Where are we really going with the IMC rating?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: somewhere or other
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC, Your not really one to take the high ground on personal attacks, having recently had posts deleted by the moderator on a different thread, for very clearly identifying an Irish ATCO, and slandering his professionalism.
Yes DFC, there may be some posters who describe others as 'fools, liars or cheats', but you go the whole hog and just describe them in all their personal detail; occupation, ratings, address, hair colour (I kid you not)
Yes DFC, there may be some posters who describe others as 'fools, liars or cheats', but you go the whole hog and just describe them in all their personal detail; occupation, ratings, address, hair colour (I kid you not)
Last edited by goodworker; 17th Feb 2008 at 11:30.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as for throwing rocks, Keef, I am sorry - truly - that there is discord. However, the guy at my airfield who said to me yesterday that - despite being a perfect candidate for it, in terms of usage and profile - he wouldn't be taking up an IMC because someone he knew had seen on PPruNe that it was definitely a dead duck - makes me angry, and those who propagate this crap deserve all they get ...
The value of the debate between most of the people on here has fallen to zero long ago.
Countering disinformation is alone a worthwhile cause. I know a man who was told (by somebody in the UK CAA, no less) that he could fly a G-reg on an FAA PPL only in the UK; he sold the plane on the basis of that advice.....
The relevant section of the UK AIP states:
3.3.2 IMC Rating Holder in Current Practice
3.3.2.1 Pilots with a valid Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the minimum applicable DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non-precision approach.
This is a somewhat ambiguous statement. As I read it, it is a mere recommendation and is sufficiently vague for any lawyer to successfully defend anyone using lower limits routinely. For example, it seems to state that it recommends that, where a published DH is 260 ft, the recommendation is not for 460 ft (DH+200) but 500 ft.
This is why my recommendation for the Class 2 IR uses mandatory additions to DA/H and MDA/H rather than the slackly worded statements above.Regarding industry 'best practice', most people I know use the simple figures published in Pooley's Guide as their everyday minima.
Thus industry has found a sound, commonsense solution which is easier to understand than the AIP! This could work to our advantage as it shows that the UK routinely provides sensible recommendations for 'amateur' pilots to follow - who would perhaps otherwise be confused by the AIP.
3.3.2 IMC Rating Holder in Current Practice
3.3.2.1 Pilots with a valid Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the minimum applicable DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non-precision approach.
This is a somewhat ambiguous statement. As I read it, it is a mere recommendation and is sufficiently vague for any lawyer to successfully defend anyone using lower limits routinely. For example, it seems to state that it recommends that, where a published DH is 260 ft, the recommendation is not for 460 ft (DH+200) but 500 ft.
This is why my recommendation for the Class 2 IR uses mandatory additions to DA/H and MDA/H rather than the slackly worded statements above.Regarding industry 'best practice', most people I know use the simple figures published in Pooley's Guide as their everyday minima.
Thus industry has found a sound, commonsense solution which is easier to understand than the AIP! This could work to our advantage as it shows that the UK routinely provides sensible recommendations for 'amateur' pilots to follow - who would perhaps otherwise be confused by the AIP.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
You and I both know that if an candidate doing their initial IMCrating test use a DH of 250ft for the ILS then they will fail the element regarding appropriate minima.
That i why the schools teach the 500ft / 600ft and the examiners require it to be displayed on the test.
I agree with you that the proposals should be for a simple mandatory addition of x and y amount to the IR minima in terms of DA(H) / MDA(H) and also the visibility element.
However, the point I am still trying to get across is that whatever may be done in practice by some pilots, with the IMC rating under the microscope anything that even remotely adds to the posibility of not having a PPL level European IR - eg
"not a good idea because pilots will simply fly as if they had the full IR therefore the safest thing to do is make sure they do have the full IR" - a quote from a European member of the pannel who will decide what happens
The IMCrating holders are not in any way different from IR holders in regard to busting appropriate minima etc etc.........the problem is that there is no fight to retain the IR or to have the IR expanded across Europe.
Regards,
DFC
You and I both know that if an candidate doing their initial IMCrating test use a DH of 250ft for the ILS then they will fail the element regarding appropriate minima.
That i why the schools teach the 500ft / 600ft and the examiners require it to be displayed on the test.
I agree with you that the proposals should be for a simple mandatory addition of x and y amount to the IR minima in terms of DA(H) / MDA(H) and also the visibility element.
However, the point I am still trying to get across is that whatever may be done in practice by some pilots, with the IMC rating under the microscope anything that even remotely adds to the posibility of not having a PPL level European IR - eg
"not a good idea because pilots will simply fly as if they had the full IR therefore the safest thing to do is make sure they do have the full IR" - a quote from a European member of the pannel who will decide what happens
The IMCrating holders are not in any way different from IR holders in regard to busting appropriate minima etc etc.........the problem is that there is no fight to retain the IR or to have the IR expanded across Europe.
Regards,
DFC
A pilot who holds a multi-pilot (or a military) IR on much faster aircraft is in a better position to consider the 'recommendations' for IMC Rating minima than a pilot who does not.
This serves to complicate the appropriate consideration of the 'recommendation'.
You can fly your Hawk to 200 ft with a Green IR, but should you fly your much slower spamcan to 200 ft with your IMC rating? Perhaps not. But why not?
Recommendations are fine whn considered correctly. But all too often they will be taken advantage of by people without the background to understand the error of their ways.
This serves to complicate the appropriate consideration of the 'recommendation'.
You can fly your Hawk to 200 ft with a Green IR, but should you fly your much slower spamcan to 200 ft with your IMC rating? Perhaps not. But why not?
Recommendations are fine whn considered correctly. But all too often they will be taken advantage of by people without the background to understand the error of their ways.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by goodworker
To all on this thread, beware, dublinpilot had a close enough call.
Looking at your own profile, it seems you have registered on pprune mainly to post on this thread
I haven't made any contribution to that thread, so am at a loss for what you are talking about
dp
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: somewhere or other
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dublinpilot, I was referring to posts made by DFC about you and AOPA, which resulted in you having to defend your reputation. The 'close call' I referred to was of having your reputation slurred, I did not mean to imply that you had posts pulled. DFC is very keen on personal slurs and I just wanted others posters to be wary.
However, through my own poor prose, I have succeeded to decend to this level of offensive posting.
My post is obviously not clear and will be edited accordingly.
I apologise for the misunderstanding and/or offence.
I leave your thread in peace
Yours
Goodworker
However, through my own poor prose, I have succeeded to decend to this level of offensive posting.
My post is obviously not clear and will be edited accordingly.
I apologise for the misunderstanding and/or offence.
I leave your thread in peace
Yours
Goodworker
Last edited by goodworker; 17th Feb 2008 at 11:44.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah no problem 
Now I understand what you mean
In all fairness I don't think DFC intended to imply that I had any involvement with AOPA Ireland.....he just phrased it badly so that it looked like that was what he was saying
It is very easy with an online forum for the meaning to get totally lost
Have a good day
dp
Now I understand what you mean In all fairness I don't think DFC intended to imply that I had any involvement with AOPA Ireland.....he just phrased it badly so that it looked like that was what he was saying
It is very easy with an online forum for the meaning to get totally lost
Have a good day
dp
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all fairness I don't think DFC intended to imply that I had any involvement with AOPA Ireland.....he just phrased it badly so that it looked like that was what he was saying
Perhaps everyone should read my statement that DP can confirm that something happened........how on earth does that implicate DP in anything?
-------------
BEagle,
I think that you are mudying the waters. The IMC rating has nothing to do with military fliers. I do think however that the RAF system of grading the instrument ratings is a well proven model that can be taken forward.
Can you confirm that a candidate you are testing for an IMC initial test will fail if they use a DH of 250ft for an ILS - published minima 200ft (adding 50ft for PEC) and they they will pass if they use 550ft?
Regards,
DFC
Any military Green IR (aeroplane) holder can apply for an IMC Rating without any need for exam or test. This is because the 'old' UK CPL/ATPL IMC privileges, lost by the CAA through their own cock-up when JAR-FCL came along, still apply to military pilots.
I will not make any statement on IMCR pass/fail criteria on a public website as to do so would be inappropriate.
I will not make any statement on IMCR pass/fail criteria on a public website as to do so would be inappropriate.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will not make any statement on IMCR pass/fail criteria on a public website as to do so would be inappropriate.
Here is the appropriate section from CAA Standards Document 25
3.4.3 Applicants will be expected to comply with the IMC rating weather minima published in the UK AIP. Consideration must also be given to the weather conditions at any nominated alternate airfield if the actual weather at the planned destination is marginal.
------------
While checking the CAA requirements in regard to this, I also stumbled across something else that is more significant and which I was not aware of ;
UK ATPL and CPL licence holders do not have an IMC rating included in their licence. The actual situation is that in the case of UK national CPL/ATPL licenses maintaining a current Single Pilot Aeroplane Type/Class rating give the holder similar instrument flying privileges to those of an IMC rated pilot but that these privileges do not require revalidation
That means that such pilot do not hold an IMC rating. They by virtue of their holding a UK National CPL/ATPL and a Current Single Pilot Aeroplane Type/Class rating have certain instrument privileges which just happen to be similar to the IMC rating.
That means that any removal of the IMC rating would have no effect on those pilots and the privileges their National Licenses provide.
Or looking at it another way - If the IMC rating was retained - or a Pan European PPL-IR was brought into effect replacing the IMC rating, unless those National Licenses remained in force also, they could loose their embeded single pilot instrument privileges.
In terms of support - are pilots who are not geing to benifit in any way - or for that matter those who loose nothing - going to be easy to convince when it comes to giving support to the issue?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any military Green IR (aeroplane) holder can apply for an IMC Rating without any need for exam or test. This is because the 'old' UK CPL/ATPL IMC privileges, lost by the CAA through their own cock-up when JAR-FCL came along, still apply to military pilots.
No matter how they obtain the rating, it is attached to a licence and no matter who they are in the Military world, when exercising the privileges of that licence and the ratings therein, they are no different from you and me in terms of the legal requirements to operate to in the case of IMC ratings to the appropriate minima.
If I am flying a CAT 2 certified aircraft to a CAT 2 certified runway, I can not simply decide to dispense with the 200ft DH and 550m RVR requirement for CAT 1 because I think that I am capable of getting to the CAT 2 minima safely........I can only do so when I hold an appropriate authority to do so. Anything else would be reckless endangerment of the aircraft...........or if in my other job, I have CAT 2 approval that would not make it OK either.
---------
The CAA may have messed up but it had nothing to do with JAR-FCL. As it has been pointed out to me, the CAA can still give a free IMC rating to every new CPL issued in the UK.By giving new JAR-CPL's a free IMC rating would counteract the loss of the embeded instrument privileges of the UK-CPL.
All it needs is some typing in the National Ratings section.
Regards,
DFC
Have you really only just found out about the legacy UK CPL(A) and ATPL(A) privileges, DFC? It's a pretty fundamental part of the whole sorry saga.
The excuse for the CAA cock-up was that the JAR-FCL CPL(A) training 'was not the same' as it was in the days of CAP54. It must have taken them quite a while to research that piece of nonsense.
Nor will they pay for the adminstrative effort required to issue a 'free' IMCR to JAR-FCL CPL(A) or ATPL(A) holders unless it is requested at the time of IR(A) initial issue.
Your example of the Cat 2 minima is nihil ad rem. You cannot compare a 'recommendation' for the IMCR with an absolute regulatory requirement for Cat 2 operations.
Also, the excerpt you quote from Standards Document 25 does not state that applicants must adhere to the IMC weather minima quoted in the AIP, merely that they are 'expected to'....
The impact of the loss of legacy IMCR privileges if EASA requires all UK CPL(A) and ATPL(A) holders to convert to EASA part-FCL licences has already been made plain to the CAA on many occasions.
The excuse for the CAA cock-up was that the JAR-FCL CPL(A) training 'was not the same' as it was in the days of CAP54. It must have taken them quite a while to research that piece of nonsense.
Nor will they pay for the adminstrative effort required to issue a 'free' IMCR to JAR-FCL CPL(A) or ATPL(A) holders unless it is requested at the time of IR(A) initial issue.
Your example of the Cat 2 minima is nihil ad rem. You cannot compare a 'recommendation' for the IMCR with an absolute regulatory requirement for Cat 2 operations.
Also, the excerpt you quote from Standards Document 25 does not state that applicants must adhere to the IMC weather minima quoted in the AIP, merely that they are 'expected to'....
The impact of the loss of legacy IMCR privileges if EASA requires all UK CPL(A) and ATPL(A) holders to convert to EASA part-FCL licences has already been made plain to the CAA on many occasions.
The only absolute weather minima applicable to the UK IMCR are:
3 km in-flight visibility under SVFR in a CTR
1800m in-flight visibility below cloud for take-off and landing
Aerodrome Operating Minima
The 3.3.2.1 recommendations in the UK AIP are just that. Recommendations.
3 km in-flight visibility under SVFR in a CTR
1800m in-flight visibility below cloud for take-off and landing
Aerodrome Operating Minima
The 3.3.2.1 recommendations in the UK AIP are just that. Recommendations.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
You know my position with regard to the IMC minima and it is not going to change until the CAA change the paragraph in the AIP and the guidance so may as well leave that there.
However, I must point out to prospective candidates that to avoid confusion, you will fail any questions that may be on the CAA written test for the IMC if you fail to apply the absolute minima of 500 / 600ft as appropriate.
You will also fail the flight test if you fail to apply the same rationalle to the minima you use.
So despite BEagles hedging regarding what will happen - don't risk having a punt with a 200ft DH on your initial test.
On the up side of course the chosen minima are covered in the briefing and if you choose a DH of 200ft, you will be "strongly persuaded" to apply more appropriate minima before going flying.
Regards,
DFC
You know my position with regard to the IMC minima and it is not going to change until the CAA change the paragraph in the AIP and the guidance so may as well leave that there.
However, I must point out to prospective candidates that to avoid confusion, you will fail any questions that may be on the CAA written test for the IMC if you fail to apply the absolute minima of 500 / 600ft as appropriate.
You will also fail the flight test if you fail to apply the same rationalle to the minima you use.
So despite BEagles hedging regarding what will happen - don't risk having a punt with a 200ft DH on your initial test.
On the up side of course the chosen minima are covered in the briefing and if you choose a DH of 200ft, you will be "strongly persuaded" to apply more appropriate minima before going flying.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the IMCR checkride, I would ask the examiner what his expectations are. Quite a few IMCR instructors (the better ones) will train down to IR minima. Also on the IMCR (not being JAA) you can have the same person as the instructor and the examiner.
I can confirm that the IMCR written exam (the one I did in 2002) the questions are written as per the recommendations i.e. 500/600ft or whatever so you have to just give them the answers they expect. This is poor form but who is to argue? It's just an exam.
I can confirm that the IMCR written exam (the one I did in 2002) the questions are written as per the recommendations i.e. 500/600ft or whatever so you have to just give them the answers they expect. This is poor form but who is to argue? It's just an exam.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
The CAA position I was told today is actually that you can use IR minima. But only where they are specified as 500ft or above in the case of a DH and 600ft or above in the case of an MDH i.e. the +200ft is optional.
Give 01 a ring and check.
--------
IO540,
If you find an examminer to agree to the use of IR minima on an IMC rating test then you have good grounds to appeal a failure because you can complain about the conduct of the test was not appropriate.
You are only expected to be trained and to be capable of flying an ILS to a DH of 500ft. You are required to keep the ILS within half scale at all times - to go outside is basically a fail..........the ILS is more sensitive below 500ft and thus requires a bit more ability to fly accurately.
Many people confuse the common practice of terminating the test / exercise at 500ft but permitting the candidate to have a go at flying the ILS below that height with some approval for doing such in real flying.
Regards,
DFC
The CAA position I was told today is actually that you can use IR minima. But only where they are specified as 500ft or above in the case of a DH and 600ft or above in the case of an MDH i.e. the +200ft is optional.
Give 01 a ring and check.
--------
IO540,
If you find an examminer to agree to the use of IR minima on an IMC rating test then you have good grounds to appeal a failure because you can complain about the conduct of the test was not appropriate.
You are only expected to be trained and to be capable of flying an ILS to a DH of 500ft. You are required to keep the ILS within half scale at all times - to go outside is basically a fail..........the ILS is more sensitive below 500ft and thus requires a bit more ability to fly accurately.
Many people confuse the common practice of terminating the test / exercise at 500ft but permitting the candidate to have a go at flying the ILS below that height with some approval for doing such in real flying.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the ILS is more sensitive below 500ft and thus requires a bit more ability to fly accurately.
Seems to be a massive confusion, I have yet to see EVIDENCE that you cannot use the IR minima. The CAA say a lot of stuff, only to retract it in writing later on.