Scrap the IMCR
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
The one in Ireland (which went into the peat bog) was definitely not in any way related to the IMCR.
If the pilot had an IMCR (maybe he did; I have no idea) and was actually exercising its privileges, he would have not hit the ground because he would have flown at/above the MSA, and landed on an instrument approach - just as he had been trained to do
I am assuming the IMCR is valid in N Ireland.
What was the Mooney one?
If the pilot had an IMCR (maybe he did; I have no idea) and was actually exercising its privileges, he would have not hit the ground because he would have flown at/above the MSA, and landed on an instrument approach - just as he had been trained to do
I am assuming the IMCR is valid in N Ireland.
What was the Mooney one?
I certainly didn't practice total engine failures in IMC for my IR! Equally, there are a number of fatal accidents over the years where pilots loss control of the aircraft following an engine failure - so putting this one down to having an IMCr vs IR is a bit over the top!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 939
Likes: 1
From: UK
I suspect Pace may be referring to
Air Accidents Investigation Branch: Mooney 500922
Which involved two IMCR pilots
Sadly it is very similar to this one
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...MW%2011-06.pdf
where the pilot was a very experienced IR holder
Air Accidents Investigation Branch: Mooney 500922
Which involved two IMCR pilots
Sadly it is very similar to this one
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...MW%2011-06.pdf
where the pilot was a very experienced IR holder
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 21
From: London
Johnm
The latter is a sad story, I knew the pilot. I was surprised to read that the misfitting of the component was seen as the only probable cause.
I had been led to believe the plane had stood outside during a very rainy night and was known to be sensitive to rain water being ingested in the fuel tanks.
Many people close to the accident believed the cause of the engine failure could easily have been due to water contamination.
Either way, flaws were found in maintenance procedures so this outcome should make aviation safer.
The latter is a sad story, I knew the pilot. I was surprised to read that the misfitting of the component was seen as the only probable cause.
I had been led to believe the plane had stood outside during a very rainy night and was known to be sensitive to rain water being ingested in the fuel tanks.
Many people close to the accident believed the cause of the engine failure could easily have been due to water contamination.
Either way, flaws were found in maintenance procedures so this outcome should make aviation safer.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Just read those two reports.
The first one has zero bearing on the IMCR. It appears to have been an engine failure together with the pilot being for some reason unable to maintain stability during the descent, with the failure perhaps being masked for a while by the autopilot being in use. And the engine was knackered, with zero oil analysis being done (IMHO not even the oil filter was ever cut open to check for chips - just like in a more recent fatal accident where the camshaft was found to be knackered just like this one).
The second one has zero bearing on the IMCR or the IR specifically but the IR holding pilot had what appears to be a low currency: 3hrs in the last 28 days. It appears to have been an engine failure together with the pilot being for some reason unable to maintain stability during the descent.
The amazing thing in the 2nd one is that it identifies the maintenance (mag repair) company by name. Tempting to comment but one would need to be awfully careful....
The first one has zero bearing on the IMCR. It appears to have been an engine failure together with the pilot being for some reason unable to maintain stability during the descent, with the failure perhaps being masked for a while by the autopilot being in use. And the engine was knackered, with zero oil analysis being done (IMHO not even the oil filter was ever cut open to check for chips - just like in a more recent fatal accident where the camshaft was found to be knackered just like this one).
The second one has zero bearing on the IMCR or the IR specifically but the IR holding pilot had what appears to be a low currency: 3hrs in the last 28 days. It appears to have been an engine failure together with the pilot being for some reason unable to maintain stability during the descent.
The amazing thing in the 2nd one is that it identifies the maintenance (mag repair) company by name. Tempting to comment but one would need to be awfully careful....
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: someplace between FAF & MAPt
Correct
The first report had nothing to do with the IMCr nor with the conditions... they were merely a casual factor
The engine gradually lost power over a short time masked by the CSU for a short while and the AP making trim adjustments.. when the stall occured the AP tripped out with full aft trim and the engine failed at around the same time... they did also find metal in the oil however were unable at the time to pinpoint where it had come from as well as being unable to determine the exact cause of the failure itself
Those who know early moonies well will know of its tendency to drop the left wing in the stall and its eagerness to develop into a spin if not corrected at the right time.....
Needless to say if indeed this accident is being tied to the IMCr as a cause/reason it is utter tosh!
The first report had nothing to do with the IMCr nor with the conditions... they were merely a casual factor
The engine gradually lost power over a short time masked by the CSU for a short while and the AP making trim adjustments.. when the stall occured the AP tripped out with full aft trim and the engine failed at around the same time... they did also find metal in the oil however were unable at the time to pinpoint where it had come from as well as being unable to determine the exact cause of the failure itself
Those who know early moonies well will know of its tendency to drop the left wing in the stall and its eagerness to develop into a spin if not corrected at the right time.....
Needless to say if indeed this accident is being tied to the IMCr as a cause/reason it is utter tosh!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
As an irrelevant aside, there would have been copious metal "in the oil" in these cases - I have had this confirmed by two reputable U.S. engine shops. Small particles appear in oil analysis (which almost nobody does, but everyone should) but the kind of camshaft trashing referred to would produce bigger lumps which end up in the oil filter.
Anyway, I suppose what this means is that when flying in IMC, one needs to be monitoring the systems properly. With an autopilot, this is really easy to do because there isn't much else to do. The whole route will have been preloaded into the GPS, for example, before departure. Some IFR pilots don't do this, preferring to load just the first couple of waypoints and then play it by ear. This is a recipe for getting caught out, in the early stage of a flight.
Anyway, I suppose what this means is that when flying in IMC, one needs to be monitoring the systems properly. With an autopilot, this is really easy to do because there isn't much else to do. The whole route will have been preloaded into the GPS, for example, before departure. Some IFR pilots don't do this, preferring to load just the first couple of waypoints and then play it by ear. This is a recipe for getting caught out, in the early stage of a flight.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Just as a completely irrelevant but irresistable aside, I have to say that philosophically I completely agree with IO's assertion that the state has no business in dictating individual attitude to risk and that if it did there would be no mountain climbing , scuba diving, climbing etc. Alas the b*stards still compel us to wear seat belts in our cars, crash helmets on our motor bikes, and have drafted anti smoking legislation which could easily have accommodated both smokers and non smokers without being unfair to either. Nanny state will out.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
I have always had mixed feelings about the quality of the instruction for the IMC. However one thing I am certain of is that if it is lost and viable replacement is not found it will have a noticeable impact on the UK GA scene in terms of safety and quality of airmanship.
The mini IR debate aside, the IMC provides pilots with the tools to better aid situational awareness and greater precision of control of the aircraft. It provides a control environment that aids a pilot in growing and enhancing the skills they learnt in the basic PPL. It teaches new skills that aid confidence and enhance safety.
I have seen no evidence to remove the rating, some to improve standards and update it and none that shows it is a danger.
The mini IR debate aside, the IMC provides pilots with the tools to better aid situational awareness and greater precision of control of the aircraft. It provides a control environment that aids a pilot in growing and enhancing the skills they learnt in the basic PPL. It teaches new skills that aid confidence and enhance safety.
I have seen no evidence to remove the rating, some to improve standards and update it and none that shows it is a danger.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
08/01/94 Mooney M20J The Wrekin, Shropshire Private Hit top of isolated hill in poor weather
Basically he was flying IMC with an IMCR, but for obvious reasons I dont really want to discuss the accident.
As to my posting I have not said that the IMCR is not a big contributor to flight safety for the VFR pilot. NO I do not consider the training for an IMCR to be an alternative for an IR although competant pilots with a lot of experience use it to get around in hard IMC SAFELY.
That is because they do not have the time to spend six months out studying for ground exams.
I have expressed my concerns over EASA ever doing anything to encourage GA or helping to make licences which add to safety more achievable for the working man in the street.
If I am wrong I for one will be delighted but no matter who posts what here I doubt I will ever be delighted about what comes out of EASA.
I do try and post with a bit of colour to encourage discussion I apologise for that.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th December 2008 at 22:32.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
What you need to be sure about, Pace, is whether a specific accident (allegedly attributed to the usage of the IMCR) was caused specifically by the IMCR i.e. was the pilot doing something which he would not have done had he had the full IR training.
The circumstances must not involve illegality, because anybody can do that. They also must not involve a pilot error other than one caused by a lack of specific theoretical knowledge which would have been rectified by the full JAA IR ground school. Being a "cowboy" doesn't count either because aviation is packed with those types, carrying all kinds of paperwork.
All in all, it is pretty damn difficult to work out what kind of circumstances would give rise to such an accident.
At a Feb 08 presentation I went to, the CAA stated they can find just one fatal accident where the pilot died while exercising his IMCR privileges. I don't know how that was arrived at but it is probably about right.
The legal privileges are very close to the full IR, and the rest is currency, currency, currency on type, money, more money, and being generally careful.
The circumstances must not involve illegality, because anybody can do that. They also must not involve a pilot error other than one caused by a lack of specific theoretical knowledge which would have been rectified by the full JAA IR ground school. Being a "cowboy" doesn't count either because aviation is packed with those types, carrying all kinds of paperwork.
All in all, it is pretty damn difficult to work out what kind of circumstances would give rise to such an accident.
At a Feb 08 presentation I went to, the CAA stated they can find just one fatal accident where the pilot died while exercising his IMCR privileges. I don't know how that was arrived at but it is probably about right.
The legal privileges are very close to the full IR, and the rest is currency, currency, currency on type, money, more money, and being generally careful.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
What you need to be sure about, Pace, is whether a specific accident (allegedly attributed to the usage of the IMCR) was caused specifically by the IMCR i.e. was the pilot doing something which he would not have done had he had the full IR training.
The circumstances must not involve illegality, because anybody can do that. They also must not involve a pilot error other than one caused by a lack of specific theoretical knowledge which would have been rectified by the full JAA IR ground school.
The circumstances must not involve illegality, because anybody can do that. They also must not involve a pilot error other than one caused by a lack of specific theoretical knowledge which would have been rectified by the full JAA IR ground school.
Pilots are taught not to fly into hills, whether they are IMC-rated or instrument rated. But pilots occasionally make mistakes and do fly into hills. The issue is whether a pilot is able better to avoid such mistakes with full IR training compared to IMC-rating training, which is nominally less than 1/3 of the hours requirement, and if so whether the safety dividend is worth the training cost.
One could in principle shorten the PPL course to an hour so and just tell the student what they need to know to survive having demonstrated effect-of-controls. Any failure to survive can then, by your standard, be attributed to pilot-error, not lack of training. But training is not simply about what is covered in the course, it's about what the trainee takes away and puts into practice.
An accident involving an IMC-rated pilot flying into a hill is relevant to the debate about whether IMC-rating training is sufficient for operational IFR.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
From: notts
Training
The only justification for any mandatory course of training is to ensure that the pilot has a minimum level of certain skills. Also included should be the skill of decision making for specific predictable situations. A major purpose of the AAIB is to ensure that the knowledge required is available.
Many countries throughout Europe maintain a chauvanistic approach to all this. DO NOT allow or even educate the pilot to do anything that you do not want them to do. Much like the old victorian attitude to sex. History demonstrates the foolishness of all that.
The CAA to their credit realised the stupidity of such an attitude and introduced the IMC some 40 years ago. Later they increased the mandatory PPL course instrument training from 1 hour to 4 hours to ensure a minimum skill. All this was reversed following JAR. There remains NO minimum instrument hours training required and a simple mandatory 180 degree turn on instruments as part of the skill test.
With the appalling attitude held by some within Europe it isn't easy.
Many countries throughout Europe maintain a chauvanistic approach to all this. DO NOT allow or even educate the pilot to do anything that you do not want them to do. Much like the old victorian attitude to sex. History demonstrates the foolishness of all that.
The CAA to their credit realised the stupidity of such an attitude and introduced the IMC some 40 years ago. Later they increased the mandatory PPL course instrument training from 1 hour to 4 hours to ensure a minimum skill. All this was reversed following JAR. There remains NO minimum instrument hours training required and a simple mandatory 180 degree turn on instruments as part of the skill test.
With the appalling attitude held by some within Europe it isn't easy.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
10540
using your arguement would mean that you could never prove that an accident was caused by insufficient training either with an IMCR or an IR.
Of course any accident is usually pilot error whether it be to an IR pilot or IMCR pilot or even a VFR pilot.
All you can look at is whether the pilot is suitably trained and competant to be flying in certain conditions and whether more training could have helped avoid the accident that occured.
I think a confusion here lies between the training standards and the experience gained to bring a pilot to a level of competancy as well as natural ability.
I am sure you would not advocate a new PPL getting an IMCR and then heading off in any weather? a low time PPL who aquires an IR would be better equipt to fly off in poor weather but in both cases it is subsequent experience built over time which makes a pilot safe to do so.
That usually involves self imposed limits by the PPL which are loosened as the PPL gains more experience and feels more comfortable and capable.
To fly IFR in controlled airspace requires that the pilot is trained to a certain standard and is able to demonstrate his ability to fly to that standard and tolerances.
The freshly IMCR trained pilot would not be able to fly to the standards and tolerances required for the IR both JAA or FAA and that should answer this arguement.
Training and experience are two different things and maybe EASA should look more at experience in issuing a more attainable PPL IR.
Ie after the issuance of an IMCR a set amount of logged P1 instrument flying out of controlled airspace before any allowances are made on the normal IR route?
But I very much doubt anything will be done other than sympathetic burps amidst tea and biscuit chats.
Pace
using your arguement would mean that you could never prove that an accident was caused by insufficient training either with an IMCR or an IR.
Of course any accident is usually pilot error whether it be to an IR pilot or IMCR pilot or even a VFR pilot.
All you can look at is whether the pilot is suitably trained and competant to be flying in certain conditions and whether more training could have helped avoid the accident that occured.
I think a confusion here lies between the training standards and the experience gained to bring a pilot to a level of competancy as well as natural ability.
I am sure you would not advocate a new PPL getting an IMCR and then heading off in any weather? a low time PPL who aquires an IR would be better equipt to fly off in poor weather but in both cases it is subsequent experience built over time which makes a pilot safe to do so.
That usually involves self imposed limits by the PPL which are loosened as the PPL gains more experience and feels more comfortable and capable.
To fly IFR in controlled airspace requires that the pilot is trained to a certain standard and is able to demonstrate his ability to fly to that standard and tolerances.
The freshly IMCR trained pilot would not be able to fly to the standards and tolerances required for the IR both JAA or FAA and that should answer this arguement.
Training and experience are two different things and maybe EASA should look more at experience in issuing a more attainable PPL IR.
Ie after the issuance of an IMCR a set amount of logged P1 instrument flying out of controlled airspace before any allowances are made on the normal IR route?
But I very much doubt anything will be done other than sympathetic burps amidst tea and biscuit chats.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 30th December 2008 at 10:54.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
An accident involving an IMC-rated pilot flying into a hill is relevant to the debate about whether IMC-rating training is sufficient for operational IFR.
It is only when you go into the realms of type ratings and see the level of failures and situations thrown at the pilot in a simulator that you realise how minimalistic the IMCR is.
It is only under such extreme loading on the pilot that you can find out his limits and train him to deal with every scenario in IMC.
The IMCR cannot meet what the PPL may have to face and sadly thats when the poor guy looses the plot.
The IMCR is an excellent safetey backup for the PPL faced with worse than expected weather and is used by PPLs with hard earned experience but little free study time to get around in poor weather. In itself it cannot be regarded as an IR.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 30th December 2008 at 11:37.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
From: notts
IMCr v IR
As whopity has already argued, it is irrelevant to compare the IMCr with the IR. Does the training and testing regimes do the job for what is required, is the real question.
Clearly the IMCr training and testing is fit for THE PURPOSE. The accident record, pilot error or not, is excellent with only one recorded fatality in 40 years. The support of the rating given by BALPA and the Guild of Air Traffic Controllers and of course the CAA are also proof that the IMCr pilot performs well when within controlled airspace.
All things can be improved and brought up to date. The IMC course is not exempt but otherwise proves its case easily. Only European chauvinism seeks to oppose it.
Clearly the IMCr training and testing is fit for THE PURPOSE. The accident record, pilot error or not, is excellent with only one recorded fatality in 40 years. The support of the rating given by BALPA and the Guild of Air Traffic Controllers and of course the CAA are also proof that the IMCr pilot performs well when within controlled airspace.
All things can be improved and brought up to date. The IMC course is not exempt but otherwise proves its case easily. Only European chauvinism seeks to oppose it.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
The accident record, pilot error or not, is excellent with only one recorded fatality in 40 years.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Can I just remind everyone that my IMC use survey is still run and can be accessed via the AOPA UK site. We have had close to 1000 responses so far and the results make interesting reading.
Only by gathering accurate data can we prove/disprove the potential of the IMCR.
Only by gathering accurate data can we prove/disprove the potential of the IMCR.
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
From: Abroad
It is only when you go into the realms of type ratings and see the level of failures and situations thrown at the pilot in a simulator that you realise how minimalistic the IMCR is
Most of the IR training is spent dealing with abnormal situations. Even though you know it's not for real I have come out of the sim shaking like a leave more than once after a Topper-style landing with about as many bits of aircraft missing.
Of course, in a single engine aeroplane, all the above is a bit academic. But then again, I'm not one to fly SEPs in IMC.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
LH2
Instrument and IMC flying is about spatial awareness, multi tasking and a whole host of qualities which you either have, work hard at getting or do not have the type of brain that will ever do it well.
It is easy to do with minimal training but throw in a number of failures, missed approaches, diversions, icing, turbulence etc and IFR flying will tax the most professional pilots who are not only current but regulary put through their paces in a simulator to breaking point.
How some here can promote 15 hrs training on an IMCR course and then state that they are IFR ready bemuses me
It takes a lot more than that to be safe in an IFR/IMC invironment.
Used with caution and self limitation as a back up for the VFR pilot the IMCR is a useful safety tool but thats all. Its not an IR which some here seem to think it is.
Pace
Instrument and IMC flying is about spatial awareness, multi tasking and a whole host of qualities which you either have, work hard at getting or do not have the type of brain that will ever do it well.
It is easy to do with minimal training but throw in a number of failures, missed approaches, diversions, icing, turbulence etc and IFR flying will tax the most professional pilots who are not only current but regulary put through their paces in a simulator to breaking point.
How some here can promote 15 hrs training on an IMCR course and then state that they are IFR ready bemuses me
It takes a lot more than that to be safe in an IFR/IMC invironment.
Used with caution and self limitation as a back up for the VFR pilot the IMCR is a useful safety tool but thats all. Its not an IR which some here seem to think it is.
Pace