EASA AND THE IMCR - NEWS
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAD Colour Vision Test at CAA Gatwick
swflyer - Have you tried the relatively new CAD test at the CAA in Gatwick?
CAA research paves the way for more people with colour vision deficiency to become pilots | CAA Newsroom | CAA
It may be an option open to you. People have failed the plates and lanterns, but have passed this. Once passed, you don't have to repeat the test and have a full Class One medical colour vision sign off.
CAA research paves the way for more people with colour vision deficiency to become pilots | CAA Newsroom | CAA
It may be an option open to you. People have failed the plates and lanterns, but have passed this. Once passed, you don't have to repeat the test and have a full Class One medical colour vision sign off.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grandfathered rights for existing holders - this seems to be assured
Currently very few people are doing the IMCR - about 250/year, down from 3x that much some years ago.
No doubt the decline is partly because it has been slagged off for so long by so many people, including some very high profile forum personalities who post on various forums saying how useless IMCR pilots are compared to IR pilots...
In reality it is a debate concerning a comparison between renters and owners, basically, where one would expect big currency-on-type differences between the two pilot populations. Most good IMCR pilots are owners, and most IR holders who just occassionally rent are crap IFR pilots.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see three types of IMCR pilot:
- Those who treat the IMCR pretty much as an IR, stay in currency and are very good.
- Those who do a bit from time to time and are not very good.
- Those who only fly IFR every 25 months for renewal and keep the IMCR in the bottom drawer, just in case. They are generally awful.
I see three types of IMCR pilot:
- Those who treat the IMCR pretty much as an IR, stay in currency and are very good.
- Those who do a bit from time to time and are not very good.
- Those who only fly IFR every 25 months for renewal and keep the IMCR in the bottom drawer, just in case. They are generally awful.
G
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same is probably true of IR holders who don't work in a job which requires it regularly.
I fly a great deal with people with PPL/IRs (both FAA and JAA/CAA), none of whom are professional line flyers (some have ATPs and CPLs, but they don't use them) and I have only seen a high level of capability and professionalism.
That is not to say that that there are no gash PPL/IRs, far from it, but I have to say that the standard I see is very high.
I think that that is because most PPL/IRs make almost every flight under IFR, right through to an IAP, even when VMC, whereas most IMCR holders don't.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My knowledge of this comes partly from being in contact with a very large number of pilots, and partly from having been renting out my plane some years ago and seeing the sort of people who turned up wanting to fly it.
Most IMCR holders are renters or, to a smaller degree, syndicate members, and most of the latter are having constant aggro with VFR-only members who are refusing to pay for keeping going what they regard as unnecessary avionics. I would say the vast majority of syndicates that have one or more IMCR members are continually on the verge of falling apart due to this.
This does not encourage IFR currency, because currency comes from frequent flying, which (in the long run) comes only from enjoyable flying, which in the long run rules out burger runs.
And renting has the highest marginal cost which maximally discourages currency.
I also found that almost every IR holder is already an owner. Very few exceptions. There are a very small number of IFR only syndicates, which tend to be very successful (not least because IR members will have deep pockets and tend to not bicker about trivia so much
). The remaining IR holders were mostly fakes, or lapsed IRs (most of those were instructors, spinning some great yarns, and fiddling the fuel totaliser to get reduced fuel billing), and a really miniscule # of serving airline pilots who actually liked flying IFR "GA" as well as doing it at work in jets.
So it is no wonder that IR holders tend to be so much more current. An IR is worthless unless you go places, and you can't possibly do that while renting, and you can't generally do it in a syndicate unless it is a very special amicable one o 2 or 3 members. Add to that the chunk of one's life sunk into getting an IR (any IR) which is not just a pile of truly worthless exam swatting but also 50/55 hours of hammering NDBs etc until blue in the face (knowing fully that nobody flies like that in reality). Or going to the USA to avoid the European FAA IR hassles, but that largely trades one hassle for another; more so nowadays. Then throw in the cost of a reasonable IFR plane of say £100k plus (less if you don't mind £20k Annuals) and it's no wonder IR holders are mostly a bunch of obscessive types.
Funnily enough, when I once flew an ILS into Manston, in VMC, solo, I got told off by some self important instructor there who said an IAP in VMC always needs a safety pilot. I never went there after that.
The IR holder practice of always flying an IAP even under CAVOK comes from filing IFR enroute (for easy airspace access reasons, as much as anything else) and then flying an IAP is just standard ATC expectation, with a visual approach (which is an IFR procedure anyway) being offered sometimes (if the controller can speak enough English). It also helps logging the 6/6/ FAA IR approaches. But IMCR holders cannot do this abroad...
Most IMCR holders are renters or, to a smaller degree, syndicate members, and most of the latter are having constant aggro with VFR-only members who are refusing to pay for keeping going what they regard as unnecessary avionics. I would say the vast majority of syndicates that have one or more IMCR members are continually on the verge of falling apart due to this.
This does not encourage IFR currency, because currency comes from frequent flying, which (in the long run) comes only from enjoyable flying, which in the long run rules out burger runs.
And renting has the highest marginal cost which maximally discourages currency.
I also found that almost every IR holder is already an owner. Very few exceptions. There are a very small number of IFR only syndicates, which tend to be very successful (not least because IR members will have deep pockets and tend to not bicker about trivia so much
). The remaining IR holders were mostly fakes, or lapsed IRs (most of those were instructors, spinning some great yarns, and fiddling the fuel totaliser to get reduced fuel billing), and a really miniscule # of serving airline pilots who actually liked flying IFR "GA" as well as doing it at work in jets.So it is no wonder that IR holders tend to be so much more current. An IR is worthless unless you go places, and you can't possibly do that while renting, and you can't generally do it in a syndicate unless it is a very special amicable one o 2 or 3 members. Add to that the chunk of one's life sunk into getting an IR (any IR) which is not just a pile of truly worthless exam swatting but also 50/55 hours of hammering NDBs etc until blue in the face (knowing fully that nobody flies like that in reality). Or going to the USA to avoid the European FAA IR hassles, but that largely trades one hassle for another; more so nowadays. Then throw in the cost of a reasonable IFR plane of say £100k plus (less if you don't mind £20k Annuals) and it's no wonder IR holders are mostly a bunch of obscessive types.
most PPL/IRs make almost every flight under IFR, right through to an IAP, even when VMC, whereas most IMCR holders don't.
The IR holder practice of always flying an IAP even under CAVOK comes from filing IFR enroute (for easy airspace access reasons, as much as anything else) and then flying an IAP is just standard ATC expectation, with a visual approach (which is an IFR procedure anyway) being offered sometimes (if the controller can speak enough English). It also helps logging the 6/6/ FAA IR approaches. But IMCR holders cannot do this abroad...
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funnily enough, when I once flew an ILS into Manston, in VMC, solo, I got told off by some self important instructor there who said an IAP in VMC always needs a safety pilot. I never went there after that.
IFR is IFR. VMC is irrelevant.
Classic case, by the sound of it, of somebody who has seldom functioned outside the school environment, and thus has little grasp of real world flying.
Of course, an IAP in VMC demands see-and-avoid lookout, which I trust you did, as would any other sensible pilot. But that is absolutely not the same as a safety pilot (maybe it was in his club FOB and he didn't know the difference between that and the ANO?).
G
Of course, an IAP in VMC demands see-and-avoid lookout, which I trust you did, as would any other sensible pilot. But that is absolutely not the same as a safety pilot (maybe it was in his club FOB and he didn't know the difference between that and the ANO?).
G
Thread Starter
Ah - the old 'safety pilot' argument!
Here's what the ANO says:
From the ANO, 'simulated instrument flight conditions' means
Those bits of tin so beloved of the CAA or foggles, for example.
If you can find a legal definition of 'practice instrument approach', do tell us - there's nothing in the ANO as far as I'm aware.
The problem with flying IFR approaches in VMC outside CAS is that, if you're on your own head-down on the dials, no-one is looking out to spot other aircraft and take the relevant 'see and avoid' action in accordance with Rules of the Air. Although if you're using a decent autopilot, it'd be a different matter, of course. But in reality, the rule regarding 'practice instrument approaches' would be impossible to enforce.
Here's what the ANO says:
From the ANO, 'simulated instrument flight conditions' means
a flight during which mechanical or optical devices are used in order to reduce the field of vision or the range of visibility from the cockpit of the aircraft.
If you can find a legal definition of 'practice instrument approach', do tell us - there's nothing in the ANO as far as I'm aware.
The problem with flying IFR approaches in VMC outside CAS is that, if you're on your own head-down on the dials, no-one is looking out to spot other aircraft and take the relevant 'see and avoid' action in accordance with Rules of the Air. Although if you're using a decent autopilot, it'd be a different matter, of course. But in reality, the rule regarding 'practice instrument approaches' would be impossible to enforce.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
currency comes from frequent flying, which (in the long run) comes only from enjoyable flying, which in the long run rules out burger runs.
Today's order bellowed out across the bar at Breighton, "TWO SAUSAGE AND EGG, AND A SAUSAGE FOR THE DOG" (No disrespect to the Missus...)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle - 24 (2) (b) if interpreted as written would render illegal all instrument approaches flown solo where there is VMC above MDA/DA.
GTE - yes one needs to keep a lookout for traffic at all times when VMC, in CAS or (especially) OCAS. That does mean one is not going to be flying actually on instruments, the whole time, unless there is a competent safety pilot. But that also does not mean one cannot fly the procedure in terms of lateral and vertical navigation. In terms of instrument approach currency I think such approaches remain valuable because one can always practice IMC flight on separate occassions.
flybymike - I was referring to IFR
GTE - yes one needs to keep a lookout for traffic at all times when VMC, in CAS or (especially) OCAS. That does mean one is not going to be flying actually on instruments, the whole time, unless there is a competent safety pilot. But that also does not mean one cannot fly the procedure in terms of lateral and vertical navigation. In terms of instrument approach currency I think such approaches remain valuable because one can always practice IMC flight on separate occassions.
flybymike - I was referring to IFR
Thread Starter
BEagle - 24 (2) (b) if interpreted as written would render illegal all instrument approaches flown solo where there is VMC above MDA/DA.
24 (2) (b) doesn't seem to cater for those who, for example, choose to fly an ILS in VMC at an aerodrome outside CAS - such as Manston? Or Biggin Hill when below the London TMA. It all depends upon the interpretation of the term 'practice'. If you are flying the ILS in gin-clear VMC with the intention to land, is that a 'practice approach' because the weather doesn't require you to fly an instrument approach? Or is a 'practice approach' only when you wish to go-around and land elsewhere?
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I flew for a living it was company policy, written into the Ops Manual, that you did not cancel IFR, you flew the procedure every time, even in CAVOK. That was based on a long history of people changing their plans at the last minute and CFITing as a result, or making an approach to the wrong runway, or even street lights (the literature is full of such incidents.)
Our SOP was to fly the needles to minima and only then look up, every flight. That was partially to ensure that we remained utterly current at all times, even during long Summer months.
To say that you cannot, should not or must not fly an IFR procedure in VMC is palpable nonsense, in Class A, D or G.
Obviously if you are flying a procedure into a visual circuit you have to look out, particularly for reported traffic, but the main source of navigation information remains the instrument panel.
Our SOP was to fly the needles to minima and only then look up, every flight. That was partially to ensure that we remained utterly current at all times, even during long Summer months.
To say that you cannot, should not or must not fly an IFR procedure in VMC is palpable nonsense, in Class A, D or G.
Obviously if you are flying a procedure into a visual circuit you have to look out, particularly for reported traffic, but the main source of navigation information remains the instrument panel.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our SOP was to fly the needles to minima and only then look up, every flight.
In SP solo IFR one flies the IAP (if one is flying the IAP) but one looks out periodically after the point where one becomes visual with the runway.
Flying into street lights etc is the kind of thing which happens at night, and then flying the IAP more or less all the way down makes sense.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't someone have a rather nasty mid-air at Coventry a year or so back?
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...Z%20G-EYES.pdf
Mixing VFR and IFR has always been an interesting conundrum.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...Z%20G-EYES.pdf
Mixing VFR and IFR has always been an interesting conundrum.
Thread Starter
Not really the same thing as a single pilot aircraft flown solo making an instrument approach in VMC outside CAS, I would venture......
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you were flying multi crew jets (HS125) your co-pilot would have been looking out the whole time, which makes this rather different to doing it single-pilot.
No-one has a higher opinion of your knowledge and experience than you do. Does it not occur to you that I know more about my biography than you do? I flew single crew piston twin air taxis for many years. I am not an idiot, even compared to you.
When I flew for a living it was company policy, written into the Ops Manual, that you did not cancel IFR, you flew the procedure every time, even in CAVOK. That was based on a long history of people changing their plans at the last minute and CFITing as a result, or making an approach to the wrong runway, or even street lights (the literature is full of such incidents.)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with flying IFR approaches in VMC outside CAS is that, if you're on your own head-down on the dials, no-one is looking out to spot other aircraft and take the relevant 'see and avoid' action in accordance with Rules of the Air. Although if you're using a decent autopilot, it'd be a different matter, of course. But in reality, the rule regarding 'practice instrument approaches' would be impossible to enforce