IR vs IMC training

[ruth0000]

I’m currently approx 10 hours underway towards gaining my IR rating. In the meantime I’ve also read some blog’s on people gaining their IMC rating. It strikes me that the stuff they learn is much the same as I’m doing in the full IR training. The difference being, IMC only requires 15 hours of training as opposed to 50 hours for the full IR-rating.
Would someone care to elaborate on what is being taught extra for the full IR that requires an extra 35 hours of training? I’m just curious.

Thanks

[18greens]

You've hit the nail on the head. There is no real difference since both qualifications allow you to fly in cloud in the UK. The test standards are higher for the IR (painfully high, especially on the hold).

Perhaps most people would find 15 hours a little light in terms of shooting off into the clag on hour 16 on your own and if you want to fly to france the IR is useful .

If you were just flying privately in the UK then the IMC woudl save you a lot of money. If you want to fly commercailly the IR is the one to have. A lot of instructors have an IR but only renew every two years lapsing to IMC priviledges in the second year.

[maxdrypower]

The qualification(IMCR) is not there to allow you to fly in cloud , it is there to assist you if you inadvertently enter imc and need to use an instrument procedure to get yourself home .It is not intended for people to use as a "Fly in IMC" rating
You are taught the bare minimum on an imcr enough to hopefully get you home in one piece if it all goes wrong .
Holds are taught in their most basic form , and indeed are not actually included on the imc syllabus but most instructors tend to give a grounding .
Your minima is considerably higher than with an IR . You cannot fly in airways and are not really taught navigation based solely on instruments .
There is quite a bit more to the IR but you get the idea , Having held an IMC and an IR I can tell you that the differences in standard are immense .I foudn the IMCR quite easy , the IR was a bastard!

[Shunter]

Here we go again...

The qualification(IMCR) is not there to allow you to fly in cloud

Says who?

Your minima is considerably higher than with an IR

No they're not. They're exactly the same from a vertical point of view, although there is a 1800m horizontal restriction for take-off and landing. There's a *recommendation* to increase vertical minima, but it's not law. I've flown ILS approaches to <300ft numerous times on an IMC rating.

My IMC test iincluded a SID, DME arc, 6 laps of the hold from the correct join and an NDB/DME approach... The FAA IR (note: I'm not including the oral test) was no harder. One's currency in instrument flying is far, far more important than the writing on their license.

[Flyluke]

Whilst Maxdrypower is right in what (s)he says, for the average PPL, an IMC is probably sufficient, and a great deal less expensive to both achieve and maintain.

I'd like my IMC to be usable in France where I fly regularly. But it isn't, so that's that.

But I did once go into cloud under ATC control when descending into Tenerife South.....

The REAL point, though, is whichever rating you have, it is not the piece of paper which counts.
It is the currency, and regular practise (and from that, confidence) which matters. Both from the point of view of safety, also the satisfaction of having flown well.

[maxdrypower]

Here we go again...


Quote:
The qualification(IMCR) is not there to allow you to fly in cloud

Says who?

Common sense

Quote:
Your minima is considerably higher than with an IR

No they're not. They're exactly the same from a vertical point of view, although there is a 1800m horizontal restriction for take-off and landing. There's a *recommendation* to increase vertical minima, but it's not law. I've flown ILS approaches to <300ft numerous times on an IMC rating.

you say no there not then go on to contardict that exact statement

there is a recommendatuion to increase vertical minima but you think you are good enough ti gonore that do you , pattern developing here Shunter
Ones intentions bginning to outweigh ones abilities are they
So you dont have a JAR IR then

[18greens]

As many people have said the real difference is experience. An out of practice IR would do well to raise the limits to IMC recommendations whereas an experienced IMC can go to minimums totally legally. The license just give you the right to do it, the experience gives you the ability.

As for tracking VORs most PPLs work that one out a couple of hours after getting their licenses and airways takes up a couple of hours of the IR.

There's a lot of ego in having an IR but when you look at what you do with it an IMC covers most of the bases.

And all that stuff about not intentionally flying in IMC and its an emergency only tool, if you don't practice what happens when you need to use it? Far better off to shoot at least one or more approaches per month with an instructor after the IMC and get really comfortable with instrument flying.


Personally having got all of them I prefer to fly VMC. If there's any chance I need to use any of those priviledges, stay on the ground. Single pilot IFR is just too much effort.

[tropicalfridge]

Well, the IR is training to a far higher standard and allows you to get far closer to the ground while in IMC. Typically its 200ft on a precision approach, rather than 500ft for an IMC rating. Plus, 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 them.

The clever gits aside, few will really be able to fly cross country in IMC with confidence and carry out an unfamiliar instrument approach after only 15hrs instrument training.

[IO540]

Well, the IR is training to a far higher standard and allows you to get far closer to the ground while in IMC. Typically its 200ft on a precision approach, rather than 500ft for an IMC rating. Plus, 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 them.

Are you a pilot?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The clever gits aside, few will really be able to fly cross country in IMC with confidence and carry out an unfamiliar instrument approach after only 15hrs instrument training.

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.

[WorkingHard]

"not that your likely to be in an aircraft capable of getting into them."
Just a tad arrogant dont you think? There are many on these forums who fly fully certified IFR aircraft and are perfectly capable of using airways IF they had an IR instead of an IMCR. Airways is a darned lot easier than off airways for a number of reasons.

[S-Works]

Has anyone noticed where the poster claims to be based? Last time I looked the Netherlands did not issue or recognise the IMCR. Perhaps the OP might want to clarify where he intends to use these ratings and what for before everyone disappears up there own bums in another IMC v IR debate.

[ruth0000]

As I said, I’m just curious. In my country there is only the IR to gain.

And from the posts sofar I learn that it is only the tighter tolerances that require the extra hours.
Airways and class A do I my opinion not add training hours.

Thanks for the comments and it is not my intention to start a fight between imc and ir holders.

[18greens]

it is not my intention to start a fight between imc and ir holders

Why not, a healthy debate that dispells myths is always good fun and educational.

[englishal]

The main differences are:

IMCr teaches you basic attitude instrument flying, a couple of types approaches and basic nav. Other parts of the IR mght be touched upon.

The IR teaches you basic attitude instrument flying to a higher tolerance, partial panel (in FAALand anyway) competence, unusual attitude recovery, lots of different types of approaches, in depth Nav. including SIDs and STARs, procedures and rules (minima, alternate requirements, weather requirement etc...) not to mention weather, coms and more in depth theory.

The IMCr is fine for "flying in cloud" though whether or not someone with a new IMCr could fly one of IO540's TransEurope IFR cross countries?......I doubt it......Give them a year or two, then maybe.....

[IO540]

A lot of these debates bring out old establishment attitudes to how people should be trained.

The ICAO IR minimum training (i.e. dual flying) requirement is 10 hours.

The FAA IR makes it 15.

The JAA IR makes it 50/55 (SE/ME).

Ideally, the whole thing should be competence based, and that would make most comparisons irrelevant because it is quite possible for an IMC Rated pilot, with some extra instruction especially stuff on icing and other type specific stuff, to be fully capable of flying airways routings. I did my IMCR in about 22 hrs, then flew for ~ 3 years on it boring holes in UK Class G (not to mention boring unofficial holes in all kinds of overseas clouds ) and when I started training for the FAA IR my very first flight was a 700nm airways flight across Europe which I planned 100% myself and flew myself, with the RHS instructor doing practically nothing.

A year or so later, the FAA IR legalised what I was doing for solo flight but nothing actually changed. I didn't learn anything of significance to present-day European IFR which is a purely RNAV point to point navigation exercise using an IFR GPS.

If you have the IMCR then you should be able to fly any procedure for which there is a plate. After all, you just need to read the plate It's all there in plain English.

Then you need just a little bit more operational knowledge, like working out valid Eurocontrol routes, icing avoidance strategies, etc (most of this isn't taught in any IR) and you are good to go out there.

Pretending that one actually needs 50/55hrs regardless of competence is nuts.

But one cannot say this to the old guardians of the IR They are stuck in the olde world where a proof of a real man is how long he has spent in the training factory.

However, I think there will be interesting developments over the next few years, for private IFR in Europe.

[Hot 'n' High]

Maxdrypower

The qualification(IMCR) is not there to allow you to fly in cloud , it is there to assist you if you inadvertently enter imc and need to use an instrument procedure to get yourself home .It is not intended for people to use as a "Fly in IMC" rating

Interesting! Schedule 8 of the ANO says, a PPL shall not

unless his licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane:

(i) on a flight outside controlled airspace when the flight visibility is less than 3 km;

(ii) on a special VFR flight in a control zone in a flight visibility of less than 10 km except on a route or in an aerodrome traffic zone notified for the purpose of this sub-paragraph; or

(iii) out of sight of the surface;

I regularly used to use my IMCR on cross-country flights, A to B, in IMC, with appropriate flight planning on the ground and Radar services en route. All legal and, above all, safe, as I made sure I remained current and adjusted my limits up accordingly – or did not fly! And I instruct IMCR students assuming that they will use the Rating as above. And, just to clarify something englishal raised, the IMCR training does include all the joys of partial panel and unusual attitudes and all the different types of approaches! SIDS and STARS are not covered in detail as, unless you are flying Airways, there is little point. And, with an IMCR, Class A is verboten in IMC. Other PPL-level training is in place to mitigate against inadvertent entry in to IMC - 180 deg turn on instruments (except, I make sure my students can do a bit more than the minimum), Forced Landing With Power and general “education” not to get anywhere near that situation in the first place.

Now, quite correctly, several people suggest that Currency and Common Sense are the key to Safety – and, actually, that applies equally whether you have an IR or an IMCR. For example, flying SE in IMC, I always make sure there is a nice gap between the cloudbase and terra firma at departure, en-route and destination – just in case it all goes quiet – an IR or IMCR makes no difference in that case. Why do I not go “under” the cloud VFR? Because, often, I feel far safer in IMC or VMC on top, under IFR, with appropriate Radar services rather than operating with everyone else grubbing around in marginal conditions under the cloud!

Not being current and not applying common sense is the key argument which should be debated. In addition, another debate is the way GA is being pushed out of the regional airports with appropriate Instrument Approaches. Now, that does limit the usefulness of the IMCR – unless the CAA expands the use of GPS Approaches. But that’s a whole new can of worms!! But, that aside, to suggest that an IMCR is of no use apart from in an emergency is nonsensical. And, yes, these days I use my IR flying my SLF from A to B. Of course, I'll be soundly flamed for all of the above - but, hey ho.

[IO540]

Of course, I'll be soundly flamed for all of the above - but, hey ho.

Only by non-pilots.

[CJ Driver]

Speaking as someone who had an IMC rating - and used it - and then upgraded to the IR, I can confirm that the IR does go quite a bit further on airways procedures - both navigation and R/T - and equips the pilot with a lot more tools and techniques for flying to a higher degree of accuracy and repeatability in controlled airspace. But, if all you want to do is fly in the clouds, the IMC rating is quite sufficient.

I am certainly in the camp that believe the IMC rating can and should be used to fly actual IFR trips on a regular basis - it is not some form of emergency training. I can also tell you that if you've done a couple of hundred hours of actual IMC using your IMC rating, doing an IR is a doddle. There's still lots to learn, but keeping the aircraft pointing the right way up whilst doing all the other stuff isn't one of them.

[englishal]

And, just to clarify something englishal raised, the IMCR training does include all the joys of partial panel and unusual attitudes and all the different types of approaches

Actually what I meant was that "not as in depth"...which because of the hours cannot be as in depth.