IMC - what's the latest ?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vilnius
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FREDAcheck,
I think that we can safely say that the UK Independence Party is as relevant to Europe as the Scilly Isles Independence Party is to the UK! 
For something that is relevant - have a look at how the sport aviation sector organised itself, put it's case forward and acheived quite a lot.
While on that topic I must point out that the UK has the equivalent of the French Brevet and there is no evidence that it had been dangerous in the UK so why would it be a problem?
Ok. Why is a very good idea and something which is a useful aid to safety not available for the NPPL holder?
"Fuji Abound" thinks that it could be medical related. What extra medical requirements do IMCrating holders have above the standard class 2? - None. IR holders only have the audiogram to do.
I am saying that the French Mountain Airport Rating is not a national rating now so why should it be in the future. You as a UK pilot are required to obtain the rating before operating to the designated aerodromes. All EASA are going to do is enable you to have it on your licence even if that licence was obtained in the UK.
The Mountain Rating is actually a restriction of your privileges. The IMC rating is an extension of your privileges. Do you see the difference?
That is the whole point I am making. People pitching for an IMC rating do not understand the relevance of many factors related to how things are done.
If I might explain;
Let's say VFR conditions= Cloudbase 3000ft+ and Visibility 8Km+
Marginal VFR conditions= Cloudbase 1000ft - below 3000ft and Visibility 5K+
IFR conditions= Cloudbase 500ft - below 1000ft and Visibility 3K+
The minimum safe altitude IFR is 1000ft above the obstacles.
If the weather is VFR according to the above then when at the minimum IFR level, one should be 2000ft below the cloud. The weather is going to have to be quite a bit different from expected before we are faced with IFR conditions at 1000ft above the airport. To have that happen at both the destination, the alternate and every other airfield within range is in the remote range.
That is why when people who use that philosophy for VFR operations look at giving people something more they think that giving people the ability to fly IFR enroute will greatly assist their operation.
I have flown in the UK. There are many aerodromes on the 4 volmets. Many more have ATIS. The FIS can provide weather for many more. Making the argument that it is hard to keep abreast of the weather at destination and alternate(s) while enroute IFR does nothing for the IMC case - it is required at the moment to ensure that the IMC minima are OK. So nothing changes there.
Far too many things that are used by people as reasons why the IMC rating is good and the idea of the enroute rating is bad do nothing more than place the "cowboy operation" in the minds of the regulators who are going to decide what happens.
Finally remember that it is not the foreign pilot that needs to be convinced. It is the regulators.
Pilots think - hey great idea I can........
Regulators think - OK so how will the ATC service cope with all these pilots choosing to fly from Shoreham to Oxford IFR via the airway system because they can.
Bren
This is what gives the UK Independence Party growing support in Britain
For something that is relevant - have a look at how the sport aviation sector organised itself, put it's case forward and acheived quite a lot.
While on that topic I must point out that the UK has the equivalent of the French Brevet and there is no evidence that it had been dangerous in the UK so why would it be a problem?
No one is saying it's essential. It's just a very good idea, and increases safety.
No, not essential but a useful aid to safety
No, not essential but a useful aid to safety
"Fuji Abound" thinks that it could be medical related. What extra medical requirements do IMCrating holders have above the standard class 2? - None. IR holders only have the audiogram to do.
You'll have to forgive me, I don't understand the bureaucratic implications of what you are saying
The Mountain Rating is actually a restriction of your privileges. The IMC rating is an extension of your privileges. Do you see the difference?
What people do or do not do in VFR is very interesting, but I don't see the relevance to an IMC Rating.
Sorry, can't see the relevance.
Sorry, can't see the relevance.
If I might explain;
Let's say VFR conditions= Cloudbase 3000ft+ and Visibility 8Km+
Marginal VFR conditions= Cloudbase 1000ft - below 3000ft and Visibility 5K+
IFR conditions= Cloudbase 500ft - below 1000ft and Visibility 3K+
The minimum safe altitude IFR is 1000ft above the obstacles.
If the weather is VFR according to the above then when at the minimum IFR level, one should be 2000ft below the cloud. The weather is going to have to be quite a bit different from expected before we are faced with IFR conditions at 1000ft above the airport. To have that happen at both the destination, the alternate and every other airfield within range is in the remote range.
That is why when people who use that philosophy for VFR operations look at giving people something more they think that giving people the ability to fly IFR enroute will greatly assist their operation.
I have flown in the UK. There are many aerodromes on the 4 volmets. Many more have ATIS. The FIS can provide weather for many more. Making the argument that it is hard to keep abreast of the weather at destination and alternate(s) while enroute IFR does nothing for the IMC case - it is required at the moment to ensure that the IMC minima are OK. So nothing changes there.
Far too many things that are used by people as reasons why the IMC rating is good and the idea of the enroute rating is bad do nothing more than place the "cowboy operation" in the minds of the regulators who are going to decide what happens.
Finally remember that it is not the foreign pilot that needs to be convinced. It is the regulators.
Pilots think - hey great idea I can........
Regulators think - OK so how will the ATC service cope with all these pilots choosing to fly from Shoreham to Oxford IFR via the airway system because they can.
Bren
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Fuji Abound" thinks that it could be medical related. What extra medical requirements do IMCrating holders have above the standard class 2? - None. IR holders only have the audiogram to do.
The rest of Europe doesnt think it is a good idea
EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE.
Lets see it then?
Sorry Brendan, I can see we're not going to agree on much. I don't have much time for the UK Independence Party, but they are gaining support, and it's what is seen as unnecessary standardisation and bureaucracy that drives their support.
No, I'm afraid I don't. I need the Mountain rating to fly to certain airfields in France. In the UK you need to have an IMCR (or IR) to fly IMC. And the difference is?
Your long explanation of VFR limits really makes no sense to me. Or rather, I can't see the relevance. I don't even think you're inference is right. I can explain my view much more succinctly:
a) To undertake an IMC flight with only en-route capability requires near-certainty of cloud base above MSA at the destination (or alternate).
b) To undertake an IMC flight with an IMC rating requires near-certainty of cloud base above 500 feet AGL (assuming the destination or alternate has an ILS).
In the UK the number of occasions the weather meets (b) is many times the number of occasions it meets (a).
That's right but not relevant. My point is that you can't safely set out with an en-route only IMC capability unless you are virtually certain that the cloud base at your destination or alternate will be above MSA. As I explained above, that occurs much much less frequently than the IMC Rating minima for an instrument approach. That's why we want the IMC Rating.
I am saying that the French Mountain Airport Rating is not a national rating now so why should it be in the future. You as a UK pilot are required to obtain the rating before operating to the designated aerodromes. All EASA are going to do is enable you to have it on your licence even if that licence was obtained in the UK.
The Mountain Rating is actually a restriction of your privileges. The IMC rating is an extension of your privileges. Do you see the difference?
The Mountain Rating is actually a restriction of your privileges. The IMC rating is an extension of your privileges. Do you see the difference?
Your long explanation of VFR limits really makes no sense to me. Or rather, I can't see the relevance. I don't even think you're inference is right. I can explain my view much more succinctly:
a) To undertake an IMC flight with only en-route capability requires near-certainty of cloud base above MSA at the destination (or alternate).
b) To undertake an IMC flight with an IMC rating requires near-certainty of cloud base above 500 feet AGL (assuming the destination or alternate has an ILS).
In the UK the number of occasions the weather meets (b) is many times the number of occasions it meets (a).
I have flown in the UK. There are many aerodromes on the 4 volmets. Many more have ATIS. The FIS can provide weather for many more. Making the argument that it is hard to keep abreast of the weather at destination and alternate(s) while enroute IFR does nothing for the IMC case - it is required at the moment to ensure that the IMC minima are OK. So nothing changes there.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Mountain Rating is actually a restriction of your privileges.
You appear to think that NPPL holders need a Class 2 Medical. They don't.
You appear to think that, if the enroute weather is fine, you can set out for your destination. Not so.
Sorry, Brendan, but your case is riddled with inaccuracies, misunderstandings and plain nonsense. You have destroyed your case yourself.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Mountain Rating is actually a restriction of your privileges. The IMC rating is an extension of your privileges. Do you see the difference?
To give a concrete example, I was entitled to fly VFR to Big Bear in California (6700amsl) as PIC, on the basis of my converted UK licence, but I could not to fly in IMC as my license privileges did not include that and I didn't hold an IR.
Obviously I took specific training to tackle the challenges arising from the mountain flying involved to get to to Big Bear, but no rating was mandatory to act as commander.
Seems pretty clear.
Having looked at photos of a French altiport, I completely understand why the DGA requires a rating for these operations, but nonetheless, this does not affect Brendan's logic.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 8th Sep 2009 at 05:30.
If I understand it correctly,
but
so you just have to know that there's a restriction not actually written in your licence.
Whereas the UK PPL doesn't include IMC, so you know you can't fly IMC without an additional rating. Well that's a wonderful bureaucratic nicety.
So if we just didn't say that the basic PPL didn't include IMC capability (but put it in the rules somewhere) then it would be OK?
You're kidding me, aren't you! This is Sir Humphrey at his finest.
There's no F in Great Britain, but there is in France; that's another difference. That's another good reason why an Altiport rating works in France but the IMC is no good in Britain.
a UK PPL does not contain any restriction on landing on high altitude airports
the DGA requires a rating for these operations
Whereas the UK PPL doesn't include IMC, so you know you can't fly IMC without an additional rating. Well that's a wonderful bureaucratic nicety.
So if we just didn't say that the basic PPL didn't include IMC capability (but put it in the rules somewhere) then it would be OK?
You're kidding me, aren't you! This is Sir Humphrey at his finest.
There's no F in Great Britain, but there is in France; that's another difference. That's another good reason why an Altiport rating works in France but the IMC is no good in Britain.
Guest
Posts: n/a
FREDAcheck
That's what you have to know when you operate in foreign airspace.
Which PPL does specify instrument conditions flight within its privileges without a specific rating? (Maybe there is one, I don't know)
The IMC and the altiport ratings are both anomalies, as they exist in certain states only.
I am not arguing that the IMCR is a bad rating (in fact I think both it and the altiport rating make a lot of sense), but it seems there is concensus for adopting one and not the other.
That is the realpolitik from where I am sitting.
I have no intention of getting involved in the main debate, but I do wish all IMCR holders the best of luck in retaining your rating.
But if you are to do this, you do need get your logic straight or the bureaucrats will cut you to pieces
so you just have to know that there's a restriction not actually written in your licence.
Whereas the UK PPL doesn't include IMC, so you know you can't fly IMC without an additional rating. Well that's a wonderful bureaucratic nicety.
The IMC and the altiport ratings are both anomalies, as they exist in certain states only.
I am not arguing that the IMCR is a bad rating (in fact I think both it and the altiport rating make a lot of sense), but it seems there is concensus for adopting one and not the other.
That is the realpolitik from where I am sitting.
I have no intention of getting involved in the main debate, but I do wish all IMCR holders the best of luck in retaining your rating.
But if you are to do this, you do need get your logic straight or the bureaucrats will cut you to pieces
That wasn't my point, and I'm sure you know it
My point is that logic making this a key deciding issue in why the Altiport is good but the IMC rating is bad would make sense only to a bureaucrat.
My point is that logic making this a key deciding issue in why the Altiport is good but the IMC rating is bad would make sense only to a bureaucrat.
Guest
Posts: n/a
FREDAcheck
I actually didn't get your point, please rest assured I don't wish to wind you up.
So I'll delete the last post, with my apologies for misunderstanding you.
As to the point you are making, I believe that 421c has already answered that, so little point me adding to the noise levels.
I actually didn't get your point, please rest assured I don't wish to wind you up.
So I'll delete the last post, with my apologies for misunderstanding you.
As to the point you are making, I believe that 421c has already answered that, so little point me adding to the noise levels.
F3G - similarly, I'm not trying to pick a fight. Sorry if I seemed confrontational, too. I've spent many years on various European committees, and I'm well used to people giving higher priority to bureaucratic rules than to what we're actually here to achieve. I could cite many quite comical (and money-wasting) examples. At times it's impossible to hide one's frustration.
Well, here's a classic reason for an IMCR. Today's TAF for an aerodrome gave 080718Z 0809/0909 21012KT 9999 BKN018 BECMG 0809/0812 FEW040. Given that, I'd happily set off to fly there VFR at 1000 ft agl and enjoy the view en route. No need for any IMC, just a healthy regard for Rule 5.
Which would have been fine, except that the METAR later showed 080850Z 20006KT 9999 BKN013 20/17 Q1017 BECMG BKN018 and then 080950Z 21010G21KT 9999 BKN012 20/17 Q1017 BECMG BKN018.
There was no indication of such a low cloudbase on the TAF and I wouldn't particularly wish to fly under VFR in those circumstances - so would have climbed to VMC on top, followed the GPS track and asked for a SRA to visual on arrival.
Seemples!
But with only a chocolate teapot rating, I'd either be stuck going round and round looking for a hole, in order to try to squeeze in at low level - or would have been obliged to weave around the hills and towns underneath with the ever-present 1000 ft rule in mind. Not nice to be stuck on top waiting for the weather-guessers' alleged BECMG to make its eventual appearance....
And whence cameth the unforecast 21 knot gusts?
Which would have been fine, except that the METAR later showed 080850Z 20006KT 9999 BKN013 20/17 Q1017 BECMG BKN018 and then 080950Z 21010G21KT 9999 BKN012 20/17 Q1017 BECMG BKN018.
There was no indication of such a low cloudbase on the TAF and I wouldn't particularly wish to fly under VFR in those circumstances - so would have climbed to VMC on top, followed the GPS track and asked for a SRA to visual on arrival.
Seemples!
But with only a chocolate teapot rating, I'd either be stuck going round and round looking for a hole, in order to try to squeeze in at low level - or would have been obliged to weave around the hills and towns underneath with the ever-present 1000 ft rule in mind. Not nice to be stuck on top waiting for the weather-guessers' alleged BECMG to make its eventual appearance....
And whence cameth the unforecast 21 knot gusts?
Last edited by BEagle; 8th Sep 2009 at 10:22.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO EIR would be a useless rating for many IMCr pilots. I fly out of an airport full ATC, and ILS and NDB approaches. Despite this, very few IMCr pilots I know plan long trips in IMC. I would suggest that these IMCr holders, like myself, more consistantly use the approach aspect of the IMCr rather than their enroute capabilities. We use the IMCr to legally and safely get home when the weather unexpectedly drops below VFR minima, or when the weather forecast suggests a changing mix of IMC and VMC over the time when we expect to get back - in such cases, sometimes we get back VFR and sometimes we need the ILS, but we almost always have that nice safe instrument option we've been trained to do and regularly practice.
On the other hand, if I were the holder of an EIR and get close to home and find I'm in the IMC period, I would presumably have to hold or divert. If I have to go elsewhere because an EIR does not allow me to land at home base, my alternative to the nice safe ILS may well be to fly further in IMC conditions and maybe let down into marginal VMC and grope my way into a nearby GA airfield that has no instrument approaches.
A
On the other hand, if I were the holder of an EIR and get close to home and find I'm in the IMC period, I would presumably have to hold or divert. If I have to go elsewhere because an EIR does not allow me to land at home base, my alternative to the nice safe ILS may well be to fly further in IMC conditions and maybe let down into marginal VMC and grope my way into a nearby GA airfield that has no instrument approaches.
A
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which would have been fine, except that the METAR later showed 080850Z 20006KT 9999 BKN013 20/17 Q1017 BECMG BKN018 and then 080950Z 21010G21KT 9999 BKN012 20/17 Q1017 BECMG BKN018.
There was no indication of such a low cloudbase on the TAF and I wouldn't particularly wish to fly under VFR in those circumstances - so would have climbed to VMC on top, followed the GPS track and asked for a SRA to visual on arrival
There was no indication of such a low cloudbase on the TAF and I wouldn't particularly wish to fly under VFR in those circumstances - so would have climbed to VMC on top, followed the GPS track and asked for a SRA to visual on arrival
If the aerodrome was in the middle of a large plateau, then I would agree. However, it isn't - and to get there means crossing some significant hills to the north. Fine with a BKN018, I certainly agree. But not BKN012.
The point is that the BECMG 0809/0812 FEW040 hasn't happened, neither has the BKN018 - at 1150Z the METAR gave 081150Z 22011KT 9999 BKN015 21/17 Q1017 NOSIG.
You cannot trust such a UK TAF with sufficient assurance to guarantee a VFR trip - whilst you (and I) might be prepared to do so, we always have that insurance policy of an instrument qualification to fall back on if it all turns to worms. But the poor sap with a chocolate teapot rating would have to decide whether to press on and hope that the weather-guessers' incorrect forecast wasn't going to deteriorate still further - or whether to climb up to VMC on top and then hope for a hole.
The point is that the BECMG 0809/0812 FEW040 hasn't happened, neither has the BKN018 - at 1150Z the METAR gave 081150Z 22011KT 9999 BKN015 21/17 Q1017 NOSIG.
You cannot trust such a UK TAF with sufficient assurance to guarantee a VFR trip - whilst you (and I) might be prepared to do so, we always have that insurance policy of an instrument qualification to fall back on if it all turns to worms. But the poor sap with a chocolate teapot rating would have to decide whether to press on and hope that the weather-guessers' incorrect forecast wasn't going to deteriorate still further - or whether to climb up to VMC on top and then hope for a hole.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to agree with Beagle on this one. Mixing flying VMC and instrument nav on top and then trying to change that to VFR navigating with ground features is a risky business. Well broken clouds become not so well broken. Cloud thickness changes as do bases and tops as well as freezing levels.
Visibility below clouds change.
I knew a VFR pilot friend who flew to scotland with the intention of dropping back down through cloud having elected to fly VMC on top. His intention was to find a hole and continue to land VFR and in VMC. Amongst the densely packed clouds he found his hole and could see the ground below. Spiralling down he found himself surrounded by hills and poor vis in drizzle and much lower cloud than he imagined.
He saved himself by spiralling back up from whence he came. he then announced his predicament as a non IMCR pilot and was vectored to safety.
Even for experienced pilots changing from IFR to VFR is a fraught game if the weather is marginal VFR. Having been used to flying on instruments and with nav aids the change to marginal VFR can be disorientating. Much better to have a procedural approach than to be scratching around in the murk half lost.
The problem with flying is rarely do you get what you expect and unless you and the aircraft are equipt to deal with a multitude of scenarios you are asking for trouble. Flying pure VFR. Lowering cloud and vis is obvious. You can always turn back or divert. Flying VMC on top you cannot always see what is going on below and that is the danger.
I myself flying a twin in france left Paris in clear blue skies and sunshine for a coastal destination also in cavok. I couldnt believe my eyes flying VFR when scud cloud appeared which then went solid I was sure it must be localised and continued on top. I changed to IFR when I realised it was not localised and landed in 400 overcast off an ILS at my destination. A front had slipped slightly more south East than predicted.
Pace
Visibility below clouds change.
I knew a VFR pilot friend who flew to scotland with the intention of dropping back down through cloud having elected to fly VMC on top. His intention was to find a hole and continue to land VFR and in VMC. Amongst the densely packed clouds he found his hole and could see the ground below. Spiralling down he found himself surrounded by hills and poor vis in drizzle and much lower cloud than he imagined.
He saved himself by spiralling back up from whence he came. he then announced his predicament as a non IMCR pilot and was vectored to safety.
Even for experienced pilots changing from IFR to VFR is a fraught game if the weather is marginal VFR. Having been used to flying on instruments and with nav aids the change to marginal VFR can be disorientating. Much better to have a procedural approach than to be scratching around in the murk half lost.
The problem with flying is rarely do you get what you expect and unless you and the aircraft are equipt to deal with a multitude of scenarios you are asking for trouble. Flying pure VFR. Lowering cloud and vis is obvious. You can always turn back or divert. Flying VMC on top you cannot always see what is going on below and that is the danger.
I myself flying a twin in france left Paris in clear blue skies and sunshine for a coastal destination also in cavok. I couldnt believe my eyes flying VFR when scud cloud appeared which then went solid I was sure it must be localised and continued on top. I changed to IFR when I realised it was not localised and landed in 400 overcast off an ILS at my destination. A front had slipped slightly more south East than predicted.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
I think that is an excellent post that could only be made by someone who has done it.
For me that sums up very well the difference between the theory so often reproduced by the arm chair bureaucrats and the average IMC or instrument rated pilot who is not flying every day and in all conditions, who knows his limitations, and is not a Sky God.
I think that is an excellent post that could only be made by someone who has done it.
For me that sums up very well the difference between the theory so often reproduced by the arm chair bureaucrats and the average IMC or instrument rated pilot who is not flying every day and in all conditions, who knows his limitations, and is not a Sky God.