Private and IR
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
From: UK
flyingfemme
I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I agree that there is a lot of hoops to jump for the IR, but with the current situation that 50 hours training is required then that is going to take some elapsed time. If someone wanted to train part time for example then I know of FTOs that would do it.
keef
The AIP is quite explicit about the IMC minima. Para 3.3.2 in section AD 1.1.2 states 'Pilots with a valid IMC/Instrument Weather Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the Instrument Rated pilots' DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non precision approach' I would read that to mean that the 500 and 600 ft figures are not just recommendations but requirements.
That being the case you would be liable under Article 40 of the ANO if you continued an approach with weather below these minima.
OTOH if you don't have an incident, you are unlikely to get an MOR as ATC won't know you don't have an IR!!
I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I agree that there is a lot of hoops to jump for the IR, but with the current situation that 50 hours training is required then that is going to take some elapsed time. If someone wanted to train part time for example then I know of FTOs that would do it.
keef
The AIP is quite explicit about the IMC minima. Para 3.3.2 in section AD 1.1.2 states 'Pilots with a valid IMC/Instrument Weather Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the Instrument Rated pilots' DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non precision approach' I would read that to mean that the 500 and 600 ft figures are not just recommendations but requirements.
That being the case you would be liable under Article 40 of the ANO if you continued an approach with weather below these minima.
OTOH if you don't have an incident, you are unlikely to get an MOR as ATC won't know you don't have an IR!!
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
I think I shot around 60 approaches during the IR course, GPS / VOR / LDA / LOC / LDA / LOC DME [bk crs] / ILS / NDB.
As for morse....I use the Jepp charts, they print the ident on them
The only really good one to know is dot dot, for I [as in ILS].
The IMC is a good rating, well done the CAA for not getting rid of it. It teaches basic attitude flying as well as approaches reasonably safely in marginal weather.
The biggest drawbacks with the IMC as far as I'm concerned is that a) I can't enter airways and b) I can't use it abroad. The IMC would be far more useful if airways say below FL100 were designated Class D or something. Its sometimes inconvienient to potter around at 3000' in IMC, especially if at 5000' its clear sunny sky. How many commercial operations fly below FL100 anyway? We've had this discussion before on here, but it would be nice to be able to obtain, relatively cheaply, taking into account previous hrs etc, rolling currency, a rating that lets a person fly Europe wide at FL100 or below say, 'proper' IFR?
Cheers
EA
As for morse....I use the Jepp charts, they print the ident on them
The only really good one to know is dot dot, for I [as in ILS].The IMC is a good rating, well done the CAA for not getting rid of it. It teaches basic attitude flying as well as approaches reasonably safely in marginal weather.
The biggest drawbacks with the IMC as far as I'm concerned is that a) I can't enter airways and b) I can't use it abroad. The IMC would be far more useful if airways say below FL100 were designated Class D or something. Its sometimes inconvienient to potter around at 3000' in IMC, especially if at 5000' its clear sunny sky. How many commercial operations fly below FL100 anyway? We've had this discussion before on here, but it would be nice to be able to obtain, relatively cheaply, taking into account previous hrs etc, rolling currency, a rating that lets a person fly Europe wide at FL100 or below say, 'proper' IFR?
Cheers
EA
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
As far as I recall, when doing the FAA IR you can bring in up to 25 hours of previous instrument instruction, provided each flight is signed off by a CFI. Sadly I don't recall where I saw that requirement but it's very useful; a typical IMC Rated pilot will have done 20-30 hours of training (no, 15hrs is not enough) and that takes care of most of the mandatory IR flying hours, and provided you are current etc getting the FAA IR should not be too hard. FAA IRs I know have confirmed this.
But what credit does one get towards the JAA IR?
But what credit does one get towards the JAA IR?
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
FFF
We have had this discussion before
From your post, it's clear that you're not in favour of the IMC rating.
Nope, I called it a pragmatic solution, I am in favour. I find it confusing because the regulations are unclear.
Does this, in your view, make me unsafe?
I would have to fly with you to make that determination.
Do you know of any accident or incident which has been caused by an IMC-rated pilot having had insufficient training to be safe?
It is my opinion that you cannot possibly gain the skills required in 15 hours. Whether that has killed anybody, well I don't know, but I'd be surprised if it hadn't. I do know that plenty of current IR pilots in the States kill themselves because of disorientation in clouds, or kill themselves though CFIT. I would expect that an IMC pilot is not immune to these problems either. I would suspect that there are some IMC pilots who are safer than IR pilots, and vice versa. For instance, an IR pilot in Phoenix with 100 hours under the hood and no actual, would be more dangerous than an IMC pilot in England with 100 hours of actual. When both were newly qualified, I would say the IR pilot was significantly safer than the IMC.
Do you know how many approaches an average IMC student would shoot during training? How does that compare to an FAA IR student?
I've found an IR student spends 10-15 hours attitude flying. 15-20 hours shooting approaches (which includes attitude flying of course). 10 or so hours on cross countries, and 5 hours other stuff. So an FAA IR student will spend more time shooting approaches than an IMC spends on his whole training. YMMV. Also depends on how often you fly. You lose it very quick.
I know you will cite US equivalents, but I have still not come across an area of the US where there are 5 busy international airports within such a confined space.
You are correct, that's exactly what I did last time you and I crossed swords. You didn't reply to that post
I think that if I could be bothered to put up with CAA regulation, I would be more than satisfied with an IMC. I'd prefer an IR, but cannot be bothered with the CAA regulation. Seeing I find flying in clouds to be boring I don't really keep my IR up, so I am probably quite dangerous now in the clouds. I prefer to fly aeroplanes with no gyros or in attitudes where you have to see the horizon (like upside down)
Hope that helps
We have had this discussion before
From your post, it's clear that you're not in favour of the IMC rating.
Nope, I called it a pragmatic solution, I am in favour. I find it confusing because the regulations are unclear.
Does this, in your view, make me unsafe?
I would have to fly with you to make that determination.
Do you know of any accident or incident which has been caused by an IMC-rated pilot having had insufficient training to be safe?
It is my opinion that you cannot possibly gain the skills required in 15 hours. Whether that has killed anybody, well I don't know, but I'd be surprised if it hadn't. I do know that plenty of current IR pilots in the States kill themselves because of disorientation in clouds, or kill themselves though CFIT. I would expect that an IMC pilot is not immune to these problems either. I would suspect that there are some IMC pilots who are safer than IR pilots, and vice versa. For instance, an IR pilot in Phoenix with 100 hours under the hood and no actual, would be more dangerous than an IMC pilot in England with 100 hours of actual. When both were newly qualified, I would say the IR pilot was significantly safer than the IMC.
Do you know how many approaches an average IMC student would shoot during training? How does that compare to an FAA IR student?
I've found an IR student spends 10-15 hours attitude flying. 15-20 hours shooting approaches (which includes attitude flying of course). 10 or so hours on cross countries, and 5 hours other stuff. So an FAA IR student will spend more time shooting approaches than an IMC spends on his whole training. YMMV. Also depends on how often you fly. You lose it very quick.
I know you will cite US equivalents, but I have still not come across an area of the US where there are 5 busy international airports within such a confined space.
You are correct, that's exactly what I did last time you and I crossed swords. You didn't reply to that post
I think that if I could be bothered to put up with CAA regulation, I would be more than satisfied with an IMC. I'd prefer an IR, but cannot be bothered with the CAA regulation. Seeing I find flying in clouds to be boring I don't really keep my IR up, so I am probably quite dangerous now in the clouds. I prefer to fly aeroplanes with no gyros or in attitudes where you have to see the horizon (like upside down)
Hope that helps
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
Yes, slim_slag, we have had this discussion before. Except that last time we had it, I didn't have an IMC rating, so my viewpoint was entirely theoretical. Now I do, so I speak from a position of (very slightly) more authority!
Your last post, where you've answered my questions, is far more balanced than your previous one, and I agree with almost all of it. I'd take issue with your statement that: "you cannot possibly gain the skills required in 15 hours." This depends on many things, including the student, the instructor and the training environment, but 15 hours is an absolute minimum. Many people will require more than this. My instructor felt that I had the necessary skills after 14 hours and 55 minutes, we had to do one low-level circuit to make the time up to 15 hours. My examiner agreed, telling me that I would be more than capable of passing an IR with a little more training. I put this down to a combination of excellent instruction, hard work on my part, lots of training in real IMC, and some training around CBs (obviously in VMC so my instructor could keep me well clear of the CBs themselves) where the aircraft was far more difficult to handle than anything else I've come across. I guess that, except for the hard work, I was lucky to have this combination, but it's not impossible.
I agree with you that it's more fun to fly by looking at the horizon, but unfortunately, I can't afford to fly regularly in anything where I'm allowed to look at the horizon upside-down. If only we could live in a world with no weather, flying would be even more fun that it is already!
FFF
-----------
Your last post, where you've answered my questions, is far more balanced than your previous one, and I agree with almost all of it. I'd take issue with your statement that: "you cannot possibly gain the skills required in 15 hours." This depends on many things, including the student, the instructor and the training environment, but 15 hours is an absolute minimum. Many people will require more than this. My instructor felt that I had the necessary skills after 14 hours and 55 minutes, we had to do one low-level circuit to make the time up to 15 hours. My examiner agreed, telling me that I would be more than capable of passing an IR with a little more training. I put this down to a combination of excellent instruction, hard work on my part, lots of training in real IMC, and some training around CBs (obviously in VMC so my instructor could keep me well clear of the CBs themselves) where the aircraft was far more difficult to handle than anything else I've come across. I guess that, except for the hard work, I was lucky to have this combination, but it's not impossible.
I agree with you that it's more fun to fly by looking at the horizon, but unfortunately, I can't afford to fly regularly in anything where I'm allowed to look at the horizon upside-down. If only we could live in a world with no weather, flying would be even more fun that it is already!
FFF
-----------
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
FFF,
If posts had to be balanced this web site would be as boring as flying in clouds or straight & level.
Well done on your IMC. I am sure it will come in handy, remember recent currency is all that really counts. I have to say that there is no way you would ever get me to fly in clouds with you if you only had 15 hours experience, unless I had access to the controls and a large club to render you unconscious if you refused to hand them over to me
I am sooooo glad we are now friends Oh, next time you are in the States purchase some terminal charts with JFK, ORD, ATL, LAX, & SFO on them.
If posts had to be balanced this web site would be as boring as flying in clouds or straight & level.
Well done on your IMC. I am sure it will come in handy, remember recent currency is all that really counts. I have to say that there is no way you would ever get me to fly in clouds with you if you only had 15 hours experience, unless I had access to the controls and a large club to render you unconscious if you refused to hand them over to me
I am sooooo glad we are now friends
Oh, next time you are in the States purchase some terminal charts with JFK, ORD, ATL, LAX, & SFO on them.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
The AIP is quite explicit about the IMC minima. Para 3.3.2 in section AD 1.1.2 states 'Pilots with a valid IMC/Instrument Weather Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the Instrument Rated pilots' DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non precision approach' I would read that to mean that the 500 and 600 ft figures are not just recommendations but requirements.
1. complete, perfect
2. pure
3. unrestricted, independent
4. not in usual grammatical relation !
5. not relative or comparative
I cannot find a meaning 'mandatory' or 'not just recommended'. absolute here means 'not relative to the IR pilot DH/MDH'. It is still a recommmendation.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
From: europe
You could also say the meaning intended in this case is 'exact' which fits in with 1 perfect and 5 not comparative. However the word 'recommended' does appear to apply to the entire following phrase.
I have just been reading the Aerad European supplement, not cover to cover you understand, and I do realise it is not a source document, but under ATC and referring to the UK rules, it states 'the UK has adopted the new ICAO VMC criteria. There is one change from ICAO criteria: the requirement to be in sight of the surface for VFR flight below 3000 ft amsl is considered to be unduly restrictive.'
It then goes on to list forward viz and hor and vert dist from cloud for various Airspace classes.
Does this mean that VFR on top is now recognised and allowed?
I have just been reading the Aerad European supplement, not cover to cover you understand, and I do realise it is not a source document, but under ATC and referring to the UK rules, it states 'the UK has adopted the new ICAO VMC criteria. There is one change from ICAO criteria: the requirement to be in sight of the surface for VFR flight below 3000 ft amsl is considered to be unduly restrictive.'
It then goes on to list forward viz and hor and vert dist from cloud for various Airspace classes.
Does this mean that VFR on top is now recognised and allowed?
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
From: UK
blueskis
'VFR on top' has always been legal in UK airspace, its just that unrated PPLs can't fly out of sight of the surface because their licences don't allow it.
The point about the UK stance is that in UK airspace, being at or below 3000' clear of cloud and in sight of the surface complies with VFR it isn't mandatory as in ICAO, provided the other part of Rule 26(b) can be complied with. E.g Flying at 3000' with visibility > 5km no cloud above, below is an unbroken layer of stratus tops 1500'
Take your and bookworms point about the AIP, I am concerned when I see a sentence saying 'recommended xxxxxx, but'
'VFR on top' has always been legal in UK airspace, its just that unrated PPLs can't fly out of sight of the surface because their licences don't allow it.
The point about the UK stance is that in UK airspace, being at or below 3000' clear of cloud and in sight of the surface complies with VFR it isn't mandatory as in ICAO, provided the other part of Rule 26(b) can be complied with. E.g Flying at 3000' with visibility > 5km no cloud above, below is an unbroken layer of stratus tops 1500'
Take your and bookworms point about the AIP, I am concerned when I see a sentence saying 'recommended xxxxxx, but'
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,925
Likes: 615
From: surfing, watching for sharks
Slim slag, et al
Thanks for the insights. Are there any records that compare accident/incidents and violations between holders of IMC and IR ratings?
To the poster who believes there isn't any place in the US with large numbers of busy airports in close proximity, take a look at Southern and Northern California to start. They may not all be international airports, but I promise you, a domestic flight is going to hurt as much as an international one if you hit it.
Thanks for the insights. Are there any records that compare accident/incidents and violations between holders of IMC and IR ratings?
To the poster who believes there isn't any place in the US with large numbers of busy airports in close proximity, take a look at Southern and Northern California to start. They may not all be international airports, but I promise you, a domestic flight is going to hurt as much as an international one if you hit it.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
I think the difference is that whereas an IR holder will plan a flight through IMC, MOST low hour IMC rating holders will probably not PLAN to fly through IMC unless its fairly gentle [ie. marine layer type stuff, where you climb to VFR ontop]. I'm sure I'm about to get shot down by this statement, and I'm sure there are many very expereienced high hour IMC holders out there who [quite rightly IMHO] do treat it like an mini IR, but I believe this is a reason why you can't compare IR and IMC accident stats.
There is a danger in using the IMC rating like an IR though, and that is that with an IMC rating you're responsible for negotiating you own CAS crossing clearances, radar services, DACS etc. I'm used to flying the US IFR system, where you are cleared before the flight [ie. you get your route clearance before take-off: say SLI dct V64 V363 OCN dct etc]. Any CAS en-route disappears as I have been pre-cleared through it, they may amend my route during the flight, but it is unlikely and if they do I'll get plenty of warning or vectors. Likewise, if I file a route they don't want me to fly, then they'll issue a new route which is ok as you know before you take off what your route is going to be.
Now imagine you have planned an IFR cross country in the UK using an IMC rating, you take off and expect to fly SAM dct CPT dct DTY dct Nottingham. You negotiate with Solent who are kind enough to let you in, so you intercept and fly OB on the SAM 010R to CPT. After CPT you reach some bad weather and you're now in solid IMC, so you call Brize Radar for a Radar advisory service, and you get the reply "sorry, too busy, FIS". So now you're in IMC, with no radar service and a little later you're approaching East Midlands CAS. You request a crossing service and they reply, "not cleared into the zone". Now what? You're in IMC, you haven't yet managed to pick up a radar service and you have to re-route around E Mids CAS avoiding any bad places to be [parachute jumping for example....unlikely in IMC but you never know].....and all this single pilot. And all this can be done after 15hrs instrument training....makes me shudder. As an instructor friend said to me yesterday, "a newly qualifed IMC rating holder is allowed to fly around in cloud and bumble their way through an instrument letdown at the end of the flight"
I'm not sure if there would be any difference if you pre-filed an IFR flight plan for this route, it may mean that you're MORE LIKELY to be allowed to cross CAS, but there is nothing guaranteed, and as one instructor said to me "you don't need to pre-file and I wouldn't as you could be subject to long delays".
Now wouldn't it be good if we had a network of low altitude airways, specifically designed for the IMC holder, providing automatic clearance through CAS and a radar service.....oh well.....
Cheers
EA
Note: I'm not slagging off IMC holders at all [me included], and I don't think the IMC is a bad rating. No doubt there are many highly experienced IMC holders out there who p*ss all over instrument rating holders, so don't take this post the wrong way.
There is a danger in using the IMC rating like an IR though, and that is that with an IMC rating you're responsible for negotiating you own CAS crossing clearances, radar services, DACS etc. I'm used to flying the US IFR system, where you are cleared before the flight [ie. you get your route clearance before take-off: say SLI dct V64 V363 OCN dct etc]. Any CAS en-route disappears as I have been pre-cleared through it, they may amend my route during the flight, but it is unlikely and if they do I'll get plenty of warning or vectors. Likewise, if I file a route they don't want me to fly, then they'll issue a new route which is ok as you know before you take off what your route is going to be.
Now imagine you have planned an IFR cross country in the UK using an IMC rating, you take off and expect to fly SAM dct CPT dct DTY dct Nottingham. You negotiate with Solent who are kind enough to let you in, so you intercept and fly OB on the SAM 010R to CPT. After CPT you reach some bad weather and you're now in solid IMC, so you call Brize Radar for a Radar advisory service, and you get the reply "sorry, too busy, FIS". So now you're in IMC, with no radar service and a little later you're approaching East Midlands CAS. You request a crossing service and they reply, "not cleared into the zone". Now what? You're in IMC, you haven't yet managed to pick up a radar service and you have to re-route around E Mids CAS avoiding any bad places to be [parachute jumping for example....unlikely in IMC but you never know].....and all this single pilot. And all this can be done after 15hrs instrument training....makes me shudder. As an instructor friend said to me yesterday, "a newly qualifed IMC rating holder is allowed to fly around in cloud and bumble their way through an instrument letdown at the end of the flight"
I'm not sure if there would be any difference if you pre-filed an IFR flight plan for this route, it may mean that you're MORE LIKELY to be allowed to cross CAS, but there is nothing guaranteed, and as one instructor said to me "you don't need to pre-file and I wouldn't as you could be subject to long delays".
Now wouldn't it be good if we had a network of low altitude airways, specifically designed for the IMC holder, providing automatic clearance through CAS and a radar service.....oh well.....
Cheers
EA
Note: I'm not slagging off IMC holders at all [me included
], and I don't think the IMC is a bad rating. No doubt there are many highly experienced IMC holders out there who p*ss all over instrument rating holders, so don't take this post the wrong way.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
Englishal, that is a very good point. However, in my limited experience, the scenario you describe is quite unlikely. LARS frequencies generally tend to get very busy on good VMC days, and if you asked for a RAS on such a day you could expect it to be refused. But on a day when you have no choice but to fly in heavy IMC, I think it's very unlikely that you wouldn't get the service you required, because the frequencies are much quieter.
A bigger problem, IMHO, is those parts of the country where there is no LARS available. Much of Kent, I think, falls into this category, although the one time I've flown in IMC in that area Thames very kindly gave us a squawk and kept an eye on us.
FFF
-----------
A bigger problem, IMHO, is those parts of the country where there is no LARS available. Much of Kent, I think, falls into this category, although the one time I've flown in IMC in that area Thames very kindly gave us a squawk and kept an eye on us.
FFF
-----------
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
quite unlikely
Just like air traffic telling you to turn left 090, hold SW of BBB vor 270R 8DME descend an maintain 5000, sqwark ABCD, contact XYZ on aaa.bbb just as you enter a particularly turbulent bit of cloud, after it has been clear for ages [I'm sure they do it on purpose ]CU
EA
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
englishal
To my knowledge (no Class A airspace) if you file an IFR flight plan it just goes to the destination plus the regional service (e.g. London Info)
There is no controlled airspace clearance implicit; you still have to ask for it as you go along.
I may have missed something but I don't see how having a full IR would change this.
I agree with your comments about 15 hours; for most people it isn't enough to do what you describe, but equal in my view is the problem with suitable aircraft; the great majority of planes available for hire, or with shares available, are basically junk as far as IFR flight goes. But the instructor who has just taken £3000 off you for your IMC Rating, and who is hoping you will self fly hire his school's plane afterwards, isn't very likely going to tell you this. I know a few people who are doing their IMC Rating and not one of them is aware they won't be able to get their hands on a suitable plane afterwards in the location in question.
To my knowledge (no Class A airspace) if you file an IFR flight plan it just goes to the destination plus the regional service (e.g. London Info)
There is no controlled airspace clearance implicit; you still have to ask for it as you go along.
I may have missed something but I don't see how having a full IR would change this.
I agree with your comments about 15 hours; for most people it isn't enough to do what you describe, but equal in my view is the problem with suitable aircraft; the great majority of planes available for hire, or with shares available, are basically junk as far as IFR flight goes. But the instructor who has just taken £3000 off you for your IMC Rating, and who is hoping you will self fly hire his school's plane afterwards, isn't very likely going to tell you this. I know a few people who are doing their IMC Rating and not one of them is aware they won't be able to get their hands on a suitable plane afterwards in the location in question.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
I haven't flown proper IFR in the UK, but having an instrument rating allows you into airways. The way I understand it is to get into the airways you need to be cleared in by a radar facility, and once in the airway is its own piece of airspace, so effectively you're cleared en-route. I'd like to see a similar thing for IMC holders, maybe the lower half of airways or something, without the need for all this FM immune nonsense.....oh and bring IFR approved GPS in while we're at it
Cheers
EA
Cheers
EA
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
I suspect I'm the superannuated IMC rating holder referred to above (with an FAA IR - that was at least twice as hard to get as the IMC).
I've found that flying round the UK in real IMC, the volume of traffic is usually low enough that you do get service from radar units. I can't recall ever being refused by Brize (or anyone else) when I needed them.
On a Sunday afternoon bimble in VMC, with lots of folks around, it's a very different story.
And yes, I have filed an IFR flight plan and flown it in IMC most of the way, including an ILS at the far end. I got told off rotten by the editor of a certain "official" publication for doing so - with the immortal words "The IMC is only a get-out-of-trouble rating". I told him that it doesn't say that on my IMC, and the ANO that I read said I'm entitled to fly IFR in IMC up to and including Class D.
There are two schools of thought on this one, and I doubt they will ever be reconciled. There's also a school of thought that says the FAA IR isn't a real IR. But you get that in every walk of life (even in my present career).
I've found that flying round the UK in real IMC, the volume of traffic is usually low enough that you do get service from radar units. I can't recall ever being refused by Brize (or anyone else) when I needed them.
On a Sunday afternoon bimble in VMC, with lots of folks around, it's a very different story.
And yes, I have filed an IFR flight plan and flown it in IMC most of the way, including an ILS at the far end. I got told off rotten by the editor of a certain "official" publication for doing so - with the immortal words "The IMC is only a get-out-of-trouble rating". I told him that it doesn't say that on my IMC, and the ANO that I read said I'm entitled to fly IFR in IMC up to and including Class D.
There are two schools of thought on this one, and I doubt they will ever be reconciled. There's also a school of thought that says the FAA IR isn't a real IR. But you get that in every walk of life (even in my present career).
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
As FFF said, I think the (or certainly a) problem is the lack of radar units willing and able to give you a service in the south east, particularly in the LAM/Stapleford area. I've been in solid IMC there with Luton and Thames declining to give a radar service and "out of range" of any LARS unit. So englishal is right that as a lowly IMC pilot I have a problem that *might* be solved if I was instrument rated.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, UK.
"...as a lowly IMC pilot I have a problem that *might* be solved if I was instrument rated
Negative.
The "problem" of no radar cover would be solved if you were flying in CAS - be it an (UK)airway or CTR/CTA/TMA whatever.
If an IR pilot flies IMC in F or G airspace there's no guarantee of radar cover either...
Negative.
The "problem" of no radar cover would be solved if you were flying in CAS - be it an (UK)airway or CTR/CTA/TMA whatever.
If an IR pilot flies IMC in F or G airspace there's no guarantee of radar cover either...
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
That's a valid point Rustle. But what I was thinking was that I have no choice - I can't fly airways, or in other class A controlled airspace, where I would be sure to get radar service, whereas as an IR pilot you have that option. If I had an IR I'd have a solution open to me.
As FFF said/implied, what would be great is better radar service in the south east (and no doubt elsewhere too). In reality this (and an instrument approach to Elstree where I'm based - GPS approaches anyone?) would be of more practical use to me than an IR I suspect.
As FFF said/implied, what would be great is better radar service in the south east (and no doubt elsewhere too). In reality this (and an instrument approach to Elstree where I'm based - GPS approaches anyone?) would be of more practical use to me than an IR I suspect.
