UK Pilot thinking of IMC
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically any approach which isn't an SRA or a PAR counts.
I take your point MJ about how practical it is (or isn't) although I know a fair number of people who have completed their IMC rating in aircraft which don't have an ADF.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two approaches could be an ILS and RNAV I believe. The expectation is one precision and one non precision, SRA can count, or could when I did my test years ago.
Since I did the IMCR I have also done the IR and learned precisely nothing of use that I didn't already know, I got much more precise and current from the additional flying though.
IMCR is more use than EIR because it has approaches. You then have the skills to arrive anywhere in IFR conditions, you can argue about the legalities on the ground with you and aeroplane intact.
As to NDB I've never used one since my test, if there's one in a procedure it's just used as a waypoint in the GPS. It's long passed time the useless things were switched off.
Since I did the IMCR I have also done the IR and learned precisely nothing of use that I didn't already know, I got much more precise and current from the additional flying though.
IMCR is more use than EIR because it has approaches. You then have the skills to arrive anywhere in IFR conditions, you can argue about the legalities on the ground with you and aeroplane intact.
As to NDB I've never used one since my test, if there's one in a procedure it's just used as a waypoint in the GPS. It's long passed time the useless things were switched off.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Essex, Innit
Age: 55
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One top tip I can give is using MS flight sim X or similar to practice the procedural approach stuff - it's not, as anyone who's used it is aware I'm sure, terribly realistic in terms of physical flight characteristics, visual scenery etc but it is extremely useful for nailing down the numbers, headings & behaviour of the instruments (particularly the various adf techniques that personally I always find less than intuitive).
I found that having increased familiarity with the procedures & cockpit environment left me slightly better placed to concentrate on the myriad of other skills required & the increased standards of accuracy that I'd managed to erode during hours of happy vfr bimbling.
I also recommend using a large sheet of A3 across the top half of the screen so you can simulate that marvelous screens down moment on finals.
Actually, having used foggles & screens, I also recommend going for a training aircraft fitted for screens - it seems more civilised, less claustrophobic & a truer representation of flight in IMC.
I definitely endorse the safety & flight skill development aspect of the rating but won't comment on the future & seemingly fluid regulatory status of the various instrument flight rating options except to say that whatever else happens you don't lose the basic appreciation of flight in IMC you gain through the training (which, of course, is completely different from practicing the skills sufficiently to stay safe & competent in real IMC).
I found that having increased familiarity with the procedures & cockpit environment left me slightly better placed to concentrate on the myriad of other skills required & the increased standards of accuracy that I'd managed to erode during hours of happy vfr bimbling.
I also recommend using a large sheet of A3 across the top half of the screen so you can simulate that marvelous screens down moment on finals.
Actually, having used foggles & screens, I also recommend going for a training aircraft fitted for screens - it seems more civilised, less claustrophobic & a truer representation of flight in IMC.
I definitely endorse the safety & flight skill development aspect of the rating but won't comment on the future & seemingly fluid regulatory status of the various instrument flight rating options except to say that whatever else happens you don't lose the basic appreciation of flight in IMC you gain through the training (which, of course, is completely different from practicing the skills sufficiently to stay safe & competent in real IMC).
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
enq - indeed.
On MS Flight Sim you can move the instrument panel up so that you can't see the outside world anyway. As the physics engine isn't great I ignore the joystick and use autopilot to set which heading to go to.
Issue with screens is that it can reduce the ability for the instructor / safety pilot to lookout - as you are likely to (in reality) be in VFR conditions.
On MS Flight Sim you can move the instrument panel up so that you can't see the outside world anyway. As the physics engine isn't great I ignore the joystick and use autopilot to set which heading to go to.
Issue with screens is that it can reduce the ability for the instructor / safety pilot to lookout - as you are likely to (in reality) be in VFR conditions.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The expectation is one precision and one non precision
The expectation is one precision and one non precision
I thought the expectation was two different pilot interpreted approaches? Not arguing your point, I could well be wrong but that's how I always understood it.
MJ
Last edited by Mach Jump; 10th Jul 2014 at 01:23. Reason: Punctuation
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and during training, the Candidate must have been signed off as proficient on at least one other
Candidate will be tested on 2 Approaches, one of which must be pilot interpreted.
or
Candidate will be tested on 1 pilot interpreted Approach, provided at least one different Approach has been signed off during training.
This discussion has been about the IMC/IR(R) Test profile.
Just wondering if the 1 precision/1 non-precision Approach, mentioned by others, is an IR requirement? That is certainly what I have always been required to fly when undergoing IR LPCs.
This discussion has been about the IMC/IR(R) Test profile.
However, I think that, in reality, very few initial IMC Tests include two approaches.
MJ
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Just wondering if the 1 precision/1 non-precision Approach, mentioned by others, is an IR requirement?
If one didn't like it one could always go find an examiner elsewhere.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AS above low hours PPL but thinking about going down the IMC route. Is it really worth all the time effort and money?
Are you planning to use it regularly? If not (and I haven't got one so I don't know) is it safe to fly IFR when you are not current? As a 'get out of jail free' card, I'm not sure works if you don't regularly practice getting out of jail?
What is your flying for? If you fly a lot, as a means of transport for example, I imagine it is essential. But if you fly for fun, in good weather, then you may end up spending a lot of your 'fun' budget on just keeping a rating you don't really use. And don't forget you will need to fly an aircraft with IFR kit to fly in IMC (Currently CofA, possibly some Permits in future)
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most important thing is currency. I have an IMC rating, and use it on almost every flight I undertake. This may be for cloud break, an instrument approach, VFR on top, or simply flying instruments for the extra precision it offers. It is great fun, and even for flying VFR in limited visibility (where you are "legally" VFR, but in practice on instruments) it is incredibly useful. I'm not sure how I ever managed without it. And, it all counts towards the CBM IR. I can't think of a reason not to do it.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't think of a reason not to do it
I have a limited flying budget, I don't want to spend that following a magenta line or flying in cloud. The appeal of flying, for me, is seeing the world from above. If I had to spend a decent proportion of my budget on keeping current at something that doesn't interest me and I don't want to do, then I'd give up. As, I suspect, would many microlighters, permit flyers etc. We are seeing pilots hanging up their headsets more and more, don't do something that puts you closer to doing that
If you are going to use an IMCr or IR then get it. If you are going to need it, get it. If you are going to enjoy the process of getting it, go and get it, but if you are a fair-weather, Sunday afternoon flyer who doesn't want to spend valuable flying time head in the cockpit, then be realistic about the positives and negatives
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair sentiments CC but surely you would weigh all of that up first anyway? It doesn't cost a lot to stay current apart from the bi annual renewal (think mine cost £150 or so). If you're going somewhere then do it IFR, it costs the same, you can still look at the view. If you're landing somewhere with an instrument approach, do an instrument approach. Mine cost me nothing at my airfield and I think Doncaster charge a whole six quid. You can fit practice into your normal flights.
However as you say if you fly to enjoy the view and nice weather which of course is an excellent reason to fly then you don't need the rating.
However as you say if you fly to enjoy the view and nice weather which of course is an excellent reason to fly then you don't need the rating.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety & flexibility
The biggest reason for a PPL holder to do the IMC is the extra safety it brings if you find yourself painted into a corner by circumstances beyond your control.
The rating also gives you the flexibility to fly more safely, for instance on days were the low level visibility is poor and all the traffic is flying around at 1500-2000 ft below a (just) broken cloud base the option of cruising at 5000 ft or so in the very clear VFR makes things very much safer and you know that should the broken cloud turn into overcast you can always get on the ground safely.
A few years back I had to break off an ILS approach at 600 ft ( still IMC ) a VFR pilot who had been caught out by rapidly deteriorating weather had in fear of his life turned base leg to final ahead of me, surely if the guy had done the IMC training he would at soon as VFR flight had become untenable climbed to the MSA and arranged to get onto the ILS in and orderly manor.
It was very fortunate for us both that he has the presents of mind to make a few radio calls because ( as I discovered on my next approach) the cloud base was about 270 ft with 5000m vis in RADZ, had I continued the first approach the chances are we would have collided just short of the runway.
It is all very well for those above to worry about being current and the cost of the rating renewal but the training never completely leaves you and when the VFR flight you are on is no longer a VFR flight you are far better to climb above the MSA, declare an emergency and get help from an ATC radar, calm down and then make an approach ( Preferably a PAR) than to continue scud running until you run out of luck, the administrative state of your IMC rating is not a factor under these conditions..............it is staying alive that counts !
The fact that this essential piece of pilot skill is about to be watered down because of pressure from EU states with a far worse safety record than the UK just illustrates the fact that EASA is not a safety regulator it is just another part of the EU cushy well paid job club.
The rating also gives you the flexibility to fly more safely, for instance on days were the low level visibility is poor and all the traffic is flying around at 1500-2000 ft below a (just) broken cloud base the option of cruising at 5000 ft or so in the very clear VFR makes things very much safer and you know that should the broken cloud turn into overcast you can always get on the ground safely.
A few years back I had to break off an ILS approach at 600 ft ( still IMC ) a VFR pilot who had been caught out by rapidly deteriorating weather had in fear of his life turned base leg to final ahead of me, surely if the guy had done the IMC training he would at soon as VFR flight had become untenable climbed to the MSA and arranged to get onto the ILS in and orderly manor.
It was very fortunate for us both that he has the presents of mind to make a few radio calls because ( as I discovered on my next approach) the cloud base was about 270 ft with 5000m vis in RADZ, had I continued the first approach the chances are we would have collided just short of the runway.
It is all very well for those above to worry about being current and the cost of the rating renewal but the training never completely leaves you and when the VFR flight you are on is no longer a VFR flight you are far better to climb above the MSA, declare an emergency and get help from an ATC radar, calm down and then make an approach ( Preferably a PAR) than to continue scud running until you run out of luck, the administrative state of your IMC rating is not a factor under these conditions..............it is staying alive that counts !
The fact that this essential piece of pilot skill is about to be watered down because of pressure from EU states with a far worse safety record than the UK just illustrates the fact that EASA is not a safety regulator it is just another part of the EU cushy well paid job club.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wot A&C said. I might not be alive today if I hadn't had an IMCR to ensure that I could get of some very nasty and unforecast weather over Germany a few years ago.......
I now have an IR and fly IFR whenever practical, but not a lot of IFR flying is in IMC quite often it's above the weather and just needs an approach to get down again. Moreover a lot of IFR flying is done using an autopilot, which reduces the workload significantly.
I now have an IR and fly IFR whenever practical, but not a lot of IFR flying is in IMC quite often it's above the weather and just needs an approach to get down again. Moreover a lot of IFR flying is done using an autopilot, which reduces the workload significantly.
A and C wrote:
Nope, we finally beat the buggers when the EC found the same way to retain the IMCR / IR(R) which I'd proposed 3 years earlier to EASA! Who wouldn't agree at the time, but have now been trumped by the EC.
So the IMCR / IR(R) is safe in UK airspace until at least 2019 and very probably in perpetuity thereafter!
Oh and Kevin31, JFDI!!
The fact that this essential piece of pilot skill is about to be watered down because of pressure from EU states with a far worse safety record than the UK just illustrates the fact that EASA is not a safety regulator it is just another part of the EU cushy well paid job club.
So the IMCR / IR(R) is safe in UK airspace until at least 2019 and very probably in perpetuity thereafter!
Oh and Kevin31, JFDI!!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
I am very pleased with this turn of events but the fact that it took three years to get to this situation and that the rest of the PPL's who fly with EASA licenses can't benefit from this valuable rating says more about EASA's attitude to safety than all the Bull EASA publishes.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Norway
Age: 45
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Route to instruct for EIR/CB-IR/old style IR
I have a PPL, am currently studying the ATPL theory to be able to become FI, I'd like to be able to instruct IR (or CB-IR/EIR), privately before the 10 mandatory ATO hours or inside an ATO. I am not in a big rush and CB-IR seems the way to go - but can I then instruct on IR, or do one need the old style IR to be allowed to instruct IR?
Last edited by keenpilot; 26th Oct 2014 at 19:28.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Norway
Age: 45
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CB-IR or full IR
Thank you stevelup, so if I take the CB-IR now, it would later count so I could fly commercially with it as well when I get my CPL+ME? And it would be part of my frozen ATPL?
So will no one do the old IR anymore then as it's more hours for no advantages?
It sounds tempting then to do the CB-IR theory now to start flying IR asap as it will be a while before I can do the ATPL exams. Then one disadvantage obviously that I would be doing the theory twice as I would first do the CB-IR, then the full ATPL.
So will no one do the old IR anymore then as it's more hours for no advantages?
It sounds tempting then to do the CB-IR theory now to start flying IR asap as it will be a while before I can do the ATPL exams. Then one disadvantage obviously that I would be doing the theory twice as I would first do the CB-IR, then the full ATPL.