Restricted Instrument Rating Questions
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Radlett
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Restricted Instrument Rating Questions
I'm thinking of doing an IMC, or restricted instrument rating as it now seems to be called, but I have a couple of questions.
Firstly, does that allow me to take off into IMC, or should it really only be used as a back up should the weather get bad en-route?
Secondly, to reduce costs I'd prefer to do the training in the plane in which I have a share, but I don't know if it's equipped well enough. Does anyone know what you need in terms of avionics?
Firstly, does that allow me to take off into IMC, or should it really only be used as a back up should the weather get bad en-route?
Secondly, to reduce costs I'd prefer to do the training in the plane in which I have a share, but I don't know if it's equipped well enough. Does anyone know what you need in terms of avionics?
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: southampton
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
instrument flight safety is dependent on your skill set and currency. That said flying in smooth conditions with minimum maneuvering is relatively simple, I find it easier than VFR especially if relying on radar guidance. Flying IMC with no Radar cover is in my opinion foolhardy as you have no way of knowing whats out there.
Coping with heavy turbulence is another thing. you will be working very hard to control the aircraft and single pilot IFR is hard work even having another pair of hands to cope with radio and setting up NAV is helpful and reduces the workload.
Minimum instruments required depends on whether you want legal IFR minimum or added safety.
Really for flight in the UK with IRR your limited to non airways and without de-ice your stuck with above freezing levels .
There has been a nasty reduction in the number of VORs in the UK recently which means getting a VOR approach is virtually impossible so you are limited to ILS NDB or a small number of Radar surveillance approaches. To be legal you need NAV boxes that are FM immune which most of the old kit does not have, though for training you can get away with it.
I did my initial IR training in a basic trainer in cloud not simulated which looking back was very good training tho at the time was scary! The visual minimum for take off landing is 1800 m which means with high power runway lighting pretty poor vis. Actually, anything below VMC minimum require instrument qualifications so the answer to your question is yes 1800m is below VFR so thats IMC conditions - but its not the same as en route in cloud vis which is pretty much 0m.
When I did my IR training it seemed scary at first but you get confidence with time and really the key is very gentle inputs and correct trim. Its well worth doing an IRR just for the added ability you gain even if you don't want to plan IFR trips. Also remember non IMC trained pilots last a very short time in IMC so having the skills is a good idea.
Coping with heavy turbulence is another thing. you will be working very hard to control the aircraft and single pilot IFR is hard work even having another pair of hands to cope with radio and setting up NAV is helpful and reduces the workload.
Minimum instruments required depends on whether you want legal IFR minimum or added safety.
Really for flight in the UK with IRR your limited to non airways and without de-ice your stuck with above freezing levels .
There has been a nasty reduction in the number of VORs in the UK recently which means getting a VOR approach is virtually impossible so you are limited to ILS NDB or a small number of Radar surveillance approaches. To be legal you need NAV boxes that are FM immune which most of the old kit does not have, though for training you can get away with it.
I did my initial IR training in a basic trainer in cloud not simulated which looking back was very good training tho at the time was scary! The visual minimum for take off landing is 1800 m which means with high power runway lighting pretty poor vis. Actually, anything below VMC minimum require instrument qualifications so the answer to your question is yes 1800m is below VFR so thats IMC conditions - but its not the same as en route in cloud vis which is pretty much 0m.
When I did my IR training it seemed scary at first but you get confidence with time and really the key is very gentle inputs and correct trim. Its well worth doing an IRR just for the added ability you gain even if you don't want to plan IFR trips. Also remember non IMC trained pilots last a very short time in IMC so having the skills is a good idea.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly from Goodwood and lived North of the Downs, it was possible to set off knowing that North was clear but Goodwood would be rain and low cloud so useful to be able to set off North in IMC but knowing it was clear where I was going. It would also often be the case that I would climb a couple of thousand feet and be sitting in clear skies on top flying towards a destination that was clear, or at least had higher cloud base. As far as VOR goes, yes these are reducing, but only because GPS is being more accepted and I believe in the future more airfields will end up with a GPS approach.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cambridge
Age: 38
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, does that allow me to take off into IMC, or should it really only be used as a back up should the weather get bad en-route?
There's a lot of debate about whether the rating should be seen as a "back up" or whether it should be used - as instrument skills are very much linked to currency (they degrade very rapidly) I personally think it should be used. That being said, there's a difference between flying when you're going to have to do approaches down to close to minimum to get back, and doing so when you might have some cloud en-route to fly through etc - it's ultimately down to the level of risk you're willing to take yourself, particularly if flying single engine, e.g. imagine you're flying on a day where it's OVC008 and the engine fails on you...
Does anyone know what you need in terms of avionics?
* Transponder
* ADF
* DME
* VOR (ideally x2)
* ILS
I'm not sure also if IMC/IR(R) training has to be done under the auspices of an ATO, if so then they'd have to be happy taking your aircraft onto their books as it were...
Firstly, does that allow me to take off into IMC...
Does anyone know what you need in terms of avionics?
Technically you could complete your training with just a VOR, and do an SRA or PAR for your second approach, if all you want is an 'IMC' badge to wear.
If, however, you want an IMC/IR(R) Rating you can actually use to fly approaches at most places in the UK, you will, as Alexbrett suggests, need an aircraft with at least; VOR, ILS, DME, ADF, and Transponder.
I'm not sure also if IMC/IR(R) training has to be done under the auspices of an ATO...
MJ
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not sure how much use an ADF is these days!
And of course if you don't update your GPS' database you can Direct To the decommissioned NDBs!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how much use an ADF is these days!
Doncaster which is my local 'go to' NDB approach sees me once every two years...can't see the point of them, flying holds over them is a pain, they drop out, point the wrong way in bad weather. I hate them. WWII technology and here we are 75 years later in the age of GPS, ILS. RNAV and we still have to trot out the 'We'll do a hold to NDB/DME approach for your second PIA.' You may as well add 'And we'll do it in a Sopwith Camel.'
Last edited by thing; 16th Sep 2015 at 20:34.
Mach Jump don't both approaches for the test have to be pilot-interpreted?
From CAP804 Part II Section 5 Part E Page 4
2.3.3 Approach and Let-Down
Use of approach charts, Decision Height/Minimum Descent Height calculations using
the recommended minima for the IMC Rated pilot given in the UK AIP forming a mental
picture of the approach, initial homing, achieving the overhead/approach fix, holding
procedures, achieving the horizontal and vertical patterns, calculation of rate of descent,
go-around, missed approach procedure.
Applicants are to be trained in at least 2 instrument approach procedures using VOR,
ADF, ILS, GPS, radar or VDF of which at least one must be pilot interpreted. Completion
of a notified recognised civil or military instrument approach procedure during training,
is to be certified in the applicant’s flying book. Note that GPS approaches are defined
as those notified by the Authority in the AIP and flown using equipment certified for the
conduct of such approaches in the aeroplane’s Pilots Operating Handbook or Flight
Manual; overlay approaches or privately designed approaches are not acceptable.
Use of approach charts, Decision Height/Minimum Descent Height calculations using
the recommended minima for the IMC Rated pilot given in the UK AIP forming a mental
picture of the approach, initial homing, achieving the overhead/approach fix, holding
procedures, achieving the horizontal and vertical patterns, calculation of rate of descent,
go-around, missed approach procedure.
Applicants are to be trained in at least 2 instrument approach procedures using VOR,
ADF, ILS, GPS, radar or VDF of which at least one must be pilot interpreted. Completion
of a notified recognised civil or military instrument approach procedure during training,
is to be certified in the applicant’s flying book. Note that GPS approaches are defined
as those notified by the Authority in the AIP and flown using equipment certified for the
conduct of such approaches in the aeroplane’s Pilots Operating Handbook or Flight
Manual; overlay approaches or privately designed approaches are not acceptable.
2.4 Flight Test Syllabus
a)
b)
c)
d) Let-down and Approach Procedures
Let-down and approach to Decision Height, Minimum Descent Height and missed
approach procedure using a pilot-interpreted aid, carry out a recognised instrument
approach procedure to Decision Height, Minimum Descent Height hence the
appropriate go-around and missed approach procedure.
a)
b)
c)
d) Let-down and Approach Procedures
Let-down and approach to Decision Height, Minimum Descent Height and missed
approach procedure using a pilot-interpreted aid, carry out a recognised instrument
approach procedure to Decision Height, Minimum Descent Height hence the
appropriate go-around and missed approach procedure.
MJ
...we still have to trot out the 'We'll do a hold to NDB/DME approach for your second PIA.
For an IMC/IR(R) Revalidation, only the first approach is required to be completed under the same rules as an Initial test.(Pilot interpreted) The second approach, whether completed during the Test or in the intervening period between Tests, can be any other
From CAP804 Part II Section 5 Part E Page 4
2.6 Revalidation Flight Test
2.6.1 The Flight Test required after initial qualification for the purpose of revalidating the
Rating will comprise items b), d) and e) of the initial Flight Test (see paragraph 2.4). The
type of approach aid used must be entered in the log book. A revalidation Flight Test
that is a first multi-engine test must include (f) at paragraph 2.4.
2.6.2 The applicant is also to show log book evidence that, in the period between initial and/
or re-validation flight tests, he has successfully completed a let-down and notified
approach to DH/MDH, a go-around and a missed approach procedure using an aid of a
different type from that used during item d) of the test. This shall be accomplished to
the satisfaction of an instructor qualified to give instrument flying instruction.
Alternatively the candidate may carry out two approach procedures using different aids
during the re-validation flight test
2.6.1 The Flight Test required after initial qualification for the purpose of revalidating the
Rating will comprise items b), d) and e) of the initial Flight Test (see paragraph 2.4). The
type of approach aid used must be entered in the log book. A revalidation Flight Test
that is a first multi-engine test must include (f) at paragraph 2.4.
2.6.2 The applicant is also to show log book evidence that, in the period between initial and/
or re-validation flight tests, he has successfully completed a let-down and notified
approach to DH/MDH, a go-around and a missed approach procedure using an aid of a
different type from that used during item d) of the test. This shall be accomplished to
the satisfaction of an instructor qualified to give instrument flying instruction.
Alternatively the candidate may carry out two approach procedures using different aids
during the re-validation flight test
MJ
Ps. Thing: Personally, I would get my ADF working properly, and stick with the NDB approach. It's still the most common alternative to an ILS at most places.
Last edited by Mach Jump; 16th Sep 2015 at 22:17. Reason: Added Ps.
thing wrote:
There is no such requirement in any IMCR / IR(R) test unless ATC so direct. In which case it must be flown correctly.
But many FE dinosaurs are still obsessed with making NDB holds into an art form, with their 'gates' and 'rules of thumb'....
....we still have to trot out the 'We'll do a hold to NDB/DME approach for your second PIA.'
But many FE dinosaurs are still obsessed with making NDB holds into an art form, with their 'gates' and 'rules of thumb'....
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very useful and time-saving, thanks, as for my last couple of renewals we've schlepped over to Brize for the NDB, dodging the C17s; now I know that I will suggest PAR and ILS at home for the two approaches!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I did an SRA and an ILS on my reval. test last month. 2 approaches 25 quid, plus the cost of the a/c and the examiner. Pretty good value, I thought.
The ADF doesn't work in the a/c and there are no plans to repair it. The money will be spent on a new 8.33 radio instead...
TOO
The ADF doesn't work in the a/c and there are no plans to repair it. The money will be spent on a new 8.33 radio instead...
TOO
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I do not think ADF is that common as an approach these days I am surprised about how hard people seem to find it, learn the right techniques and it is no harder than a VOR!
London Blue!
Unless I'm mistaken you cannot train for the initial issue of any rating in a shareoplane unless it is maintained to public transport standards. Is the engine below hour and calendar TBO?
Unless I'm mistaken you cannot train for the initial issue of any rating in a shareoplane unless it is maintained to public transport standards. Is the engine below hour and calendar TBO?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I do not think ADF is that common as an approach these days I am surprised about how hard people seem to find it, learn the right techniques and it is no harder than a VOR!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I first started DI was a "ribbon" DI, then an ADF WAS hard to do, as soon as we got the compass rose orientation is became a piece of cake, I would certainly agree that an ILS is a lot easier, and having the lower minima helps, but if you want the easiest approach, fly a PAR!