IMC RATING
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
don't do is sit there with a stopwatch, timing the legs
I do this in case my stop watch runs out of batteries (but then I'm still learning nav)...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whatever GPS people are using, I just wish people would integrate into their flying properly. There seems to be increasing numbers of people that spend so long faffing about with electronics that their lookout just totally degrades. Flew with someone not so long ago who spent all flight constantly messing about with two GPSs and a PCAS who never once did a proper lookout scan.
Whatever GPS people are using, I just wish people would integrate into their flying properly. There seems to be increasing numbers of people that spend so long faffing about with electronics that their lookout just totally degrades. Flew with someone not so long ago who spent all flight constantly messing about with two GPSs and a PCAS who never once did a proper lookout scan.
G
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably you just record at what time you reach a way point. If horror of horror happens and someone has been hacking / jamming the GPS system, you can do the maths to work out roughly where you are?
There is no need to know the ETA at each waypoint. In practice one flies at a chosen power setting. 23" / 2300rpm / 11.5 USG/hr gives me 138kt IAS (at low altitudes) and that's what I fly at. I will get to where I am going when I get there
At high altitudes, one is limited (non turbo) by the available MP, so e.g. at FL100, best economy, I might be doing 140kt TAS on ~ 9.5 USG/hr, and I can't do any more because the motor is sucking all it can suck, and it would be stupid to fly slower. Same all the way to about FL170/180, above which one needs a higher fuel burn (and max revs).
If some ATC unit asks me for the ETA to somewhere, I read it straight off the GPS
If GPS got jammed, which has happened (off Italy, 2004, for a few minutes) but is exceedingly unlikely, I would fall back to VOR/DME - and fly the same route. If the GPS unit itself packed up, I have 2 others (at least) kicking around; a G496 in the yoke, and usually I run a tablet computer with a VFR moving map on it.
I can hardly believe we are still having this debate in the 21st century. But nothing suprises me in aviation. The JAA IR ground school was approx 95% totally useless garbage. Stuff tossed out by the RAF due to irrelevance back in the 1970s.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, any instructor or examiner who doesn't focus on look-out during training wants sacking, but it is mainly post PPL where people get into bad habits I suppose. I teach sensible GPS use where I can during training courses - despite the urban myths (mainly perpetuated by those who aren't instructors or in the training business) there is nothing stopping GPS use during training, but students do have to learn and demonstrate the basic principles as well. I just can't believe that anyone flying with an Ipad on their knee isn't going to spend a bad amount of time heads down. I still love my Garmin 3 pilot which velcros to the top of the coaming well within a good scan!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just can't believe that anyone flying with an Ipad on their knee isn't going to spend a bad amount of time heads down
If you are running a straight moving map app which shows the actual VFR chart, then no user interaction is required.
I think half the myths come from anti-GPS traditionalists, and half from people who saw somebody fumble around with the knobs trying to make the thing work. No way would I want to use a modern sophisticated handheld (e.g. a G695) without reading the manual and having a good play with it.
A moving map is still just a map isn't it.
There are, and always have been, plenty of pilots who will obsess with the chart, or obsess with their VOR, etc. A pilot obsessing with their GPS is just a more modern version of a bad habit.
G
There are, and always have been, plenty of pilots who will obsess with the chart, or obsess with their VOR, etc. A pilot obsessing with their GPS is just a more modern version of a bad habit.
G
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The really astonishing part is that you can do a night rating without an IMC.
(Note: I've done the IMCr but not the NQ, but I did some of the IMCr lessons at night. There may be a way of keeping the aeroplane the right way up by looking out of the window when there's nothing to see, but I personally am happy knowing how to do it on instruments.)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it not time for a truly layered approach to navigational training? There is no sense of well-defined modules in PPL training. This seems to go as well for VFR and IFR learning.
And no regular "evergreening" of the syllabii. This happens at the operational end of the business, in all its forms, but in terms of basic flying training up to the acquisition of the IR no-one seems To Be Watching. And in Europe at least, this after two new pan-continent organisations having supposedly reviewed the training requirements in the last decade or so.
For an industry that vaunts itself as a model in safety-driven culture, it really is amazing that it can't implement some kind of strategic best practice (followed by decent project management) over this crucial aspect of its reason for being.
European GA at least will increasingly diverge between the very select group of PPL-IR's and the rest of us who will have to migrate to VFR-only 3-axis ULM's (or lighter) over the long run. Nothing wrong with that, you might say, but it seems like a less diverse pilot ecosystem to me. And crucially, less IMC-capable pilots, since the EIR looks nothing but a route to some very scary incidents in the next few years.
Let's just hope the IMCR and/or the French equivalent get to survive for those who can afford it and get hold of the right plane.
And no regular "evergreening" of the syllabii. This happens at the operational end of the business, in all its forms, but in terms of basic flying training up to the acquisition of the IR no-one seems To Be Watching. And in Europe at least, this after two new pan-continent organisations having supposedly reviewed the training requirements in the last decade or so.
For an industry that vaunts itself as a model in safety-driven culture, it really is amazing that it can't implement some kind of strategic best practice (followed by decent project management) over this crucial aspect of its reason for being.
European GA at least will increasingly diverge between the very select group of PPL-IR's and the rest of us who will have to migrate to VFR-only 3-axis ULM's (or lighter) over the long run. Nothing wrong with that, you might say, but it seems like a less diverse pilot ecosystem to me. And crucially, less IMC-capable pilots, since the EIR looks nothing but a route to some very scary incidents in the next few years.
Let's just hope the IMCR and/or the French equivalent get to survive for those who can afford it and get hold of the right plane.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS. Gertrude - you're absolutely right about the NQ vs IMCR. How you can get an NQ and use it properly without doing an IMCR is yet another hole in the non-strategic way the whole lower half of the pilot training world has become designed.
In South Africa, a country not with best of GA Safety Records, the NQ is about the same size as our IMCR. This seems about the right amount of seriousness that should surely be attached to it. Why is it not the same for Europe (where NF on SVFR is legal in many countries)?
In South Africa, a country not with best of GA Safety Records, the NQ is about the same size as our IMCR. This seems about the right amount of seriousness that should surely be attached to it. Why is it not the same for Europe (where NF on SVFR is legal in many countries)?
http://ipv6.faa.gov/about/office_org...6.pdf#page=121
Always good to try and bring a bit of proper research into the loop.
G
The data show that pilots who use GPS and moving maps, and who invest the time to take note of geographical features along their route of flight, exhibit a level of navigational awareness that is higher than pilots who make no such effort. This finding suggests two things: (1) there are practical techniques that can help mitigate the loss-of-awareness phenomenon observed among pilots who use GPS and moving maps; and (2) a more active pilot involvement in the navigation task seems to be the key to maintaining navigational awareness. What is perhaps most interesting about the result is how such a simple practice of pointing out geographical features was sufficient to make such a striking difference in pilot awareness. This suggests that navigational awareness is indeed a fragile phenomenon.
the technique of pointing out geographical features is simply not possible in all situations. For example, it is generally not possible to see geographical features when flying in instrument meteorological conditions. Even under visual meteorological conditions, other cockpit duties (e.g., scanning for traffic, configuring avionics, etc.) would often prevent pilots from performing an out-the-window search for geographical features. Hence, there is a need to discover other practical techniques that help pilots maintain navigational awareness.
Pilots, flight instructors, evaluators, and policymakers have long talked about the importance of “staying in the loop” while flying with automation. Perhaps now is a good time to make explicit proficiency standards for navigational awareness in the technically advanced cockpit.
G
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wherever i lay my hat, that's my home...
Age: 44
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the important point though is that they are all tools... VOR/DME/GPS/NDB even Mk I Eyeball. When I fly I try not to rely on one thing and instead sort of cross check all the info and make sure that it makes sense to me. I did an NQ and IMC at the same time, and I can say that (although for the test I had to use one at a time) I now fly with most of them but will always consider what it is telling me.
Having now done both NQ and IMC I can say that I agree with the sentiment. I think an NQ is moderately unnecessary after an IMC, the only thing that I found odd was landing, because you have reduced reference, but a few circuits and I felt OK. The big eye opener for me was how invisible the clouds are; but as I popped into one towards the end of my IMC course I was able to use the Instruments and descend out of the cloud. I probably would have maintained altitude but it was middle of winter and probably above the freezing level.
On the subject of EIR, a thought I had... EASA seem to be making the statement that it has to be VMC-able at both departure and arrival aerodrome. But I am assuming that they will teach you how to climb and descend on instruments to adhere to the semi-circle or quadrantle rule... therefore by inference you may climb into or descend out of cloud. So how far away from the arrival aerodrome do you need to become VMC? As far as I can see if Cloudbase is high enough and above MSA, then you could just descend through the clouds, while en-route, and then arrive VMC?
Having now done both NQ and IMC I can say that I agree with the sentiment. I think an NQ is moderately unnecessary after an IMC, the only thing that I found odd was landing, because you have reduced reference, but a few circuits and I felt OK. The big eye opener for me was how invisible the clouds are; but as I popped into one towards the end of my IMC course I was able to use the Instruments and descend out of the cloud. I probably would have maintained altitude but it was middle of winter and probably above the freezing level.
On the subject of EIR, a thought I had... EASA seem to be making the statement that it has to be VMC-able at both departure and arrival aerodrome. But I am assuming that they will teach you how to climb and descend on instruments to adhere to the semi-circle or quadrantle rule... therefore by inference you may climb into or descend out of cloud. So how far away from the arrival aerodrome do you need to become VMC? As far as I can see if Cloudbase is high enough and above MSA, then you could just descend through the clouds, while en-route, and then arrive VMC?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, it is generally not possible to see geographical features when flying in instrument meteorological conditions
Always good to try and bring a bit of proper research into the loop.
The problem with aviation (and probably every other human activity) is that if you have a good old dig around, you dig out some very good people, a load of average people (by definition), and some total cowboys.
And unless you have data on what the entire participating population actually does, it is difficult to apply any data collected.
In GA, and this is true in the USA too, there is not a lot of data on what the pilot population actually does in the cockpit. You will probably interview only the subset who busted CAS and, gosh what a suprise, they will be people who either (a) got lost using conventional methods, or (b) got lost using a GPS on which they didn't know what the knobs do and they spent the whole flight fiddling with it without looking out. An over-simplification, but you get the idea. Researching the whole population is a whole load of legwork which is why nobody does it. Social research tends to be like that, which is why most of it is rubbish
I guess the important point though is that they are all tools... VOR/DME/GPS/NDB even Mk I Eyeball
I find that the more automation, the more I look out.
So how far away from the arrival aerodrome do you need to become VMC?
The way I would work this system would be to file a traditional IFR (airway) route, validated of course by Eurocontrol, using tools such as this, but instead of the last waypoint of this route joining to the start of a STAR (which is what happens in "classical" IFR - but SIDs and STARs will be banned under the EIR), you will stick in a DCT to a waypoint picked to be a good place to do a DIY letdown if that becomes necessary, and then put the "VFR" keyword after that waypoint.
In most of Europe, DCTs can be say 50nm, so that gives you some leeway. Some airspaces have a MAX DCT = 0 so this won't work there.
I think that, like plain VFR flight, the EIR will work well to destinations with definitely good weather. Currently, VFR flight does this well because you can use the IMCR to land back in mucky UK wx. The EIR will give you that, plus the ability to fly above cloud etc enroute and with CAS being irrelevant as per standard Eurocontrol IFR practice. Like VFR, the EIR will be very safe with pilots who are "clever" and who fly to airports in low lands or on the coast, or in places with great weather. Most of my pre-IR long VFR trips used to meet all 3 of those conditions
I wouldn't recommend it to Switzerland...
Last edited by peterh337; 22nd Feb 2012 at 15:10.
IMC RATING INTERIM STATEMENT
I have now been advised that the CAA's Interim Statement should be considered to apply until 30th June 2012 as further developments are anticipated before then.
None of which should be considered prejudicial to anyone considering training for the IMCR - it's just that a clearer idea of the specific licensing mechanism which will apply after 30 Jun is not yet known.
You can blame this whole nonsense on the intransigence of EASA; the UK CAA is just trying to find the best way to preserve the rights and safety standards enjoyed by UK pilots.
None of which should be considered prejudicial to anyone considering training for the IMCR - it's just that a clearer idea of the specific licensing mechanism which will apply after 30 Jun is not yet known.
You can blame this whole nonsense on the intransigence of EASA; the UK CAA is just trying to find the best way to preserve the rights and safety standards enjoyed by UK pilots.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting watching this from the sidelines as a new pilot with a whole 100 or so hours. I think in all occupations or pastimes you get martyrs for their particular cause.
I'm a professional musician and the music forums are exactly the same as this one. Just swap Piper and Cessna for Les Paul and Stratocaster or wind on the cheeks versus glass cockpit GPS for valve amp and Pod XT Live.
Peter bangs on about his GPS, others bang on about using nothing but a bar magnet and the feel of the wind on their cheeks. (Which cheeks I hear you ask). There's a guy I know who eschews GPS as white man's magic and reckons anyone who can't navigate by the way the wind blows across a field of corn shouldn't be flying. I'm being facetious about the field of corn but you get my point.
I asked him if he used a DI and he replied that of course he did. Phwaah I said, bloody techno man. I think he got my point.
I can't understand (my daughter is convinced I have Asperger's) why people can't just use whatever they feel they need to use. They are P1, Commander of the a/c. They are responsible for it's safe passage through the air, let them use whatever they feel safe using. Frankly I couldn't give a stuff how people navigate as long as they do it safely and keep a good look out.
For the record, I have everything possible switched on and tuned in, including a GPS, plus a stopwatch hanging off the yoke and a map with everything marked on it. Belt and braces? You bet.
I'm a professional musician and the music forums are exactly the same as this one. Just swap Piper and Cessna for Les Paul and Stratocaster or wind on the cheeks versus glass cockpit GPS for valve amp and Pod XT Live.
Peter bangs on about his GPS, others bang on about using nothing but a bar magnet and the feel of the wind on their cheeks. (Which cheeks I hear you ask). There's a guy I know who eschews GPS as white man's magic and reckons anyone who can't navigate by the way the wind blows across a field of corn shouldn't be flying. I'm being facetious about the field of corn but you get my point.
I asked him if he used a DI and he replied that of course he did. Phwaah I said, bloody techno man. I think he got my point.
I can't understand (my daughter is convinced I have Asperger's) why people can't just use whatever they feel they need to use. They are P1, Commander of the a/c. They are responsible for it's safe passage through the air, let them use whatever they feel safe using. Frankly I couldn't give a stuff how people navigate as long as they do it safely and keep a good look out.
For the record, I have everything possible switched on and tuned in, including a GPS, plus a stopwatch hanging off the yoke and a map with everything marked on it. Belt and braces? You bet.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
the way the wind blows across a field of corn
(Assuming of course that it isn't a check ride, so you weren't actually expecting a forced landing, so you hadn't bugged the wind direction on the DI in advance when the instructor wasn't looking.)
OK - some help please.
I hope to complete by IMCr and get all my paperwork to Gatwick well before the 30 June 2012 deadline - I will then presumably be issued with a replacement JAR-FCL licence which will now include the IMC rating.
Given that my PPL licence is due to expire on 29 Sep 2013 (5 years), I understand that when I send my £76 for a reissue in Sep 13, I will get a new Part-FCL licence. Am I correct in assuming that unless the IMC rating is negotiated to be added to a Part-FCL licence (as per Para 7 of the CAA statement), I will have lost the rating? So I don't even get to the 8th April 2014 because I will no longer have a JAR-FCL licence from Oct 13.
Will the CAA reissue a licence before the 5 years is up? In other words - issue it now (1.5 years early) and date it 5 years hence?
And what is a "UK non-JAR-FCL/non-Part-FCL" licence?
Thanks
Nik
I hope to complete by IMCr and get all my paperwork to Gatwick well before the 30 June 2012 deadline - I will then presumably be issued with a replacement JAR-FCL licence which will now include the IMC rating.
Given that my PPL licence is due to expire on 29 Sep 2013 (5 years), I understand that when I send my £76 for a reissue in Sep 13, I will get a new Part-FCL licence. Am I correct in assuming that unless the IMC rating is negotiated to be added to a Part-FCL licence (as per Para 7 of the CAA statement), I will have lost the rating? So I don't even get to the 8th April 2014 because I will no longer have a JAR-FCL licence from Oct 13.
Will the CAA reissue a licence before the 5 years is up? In other words - issue it now (1.5 years early) and date it 5 years hence?
And what is a "UK non-JAR-FCL/non-Part-FCL" licence?
Thanks
Nik
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 41
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am doing an IMC course at the moment. Is there any reason to rush to finish by the end of March 2012 rather than 30th June 2012. I am just concious that paragraph 7 talks about an [arbitary] date and I am not clear whether that could in principle be earlier than 30 Jun 2012?
I hope to have mine completed by the end of March but the date i have been told is you need to get the application into them 10 days prior to the 30th June.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know Beatnik, I've just got my IMC rating, but if the worst comes to the worst (which I doubt) and the IMC rating goes for those who hold it then in all honesty, if you get caught out in clag and know you can take an ILS into your airfield are you going to say 'Gosh no, this is now illegal?' Sod that, and let them try and pin something on me.