New IMC rating?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you hear wrong! There was talk some years ago about the IMC being replaced with a JAR rating called the IWR (Instrument Weather Rating), but this is now comprehensively dead.... Unless (as they used to say on "That's Life"), you know different!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dorset, UK
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that 2Donkeys is correct.
As I recall it, a few years back, when JAR was first being chewed over in the UK, the IWR (Instrument Weather Rating) was proposed as a rating that would be valid in the whole of JAR-land, not just the UK.
Those of us with existing IMCs would only have had to pass a slightly upgraded test, and would then have had a IWR, that we could use in most other European countries.
So it seemed like a very good idea to me!
So, as with most good ideas in GA, it was abandoned!
As I recall it, a few years back, when JAR was first being chewed over in the UK, the IWR (Instrument Weather Rating) was proposed as a rating that would be valid in the whole of JAR-land, not just the UK.
Those of us with existing IMCs would only have had to pass a slightly upgraded test, and would then have had a IWR, that we could use in most other European countries.
So it seemed like a very good idea to me!
So, as with most good ideas in GA, it was abandoned!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IWR was a UK proposal to replace the IMC rating about 6 years ago. It was a knee jerk reaction following a number of accidents in marginal weather. The IWR had nothing to do with the JAA.
Following a period of consultatipon with industry, the idea was dropped and the IMC rating remained unchanged.
Following a period of consultatipon with industry, the idea was dropped and the IMC rating remained unchanged.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe if the JAA IR wasn't so unobtainable [cost wise] by the 'private' fraternity then they wouldn't have so many accidents due to people flying into bad weather.
Just been browsing the past few months accident reports on the AAIB website, and guess what...there are at least three accidents related to 'flying into bad weather and crashing'....
Why does it have to cost 12 grand to get an IR???? No wonder many of us want to go the N-reg route!
Cheers
EA
Just been browsing the past few months accident reports on the AAIB website, and guess what...there are at least three accidents related to 'flying into bad weather and crashing'....
Why does it have to cost 12 grand to get an IR???? No wonder many of us want to go the N-reg route!
Cheers
EA
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2WOMW
FAA /IR cost me about USD 4.5K in Feb this year: 2 weeks at NAC, 2weeks hotel ;muito cerveja, return flights etc.
But I already had IMC plus about 60 hrs IMC in UK. (did FAA writtens with Tom Hughston in Norwich before I went to Fl.)
They'll give you some credit for UK IMC hours but FAA definition of cross country is 50NM IIRC, not just a quick hop roend the local area.
Found it quite difficult but rewarding. Prob 40 some of the worst feb weather for years so most of my 27 hrs were in IMC.
As for converting to JAA : rules have just been relaxed in that you don't have to do the whole ATPL exams but there's still quite a bit of distance learning, groundschool and further flying training:
I worked out it would cost me another GBP 7K to do it, so prob won't bother.
Full details on JAA website somewhere they tell me but I've never found it.Safe flying.
FAA /IR cost me about USD 4.5K in Feb this year: 2 weeks at NAC, 2weeks hotel ;muito cerveja, return flights etc.
But I already had IMC plus about 60 hrs IMC in UK. (did FAA writtens with Tom Hughston in Norwich before I went to Fl.)
They'll give you some credit for UK IMC hours but FAA definition of cross country is 50NM IIRC, not just a quick hop roend the local area.
Found it quite difficult but rewarding. Prob 40 some of the worst feb weather for years so most of my 27 hrs were in IMC.
As for converting to JAA : rules have just been relaxed in that you don't have to do the whole ATPL exams but there's still quite a bit of distance learning, groundschool and further flying training:
I worked out it would cost me another GBP 7K to do it, so prob won't bother.
Full details on JAA website somewhere they tell me but I've never found it.Safe flying.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers for the info Cusco, It looks like its better to wait until the airlines come callin before investing in JAR IR. FAA conversion looks like a waste of time and the cost of JAR IR renewal (nevermind the 10k course) puts it out of resonable use of most light aircraft pilots.
How about suggesting that there should be a JAR IMC rating, which you obtain by gaining an FAA IR. If "they" argue that this isn't safe, point out that the alternative is to have the same pilots with the same qualification fly on 'N' reg with full IR privileges.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EA,
"Maybe if the JAA IR wasn't so unobtainable [cost wise] by the 'private' fraternity then they wouldn't have so many accidents due to people flying into bad weather."
Um, the decision to take off or press-on into deteriorating conditions may contribute to the cause, but to suggest that the cost of an IR contributes to flawed decision making is far too "European thinking" for me
Be frustrated that subjectively the CAA/JAA IR expense prevents use of airways and "bad wx" flying by some if you want, but the link between cost of IR and CFIT or loss of control in IMC is tenuous at best. The safe alternative is not to fly beyond your ratings or capabilities, surely.
Or was this just another swipe at JAA/CAA and I missed the point
"Maybe if the JAA IR wasn't so unobtainable [cost wise] by the 'private' fraternity then they wouldn't have so many accidents due to people flying into bad weather."
Um, the decision to take off or press-on into deteriorating conditions may contribute to the cause, but to suggest that the cost of an IR contributes to flawed decision making is far too "European thinking" for me
Be frustrated that subjectively the CAA/JAA IR expense prevents use of airways and "bad wx" flying by some if you want, but the link between cost of IR and CFIT or loss of control in IMC is tenuous at best. The safe alternative is not to fly beyond your ratings or capabilities, surely.
Or was this just another swipe at JAA/CAA and I missed the point
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True what you say rustle, decision making is the key, but part of your instrument training is training in decision making. I know now what my limitations are, far better than I did before I got IR'd....
By the way, the conversion from FAA to JAA IR is 15 hrs training, or until your standard is at a level that will allow you to pass the IR check flight...
Rgds
EA
[ps No swipe at the CAA/JAA I would just like to know why some FTO's charge 400 GBP/hr for multi IR training ]
By the way, the conversion from FAA to JAA IR is 15 hrs training, or until your standard is at a level that will allow you to pass the IR check flight...
Rgds
EA
[ps No swipe at the CAA/JAA I would just like to know why some FTO's charge 400 GBP/hr for multi IR training
]
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with rustle.
There is no such thing as 'inadvertant IMC' in daylight. The only time inadvertant IMC is possible is at night.
The biggest killer in the UK is currently LOC in VMC...(EEEK!) NOT in IMC suprisingly....
As for pressing on into marginal conditions - to get into those sorts of conditions the pilots have made their choices and ploughed on...even though they knew they were pressing on beyond the validity of their licences, low flying rules etc....just read about another incident in december issue of pilot - guy just ploughed on regardless and eventually was sooooo low in poor weather he hit power lines.....he was supposedly flying visually - and the clouds were reported as sooo low the tops of the pylons were not visible....now there is no way he was legal....
Now call me silly but each of us is in posession of this thing called a brain....now no matter what is said these pilots ALL made descisions to press on. None to suprising the consequences are bad. Perhaps thats why the licensing system is as it is today?
The cost of an IMC rating is well within the grasp of most PPLs. The problem is the IMC rating itself is not necessarily within the grasp of all of the brains of those PPLs....the IR issue is just a diversion.
There is no such thing as 'inadvertant IMC' in daylight. The only time inadvertant IMC is possible is at night.
The biggest killer in the UK is currently LOC in VMC...(EEEK!) NOT in IMC suprisingly....
As for pressing on into marginal conditions - to get into those sorts of conditions the pilots have made their choices and ploughed on...even though they knew they were pressing on beyond the validity of their licences, low flying rules etc....just read about another incident in december issue of pilot - guy just ploughed on regardless and eventually was sooooo low in poor weather he hit power lines.....he was supposedly flying visually - and the clouds were reported as sooo low the tops of the pylons were not visible....now there is no way he was legal....
Now call me silly but each of us is in posession of this thing called a brain....now no matter what is said these pilots ALL made descisions to press on. None to suprising the consequences are bad. Perhaps thats why the licensing system is as it is today?
The cost of an IMC rating is well within the grasp of most PPLs. The problem is the IMC rating itself is not necessarily within the grasp of all of the brains of those PPLs....the IR issue is just a diversion.
Certainly you shouldn't inadvertantly fly into "official" IMC in daylight. But there are situations, particularly over the sea, where the most careful VFR pilot can start to wish he had more instrument training.
Anyway, for UK flying the PPL on its own is really a recreational licence, it's PPL/IMC that's the real PPL.
Anyway, for UK flying the PPL on its own is really a recreational licence, it's PPL/IMC that's the real PPL.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about suggesting that there should be a JAR IMC rating, which you obtain by gaining an FAA IR.
) you are automatically entitled to add the JAA IMC to your UK licence free of charge bar the usual £64 fee for all the CAAs hard work!The plus of this as well is you dont have to prat about revalidating it every 23 months (or whatever it is for IMC) as it is valid as long as your FAA IR is valid. To keep your FAA valid you must:
1) Shoot 6 approaches & holds within a rolling 6 month period during the course of your normal flying.
2) ELSE after 6 months take to the air with a qualified pilot (may be a PPL) who is also qualified on type to act as a safety pilot and do the same.
3) ELSE after busting this 6 month period as well go up with an FAA instructor and shoot them (the approaches NOT the instructor
)Its self certifying in effect through your log book entries so you will also save a bit of money there if you combine the requirements with a flight you were planning to do anyway.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Julian
I may be wrong, but I thought DJ's request was for a Europe-valid IMC based on FAA IR, rather than a UK-IMC for FAA IR.
Which means JAA need to invent a new rating valid throughout JAA-land, which seems unlikely, and conveniently brings us full-circle to the original question
I may be wrong, but I thought DJ's request was for a Europe-valid IMC based on FAA IR, rather than a UK-IMC for FAA IR.
Which means JAA need to invent a new rating valid throughout JAA-land, which seems unlikely, and conveniently brings us full-circle to the original question
