IR vs IMC training

[Whopity]

For many years there was no prohibition in the UK on flying IFR and IMC outside controlled airspace, anyone was entitled to do it without any specific qualification.

At some point the law changed and ceased to allow flight in IMC but, did still allow flight under IFR outside controlled airspace, UK PPLs still do. The IMC rating was invented at around the time this law change took place with the intention of allowing pilots to fly in IMC under IFR in their own aircraft using whatever equipment was available. Consequently, there is no specific need to have an ADF to get an IMC rating. It requires basic IF skills and the demonstrated ability to fly a pilot monitored instrument approach and another approach which may be directed by ATC. Thus the IMCR minimum requirement comes nowhere near the requirements for an IR. Once you have the rating you can exercise its privileges using aids you have never been trained on, in aircraft you have never been trained in (inc MEP).

I recall training for an IMC rating in 15 hours and doing my IR in 13 hours flight training, so it has not always been 15 v 55 hours, there has been a lot of evolution whilst the IMCR has remained largely static.

[IO540]

That's true, Whopity (the IMCR came in in the late 1960s or so). However I think any half decent instructor will teach the normal range of real-world landing aids i.e. ILS, VOR, DME, ADF. It's a bit pointless otherwise, because there are so many NDBs in use around the place.

In the end, the pilot is only as good as his own currency and "dedication to the cause". But one cannot legislate for that. Well, the FAA does, by requiring the 6/6 approaches rolling currency, while JAA sort-of solves this with an annual check flight.

[Hot 'n' High]

englishal

not as in depth

Sorry, I misunderstood your point – now fully agreed. With the hours available in the IR you can practice the partial panel & unusual attitudes a bit more – as well as the other bits – though, if they struggle, we just fly until they can! Period. After all, the hours are a minimum.

IO540

However I think any half decent instructor will teach the normal range of real-world landing aids

Exactly so – even if you have to go hunting a bit. Even my PPL-level IF instruction includes a simulated “RV to a visual approach” exercise which I find most PPLs can achieve and, IMHO, represents a possible real-life scenario they could find themselves in. It adds little or nothing to the total training time as you do the exercise returning from the training area. But, that way, I/they know that when ATC are helping them home, at least they will have experienced how they can be safely positioned for a visual approach by a controller - even if I do make an odd “in-flight ATCO”!!!!! And the students are always amazed how well it works out – and it is all useful IF experience for them as well as getting some confidence in responding to ATC vectors. Why do I do it? I’m convinced that the experience is the ideal way to reduce their stress should, one day, it all go pear-shaped on them and ATC have to give them a helping hand home or to a diversion.

I guess the bottom line is any syllabus is the legal minimum. Duty of Care means I will enhance certain areas that I feel to be of real benefit to a student, always having explained why to the student first!

[BackPacker]

Even my PPL-level IF instruction includes a simulated “RV to a visual approach” exercise which I find most PPLs can achieve and, IMHO, represents a possible real-life scenario they could find themselves in.

This was one of the bits of the PPL course that I remember specifically and enjoyed a lot. Under the hood, getting vectored by the instructor to and around the circuit and into the descent, until she told me "look up now" at 200' and short final. Great!

[tropicalfridge]

IO540: I believe my post was factual and relevant to the discussion at that point, so IO540 you can keep your smart comments yourself. The decision height is higher on an IMC and you can't fly in airways, I think that sums it up quite well. Is it your thing to go around suggesting the others are not Pilots? I really couldn't care less what you think I do for a living.

Gertrude/Workinghard - accepted that it was a bit of an arrogant response on my part, I take back the tone. I believe that the IMC rating is largely aimed at GA, and since most GA aircraft are unpressurised pistons, they are not great for airways flying, that was what I meant.

[IO540]

I believe my post was factual and relevant to the discussion at that point, so IO540 you can keep your smart comments yourself. The decision height is higher on an IMC and you can't fly in airways, I think that sums it up quite well. Is it your thing to go around suggesting the others are not Pilots? I really couldn't care less what you think I do for a living.

Your comments (e.g. below)

on an IMC rating you can't fly in class A without special permission which rules out airways, not that your likely to be in an aircraft capable of getting into the

are hardly factual. The IMCR is not good for Class A and there is no possibility of getting a "special permission".

And what kind of plane the pilot is capable of getting into depends on his budget, which is completely irrelevant to the training he got beforehand. A lot of IMCR holders fly pretty decent stuff - £250k Cirruses, etc.

What I particularly don't like is the IMCR being slagged off. Like all ratings etc, it is only as good as the effort pilot makes afterwards t get good, and stay good, plus the investment in a well equipped plane. Anybody who can drive a car and got some GCSE pass at school can get the IMCR or the JAA IR if they have enough time and work at it for long enough, but how good a pilot they will be is up to them. After some months, in the absence of currency etc, the original training pales into insignificance.

[Shunter]

The decision height is higher on an IMC

For God's sake.. NO, IT ISN'T.

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.

Those with a lesser grasp of the English language regularly misunderstand this statement. I have a letter from the CAA which clarifies the fact. Vertical minima are identical for IR and IMC holders. If you intend to argue about the IMC rating, please get your facts right.

[TractorBoy]

Did it during IMCR training. Took off from Cambridge, next looked out of the window to see the Norwich runway nicely lined up in front of me, having done much of the trip in and above cloud.

Seconded. I had a great instructor for my IMC. He finishes off the course by doing a real life nav. Routed from North Weald to Jersey via CPT and SAM - spent alot of the time in IMC, including the Solent Zone transit, met some really nasty clag and turbulence over the Channel - raining in the cockpit etc, got a SVFR through the Jersey Zone, ILS into Jersey then an NDB approach to Alderney and back through the crap again on the way back.

OK I was with an instructor, but he provided minimum if almost no input. Showed just how useful an IMC is. Especially helped in getting a zone transit. All the VFR traffic was being routed round that day.

[Fuji Abound]

Just add to Shunter's comment for the sake of factual accuracy there is no legal difference between the DH for an IMCr holder and an IR holder. This is an age old myth that requires to be regularly dispelled.

Those who roll out the myth usually try and cover up their error by pointing out a heigher DH is both recommended and sensible - albeit they usually prefer somewhat stronger language.

I can think of a few IR holders who would be wise to avoid flying to minima and a few IMCr holders for that matter. The correct answer is know your own limitations and if you are not current increase your minima. Not rocket science really, is it?

[englishal]

and since most GA aircraft are unpressurised pistons, they are not great for airways flying,

Really! I must remember that. Better tell IO540 as well for when he does his next Eurotransit

[IO540]

Yes I did wonder about that comment too...

Got a photo of my altimeter and speedo at FL200 last Friday. TAS was about 130kt; not too bad considering the engine was making not a whole lot of power... pressurisation is not directly relevant to airways flight. What matters is the operating ceiling, which ideally should be FL170 or higher, to get above the cloud tops most of the time (non frontal conditions).

[Fuji Abound]

I dont know never noticed a lack of oxygen flying the sim.

[tropicalfridge]

Quote:
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.
Those with a lesser grasp of the English language regularly misunderstand this statement. I have a letter from the CAA which clarifies the fact. Vertical minima are identical for IR and IMC holders. If you intend to argue about the IMC rating, please get your facts right.

Okay fellas, I'll watch my flippant comments in future, I'm sure there a plenty of you with IMC ratings happily flying airways capable aircraft. But you'd have to admit that there are far more flying C152 types probably keeping out of the airways. Enough said on that one, I didn't mean to irritate anyone!

On the other point about minimas, I'm reading that differently, your quote says "an absolute minima of 500ft for a precision"? Its 200ft if you have an IR, unless the plate minima is higher.

[IO540]

But you'd have to admit that there are far more flying C152 types probably keeping out of the airways.

Sure; the vast majority of UK GA keeps out of IMC. Especially if they are flying C152s which are barely able to make the Eurocontrol airway MEAs...

There has been a huge decline in IMCR issues in recent years; around 2/3 down. I don't know why this is.

As regards airways, this makes little sense for UK-only IFR, basically because it is so easy to bore a hole in Class G clouds, non-radio. The main driver behind the IR is to fly IFR around Europe generally, so one finds that most IR holders are either lapsed (these are found in the bars) or they own their own plane, and it sure won't be a C152 otherwise they would not have bothered to get an IR.

As regards that "absolute minima" bit, the document containing it (some AIC) is of advisory nature only. The law in the UK is the ANO, and above it is the Civil Aviation Act.

Then you have LASORS which deals with miscellaneous areas where the CAA has been given the power to decide on their own.

Everything not in the above regs is advisory. If the IMCR had different minima to the IR, this would be in the ANO. Currently, the IMCR requires 1800m vis for departure and landing, which the IR does not need, and that's about it. Some people don't like this but that's what the law says, and everything which is not expressly prohibited is 100.000% legal.

[tropicalfridge]

That is an interesting point about the minima, and I'll check it out further but I'm still not sure you are correct!

My aim isn't to bash the IMC rating, I think its a great thing. There is another difference regarding not being able to fly on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than 3 km on an IMC rating.

I think the general distinction between the two ratings is that an IR is for a professional pilot who must get from A to B by the most cost effective means, and as you say often overseas.

[englishal]

and it sure won't be a C152

Different attitude in the USA though. They have hills where mountain goats roam at 11,000+ around California and people really do fly 152's IFR in the airways out there! (I have indeed flown some ropey old !!!!e around these hills). If my aeroplane has the right avionics, I'd even fly that in airways - good job a minimum speed is not required!

[Shunter]

That is an interesting point about the minima, and I'll check it out further but I'm still not sure you are correct!

He is. You'll find that IO540 is very well read and his contributions on such matters are often held as a point of reference. Numerous people have sought clarification on the matter because the wording is commonly misinterpreted, but it is what it is; a recommendation.

I think the general distinction between the two ratings is that an IR is for a professional pilot who must get from A to B by the most cost effective means, and as you say often overseas.

I suggest you try flying in America sometime as you'll gain a whole new perspective on instrument ratings over there. I don't have the figure to hand, but a substantial number of private pilots hold IRs in the states. The traditional European requirements have skewed the perception of the IR into something "only professional pilots have", but there are many valid reasons why a PPL might want to pursue such a rating, especially in the context of seamless international IFR touring. The completely OTT theory requirements (Been there, done that, forgotten most of it) serve only to put people off, as opposed to encouraging them to become better, more capable pilots.

If the IMC rating ever does cease to exist and is not replaced by an IR more accessible to the kind of busy people with the funding to exercise it, EASA will prove well and truly that the S in their name stands for nothing.

[IO540]

There is another difference regarding not being able to fly on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than 3 km on an IMC rating.

Well, yes. IIRC, the IMCR gives you the following stuff:

1) In the UK only, IFR in Class D,E,F,G. 1800m min surface vis for takeoff and landing.

2) VFR flight does not need to be in sight of the surface (no territorial limit on this one, unless modified by local airspace rules)

3) The 3000m vis requirement for VFR flight (applicable to all JAA PPLs I believe) is removed - presumably this means you can fly VFR down to 1500m vis. (no territorial limit on this one, unless modified by local airspace rules)

4) SVFR visibility requirements are different (I can never remember the details since I never seem to make use of SVFR).

I think the general distinction between the two ratings is that an IR is for a professional pilot who must get from A to B by the most cost effective means,

That is an opinion which you are entitled to

I would say: "why professional"? I think you are the victim of traditional "elitist" attitudes in Europe. Try stepping back a bit.

In Europe, the private-IFR crowd has been largely ignored, and IR training has become the province of ATPL schools (both practically, and in a legally-protectionist manner since you cannot do an IR with freelance instructors). Since the European ATPL is largely a formality (obtained by getting a CPL/IR, a RHS cheap airline job, and clocking up the required 250hrs or so of MCC time), the hallmark of a pro has become the CPL/IR. Since the IR is a lot harder than the CPL (which in any case is rarely done totally separately; a CPL without an IR is useless) the various protagonists have nailed the "professional pilot" status flag to the IR mast, and this is why we have the rigid emotional attachment to the IR as the guardian of heavenly purity of all things in professional aviation. It has often been said by the old purists that the IR is the last barrier to prevent undesirable characters getting into airline jobs, and I am sure it is very effective indeed in doing that.

In the USA, you can do the IR with any freelance FAA CFII instructor, and dig out a local DPE for the checkride. The CPL is widely done by private pilots; it is good VFR aircraft-technical and handling stuff, with very little fat or crap. It is often done standalone (no IR) because it allows a lot of stuff like crop spraying. I did the FAA CPL/IR myself. The IR is something which is very accessible and which any private pilot can do and no big deal is attached to it. The halmark of a professional pilot is the ATPL, which is as it should be, and this is another exam and another checkride to tighter tolerances. (You still need the 1500hrs TT, like here). As a result of this, about 10x more US pilots (as a % of total GA population) have the IR. The checkride standard of the FAA IR is every bit as tough as any other IR elsewhere.

The "IR = professional" attitude in Europe is misplaced and is a consequence of the way the airline pilot training establishment has been set up. In turn, this cartel has done a really good job in keeping the # of private IR holders incredibly small (single digits per year in the UK) with most private pilot going places flying under the FAA system.

[Hot 'n' High]

Hi Guys & Gals,

As regards that "absolute minima" bit, the document containing it (some AIC) is of advisory nature only.

Picked this up and I believe that the “absolute minima” is law. Before I’m flamed, follow my trail and I have highlighted the critical word - notified as this is key. I will readily agree that the link, for such a fundamental set of Documents (ANO and UK AIP), is very hazy – but I think it is there! Hang in here and I will take you through the trail!!!

The ANO states an aircraft (I have used non-public transport as that is what we are talking about here with the IMCR), when making an approach using a notified instrument approach procedure shall not descend below the relevant DH/MDH unless visual:-

From the ANO, Sect 1, Part 5, Para 49 Non-public transport aircraft – aerodrome operating minima

49 (1) This article shall apply to any aircraft which is not a public transport aircraft.

49 (5) Without prejudice to paragraph (2) an aircraft to which this article applies when making a descent to a runway in respect of which there is a notified instrument approach procedure shall not:

(a) continue an approach to landing on such a runway by flying below the relevant specified decision height; or

(b) descend below the relevant specified minimum descent height; unless in either case from such height the specified visual reference for landing is established and is maintained.

The UK AIP is the document where the Notifications mentioned in the ANO are detailed:-

From UK AIP Gen 3.1, 3 Aeronautical Publications

3.2 The United Kingdom Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP)

3.2.1 The UK AIP is published in accordance with the provisions of Annex 15 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and is, in addition, the official document used to publish Notifications required by the UK Air Navigation Order.

The UK AIP, therefore, expands on the UK ANO providing the detail for each individual notified instrument approach in the individual "Aerodrome - Specific" sections. However, in the general preamble to Aerodrome Operating Minima, AD 1.1.2, which is part also of the UK AIP which supports the ANO as per 3.2.1 above, it [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. The UK IMC Rating may not be valid outside UK territorial airspace …..

Note the language of 3.3.2.1 changes from “recommended to add 200ft to the minimum applicable DH/MDH..”, which is clearly optional/advice, to “but with an absolute minima of 500 ft…” etc. The way I read this there appears to be no option here. It looks like this “absolute minima” blanket amends any DH/MDH in any notified instrument approach procedure detailed in the UK AIP and referred to in the ANO Sect 1, Part 5, Para 49 (5) unless the DH/MDH is greater, in which case the higher DH/MDH would apply.

Again, I really believe that the linkage between the ANO and UK AIP could be made clearer but, following the above paper trail, I believe it is there. I table this more for comment but it is how it looks to me and it is how I have always understood it to be.

Please do advise me if I am wrong and I would be grateful if you could explain why the above assumptions are incorrect. Happy to discuss!

Off to get me tin helmet, flack jacket and asbestos suit!!!

Cheers, H n' H

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Long time lurker in this corner of the forum

IO540

Generally your posts aren't wide of the mark, but you really do sometimes come across as having a huge chip on your shoulder when you start discussing this elitist BS you have a habit of coming out with.

Why not just take 6 months off and do the JAA exams - you know you want to deep deep down and then do the JAA IR in an aztec with no autopilot or FMS or head up display or whatever else you have FAA STC'd in your aircraft

Just a thought.....hang on.....dont tell me you couldn't afford the pay cut....yada yada yada