IMC / Instrument rating
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Englishal!
Yes, he could. And technically, you couldn't - so he had to. I won't tell anyone if you won't!
Probably more important, though:
I thought you do. IFR levels (i.e. in the UK, at the kind of levels we fly at, the quadrantal rule) apply to any IFR flight whilst cruising, and are recommended for VFR flight in the UK. Of course they don't apply when you're climing or descending, so they don't stop you letting down through cloud. So I'm a bit confused about why you say: "You do not need to fly in accordance with IFR levels... so you can let down through the cloud." 
Also:
What you can legally do, and what you can sensibly do, are two different things. Flying in cloud in Class G without radar coverage is stupid. I doubt there are too many who would disagree with that.
Anyway, not sure what this has to do with the IMC/IR question - it's just as legal, and just a stupid, to fly in Class G with no radar coverage on an IR as it is on an IMC rating!
FFF
----------
Sure he could log P1 for the3-4 or so minutes we were crossing the airway
Probably more important, though:
Actually you DO NOT need to fly in accordance with IFR levels / rules in cloud, in Class G
Also:
You can go bumbling through cloud willy nilly, no radar, any altitude you want, no clearance in Class G, and even make your own GPS / instrument approaches up
Anyway, not sure what this has to do with the IMC/IR question - it's just as legal, and just a stupid, to fly in Class G with no radar coverage on an IR as it is on an IMC rating!
FFF
----------
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Rules of the Air Regulations 1996
Quadrantal rule and semi-circular rule
30.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), in order to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules, an aircraft when in level flight above 3000 feet above mean sea level or above the appropriate transition altitude, whichever is the higher, shall be flown at a level appropriate to its magnetic track, in accordance with the appropriate Table set forth in this rule. The level of flight shall be measured by an altimeter set:
(a) in the case of a flight over the United Kingdom, to a pressure setting of 1013.2 hectopascals; or
(b) in the case of any other flight, according to the system published by the competent authority in relation to the area over which the aircraft is flying.
(2) An aircraft may be flown at a level other than the level required by paragraph (1) if it is flying in conformity with instructions given by an air traffic control unit or in accordance with notified en-route holding patterns or in accordance with holding procedures notified in relation to an aerodrome.
I wonder how often I will have to post this
Moving on to FFF's
I'm sorry but I simply cannot agree. When was the last time two aircraft collided en route in open FIR / Class G in cloud? (I give the option of open FIR because I am pretty sure it hasn't happened since Class G was invented, what, 15 years ago)
Flying quadrantals in clouds is, IMHO, much safer than flying VMC underneath, if for no other reason than the traffic density is much lower. I am no physicist or statistician (Bookworm where are you when we need you?) but the chances of two aircraft meeting in cloud is both pragmatically and intuitively extremely unlikely.
You are much more likely to bump into another aircraft over a VOR at just below the cloudbase or in the circuit.
W
Edited to add the words in cloud
Quadrantal rule and semi-circular rule
30.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), in order to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules, an aircraft when in level flight above 3000 feet above mean sea level or above the appropriate transition altitude, whichever is the higher, shall be flown at a level appropriate to its magnetic track, in accordance with the appropriate Table set forth in this rule. The level of flight shall be measured by an altimeter set:
(a) in the case of a flight over the United Kingdom, to a pressure setting of 1013.2 hectopascals; or
(b) in the case of any other flight, according to the system published by the competent authority in relation to the area over which the aircraft is flying.
(2) An aircraft may be flown at a level other than the level required by paragraph (1) if it is flying in conformity with instructions given by an air traffic control unit or in accordance with notified en-route holding patterns or in accordance with holding procedures notified in relation to an aerodrome.
I wonder how often I will have to post this
Moving on to FFF's
Flying in cloud in Class G without radar coverage is stupid.
Flying quadrantals in clouds is, IMHO, much safer than flying VMC underneath, if for no other reason than the traffic density is much lower. I am no physicist or statistician (Bookworm where are you when we need you?) but the chances of two aircraft meeting in cloud is both pragmatically and intuitively extremely unlikely.
You are much more likely to bump into another aircraft over a VOR at just below the cloudbase or in the circuit.
W
Edited to add the words in cloud
Last edited by Timothy; 23rd Jul 2003 at 06:39.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi trippleF,
Ok, let me re-phrase [thanks to WCollins]. Below 3000' you can fly wherever you want in the clag. Not sure what this had to do with let-downs, I think I just got carried away
Still what I meant was this if you're flying into a small aerodrome somewhere without a published IAP then it is perfectly legal to create your own. Without RAIM etc., you'd have to trust your GPS and probably the only sensible place to decend <~1000' in cloud is over the sea.
Regarding RIS or RAS you may think it stupid to fly in IMC with no radar [and I would tend to agree with you], but what about where you have no radar coverage? [This is why we need Class D airways !]
And finally, on the P1 thing....Even though I conducted the flight as PF I didn't log P1 anyway as my mate is a FI and I was being checked out on the aircraft. I was just making a point at the sort of grey area you get into when flying IFR on an IMCr on an IFR flight plan.....However had I been operating under the FARs then I would have logged P1 Of course had I been on my own then I would have avoided the airway, even if scottish had cleared me in...honest guv 
Bye for now
EA
Ok, let me re-phrase [thanks to WCollins]. Below 3000' you can fly wherever you want in the clag. Not sure what this had to do with let-downs, I think I just got carried away
Still what I meant was this if you're flying into a small aerodrome somewhere without a published IAP then it is perfectly legal to create your own. Without RAIM etc., you'd have to trust your GPS and probably the only sensible place to decend <~1000' in cloud is over the sea.Regarding RIS or RAS you may think it stupid to fly in IMC with no radar [and I would tend to agree with you], but what about where you have no radar coverage? [This is why we need Class D airways !]
And finally, on the P1 thing....Even though I conducted the flight as PF I didn't log P1 anyway as my mate is a FI and I was being checked out on the aircraft. I was just making a point at the sort of grey area you get into when flying IFR on an IMCr on an IFR flight plan.....However had I been operating under the FARs then I would have logged P1
Of course had I been on my own then I would have avoided the airway, even if scottish had cleared me in...honest guv Bye for now
EA
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EnglishAl wrote:
Is this true? The minimum visbility for VFR flight in class G airspace is 5km. If you're in cloud you have zero vis, thus you can't be flying VFR, you must be flying IFR. If you're flying IFR you are restricted (as mentioned by mastercaution earlier) by the minimum height rule (rule 29) - flying 1000' above the highest obstacle within 5nm, except as necessary for take-off or landing, so I guess
is correct.
Ok, let me re-phrase [thanks to WCollins]. Below 3000' you can fly wherever you want in the clag. Not sure what this had to do with let-downs, I think I just got carried away
Still what I meant was this if you're flying into a small aerodrome somewhere without a published IAP then it is perfectly legal to create your own.
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WCollins,
A year ago, and not even in IMC.
When was the last time two aircraft collided en route in open FIR / Class G? (I give the option of open FIR because I am pretty sure it hasn't happened since Class G was invented, what, 15 years ago)
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A year ago, and not even in IMC.
My whole point is that you are much more likely to collide in VMC than IMC.
W
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FujiFlyer Does the fact then that the IMC rating removes the "in sight of surface" restriction of the UK PPL mean that the holder is legal when VFR on top in the rest of Europe?
No.
What you are legally entitled to do is always the least of your licence and the national regs of where you are.
Since, in this case, the lower restriction is the UK-licence "in sight of surface" restriction, that is the UK-PPL's minima - the UK-only IMC rating being meaningless outside the UK...
HTH
No.
What you are legally entitled to do is always the least of your licence and the national regs of where you are.
Since, in this case, the lower restriction is the UK-licence "in sight of surface" restriction, that is the UK-PPL's minima - the UK-only IMC rating being meaningless outside the UK...
HTH
For discussion of IMC rating sight of the surface privileges abroad see worm vs donks 2002.
I concur with WCollins that in most circumstances in the open FIR, a collision in IMC is less likely than a collision in VMC.
Finally, for slim_slag, an IMC rating entitles the holder to make a normal IFR arrival in class D or E airspace. There are no airports in class E airspace in the UK, but plenty in class D.
I concur with WCollins that in most circumstances in the open FIR, a collision in IMC is less likely than a collision in VMC.
Finally, for slim_slag, an IMC rating entitles the holder to make a normal IFR arrival in class D or E airspace. There are no airports in class E airspace in the UK, but plenty in class D.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
englishal
Your last para is interesting; however doing any European IR is just as hard as doing the JAA one. The only IR which is substantially easier is the FAA one, and one cannot fly IFR outside the UK with an FAA IR unless in an N-reg plane. It would be brilliant if we had a European IMCR!
PhilD
Yes, I have seen this done. In practice very few people bother, because ATC simply assume people have the right licenses/ratings and provided you sound like you know what you are doing, the question isn't likely to arise.
slim_slag
If the field has a published IAP then the lowest DH would be 500ft for an IMCR pilot, so if you changed your "300ft" to "500ft" the answer could in theory (subject to the published IAP allowing it) be Yes.
If there is no published IAP then doing a DIY IAP with a DH of 300ft would be grossly negligent, to say the least. Certainly you would be below the MSA which is generally stupid - I don't know for sure if it is illegal. I can think of situations where it would not be unsafe though, e.g. an approach over the sea into a runway which starts right on the beach, with no terrain around it to get in the way of a missed approach, and with DME.
Fujiflyer
I have it in writing from the CAA that the answer is Yes for France (where a bare French PPL can do it legally) - provided the DGAC don't mind. Whether they do or don't mind I don't know.
MasterCaution
The DH for an IMCR pilot is 500ft, or the IR figure plus 200ft, whichever is greater.
FlyingForFun
"What you can legally do, and what you can sensibly do, are two different things. Flying in cloud in Class G without radar coverage is stupid. I doubt there are too many who would disagree with that."
I think you are being unduly harsh in your attitude to this type of risk. On a single carriageway at 60-70mph you are a second or two away from death, for hours on end. In flying, one often barely sees another plane, miles away in the distance, in an hour. Very few people fly in clouds for long anyway - the name of the game in IFR is VMC on top whenever possible. And very few of those types of people that fly without a transponder fly in clouds. While getting a RIS is a very good thing, the risk in IMC is very low. Obviously I would not do holds around a popular VOR at 2000ft in IMC especially in a non-radio plane! Finally, the stats for midairs show they are extremely rare, and most of them are in VMC and around airfields. If one never entered clouds in Class G without a RIS, one could not do an IAP into most airfields which are in Class G - e.g. a procedural ILS into Biggin Hill, or NDB/DME into Shoreham. The whole system assumes that people who fly in clouds know enough about this business, DO use their radio, and keep away from those places as appropriate.
Fly Stimulator
That was in VMC, in the vicinity of an aerodrome and below the LTMA I believe, not suprising. In VMC in that area, most people are at 2400ft QNH or slightly below. I don't believe this affects the case for en-route midairs in IMC. The area you mention is served by Thames radar and someone going there in IMC would almost certainly get RIS. I got RIS from Gatwick around there recently!
Your last para is interesting; however doing any European IR is just as hard as doing the JAA one. The only IR which is substantially easier is the FAA one, and one cannot fly IFR outside the UK with an FAA IR unless in an N-reg plane. It would be brilliant if we had a European IMCR!
PhilD
Yes, I have seen this done. In practice very few people bother, because ATC simply assume people have the right licenses/ratings and provided you sound like you know what you are doing, the question isn't likely to arise.
slim_slag
If the field has a published IAP then the lowest DH would be 500ft for an IMCR pilot, so if you changed your "300ft" to "500ft" the answer could in theory (subject to the published IAP allowing it) be Yes.
If there is no published IAP then doing a DIY IAP with a DH of 300ft would be grossly negligent, to say the least. Certainly you would be below the MSA which is generally stupid - I don't know for sure if it is illegal. I can think of situations where it would not be unsafe though, e.g. an approach over the sea into a runway which starts right on the beach, with no terrain around it to get in the way of a missed approach, and with DME.
Fujiflyer
I have it in writing from the CAA that the answer is Yes for France (where a bare French PPL can do it legally) - provided the DGAC don't mind. Whether they do or don't mind I don't know.
MasterCaution
The DH for an IMCR pilot is 500ft, or the IR figure plus 200ft, whichever is greater.
FlyingForFun
"What you can legally do, and what you can sensibly do, are two different things. Flying in cloud in Class G without radar coverage is stupid. I doubt there are too many who would disagree with that."
I think you are being unduly harsh in your attitude to this type of risk. On a single carriageway at 60-70mph you are a second or two away from death, for hours on end. In flying, one often barely sees another plane, miles away in the distance, in an hour. Very few people fly in clouds for long anyway - the name of the game in IFR is VMC on top whenever possible. And very few of those types of people that fly without a transponder fly in clouds. While getting a RIS is a very good thing, the risk in IMC is very low. Obviously I would not do holds around a popular VOR at 2000ft in IMC especially in a non-radio plane! Finally, the stats for midairs show they are extremely rare, and most of them are in VMC and around airfields. If one never entered clouds in Class G without a RIS, one could not do an IAP into most airfields which are in Class G - e.g. a procedural ILS into Biggin Hill, or NDB/DME into Shoreham. The whole system assumes that people who fly in clouds know enough about this business, DO use their radio, and keep away from those places as appropriate.
Fly Stimulator
That was in VMC, in the vicinity of an aerodrome and below the LTMA I believe, not suprising. In VMC in that area, most people are at 2400ft QNH or slightly below. I don't believe this affects the case for en-route midairs in IMC. The area you mention is served by Thames radar and someone going there in IMC would almost certainly get RIS. I got RIS from Gatwick around there recently!
It's not inordinately difficult to fly IFR/IMC in Class G without a RAS or RIS. Use your radio to broadcast position & intent, listen & respond to other's calls, avoid known honeypots, fly at appropriate levels, keep a lookout - even IMC is rarely 100% 'IMC'.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WCollins wrote
A "basic" French PPL can do so, yes.
But a UK PPL specifically prohibits the pilot from flying out of sight of the surface. So he can't fly VFR on top in France.
The UK IMC rating allows the UK PPL to fly out of sight of the surface. But the IMCR is only valid in the UK, so the "out of sight of the surface" doesn't apply to a UK PPL with IMCR in France - he/she still has to be in sight of the surface when there.
That's the rule. As to whether anyone cares enough to enforce such a strange rule, I don't know.
I think that in parts of Europe (France in particular) you can fly on top with no instrument qualification, but please check before doing so.
But a UK PPL specifically prohibits the pilot from flying out of sight of the surface. So he can't fly VFR on top in France.
The UK IMC rating allows the UK PPL to fly out of sight of the surface. But the IMCR is only valid in the UK, so the "out of sight of the surface" doesn't apply to a UK PPL with IMCR in France - he/she still has to be in sight of the surface when there.
That's the rule. As to whether anyone cares enough to enforce such a strange rule, I don't know.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keef
I have had this reply from the CAA on whether a UK PPL+IMCR can fly on top in France:
Article 123 of the current ANO sets out the extra territorial effect of the ANO. In the simplest of terms what it says is that what you cannot do here in the UK, you cannot do elsewhere. That said, the holder of a valid IMC Rating is not bound by the condition that requires the holder of a licence without an IMC Rating to remain in sight of the surface. However, because the IMC Rating is not an internationally recognised rating you ought to ask the DGAC [the French equivalent of the CAA] about what you can and cannot do in French airspace in UK registered aircraft or aircraft registered elsewhere.
So it is not illegal to do so as far as the CAA is concerned.
I have had this reply from the CAA on whether a UK PPL+IMCR can fly on top in France:
Article 123 of the current ANO sets out the extra territorial effect of the ANO. In the simplest of terms what it says is that what you cannot do here in the UK, you cannot do elsewhere. That said, the holder of a valid IMC Rating is not bound by the condition that requires the holder of a licence without an IMC Rating to remain in sight of the surface. However, because the IMC Rating is not an internationally recognised rating you ought to ask the DGAC [the French equivalent of the CAA] about what you can and cannot do in French airspace in UK registered aircraft or aircraft registered elsewhere.
So it is not illegal to do so as far as the CAA is concerned.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: EGLL mostly
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
Potentially a useful posting, but it is not possible to tell which bits of your text are bona-fide CAA words, and which bits are you interpreting what they say.
If you have a letter which says that the CAA condone flight out-of-sight-of-surface by a non-IR holder whilst abroad, you should scan it in and post it here as a GIF file. Many people will love you for ever.
Charlie.
Potentially a useful posting, but it is not possible to tell which bits of your text are bona-fide CAA words, and which bits are you interpreting what they say.
If you have a letter which says that the CAA condone flight out-of-sight-of-surface by a non-IR holder whilst abroad, you should scan it in and post it here as a GIF file. Many people will love you for ever.
Charlie.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't done my IMC yet and therefore showing my ignorance here. 
Have I got this right ?
With an IMC rating you can use the rating to fly through cloud to get on top (which you cannot do with ordinary PPL) and then fly VFR once above it ?
So the IMC removes the need for "in sight of the surface". So you are flying VMC above cloud for keeping a good lookout for other a/c, yet you are using your "IMC skills" to navigate as you cannot see the ground to nav by ?
Hope that makes sense.
Sorry for the dumb question folks.
Have I got this right ?
With an IMC rating you can use the rating to fly through cloud to get on top (which you cannot do with ordinary PPL) and then fly VFR once above it ?
So the IMC removes the need for "in sight of the surface". So you are flying VMC above cloud for keeping a good lookout for other a/c, yet you are using your "IMC skills" to navigate as you cannot see the ground to nav by ?
Hope that makes sense.
Sorry for the dumb question folks.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northern Highflyer - exactly so. A "difference" between the UK CAA and the ICAO definition of the privileges of a basic PPL (which I understand allows VFR on top).
But it's not all bad - if you're flying, without IMC training, on top of an overcast ... how are you going to get down again if no holes appear in the cloud.?
In the USA, you need an IR to fly VFR on top (although there are arguments about "VFR over the top".)
WCollins - as I understand it, a JAA PPL issued in the UK has the old UK CAA PPL restriction "in sight of surface" applied to it.
Probably should ask someone who's done air law a bit more recently than me
But it's not all bad - if you're flying, without IMC training, on top of an overcast ... how are you going to get down again if no holes appear in the cloud.?
In the USA, you need an IR to fly VFR on top (although there are arguments about "VFR over the top".)
WCollins - as I understand it, a JAA PPL issued in the UK has the old UK CAA PPL restriction "in sight of surface" applied to it.
Probably should ask someone who's done air law a bit more recently than me
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northern Highflyer
You may be under a slight misapprehension here.
There is nothing to stop you taking off (meeting IMC take-off minima) climbing into cloud, remaining in cloud and shooting an instrument approach in cloud, providing that you meet the IMC approach minima.
This is not a licence to "get you on top", it is a licence to fly in IMC.
Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning.
W
With an IMC rating you can use the rating to fly through cloud to get on top (which you cannot do with ordinary PPL) and then fly VFR once above it ?
There is nothing to stop you taking off (meeting IMC take-off minima) climbing into cloud, remaining in cloud and shooting an instrument approach in cloud, providing that you meet the IMC approach minima.
This is not a licence to "get you on top", it is a licence to fly in IMC.
Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning.
W
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not a licence to "get you on top"
Question: once "on top", can I then fly VFR, assuming sufficient separation from cloud, or must I remain IFR?
(It's a fairly academic question - the only practical difference it would make, as far as I can tell, is that the requirement to fly at appropriate quadrantal levels would then be a recommendation instead of a requirement, assuming you're high enough that the low flying rules aren't an issue.)
FFF
-----------