Using the IMC abroad..
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have done about 500hrs and 100 arrivals outside the UK whilst an IMC holder.
My point is I am replying to Nick's question and not your 'carefully worded examples'.
I gave mine and I dispute the contrary suggestion that might be inferred from your posts in reply to the advice I gave.
The sooner its got rid of the better. Roll on 2012.
I think you will find it will be made public soon. Then again I might be wrong.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no black and white. If you have an IMCr and you are flying to France, you must ensure you maintain VFR in French airspace. Simple really.
The grey area comes when you have someone with a foreign IR who is very capable at flying IFR, but not allowed to due to their tail letter. Again this is more of a muddy black area as we know that the flight should be, as with a), be planned and executed as VFR, but because they would be rated if a letter was changed, then it is *more* excuseable (but not in the eyes of the law I suspect). Certainly not an emergency though.
However what with the weather forecasts being so ****e, I have planned and flown a VFR flight to be confronted by either scud running at 1000 agl for 200 miles, or climb a few thou through to safety on top. Turning back would have meant a whole load of hassle.
I do confess to shooting an ILS in France with the wrong tail letter once upon a time many years ago. It was either that or cross the channel at 400' which another G reg aeroplane, (with JAA instrument rated pilot onboard), did just behind us. Madness if you ask me, their reason for not climbing into the cloud was they "didn't know the procedure". I just asked the controller if I could have the ILS as I was now IFR and he said okdokey.
The grey area comes when you have someone with a foreign IR who is very capable at flying IFR, but not allowed to due to their tail letter. Again this is more of a muddy black area as we know that the flight should be, as with a), be planned and executed as VFR, but because they would be rated if a letter was changed, then it is *more* excuseable (but not in the eyes of the law I suspect). Certainly not an emergency though.
However what with the weather forecasts being so ****e, I have planned and flown a VFR flight to be confronted by either scud running at 1000 agl for 200 miles, or climb a few thou through to safety on top. Turning back would have meant a whole load of hassle.
I do confess to shooting an ILS in France with the wrong tail letter once upon a time many years ago. It was either that or cross the channel at 400' which another G reg aeroplane, (with JAA instrument rated pilot onboard), did just behind us. Madness if you ask me, their reason for not climbing into the cloud was they "didn't know the procedure". I just asked the controller if I could have the ILS as I was now IFR and he said okdokey.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No VFR only pilot
A pilot should always have a plan B for when the weather doesn't work out as expected.
If your plan B is to do something that is illegal, then you shouldn't be surprised if the authorities become interested in your decision making.
Doing illegal things should be well down the list of options in routine flight planning!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair that is not much time at all.
PS. I just noticed IO540's experience is similar to mine: (my underline)
What one does is make sure the tafs and metars for the destination are SCT or better. IF this fails (and I don't recall it ever failing for me, largely because most of my long VFR trips were to warn southern countries) the official legal procedure is to declare an emergency and ask for the IAP.
Last edited by 421C; 2nd Jun 2011 at 15:12.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need to be able see a way back down. That might be the end of the overcast a few miles off tracks, or it might be holes of sufficient size within view. When your last hole is starting to leave view you have little choice but to turn towards it and use that way out. If you don't then you run the risk of being in a situation that you describe. I don't think many pilots who don't have instrument qualifications but do have VFR on top privlidges will continue on in such a situation.
If they did continue on, then their principal escape route has to be to return to an area of known good conditions, but of course that could have changed by the time that they return to it.
If they did continue on, then their principal escape route has to be to return to an area of known good conditions, but of course that could have changed by the time that they return to it.
Whilst this may be sensibly conservative, I don't think one has to be always that conservative as a rule. I can remember plenty of scenarios of being over an overcast layer with no ground in sight. An example might be Bournemouth to Biarritz. Say there is bad weather over NW France. Dinard, Rennes, Nantes TAFS all OVC. La Rochelle a bit better. Bordeaux, Biarritz, Toulouse, San Sebastian all CAVOK or FEW or SCT. You could spend an hour with no hole in sight, but be comfortable that you will see the ground somewhere further south to be able to descend. The advantage of the IMCr in this scenario is the comfort one gets from knowing that if you have (say) an engine problem in the OVC area, the least of your worries is the instrument arrival and approach. You have a legitimate emergency and all the skills necessary to handle the IFR work to get down.
That's not to say any OVC layer is fine as long as there some hope of better weather further enroute. You need a convincing body of weather information to give you a reasonable and high standard of assurance you can complete a flight safely in accordance with your privileges. It's more to say that I don't think it can never be acceptable to be VFR on top of a layer.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
421C,
I can see how that might be acceptable depending on aircraft range.
If for example weather in the UK was good, Northern France poor, and Mid and Southern France CAVOK then I can understand how you could justify that. In all fairness in such a circumstance your chances of getting caught out aren't very high.
However often such bands of poor weather can be associated with a front, and your average light aircraft doesn't come equipped with the oxygen system nor performance to climb over frontal system.
But actaully I find the biggest problem with flying on top is airspace. If you fly towards airspace and can't get a clearance through (Damn class A all over the UK!
) your option of desending to go under is gone because of the undercast. Admittedly that's not such a big problem in France, but can be with militiary areas.
Your average PA28 or C172 has a (safe) range not much more than 4 hours. If you plan a three hour trip and you spend an hour in good weather, an hour over an overcast, and then the clearer weather doesn't materalise for the last hour of your trip, you find yourself in a rather difficult situation. Do you press on hoping that it will get better, or return back while you still have sufficient fuel?
For these reasons I don't believe may VFR pilots will put themselves into a situation where they don't have the option of desending.
I keep asking myself how the conversation would go with the authorities. I can imagine them saying:
"The forecast for your destination was SCT and BKN for the whole day. What was your backup plan if the actual turned out to be a bit worse than forecast and it was overcast?"
If your answer is to make an illegal approach because you knew you could do it safely, I suspect they might not be happy with your reliance on forecasts at the planning stage.
If your backup plan was something more sensible like divert, or return to an area of known good weather, or return to base, then I think they would not unreasonably ask why you didn't execute that plan.
dp
I can see how that might be acceptable depending on aircraft range.
If for example weather in the UK was good, Northern France poor, and Mid and Southern France CAVOK then I can understand how you could justify that. In all fairness in such a circumstance your chances of getting caught out aren't very high.
However often such bands of poor weather can be associated with a front, and your average light aircraft doesn't come equipped with the oxygen system nor performance to climb over frontal system.
But actaully I find the biggest problem with flying on top is airspace. If you fly towards airspace and can't get a clearance through (Damn class A all over the UK!
) your option of desending to go under is gone because of the undercast. Admittedly that's not such a big problem in France, but can be with militiary areas. Your average PA28 or C172 has a (safe) range not much more than 4 hours. If you plan a three hour trip and you spend an hour in good weather, an hour over an overcast, and then the clearer weather doesn't materalise for the last hour of your trip, you find yourself in a rather difficult situation. Do you press on hoping that it will get better, or return back while you still have sufficient fuel?
For these reasons I don't believe may VFR pilots will put themselves into a situation where they don't have the option of desending.
I keep asking myself how the conversation would go with the authorities. I can imagine them saying:
"The forecast for your destination was SCT and BKN for the whole day. What was your backup plan if the actual turned out to be a bit worse than forecast and it was overcast?"
If your answer is to make an illegal approach because you knew you could do it safely, I suspect they might not be happy with your reliance on forecasts at the planning stage.
If your backup plan was something more sensible like divert, or return to an area of known good weather, or return to base, then I think they would not unreasonably ask why you didn't execute that plan.
dp
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting Canadian Quirk
Interestingly the first time I flew in canada I held a PPL/IMC and got a Foreign License Verification Certificate (FLVC) so I could hire over there. On it was the following wording: Provided the foreign license is valid under the law of the issuing State, this Validation Certificate is valid for private recreational purposes on Canadian registered aircraft in accordance with the privileges of the United Kingdom.
I queried this with Transport Canada, explained that the IMC is a sub-ICAO rating and their response was that the wording is quite clear; you can do anything the license and ratings permit you to do in your home State. Go figure!
I queried this with Transport Canada, explained that the IMC is a sub-ICAO rating and their response was that the wording is quite clear; you can do anything the license and ratings permit you to do in your home State. Go figure!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how often have you had a current TAF forecast good VFR for an arrival and turned up to require an IFR arrival and/or approach because it was not possible to descend somehow/somewhere to establish VMC below?
In the UK one can't do it because UK ATC has a very poor capability for ad-hoc IFR clearances into what is mostly Class A. I have tried it a number of times and always been frustrated by a fairly deliberate "anti" procedure.
On my long trips we normally set a 3-day window and wait for the first technically flyable opportunity, and this applies to both VFR and, nowadays, IFR.
I queried this with Transport Canada, explained that the IMC is a sub-ICAO rating and their response was that the wording is quite clear; you can do anything the license and ratings permit you to do in your home State. Go figure!
Others disagree but if you get this kind of thing in writing, it is good enough for you.
But actaully I find the biggest problem with flying on top is airspace
I have done loads of ~ 15 hour trips where I did not bother to log any instrument time, and I log IT in 5 minute increments
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have reflected on our earlier fun and games and a general winding up - or in that spirit I take it. It is fun to see a bit of passion again on this forum.
Perhaps after a while a descent through a shallow overcast becomes such a non event that it is difficult to appreciate why some see it so differently. Blase perhaps, but if I ever was not technically qualified to do what I have suggested then I would go right ahead and do it any way - so there!
As to being caught out I can think of a number of trips which didnt end up as forecast. Could I have diverted some where else - probably, would there have been holes in the overcast at the diversion - maybe, but I never went to find out.
My nemesis for unforecast weather over the years has been Newquay (St Mawgs as it was), Dundee, Southern Ireland and the CIs. Maybe the similarity between the four is coastal weather that can and does change unexpectedly, together with a lack of close diversions that wouldnt be equally effected.
I would never under play how cautious we should all be with the weather. As most of us I have been caught out twice in my career, undoubtedly pushing on when I had no business to do so. As it turned out both were non events BUT they could have proved otherwise, and you definetely learn that frontal weather with any activity is to be avoided unless you are very certain of being able to get over the top.
My worst weather experience by far had very little to do with IMC and everything to do with the wind. The wind was forecast to be around 25 knots from memory but over the course of the flight of about one and half hours became the top end of 40 knots with gusts well into the 50s. All the planning went out the window when it became apparent there was very little available that didnt involve a distinctly cross wind landing.
I have found it fascinating how polarised the views in this debate are and the way in which we can be unswervingly controlled by regulations. Some one said earlier the Germans wouldnt dream of departing from the model citizens, we are probably closer to our German friends than most, hence we form neat and tidy rows unlike our French, Spanish and Italian friends who form disorderly rows and say wvat cloud, I never saw it.
Perhaps after a while a descent through a shallow overcast becomes such a non event that it is difficult to appreciate why some see it so differently. Blase perhaps, but if I ever was not technically qualified to do what I have suggested then I would go right ahead and do it any way - so there!
As to being caught out I can think of a number of trips which didnt end up as forecast. Could I have diverted some where else - probably, would there have been holes in the overcast at the diversion - maybe, but I never went to find out.
My nemesis for unforecast weather over the years has been Newquay (St Mawgs as it was), Dundee, Southern Ireland and the CIs. Maybe the similarity between the four is coastal weather that can and does change unexpectedly, together with a lack of close diversions that wouldnt be equally effected.
I would never under play how cautious we should all be with the weather. As most of us I have been caught out twice in my career, undoubtedly pushing on when I had no business to do so. As it turned out both were non events BUT they could have proved otherwise, and you definetely learn that frontal weather with any activity is to be avoided unless you are very certain of being able to get over the top.
My worst weather experience by far had very little to do with IMC and everything to do with the wind. The wind was forecast to be around 25 knots from memory but over the course of the flight of about one and half hours became the top end of 40 knots with gusts well into the 50s. All the planning went out the window when it became apparent there was very little available that didnt involve a distinctly cross wind landing.
I have found it fascinating how polarised the views in this debate are and the way in which we can be unswervingly controlled by regulations. Some one said earlier the Germans wouldnt dream of departing from the model citizens, we are probably closer to our German friends than most, hence we form neat and tidy rows unlike our French, Spanish and Italian friends who form disorderly rows and say wvat cloud, I never saw it.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
...unlike our French, Spanish and Italian friends who form disorderly rows and say wvat cloud, I never saw it.
Italians are very quick at impounding things (aeroplanes in this case) and if in doubt, you will go home by train and come back next year or the year after to collect your aircraft. The French have the highest fines (fly too close to one of their nuclear power plants and you will leave behind 20.000 Euros in beautiful France!) and the most frequent and rigid ramp inspections anywhere in Europe.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never heard of anybody getting done for enroute stuff of this sort.
Yes, the French, and apparently increasingly the Germans, like to harrass N-reg aircraft and check their VAT status, and the pilot's IR if he arrived on an IFR flight plan.
How many people got done 20k euros for busting the nuclear TRAs? The "pilot forum figure" for the fine varies between 10k and 30k euros, with confiscation often included But nobody I know has actually got this treatment for a nuclear RA bust. I did such a bust in 2003 and the French went after me 6 months later but it went nowhere after I proved I was under a radar service, with a discrete squawk, the whole time, with their ATC saying nothing at the time. They probably didn't know about the RA, as back then they were not notamed
Not really. There is the concept of "apparent authority". It is absolutely not necessary to get a Chief Counsel reply for it to be legally binding on the FAA, in the same way it is not necessary to have some reply from the UK CAA signed by the Secretary of State. Such replies (if legally inaccurate) do not create new law but they remain valid for that individual recipient. And if they become publicly known, the public becomes entitled to a correction from the authority. I got this from a barrister.
What this means is that if e.g. the CAA told you that you can fly a plane under the Tower Bridge, but unknown to you the letter was written by somebody there not authorised to reply or not understanding the legal position (which has happened many times, with both the CAA and the FAA) then you cannot be prosecuted for doing it.
If this was not so, every reply from every corporate or got body to any question whatsoever would be completely worthless!
John Lynch wrote most of the FAR/AIM and he also wrote the FAQ, which was taken off the FAA website c. 2004 because the FAA did not want it to be regarded as law and usurping the authority of the FARs. The bit about the IMCR for an N-reg I got from the FAA personally; it is not in the FAQ.
Yes, the French, and apparently increasingly the Germans, like to harrass N-reg aircraft and check their VAT status, and the pilot's IR if he arrived on an IFR flight plan.
How many people got done 20k euros for busting the nuclear TRAs? The "pilot forum figure" for the fine varies between 10k and 30k euros, with confiscation often included
But nobody I know has actually got this treatment for a nuclear RA bust. I did such a bust in 2003 and the French went after me 6 months later but it went nowhere after I proved I was under a radar service, with a discrete squawk, the whole time, with their ATC saying nothing at the time. They probably didn't know about the RA, as back then they were not notamed
I'm not disagreeing and it would make sense as the N reg aircraft is limited to UK airspace anyway as it is being flown on a UK issued license - but if that came from John Lynch then take it with a very large caveat. He was not part of FAA Legal Counsel so unless he reprinted a FAA Legal Counsel formal response then it counts for little and is simply his opinion. His infamous FAQ carries that large caveat. I think you will not find that FAQ on any FAA website.
What this means is that if e.g. the CAA told you that you can fly a plane under the Tower Bridge, but unknown to you the letter was written by somebody there not authorised to reply or not understanding the legal position (which has happened many times, with both the CAA and the FAA) then you cannot be prosecuted for doing it.
If this was not so, every reply from every corporate or got body to any question whatsoever would be completely worthless!
John Lynch wrote most of the FAR/AIM and he also wrote the FAQ, which was taken off the FAA website c. 2004 because the FAA did not want it to be regarded as law and usurping the authority of the FARs. The bit about the IMCR for an N-reg I got from the FAA personally; it is not in the FAQ.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sooner the French start this Euro IMC rating the better, now that it is a French idea it should give the Eurocrats no problem with implimenting it.
One inccident that happend to me makes me sure that the IMC has a real safety case...........................
I was making an ILS approach at a French airfield, the weather was 2000m overcast at 300ft with light rain. A very panicy VFR pilot who had got his planning very wrong, he was making position reports that made some sort of sence but then suddenly reported that he was "base leg, turning final".
As I was at about 800 feet on the ILS at the time I had no option but to go around as I could not see him.
When I did get on the ground I talked to the guy and it was clear that he had been totaly out of his depth with the conditions that he was flying in, I am sure you could have sold this guy an IMC rating on the spot but it was not an option in France.
Would it not have been better for this guy to have had the option (and trainning) to abandon any hope of VFR flight long before the "VFR" approach to the airfield and climb into the radar controled enviroment to seek radar vectors to the ILS?
I know that we cant keep politics out of flight safety but least hope that now the EASA IMC is a French idea it will go ahead and then just maybe the rest of Europe will reach the same standards of flight safety that the UK has.
One inccident that happend to me makes me sure that the IMC has a real safety case...........................
I was making an ILS approach at a French airfield, the weather was 2000m overcast at 300ft with light rain. A very panicy VFR pilot who had got his planning very wrong, he was making position reports that made some sort of sence but then suddenly reported that he was "base leg, turning final".
As I was at about 800 feet on the ILS at the time I had no option but to go around as I could not see him.
When I did get on the ground I talked to the guy and it was clear that he had been totaly out of his depth with the conditions that he was flying in, I am sure you could have sold this guy an IMC rating on the spot but it was not an option in France.
Would it not have been better for this guy to have had the option (and trainning) to abandon any hope of VFR flight long before the "VFR" approach to the airfield and climb into the radar controled enviroment to seek radar vectors to the ILS?
I know that we cant keep politics out of flight safety but least hope that now the EASA IMC is a French idea it will go ahead and then just maybe the rest of Europe will reach the same standards of flight safety that the UK has.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Italians are very quick at impounding things (aeroplanes in this case) and if in doubt, you will go home by train and come back next year or the year after to collect your aircraft. The French have the highest fines (fly too close to one of their nuclear power plants and you will leave behind 20.000 Euros in beautiful France!) and the most frequent and rigid ramp inspections anywhere in Europe.
I have flown pretty extensively in europe both g and n reg and to quite a few of the bigger airports. I have never been ramp checked, heard of a very very few that have been and never heard of anyone being impounded. It is just another of those myths loved on these forum.
Yes, if you have it in writing on faa letterhead i would totally rely on the letter (if you needed to). It is good law here and there.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think the French proposal is an IMCR but an FAA style IR ?
I was always opposed fighting to retain the IMCR and expanding it into Europe for a number of reasons.
Firstly I felt fighting for the IMCR would detract from a greater goal of an FAA style PPL IR.
Secondly an IMCR would not work in Europe.
I still feel that a threatened attack with clout on EASA would work on the exposure that far from meeting their mandate of safety they are killing pilots by their refusal to put onto place an FAA style PPL IR.
There is also enough evidence to expose their political legislation rather than their mandate of safety.
There is enough evidence to justify a court hearing on that fact. I am afraid that EASA will only respond if their own integrity is challenged?
There is a good case with plenty of evidence to question that integrity and to get a result !
Pace
I was always opposed fighting to retain the IMCR and expanding it into Europe for a number of reasons.
Firstly I felt fighting for the IMCR would detract from a greater goal of an FAA style PPL IR.
Secondly an IMCR would not work in Europe.
I still feel that a threatened attack with clout on EASA would work on the exposure that far from meeting their mandate of safety they are killing pilots by their refusal to put onto place an FAA style PPL IR.
There is also enough evidence to expose their political legislation rather than their mandate of safety.
There is enough evidence to justify a court hearing on that fact. I am afraid that EASA will only respond if their own integrity is challenged?
There is a good case with plenty of evidence to question that integrity and to get a result !
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 3rd Jun 2011 at 12:42.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, we are back to the old "will the crooked liars at EASA really pull off their aggressive proposal for grounding nearly the whole N-reg community in April 2012" question
My view has not changed in that I think they won't. I think the chief GA centres in Europe (UK, Germany, France) will implement the 2014 extension option and after that, if EASA has not collapsed amid the general meltdown of the EU around us, they will continue to implement "extensions".
What the smaller countries will do I don't know. On the one hand they are mostly spineless, and the new EU members busily brown-nose every EU official they can get close enough behind, and on the other hand the EU is not going to take any action for disobedience when there are somewhat bigger issues at stake, like the meltdown of Greece, which if it happens will be followed by a meltdown of a few other countries, which if it happens will melt down many EU banks...
As they say, we live in interesting times
I have still decided to embark on the JAA IR and have ground my way through 4 exams of near-total bollox so far. 3 more near-total-bollox exams to go Then 15hrs somewhere, before April 2012. Then I will write it all up, with various options around Europe
I don't know what exactly the French IR will be. It has to be fewer than the present 7 exams otherwise almost nobody will be doing it, as at present. But France will always get its way. From the latest EASA doc they have salvaged their Brevet de Base
My view has not changed in that I think they won't. I think the chief GA centres in Europe (UK, Germany, France) will implement the 2014 extension option and after that, if EASA has not collapsed amid the general meltdown of the EU around us, they will continue to implement "extensions".
What the smaller countries will do I don't know. On the one hand they are mostly spineless, and the new EU members busily brown-nose every EU official they can get close enough behind, and on the other hand the EU is not going to take any action for disobedience when there are somewhat bigger issues at stake, like the meltdown of Greece, which if it happens will be followed by a meltdown of a few other countries, which if it happens will melt down many EU banks...
As they say, we live in interesting times
I have still decided to embark on the JAA IR and have ground my way through 4 exams of near-total bollox so far. 3 more near-total-bollox exams to go
Then 15hrs somewhere, before April 2012. Then I will write it all up, with various options around Europe I don't know what exactly the French IR will be. It has to be fewer than the present 7 exams otherwise almost nobody will be doing it, as at present. But France will always get its way. From the latest EASA doc they have salvaged their Brevet de Base
