controlled airspace outside UK, and telling the ATC you are VMC !!!
Trying to convince anyone that this is a "good attitude" is just foolish, and proves you have a very poor idea of the ATC's job and environment.
(change of tone...)
Hello Broomstick,
All you say is really interesting and makes sense, thanks very much, that raises a lot of ideas.
You are right : one main problem is that procedures against pilots that commit violations abroad hardly fly over national boundaries, unless a real crash occurs.
Europe is only a dream and a paperwork nightmare, but those important things have still room for improvment.
To tell you how often this happens, there is now a common joke between ATCs when the weather is very very bad and one ATC has a VFR in radio contact.
- What ? You have a VFR today ?? Must be a Brit !
Sometimes we write a report, sometimes we don't, for I'm not convinced these violations reports will "fly" through the Channel and their authors be punished as they should.
I'll have a look at that next time.
The real worst thing is when they lie about their conditions. At least when they say the truth, we can handle that (more or less).
And do you know we even have some commercial G-reg airplanes (light twins), carrying passengers for hire, that fly through the channel VFR (in order not to pay the IFR Eurocontrol fee) in a solid IMC, sometimes even intensive IMC ?
When it is "too obvious" (I mean, 200ft ceiling and 1000 meters vis) they sometimes request an IFR clearance on arrival... but spent 99% of the flight in solid IMC.
Now we try to treat them as IFR for safety purpose, and apply IFR separation rules with other IFRs, when we "can recognize" them (we had this "VFR airline" from Southampton for a while), but we had some fears at first when applying VFR/IFR separation rules...
I think there is a big problem with attitude, not only with Brits of course.
We also have other problems, that you probably have too : airspace violations, flights with no contact, very low altitude flights, poor preflight briefing, poor decision making, human factors, poor self-training, poor english abroad, etc.
There are many reasons for these violations, and it's quite a hard work to try to improve attitudes and provide safe and useful information to all.
That's also the reason why we'll organize some Safety Seminars (first one should be in June) on different topics.
I would be happy to write an article for any UK magazines (Flyer?), if someone can correct my non-native English :-).
Most pilots think that being a Pilot is just shaking controls of an airplane...
Which is completely false.
Being a Pilot is taking good decision (which often means cancel flight, land as soon as practicable, turn back home, divert, or go around).
Being a Pilot, is more in your head than in you hands !
(Copyright ATC_Frog
)
And thanks very much Broomstick to welcome me.
I must admit that if you have few French on PPRUNE, it's mainly because we (French people) usually do not speak English very well...
That's a real problem !
Frog_ATC
PS1 : For my own information : can you carry passengers for hire in UK, in IMC conditions, without IFR flight plan ? (with IMC rating)
I would say no, according to international rules, but I'm not sure.
PS2 : Second question for my own information : what legal equipement for the airplane is required to fly it under IMC rating ?
IO540 :
If you think that your IMC rating makes you "safer" when IMC...
Maybe it helps you handle the airplane without getting upside down, which is a good thing (but I think all PPLs should be trained to do that), but please remember that NO RATING in your pocket will never protect you from another airplane in IMC in front of you !
No piece of paper will build a wall arround your airplane !
So play with your own life if you want, be non legal if you want, that's your own business, but stop flying wild IMC in controlled airspace outside UK, and telling the ATC you are VMC !!!
Trying to convince anyone that this is a "good attitude" is just foolish, and proves you have a very poor idea of the ATC's job and environment.
(change of tone...)
Hello Broomstick,
All you say is really interesting and makes sense, thanks very much, that raises a lot of ideas.
You are right : one main problem is that procedures against pilots that commit violations abroad hardly fly over national boundaries, unless a real crash occurs.
Europe is only a dream and a paperwork nightmare, but those important things have still room for improvment.
To tell you how often this happens, there is now a common joke between ATCs when the weather is very very bad and one ATC has a VFR in radio contact.
- What ? You have a VFR today ?? Must be a Brit !
Sometimes we write a report, sometimes we don't, for I'm not convinced these violations reports will "fly" through the Channel and their authors be punished as they should.
I'll have a look at that next time.
The real worst thing is when they lie about their conditions. At least when they say the truth, we can handle that (more or less).
And do you know we even have some commercial G-reg airplanes (light twins), carrying passengers for hire, that fly through the channel VFR (in order not to pay the IFR Eurocontrol fee) in a solid IMC, sometimes even intensive IMC ?
When it is "too obvious" (I mean, 200ft ceiling and 1000 meters vis) they sometimes request an IFR clearance on arrival... but spent 99% of the flight in solid IMC.
Now we try to treat them as IFR for safety purpose, and apply IFR separation rules with other IFRs, when we "can recognize" them (we had this "VFR airline" from Southampton for a while), but we had some fears at first when applying VFR/IFR separation rules...
I think there is a big problem with attitude, not only with Brits of course.
We also have other problems, that you probably have too : airspace violations, flights with no contact, very low altitude flights, poor preflight briefing, poor decision making, human factors, poor self-training, poor english abroad, etc.
There are many reasons for these violations, and it's quite a hard work to try to improve attitudes and provide safe and useful information to all.
That's also the reason why we'll organize some Safety Seminars (first one should be in June) on different topics.
I would be happy to write an article for any UK magazines (Flyer?), if someone can correct my non-native English :-).
Most pilots think that being a Pilot is just shaking controls of an airplane...
Which is completely false.
Being a Pilot is taking good decision (which often means cancel flight, land as soon as practicable, turn back home, divert, or go around).
Being a Pilot, is more in your head than in you hands !
(Copyright ATC_Frog
)And thanks very much Broomstick to welcome me.
I must admit that if you have few French on PPRUNE, it's mainly because we (French people) usually do not speak English very well...
That's a real problem !
Frog_ATC
PS1 : For my own information : can you carry passengers for hire in UK, in IMC conditions, without IFR flight plan ? (with IMC rating)
I would say no, according to international rules, but I'm not sure.
PS2 : Second question for my own information : what legal equipement for the airplane is required to fly it under IMC rating ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nek7, I'm very happy that you could handle that, and double-happy that you told the ATC. Congratulations !
That proves that basic IMC flying should be taught to all pilots !
And especially for night flying... When I train a student for a night VFR rating, I give them some IMC training, and even ILS training...
But I know there is another problem for you in UK : the incredibly high fees you have to pay for any IFR approach your perform, even for training.
And those damned slots...
It does not help, for sure.
Froggy
That proves that basic IMC flying should be taught to all pilots !
And especially for night flying... When I train a student for a night VFR rating, I give them some IMC training, and even ILS training...
But I know there is another problem for you in UK : the incredibly high fees you have to pay for any IFR approach your perform, even for training.
And those damned slots...
It does not help, for sure.
Froggy