How do you use your IMC?

[Cricket23]

The thread about how many hours people take to get the IMC licence got me wondering about how people go about using theirs.

For instance:

1) Do you never use it and now it's lapsed?

2) Only use it to get home in bad weather?

3) Use it regularly, and in doing so extend your flyability due to the weather constraints in the UK?

4) Use it if you really have to but get sweaty palms from the experience?

5) Other, I guess...

The reason why I'm asking is that I'm thinking about doing my IMC this coming year and would be interested in how people practically use the new skill once they've got it.

Merry Christmas to all.

C23

[dont overfil]

I've only done 40 hours this year but about 5 were in IMC. Two approaches for real. I'm comfortable in IMC providing there's no ice and no CBs. My 20 year average is 10% actual IMC. I almost always plan IFR whatever the forecast. If possible on any longish trip I like to be VMC on top.
If it was not for my IMC rating very few long trips would work and the low level navigation which would then be necessary would be a pain.

DO.

[Pace]

Its not a case of get an IMC and off you go. Like with most things in aviation as in the initial PPL its a licence to start learning.

The IMC rating was constructed as a get you out of trouble thing not a mini IR. Yes experienced IMC pilots do use it as a mini IR and are safe doing so because of that experience not the rating.

So do beware of getting the IMCR and then thinking you can set off in most weather because you will not be trained to the standard to do so and will not have the experience to do so.

We had a long thread on the subject and while used as it was designed to be used the IMCR does enhance safety do not confuse it with a full instrument rating.

Pace

[Cricket23]

Thanks Pace. I did a quick search but couldn't find the thread. Are you able to lay your mouse on it please?

Regards,

C23

[IO540]

I used my IMCR a lot, and it was priceless not only for utility flying value but also for safety and finally for the experience for the FAA IR which I did 4 years later.

The IMC rating was constructed as a get you out of trouble thing

Oh please If you get an IR and don't use it you will be just as crap after 6 months as if you get the IMCR and don't use it.

[stickandrudderman]

Have it but have hardly used it. I like to know it's there though.
Just coming up for my second renewal and have still never flown an approach on my own! I view it as a little extra training now and then which can't do me any harm.

[dont overfil]

It's a good idea to fly with another IMC rated pilot as two crew until you get a bit experience. As IO540 says you must stay in practise in real IMC.
DO.

[Fuji Abound]

Oh please If you get an IR and don't use it you will be just as crap after 6 months as if you get the IMCR and don't use it.

Exactly.

Why is it you can almost always spot the commercial pilots and those with an IR from those who are not, or without, when the issue of the IMC raises its head?

Its just like us lot with a CAA IR who think we are a cut above the FAA lot - what a load of b*lls.

When you first get your IMCr you are a good 50% towards having the same skills sets as an IR holder. It up to you whether you develop those skill sets.

[Pace]

Fuji

I do not agree that an experienced IR pilot goes rusty if not used for six months and becomes a danger.

IR flying is a bit like riding a bike or taking up skiing. When you first start the pilot will feel completely lost, very unatural and will struggle in hooking up all the elements of IR flying.

Then it clicks and becomes second nature. The pilot no longer even thinks about it and the process becomes as natural as flying VFR.

leave it six months and it will take maybe half an hour to get back in the groove. A bit like not skiing for 9 months to an experienced skier.
As he hits the slopes again it does not take long to get back into it.

The level of training and tolerances required for the IMCR no way approach the IR. It was designed as a get out of trouble minimal training rating.
If over time and experience the IMCR pilot builds his skills then yes it can be used as a mini IR.

Pace

[WorkingHard]

Are we talking about the ability to fly by sole reference to instruments or are we talking about about flying IFR? A pilot who is well versed and well trained to fly on instruments is surely just as good at doing that if he has an IMCR or an IR. There are many pilots who may have no desire for an IR who nevertheless are very good at at IMC flying. Please do not look down on those who do not aspire to an IR and also do not assume the IR make for a better IMC pilot. I have met the odd IR pilot who just simply could not cope with flying IMC outside his/her own world of controlled airspace, radar vectors and STAR procedures etc. any more than I could cope with some of that without further training.

[Pace]

Are we talking about the ability to fly by sole reference to instruments or are we talking about about flying IFR? A pilot who is well versed and well trained to fly on instruments is surely just as good at doing that if he has an IMCR or an IR.

WorkingHard

you quote well trained! How can you be well trained to fly IFR to a minimal standard of the IMCR? The IMCR is a very basic instrument training platform which no way approaches the levels of competancy required for the IR JAA or FAA.
To then quote that a pilot who is only competant to fly IFR in controlled airspace but incompetant out of controlled airspace is rubbish.
Many procedures especially out of the UK are pilot flown and not by radar vectors. In the UK not all IFR flight remains in controlled airspace and maybe partially in and out of controlled airspace.

Pace

[Mikehotel152]

Workinghard,

Hmmmm. If that were true, I think the extra 40 hours of training to get the Instrument Rating, not to mention passing what is regarded as a notoriously difficult skills test, is a complete waste of time and money...

But I'm sure you weren't suggesting that is the case.

MH152

[IO540]

If that were true, I think the extra 40 hours of training to get the Instrument Rating, not to mention passing what is regarded as a notoriously difficult skills test, is a complete waste of time and money...

Which, to a large degreee, is true if we are talking about equipping a pilot for flying in the European enroute system.

But if one is to regard the IR as a mini jet type rating, or perhaps a means of sorting the men from the sheep, then the IR is doing a great job.

The amount of theoretical knowledge and raw instrument flying competence that is actually needed, in any plane that is equipped anywhere near adequate for the job, on top of currency on type and type specific systems knowledge (which isn't taught) is far less than one might think.

[Fuji Abound]

I do not agree that an experienced IR pilot goes rusty if not used for six months and becomes a danger.

I agree.

However, as with any skill it will degrade. When I skied for a season I was much better at the end than I am now. Flying a modern aircraft with good avionics in IMC is not hard, flying the same aircraft partial panel in cr*p weather on one engine is hard. If you are current you should make a good job of it, if you arent current, you will struggle.

The IMC rating involves around half the training of an IR. The tolerances are not as high as an IR. For anyone who has done both it should be quite clear the additional elements involved with an IR that produce a "safer" pilot - the trouble is you will find that most people who hold a view on this subject have not done both and therefore sadly - dont know what they are talking about.

[IO540]

I have done both, Fuji, and I don't think the IR has taught me anything of practical use - except perhaps the lost comms procedure.

European IFR flight is a point to point RNAV exercise where you spend much of your time flying the filed route, with frequent DCTs to (sometimes very) distant waypoints kindly assigned by ATC, with occassional vectors in busy airspace. A SID to depart, a STAR to approach on and an IAP to land on. Anybody who has been actually taught the whole IMCR syllabus, and has approached the subject with personal interest, diligence, and a bit of a brain, can do this stuff.

It will be hard to do in a Cessna 150 with no autopilot and crap instruments, but would one want to do it in something like that? The Eurocontrol routes only start c. FL070, get halfway sensible filed for FL100, and get good filed for FL140.

So the issue is self regulating. The wreckage doesn't find its way into this airspace, in the first place. Yet the IR training is still geared up for people who really want to fly wreckage, IFR. I don't think many do.

[vanHorck]

my longest DCT leg was in Hungary, 206 nm

[IO540]

Same here; I've had a good few 200nm legs.

Flying those stretched my IR training to its limits - I was really grateful for it I also wished I had done the JAA CPL theory; would have sure come in handy.

Happy Xmas

[vanHorck]

you too! Too much food though....

[WorkingHard]

Pace and others, I did say the ability to fly the aircraft safely on instruments etc and I also said that without further training I, and no doubt most who have not done an IR course, could not cope with some or many of the IFR procedures. One of the things instrument flying teaches you (well in my case it did) is to recognise your capabilities and plan to avoid those things for which you are not trained nor have the equipment to deal with. The IR is beyond me and my flying does not require it. I recognise full well the skills the IR pilot has that we mere IMCR pilots do not. Selective reading of a post does not change the point I was trying to make. Do an IMCR and learn how to fly on instruments but also learn from the IMCR how to recognise trouble looming and stay clear.

[Pace]

WorkingHard

There are pilots who fly hard IFR out of controlled airspace with just an IMCR.

It is their experience gained slowly over years which allows that not the IMCR training itself.
In some ways it is harder for them as they have to be more creative in their flying.
They have to keep away from controlled airspace, often flying solid IMC with poor radar coverage and flying in the greatest turbulence and heaviest weather.
The danger has to be the reason that a pilot gets the IMCR.

If its as an extra safety backup for going places in VFR then its an excellent rating to have.

If its to set off in IMC conditions or known IMC conditions enroute without a lot of experience to back that up then thats asking for trouble.

Many of us have done that and survived and hence gained the experience with a number of frights along the way.

Someone mentioned flying IFR in a C150 and that is a good example why flying with an IMCR coupled with a minimal performance and equipt aircraft brings in extra hazards.

I fly corporate jets which initially climb at 3000 fpm have sytem redundancy and capable autopilots and deicing anti icing systems.

The poor pilot minimally trained in a poor performance aircraft with no deicing anti icing and minimal systems has to be extra careful and self impose limits to the conditions he will fly in.

To not do so increases the risk levels dramatically as shown by a number of recent fatalities published in these threads.

There are many here in the private pilots forum who defend the IMCR because that is all that is available to them. Some go the FAA way as that is a practical IR which is achievable for a working man/woman. Fewer get the JAA IR because they cannot afford the time and expense of following that route. It is the sytem that is wrong not the pilots and that is a sad thing for all of us.

Pace