IMC rating in theUK?

[Mariner9]

That proves that basic IMC flying should be taught to all pilots

What a great idea Froggy, EASA should adopt that and call it the IMC rating

[rustle]

frog_ATC may I join BroomstickPilot in welcoming you to PPRuNe.

I would caution that some posters here will try and devalue your comments on the basis you haven't been posting on PPRuNe very long: But most won't.

[frog_ATC]

No, what I suggest is NOT your IMC rating.

There should be no legal flight in IMC for non Instrument Rated pilot, only some training to make you able to save your life in case of problem, and of course recurrent dual training to maintain your skills at top level.

If you want to fly IMC intentionnaly, you should get a full IR.
You can't be half pregnant ! There is no "half IMC".

But everything was already said above.
Quoting a single phrase without really discussing things is useless.
And whatever, what will happen to the IMC rating won't depend on me !
This is just a "poor small French ATCo opinion".

For my TMA, should not be hard to guess, a French TMA which local radar approach, ILS, soon GPS approach, and plenty of G-Reg !
But this could have been asked a more polite way.

ATC-Frog

[frog_ATC]

Thanks Rustle, I do appreciate, and you're also welcome on my airport with broomstick, to take coffee at the tower if you fly through the channel !

(if you do, tel details via private mail)

The foggy-froggy

[stray10level]

Frog, whilst you had your UNHAPPY TONE on to admonish IO540, you managed to avoid a point he raised which i wanted to raise too! Namely, how does a French VFR pilot flying LEGALLY VFR ON TOP usally on airways too, infering more than a local bimble hence various weather systems to consider!(Note:- VFR ON TOP/AIRWAYS Not Legal in UK) make a safe approach to land when the destination is clagged in? You have already stated the IMC could lead pilots in to weather that wasnt forcast, so you cant use the explanation that they had a good briefing before departure! Don't you think it is a little ironic that the French hate the IMCR but allow VFR ontop, whereas the British have the IMCR and dont allow VFR on top?
Also, to try to move this debate along, what do you think needs to added to the IMC training cyllabus to make it an acceptable IFR licence for the GA pilot?
RSVP Mademoiselle.

[Contacttower]

Re the IMC rating's safety record,

It's an AOPA 'fact' that no one has had an accident while legally exercising the privileges so in order to verify that you'd have to contact AOPA. There have been accidents involving lapsed IMC rating holders, but then there have also been accidents involving people deliberately flying in IMC having never held an IMC rating. I think with all the discussion we've had here over the last few months we would have uncovered an accident involving a legal IMC holder that was related to being in IMC at the time of the crash if one existed.

What pilots go across to France and do sometimes is very naughty , but it isn't an argument against the IMC rating itself, simply for better enforcement of the rules and training.

[homeguard]

IMC & the EU

It's got to be good that ATC people from France are debating. France is listed as one of the few countries against the IMCr. However;

Frog_ATC

I absolutely agree that breaking the law is wrong! But, f the law is unreasonable it simply will not work and everyday you prove that truth, in France, with your death rate. In other less hazardous spheres the french are notorious for ignoring patritional laws - thank God!

However the UK CAA, not always known for broad and pragmatic thinking, should be congratulated, together with AOPA, for conceiving the IMC rating. Prior to the IMC rating the deaths from lack of control and CFIT were as they are NOW in France. The decision to bring into place the IMC rating was pragmatic and has been a tremendous success. Not a single fatality since! In the UK BALPA and the ATC system are supportive of the rating. I have never heard of any move against the IMCr from ATC. Indeed the rules with regard to flight into controlled airspace by IMCr pilots was relaxed some years ago without any objection from ATC. Why - because it works.

How do you balance the UK IMCr weather related ZERO deaths with the current death rate in France. Face up to the evidence?

[frog_ATC]

Dear Straight10,


Thanks for your questions, I'm happy to think about it right now, and try to answer in my froggy english (pfiou good english training for me today !).

Your vision "from abroad" on our system may help us improve it, so I appreciate your opinion. And we all know it needs improvement, and as some other I work actively on that goal since years.


What could be added on the IMC rating syllabus to make it a IR acceptable one ?
It is not something that should be added, it is the whole spirit of the thing that does not cope with the requirements.

1) Flying IMC intentionaly should require an IR, which means a full IR training and understanding (only the ground school part should be improved : a lot of questions are completely useless).
So the whole IR syllabus should be the one you are taught before flying IMC intentionnaly.
If you think an IMC rating is enough to handle IMC, so that means you think that the IR is completely useless.
Having flown and taught quite a lot of IFR now, I do not think so !

2) Being able to handle an unintentional IMC situation should be taught to all pilots.
And your IMC rating syllabus could be added for the basic PPL VFR. This would not allow any VFR to enter IMC conditions intentionaly, but help them recover "in case of".

In fact, the main problem is the pilot's attitude.

You know that in the PPL cursus, there is a 180° in simulated IMC conditions. That's not enough, but that's a good start.
Why not more IMC training ?

Mainly because they thought that if they trained pilots to handle IMC, that would incitate them to enter IMC. So, they applied the rule : "I do not teach you what I do not want you to do".

That's completely stupid, but that's it.

In my opinion, VFR pilots should be taught more IMC stuff, but be aware that they mustn't enter IMC intentionnaly, and that these skills are only for non-intentional situations.

And if they do enter intentionaly without any care of the regulation => big punishment, license removed for a while, etc.

But NO punishment for those who have an unintentional bad situation that makes us enter IMC (except if they do it quite often, then => mandatory training, because a pilot should being able to make a decision according to the weather briefing + weather situation in flight)

This is what we already apply most of the time. On my airport, we have bad conditions most of the time. I never wrote a report against a pilot that entered IMC unintentionaly and required my assistance.
But I did for those who took off despite I advised them of very bad conditions on departure, and had to fly back IMC because of these conditions, or for those who obviously entered IMC "nearly intentionaly", just thinking they are "good enough" to handle that and "it's not a big deal".

And if any pilot cheats me by telling he's VMC when he's IMC, I'll do my best to have his license removed. So with those pilots that switch "stand by" when they violate a controlled airpace, or those IFR who declare a false "short petrol" just to get a direct clearance through other IFR and number 1 on approach.
My report will be rude enough to make them have big troubles.

No one is perfect, we all can be trapped by the situation.
But the main difference is our attitude, and this attitude makes a good/bad pilot.



Now, considering the on-top VFR.

You cannot say "We can keep our IMC rating, because you keep something which is at least as dangerous".
This is not an argument :-)
Each of these have to be discussed individually, there is no link between them.


First, let's make a difference between the US VFR-on-top and the French one.

In the US, VFR-on-top is an IFR clearance, that is given to an IFR airplane, whereas in France it is not a clearance, and it applies to a VFR flight.
In the US, flying VFR on-top is called "VFR over the top".

There is a regulation considering On-Top VFR :

- Day only
- You need a VHF two-way on board
- You need a VOR or an approved class A GPS on board
- You must fly above the S surface (3000 AMSL / 1000 ASFC)
- You must respect cloud clearance requirements (1000ft / 1500m etc)
- You must be able to climb and descend, maintaining VMC
- You must have done a minutious weather preflight briefing, which confirms the condition on arrival can allow your VMC descent to your airfield
- You must have prepared all alternatives possible for the flight
- You must update along the route your weather information to make sure the flight can be completed as planned


Which means this requires a lot of preparation for the flight, and a very attentive and consciencious pilot.
You cannot just climb above the layer during a flight and lose visual contact with the ground.

But sometimes some pilots with a bad attitude do so.
And once they get trapped by weather, if the forecast was obviously not adapted to an on-top flight that day, they get in trouble with the authorities.
I personaly know a pilot that acted a bit stupidely. He could land VMC without entering IMC, but needed assistance because he had not planned his flight correctly.
He had a 2-months suspension and had to fly some hours with an instructor.

But I do agree with you that the on-top VFR could be discussed, and that's interesting that you raise that point.

I'm also interested in your opinion about the Brevet de Base that seems not to be appreciated in UK (please feel free to write an email to me about that), that could raise ideas for our next brainstormings, and maybe we could make proposals to improve it.


VFR in airways

I'm not sure to understand : are VFR forbidden in airways in UK, or on-top VFR only ?

Whatever, only the airspace class is taken into account here.

First, a VFR cannot fly IMC, so he has to apply distance from clouds and visibility requirements at any time to maintain VMC.

Most VFR pilots forget that those requirements were set to allow distance+time for collision avoidance.
Which means that flying out of clouds just below a cloud layer (above 3000ft) is considered as IMC.

Just remember that if you do so during a PPL checkride, you fail.
That's a very dangerous attitude.
I always have a bit of tense during IFR flights when I just pop out of the clouds, because I'm always afraid to discover a VFR airplane in front of me and not have time to avoid him.

So, anywhere, VFR should apply distance from clouds and visibility requirements, and query ATC if they cannot apply those requirements because of deteriorating weather.

In IMC, IFR cannot meet a VFR (except some stupid non-legal G-reg...).
In VMC, IFR pilots should look out, as VFR do, for traffic avoidance (whatever the class of the airpace).
I do agree with you that most IFR pilots tend to forget that, and think they do not need to scan out for traffic avoidance when they fly under IFR rules... they are completely wrong.

As airways are usually E airspace, or D-C-B-A airspace, but not G, most of the time you will be in radio contact with the ATC.
In E airspace, that contact is not mandatory as long as you maintain VMC. If you cannot maintain VMC, you have to get a clearance to enter E airspace, and to establish radio contact.

In France Special VFR clearances are given only in CTRs.
We used to have a lot of class E CTRs, but this created a lot of problems, because VFRs were crossing through without radio contact, whatever their weather conditions, and we had a lot of AIRPROX and complains from Pilots, Companies and ATCs.
That's why all these CTR became Class-D quite recently, so that VFR cannot cross without radio contact...


I hope I answered your question.
I may not have time today to answer more (because even frogs need to go to work/shops/etc sometimes) but if ou have more feel free to write me an email.

If you want a good IFR syllabus, just check the FAA one, it is nearly perfect. (nearly, because nothing is perfect!)

Some people say the FAA one is "not serious", "too easy", etc.
Depends on your school.
I've seen some verybad JAR IR schools, believe me.
Moreover, if you learn in the US, you'll need some training back here because systems are different (and a JAA IR pilot in the US will also need some training to get used to the US system).

And it depends on you also.
What means "getting an Instrument Rating" ?
It only means that the day of your checkride, you could do more or less what is required.
But then, it will be your own responsibility to develop and maintain your skills at top level.


But I'm sure we could make something great, if only our politics and administrations could listen to us.

Regards,

Frozen_frog

[IO540]

There are quite a lot of prejudices here, but this one

What could be added on the IMC rating syllabus to make it a IR acceptable one ?
It is not something that should be added, it is the whole spirit of the thing that does not cope with the requirements.

1) Flying IMC intentionaly should require an IR, which means a full IR training and understanding (only the ground school part should be improved : a lot of questions are completely useless).
So the whole IR syllabus should be the one you are taught before flying IMC intentionnaly.
If you think an IMC rating is enough to handle IMC, so that means you think that the IR is completely useless.

is the real problem.

All the time there is the total complete attachment to the full IR for any flight in IMC, little progress is likely to be made in Europe, because of the army of people who want to keep the IR just like the old days. Actually "old days" is not a good description because the Euro IR was much easier in the old days; easier on flying and far easier on the ground school.

[Contacttower]

I'm also interested in your opinion about the Brevet de Base that seems not to be appreciated in UK (please feel free to write an email to me about that), that could raise ideas for our next brainstormings, and maybe we could make proposals to improve it.

I asked about it because 'on the face of it' it sounded quite dangerous, but actually when you explained it didn't sound too bad...in fact the idea behind it (PPLs learning to deal with passengers) is excellent. I think it's good that we can discuss ideas like this.


Re the airways: in the UK airways are class A so no VFR flight at all (I think occasionally parachute droppers are allowed to enter but I'm not quite sure about the rules). In general no one goes into the airways without an IFR clearance. CTRs are class D and all traffic has to ask permission to enter and maintain contact with ATC at all times.

[dublinpilot]

Frog,

I find it hard to reconcile your argument

Flying IMC intentionaly should require an IR,

with the fact that you are teaching an FAA IR in France

I don't agree that "Flying IMC intentionaly should require an IR", but if I did, then I imagine that I would think that it must be a JAA IR for a French person.

In any case your main issue seems to be with IMC trained pilots flying in IMC but declaring that they are VFR. This does indeed seem stupid, but none the less, the problem would be eliminated overnight if the rating was made Eu wide...the problem will just disappear, as there would be no reason to do that.

dp

(From a country also without an IMCr )

[mm_flynn]

Frog_ATC a couple of responses to your questions.

1 - A UK PPL is not allowed to fly VFR over the top (it is a restriction on his licence)

2 - When a UK pilot talks about 'Airways' they normally mean the UK airway system which is almost universally Class A (hence only available to full IR holders)

3 - Most of the volume of UK airspace is Class G, where as I would guess most of France is Class E. Within the UK there is no real facility to get an IFR clearance for Class G and any radar separation service needs to be negotiated with each radar unit (if available at all!).

4 - Interestingly a UK PPL (without IR or IMCr) is allowed to fly IFR in Class G (most of the airspace he would use) and is EVEN allowed to fly in some types of IMC. Specifically, does not need to observe the cloud separation minima of VFR.

The combination of all of these is a UK view that hitting someone else in the open FIR in IMC is a vanishingly small possibility. The US, where I learned, has a view you have a high possibility of Crashing and Burning if you are IMC not on an IFR flight plan (similar to the view you have expressed).

Interestingly, the British don't seem to have hit another plane in Class G in IMC since around WWII, yet have the same depressing regularity of aircraft hitting each other on fine VMC days.

Finally, this hazy combination of IFR/VFR rules (which in many cases have no material difference), licence privileges (which are not straight VFR only or VFR + IFR), and the rigid separation of Class A airways vs. the rest results in much more casual (confused) views like - 'I am VFR (i.e. not on an IFR flight plan) but IMC' a non sequitur but you can understand why the pilot says in (because a well planned Class G VFR flight in the UK is going to be equally valid as an IFR flight - with NO CHANGE AT ALL on the pilots part)

[BroomstickPilot]

Message

frog_ATC,

Check your personal messages (PMs).

Broomstick.

[homeguard]

The Grim Reaper Again

There is a pathological need amongst some pilots to, when thinking of flight to also think of death as if it is a qualifying requirement to fly.

There is no evidence either in fact or circumstantial to substantiate the believe that safety following the IR is greater than that achieved amongst IMCr pilots. It cannot be safer if one accepts the zero figure from the IMCr statistics. If anything the IR in its current form is perhaps 'over the top'. With the introduction of the JARs the IR course went up to 55 hours. Why, for it had been claimed, though nievely, that the UK IR was the finest in the world at a couple of hours over 40hrs minus 10 hours off if you had an IMC rating.

Frog_ATC you seem to have had the fear of God bread into your flying. Why frog do you believe that a Shark is maybe lurking just below cloud, just waiting to get you. To be honest I know what you mean, I find life is much safer in IMC - if one believes that the only encounters will be from those talking to RADAR and therefore be known as it is within the UK owing to the IMCr. It appears to be more that two aircraft collide in VMC as mm_Flyn reminds us and as continues to be experienced outside of the UK. According to FROG they would all be english if she had her way! Her husbands near miss during a procedure, of course, had to be an englishman for the french non IR pilot would have lost control well before the beacon, no doubt.

Frog, you acknowledge yourself, the old chauvinistic thinking that; if you do not want someone to do something keep it a secret from them, as if you can. In fact education generally and the IMCr specifically proves the opposite. Many in the UK who undertake the IMC course also learn their personal limitations and later work within that limitation. Ignorance and fear are the greatest killers. The IMCr course removes the fear and eradicates ignorance and teaches respect. I have never witnessed arrogance evolving out of the IMCr training only humility. To the doubters, hasn't that got to be a good thing?

[frog_ATC]

Thanks mmflynn for your answers.

Just one question :
"4 - Interestingly a UK PPL (without IR or IMCr) is allowed to fly IFR in Class G (most of the airspace he would use) and is EVEN allowed to fly in some types of IMC. Specifically, does not need to observe the cloud separation minima of VFR."

Are you sure of that ? (maybe I do not understand)
You mean in UK a PPL can fly IMC in class G ?
I'm sorry but this is non-ICAO and I'm very surprised of that.
VMC conditions definition is different in class G, but "in clouds" it is certainly not allowed. Only "out of clouds" in very low levels, but you always have to keep your 1500m/30s vis distance ahead (not easy to evaluate in flight !).
Could you confirm ?


Wow homeguard, how fine you are ! :-)
I feel better now after your fine analyze of my psychology !

I'm probably afraid of flying and scared before and after any flight, you're right !


I fly and teach tailwheels very often, vintage airplanes, aerobatics, mountain flying, gliders, I teach ultralight as well as actual IMC to beginners (which requires a lot of concentration), so I think I'm not "afraid" of flying.
Just attentive and cautious, as any pilot should be, because I know I'm just human and can make mistakes (and I did sometimes), and the other can too.
Don't think I'm arrogant, I'm not a good pilot. Not the finest, not the best at all. I just do my best to make more good decisions than silly actions, and this is not always easy, as you all know.


About arrogance and humility, I did not speak about that because I did not want to embarrass some IMC-rated pilots here which are probably very fine and humble, but I'm sorry to say that those I met, requesting a "quick IR training", were most of the time arrogant and not as skilled as they believed they were...

Dublinpilot : there is no contradiction in what I say. I flew JAA IR as well as FAA IR, and you know what ?
The airplane flies the same !
Same lift, same air, same clearances, you see no difference once you are rated. And in both cases, you are responsible for maintaining your skills by recurrent training.

I do not change my point of view, and for me, intentional IMC flight implies Instrument Rating, whatever FAA or JAA I do not care.
IMC basic flying (what you call IMC rating) should be taught to all pilots, on safety purpose, but not allow them to enter IMC intentionaly.

This is only my own humble position.

I hoped they would modify the JAR IR, but they did not.
So now I believe the FAA IR is the key solution for JAR pilots, until they do something for us with a JAA IR.

Just listen to frequencies : more and more N-reg.
This is the proof that EASA has completely failed.

Don't you want a real IR, more accessible, instead of this half-IMC thing ?
That's what you should fight for, with us, not for an IMC rating !

And we should also fight to improve the PPL training, and add more IMC stuff in it, to improve safety.

Frog, in and out of internet

[TheOddOne]

Why not more IMC training ?

Mainly because they thought that if they trained pilots to handle IMC, that would incitate them to enter IMC. So, they applied the rule : "I do not teach you what I do not want you to do".

That's completely stupid, but that's it.

Frog,

When I got my UK PPL many years ago, there was 4 hours 'sole reference to instruments' training, after which I thought I'd got quite good at it. Then I took some friends for a ride and entered IMC unexpectedly and thought 'this is BAD'. I contacted ATC (Heathrow radar actually!) and they were very helpful in ensuring that my 180 turn back into VMC was conducted without harm to other aircraft. Lesson learned. I then did the IMC course, which principally taught me how to plan better and have a better understanding of the weather forecast to avoid flight in IMC, but if I did enter IMC, not to panic and how to get safely home or divert. Thus, all my long trips in the UK have been planned for VMC, but convert to IMC without having to change anything (except upgrade the Radar service to Radar Advisory Service). This is better and safer than running along at 500' under the cloud and meeting the ground ahead rising up to meet you. The 4-hour requirement was removed from the syllabus because too many pilots were like me and thought that they could do IMC. There is now only 1 hour, all about making a safe 180 turn back to VMC. Now I'm just starting as an instructor in the UK and I'm teaching this to other people.

In 20 years of flying since getting the rating, I can count on one hand the times I've really had to make use of the skills, though I do practice 'under the hood' with a safety pilot. i'm fully aware that the rating stops being valid at the FIR boundary. In any case, when I go for a day out, I want the weather to be nice. Just becasue I CAN fly in clouds, doesn't mean to say that I WANT to - I might as well fly a sim if that's what I want.

Now, the peculiar law about IFR in the UK. IFR here means flight 1,000' above any obstruction within 5 NM of track except when landing and taking off and a recommendation to follow the quadrantal rule above 3,000'. That's it. NOTHING about 'sole reference to instruments' or flying inside the soup (lovely expression, thank you!) I took a student on a cross-country flight today which was planned and flown entirely by this UK IFR rule, but it was a beautiful sunny day and the whole flight was flown completely by external references, except for the watch, compass and altimeter (and of course the engine guages etc). There's a LOT of confusion around that equates UK IFR with some sort of indication that you can't see out. If EASA could only do one thing, they could get a re-definition of VFR, IFR, VMC and IMC.

By the way, I'm sure we're all understanding your meaning perfectly from your excellent English. The style is very distinctive and refreshingly different from our usual 'stiff upper lip' prose. Thank you once again for your views, we much needed some opinion from outside our own group. I'm sure something from you in our magazines would go down a storm!

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[mm_flynn]

With regard to Point 4.

A plain UK PPL is allowed to fly IMC in Class G so long as two conditions are true
1- they are in sight of the surface
2 - they have 3 km viz

So you are right, they can not be 'in cloud', however, they are not required to comply with the cloud clearance or in flight visibility requirements for VFR operation in Class G above 3000ft or above 10000ft (so long as they follow the IFRs - which at that altitude are only to fly quadrantals), nor are they limited to 140 kts for the low level clear of cloud restriction of VMC because high speed low level flight clear of clouds with at least 800m viz is legal UK IFR and so long as the viz is 3km is legal for a basic PPL.

[dublinpilot]

Dublinpilot : there is no contradiction in what I say. I flew JAA IR as well as FAA IR, and you know what ?
The airplane flies the same !
Same lift, same air, same clearances, you see no difference once you are rated. And in both cases, you are responsible for maintaining your skills by recurrent training.

I'm sure an IMC rated and trainned pilot would say the same thing The airplane flys the same when an IMCr pilot is flying it, as when an FAA or JAR IR rated pilot is flying it

Don't you want a real IR, more accessible, instead of this half-IMC thing ?
That's what you should fight for, with us, not for an IMC rating !

In many ways I agree with you here. But I'm afraid that I don't believe EASA will sort that one out. I think getting an Euro wide IMCr is the closes that we can get.

intentional IMC flight implies Instrument Rating

I don't understand your hang up with Instrument ratings. "Instrument Rating" is nothing more than the name given to some training and an exam. By your own admission, EASA have made a mess of their IR. Why can't you argue for some training and exam, that is appropriate to private instrument flight? There is no reason why it has to be an IR if that training (and exam as proof) is sufficient, no matter what it's called. Call it an IMC rating....call it a IFR rating, or perhaps a non-VFR flight rating....what does it matter if it's called IR or not? The name should matter not one little bit. Now if you can agree with me on that, then surely it's only a matter of deciding what you don't like about the IMCr training, and how it could be improved so that it would be acceptable in France? (or Ireland for that matter )

That would be a much more reasonable argument than IR=Ok, no IR=not ok

dp

[homeguard]

Head in the clouds?

Frog, I value your contribution. A big question for us all is; what are those outside of the UK actually thinking with regard to the IMCr.

But I'm left still with a feeling that the opposition is immotive. Your posts are clear and honest and helpful and I respect that.

However if I may illustrate my earlier comments by making a comparison. A good friend and brilliant ex RAF Engineer couldn't understand how anyone could get airborne with anything less than four engines. He'd flown for some thirty years. I asked him how many engines he'd had fail. He had to think hard but could only remember shutting one down on only two occasions. So why four was neccessary for safety he couldn't answer but it was how he felt. In a single engined aeroplane he was always very nervous and couldn't bring himself therefore to do his PPL. He always forsaw doom when behind one engine. Many twin pilots are similar, illogical but understandable, albeit the safety record for twins is no better than singles.

My comments were not to offend but to make the point that for some, if all they have known is the IR, it can be inconceivable that anything less will do. But that is far from the truth. Should the IMCr syllabus be strengthened? YES. Without doubt.

Prior to the JAA UK Flying Instructors were required to hold at a minimum an IMCr. All UK PPLs had to do a minimum of 4 hours instrument training and were tested for their PPL in all aspects of actual instrument flight including Partial/Limited panel and also recovery from unusual attitudes. The 15 hours minimum IMCr training took account of that. Further, in my twenty years of instructing and examining I know that most IMCr candidates would do at least 20-25 hours of IMCr training, some more. A norm then would be in the region of 25-30 hours of instrument flight but without the additional airways training included within the IR.

The IMCr does need revision to take into account the modern world (it was previously based primarily on ADF and VDF procedures) and nowadays it should be reasonably based on a wider 30 hour syllabus.

The JAA agreement abolished minimum hours of instrument training for the PPL and I find that appalling.

Whilst the revision of the IR along the lines of the FAA IR would be progressive it is unlikely that the passion of the european beaurocracy would keep it that simple. By the time they had finished any improvement to access would be blurred and still awkward to obtain. We in the UK would go back 40 years and begin to experience the appaulling level of marginal weather safety seen in most of northern europe. The ICAO/JAA 1500m is VMC by name but in practice requires instrument skills and IFR navigation but is undertaken on mainland Europe without any training for it. The UK PPL is restricted to 3K without an IMCr. The IMCr holder requires 1nm while taking off and also to land.

Anyway keep your arguments coming and I for one would like to hear more from non UK pilots and controllers to build a better picture of what the actual european fears are amongst some.

[frog_ATC]

I'm happy to see that my English is mainly understood :-)
That's quite interesting to read your points of view (even if I do not agree with all of you )


mmflynn:
Thanks for answer.
Please note that in France (as in most European countries), VMC conditions in class G are not the same as in UK.

Below 3000 ft AMSL (or 1000 AGL, the highest) : Vis 1500 m or 30sec flight, and out of clouds.
Above 3000 ft (or 1000 AGL, the highest) : Vis 5km (8km above FL100), distance from clouds 1000ft vertically, 1500m horizontally.

Which means that above 3000ft, "out of clouds" is not enough to be legal.
Why ? Because we have IFR flights in class G, so that is required for traffic avoidance purpose.

So maybe now you wont fly IMC in France without notice

In the US it is more or less the same, only values and units change a little bit.
One specific point in the US that I dislike : you can fly IFR without contact and without FPL, in class G.
But there is nearly no class G in the US, mostly E :-) so i've never seen that happening.


TheOddOne says :
Just becasue I CAN fly in clouds, doesn't mean to say that I WANT to - I might as well fly a sim if that's what I want.


Hello TheOddOne,

I'm fully 100% percent OK with your vision of your IMC rating, and I wish all pilots could behave like you ! That is - in my humble opinion- the best attitude.

I agree with all you say !



Dublin Pilot says :
I'm sure an IMC rated and trainned pilot would say the same thing The airplane flys the same when an IMCr pilot is flying it, as when an FAA or JAR IR rated pilot is flying it

Which means Dublin considers an IMC rated pilot as qualified as an IR one.
That's exactly the problem, thanks Dublin to show us that : those IMC rated do think they have the skills, even without the same training...

And sometimes, trained by non-IR instructors !

The problem is skills.
And believe me, when things go wrong, you are happy to be current and recently trained, even with your IR.
So if you could improve the IMC rating training to allow you to have the same skills as an Instrument Rating, why not having a real IR, without any of those restrictions that will undoubtly be imposed to IMC-rated pilots, and without having to fly illegaly sometimes ?


About making it acceptable in France : I think never.
At least for me :-) but also with our airlines, they dislike private IR, they dislike special VFRs, so they will hate IMC ratings.

I forgot another problem : UK airspaces are not managed the same way than airspace anywhere else in the World (I mean, anywhere else I experienced flying, at least... approx 40 countries, which is not the whole World, that's true).

For example, we do not have your joining clearances. I've never seen that anywhere else than in UK.

I've never seen your Radar service, or Radar Advisory Service, or traffic information service, blablabla... anywhere else than in UK.

As I flew in UK, I know that you use that and why, but must of my colleagues are surprised when a G-reg requests "traffic information service please".

In UK you have different level of service you can request in one single airspace.
In most other countries, there is one service per area, which depends mainly on the equipment of the ATC and the class of the airspace.

So you cannot "switch" from one service to another, it is something completely unusual abroad.

In fact, I must say that the more I fly in UK (and the more I talk with UK pilots), the more I see that you have a different system with really specific features, maybe not compatible with abroad systems.

regards

Frog