IMC rating in theUK?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK !
Training required for FAA IR is 40 hours IMC, including at least 15 dual, and max 10/20 ground trainer, and a cross country 250NM (check FAR Part 61).
For JAA IR, it is now 50 for single, check JAR FCL :
FLYING TRAINING
9 A single-engine IR(A) course shall comprise at least 50 hours instrument time under instruction of which up to 20 hours may be instrument ground time in a FNPT I, or up to 35 hours in a flight simulator or FNPT II With the agreement of the approving Authority not more than 10 hours of FNPT II or flight simulator instrument ground time may be conducted in a FNPT I.
10 A multi-engine IR(A) course shall comprise at least 55 hours instrument time under instruction of which up to 25 hours may be instrument ground time in a FNPT I, or up to 40 hours in a flight simulator or FNPT II. With the agreement of the approving Authority not more than 10 hours of FNPT II or flight simulator instrument ground time may be conducted in a FNPT I. The remaining instrument flight instruction shall include at least 15 hours in multi-engine aeroplanes.
But whatever your logbook, you'll be endorsed for the checkride only when ready, we all agree about that.
And the number of hours is not the only parameter : the duration of the training (intensive or not), the efficiency of the instructor, the complexity of the airplane, the training environment, the student him/herself....
I do not make rules, I just apply them.
Whatever, I think 40 IMC is more or less a good guess, some pilots require less, some more.
Frog
Training required for FAA IR is 40 hours IMC, including at least 15 dual, and max 10/20 ground trainer, and a cross country 250NM (check FAR Part 61).
For JAA IR, it is now 50 for single, check JAR FCL :
FLYING TRAINING
9 A single-engine IR(A) course shall comprise at least 50 hours instrument time under instruction of which up to 20 hours may be instrument ground time in a FNPT I, or up to 35 hours in a flight simulator or FNPT II With the agreement of the approving Authority not more than 10 hours of FNPT II or flight simulator instrument ground time may be conducted in a FNPT I.
10 A multi-engine IR(A) course shall comprise at least 55 hours instrument time under instruction of which up to 25 hours may be instrument ground time in a FNPT I, or up to 40 hours in a flight simulator or FNPT II. With the agreement of the approving Authority not more than 10 hours of FNPT II or flight simulator instrument ground time may be conducted in a FNPT I. The remaining instrument flight instruction shall include at least 15 hours in multi-engine aeroplanes.
But whatever your logbook, you'll be endorsed for the checkride only when ready, we all agree about that.
And the number of hours is not the only parameter : the duration of the training (intensive or not), the efficiency of the instructor, the complexity of the airplane, the training environment, the student him/herself....
I do not make rules, I just apply them.
Whatever, I think 40 IMC is more or less a good guess, some pilots require less, some more.
Frog
Last edited by frog_ATC; 2nd Feb 2008 at 12:42. Reason: JAR-FCL quote added
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed; it should be competence based. I actually don't think this is the #1 political issue, anyway.
The FAA IR has 15hrs min dual training, which is as close to "competence based" as one will get, since it is absolutely impossible to reach the checkride standard in that time.
This is good because there is implicit acceptance of previous instrument training.
So, e.g. a UK IMCR holder who is good and current and has a lot of his own IFR time, can go to the USA and finish the FAA IR with say another 20hrs' flight training. Very efficient.
I think a new EASA IR will also have something along these lines, but the latest I know is that it is 1-2 years away.
In the meantime, the best "upgrade route" is the FAA IR and then come back to Europe, go to Switzerland, and do the JAA IR which in Switzerland requires zero flight training if you already hold an ICAO IR. In the UK you have to do 15hrs which isn't bad either - a week's flying and a chance to suss out what the examiner will be looking for, from the instructor who knows him
The FAA IR has 15hrs min dual training, which is as close to "competence based" as one will get, since it is absolutely impossible to reach the checkride standard in that time.
This is good because there is implicit acceptance of previous instrument training.
So, e.g. a UK IMCR holder who is good and current and has a lot of his own IFR time, can go to the USA and finish the FAA IR with say another 20hrs' flight training. Very efficient.
I think a new EASA IR will also have something along these lines, but the latest I know is that it is 1-2 years away.
In the meantime, the best "upgrade route" is the FAA IR and then come back to Europe, go to Switzerland, and do the JAA IR which in Switzerland requires zero flight training if you already hold an ICAO IR. In the UK you have to do 15hrs which isn't bad either - a week's flying and a chance to suss out what the examiner will be looking for, from the instructor who knows him
15 hours at £150 per hour is well out of reach of the average UK IMCR holder who does not have any need for full IR privileges.
By the time you add travel and subsistence, plus a test with a CAA Staff Examiner, I can't see there being any change out of £3000.....
When I did my first military Preliminary Instrument Flying Grading, I had all of 12 hours TOTAL IF time. The test involved full and partial panel flying, plus an 'ACR7' surveillance radar approach into RAF Andover in a Chipmunk with a floor mounted compass!
Why this CAA/JAA/EASA obsession with total training time?
Even when I flew the Gnat, I only did 6 hours IF in it before taking the IRT (which was VERY demanding! I was utterly amazed that I'd passed). I had to do a navigation exercise to Pershore at around 350KIAS, a TAC/ILS approach then back to Valley for a QGH to GCA, touch and go then a short pattern GCA to land. Total 1:10, of which 1:05 was IF - with all of 6 hrs IF time on the aeroplane plus another hour in the primitive simulator.
I can say from a background of IF in everything from that Chipmunk to being a VC10 IRE, with IRs on various military fighter, trainer, bomber and transport aircraft as well as being a strong advocate of the UK IMCR that the UK IMCR most certainly gives the average GA/PPL holder (except for those who wish to fly long distances on airways) everything he/she really needs for safe IMC flight. Fortunately, many of the more senior people in the CAA agree with me.
By the time you add travel and subsistence, plus a test with a CAA Staff Examiner, I can't see there being any change out of £3000.....
When I did my first military Preliminary Instrument Flying Grading, I had all of 12 hours TOTAL IF time. The test involved full and partial panel flying, plus an 'ACR7' surveillance radar approach into RAF Andover in a Chipmunk with a floor mounted compass!
Why this CAA/JAA/EASA obsession with total training time?
Even when I flew the Gnat, I only did 6 hours IF in it before taking the IRT (which was VERY demanding! I was utterly amazed that I'd passed). I had to do a navigation exercise to Pershore at around 350KIAS, a TAC/ILS approach then back to Valley for a QGH to GCA, touch and go then a short pattern GCA to land. Total 1:10, of which 1:05 was IF - with all of 6 hrs IF time on the aeroplane plus another hour in the primitive simulator.
I can say from a background of IF in everything from that Chipmunk to being a VC10 IRE, with IRs on various military fighter, trainer, bomber and transport aircraft as well as being a strong advocate of the UK IMCR that the UK IMCR most certainly gives the average GA/PPL holder (except for those who wish to fly long distances on airways) everything he/she really needs for safe IMC flight. Fortunately, many of the more senior people in the CAA agree with me.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 hours at £150 per hour is well out of reach of the average UK IMCR holder who does not have any need for full IR privileges.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading the above, its frightening to think some of you are representing the interests of UK pilots.
I'm with Fuji, I think I was suckered in. One thing I have learned about Pprune is often not everything is as it appears. I know for a fact that some regular contributors who like to stir things, don't even fly any more, or certainly rarely!.....I call that sh*t stiring. Anyway, it doesn't bother me, we know who they are......
Last edited by englishal; 2nd Feb 2008 at 15:29.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Fuji, I think I was suckered in.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 will now confirm that I am what I said I am, he had a special ATIS recorded only for him.
But I'm disappointed to see the attitude of some of you.
You should be ashamed of that, and no one should have to justify to be what he is.
And you, who are you ?
Do you think that posting thousands of messages proves anything about you ?
I've seen liars that lasted for years, even in airclubs, fake CFI etc.
Sherlock Holmes probably knows thousands of ATCs, to be able to recognize a fake one just with some online messages. Great job boy !
But maybe some lessons about respect could be good for you.
If you do not want other people's advice, do what you want !
I do not care your IMC rating, I'm IR so I do not need it. :-)
The only thing that is important for me, is safety for all pilots, and freedom for general aviation.
And I know that your "IMC rating" as it is today is not compatible with most european countries' airspaces, so if you are not able to discuss it to find a solution you will just lose it.
Bad luck !
Frog
But I'm disappointed to see the attitude of some of you.
You should be ashamed of that, and no one should have to justify to be what he is.
And you, who are you ?
Do you think that posting thousands of messages proves anything about you ?
I've seen liars that lasted for years, even in airclubs, fake CFI etc.
Sherlock Holmes probably knows thousands of ATCs, to be able to recognize a fake one just with some online messages. Great job boy !
But maybe some lessons about respect could be good for you.
If you do not want other people's advice, do what you want !
I do not care your IMC rating, I'm IR so I do not need it. :-)
The only thing that is important for me, is safety for all pilots, and freedom for general aviation.
And I know that your "IMC rating" as it is today is not compatible with most european countries' airspaces, so if you are not able to discuss it to find a solution you will just lose it.
Bad luck !
Frog
Last edited by frog_ATC; 2nd Feb 2008 at 16:09.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by frog_ATC
IO540 will now confirm that I am what I said I am, he had a special ATIS recorded only for him.
But I'm disappointed to see the attitude of some of you.
You should be ashamed of that, and no one should have to justify to be what he is.
But I'm disappointed to see the attitude of some of you.
You should be ashamed of that, and no one should have to justify to be what he is.
For the record it is good to know that people on your side (of the radio and the channel) are interested in this issue as well
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
frog in the Throat
Keep participating Frog.
Unfortunately some can't help but be rude when anonymous. It is the desease of the ignorant to be offensive and make claims that the opposition are frauds. Usually the same wouldn't have the balls to say the same to ones face.
To qoute Bernard Shaw. "the last act of the scoundrel when losing an argument is to fall back on their respectability".
Anyway, back to the IMC vs IR .................!
Unfortunately some can't help but be rude when anonymous. It is the desease of the ignorant to be offensive and make claims that the opposition are frauds. Usually the same wouldn't have the balls to say the same to ones face.
To qoute Bernard Shaw. "the last act of the scoundrel when losing an argument is to fall back on their respectability".
Anyway, back to the IMC vs IR .................!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.
- Benjamin Disraeli
- Benjamin Disraeli
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frog why don't you just tell us which airport/zone you control?...It would stop some of the rudeness and convince others that you are who you say you are (not that I need convincing 
).
BTW I was slightly disappointed that you didn't take up Fuji's offer to post in French, I used to be quite good at French (lived in Luxembourg for 5 years a while ago) and it would be interesting for me to see how much I could understand still.
The points about the IMC rating you raised, the 25 month validity period and the problem with airspace in Europe are things that would have to change for it to be Europe wide (I think 25 months is too long, although I suppose the thinking is that much less would discourage people from doing it in the first place) and the airspace...well is for people like you to think about...
). BTW I was slightly disappointed that you didn't take up Fuji's offer to post in French, I used to be quite good at French (lived in Luxembourg for 5 years a while ago) and it would be interesting for me to see how much I could understand still.
The points about the IMC rating you raised, the 25 month validity period and the problem with airspace in Europe are things that would have to change for it to be Europe wide (I think 25 months is too long, although I suppose the thinking is that much less would discourage people from doing it in the first place) and the airspace...well is for people like you to think about...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chèr(e) Contacttower,
Je t'ai écrit tout celà par email privé, comme je l'ai fait pour tout ceux qui me l'ont demandé.
Et quoi qu'il en soit, je ne suis pas convaincue que le fait de prouver qui je suis changera quoi que ce soit à la stupidité de ceux qui n'ont que l'insulte comme argument.
Alors laissons-les dans leur bêtise !
La grenouille à micro
Je t'ai écrit tout celà par email privé, comme je l'ai fait pour tout ceux qui me l'ont demandé.
Et quoi qu'il en soit, je ne suis pas convaincue que le fait de prouver qui je suis changera quoi que ce soit à la stupidité de ceux qui n'ont que l'insulte comme argument.
Alors laissons-les dans leur bêtise !
La grenouille à micro
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As no-one else from this side of the channel will bother, please accept our apologies for their rudeness: Not all English people are as rude as some are demonstrating in this thread.
For the record it is good to know that people on your side (of the radio and the channel) are interested in this issue as well
For the record it is good to know that people on your side (of the radio and the channel) are interested in this issue as well
I humbly apologise if I was in any way rude. I just have much experience of Pprune and some of the morons who post here - lying about what they get up to yet preach to you..etc......you know what I mean. I respect you though Mme grenouille as you stand up for the FAA of which I am a great supporter.
Thank you Madame grenouille
Last edited by englishal; 3rd Feb 2008 at 06:50.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure frog_ATC is a real person, even if I didn't spot anything unusual about the ATIS (could not make it out too clearly on the phone connection).
Let's keep this debate totally rational, shall we?
Let's keep this debate totally rational, shall we?