IMC / Instrument rating

[2Donkeys]

FFF

VFR (the rules) don't prevent flight on top of a covered layer (out of sight of surface if you prefer). This is a restriction on the basic PPL, which is removed when you get your IR or IMC.

So, you can be VFR above a covered layer, having been IFR in the climb to get to those conditions. Check back to those VFR cloud separation pictures in all good PPL textbooks and you'll see what I mean.


2D

[englishal]

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.

True, but this is where the beauty of an FAA IR in a G reg plane comes in. With this the CAA let you fly IFR and you DONT have to remain in sight of the surface outside CAS. As this is considered the CAA's validation of the FAA IR then the French [Germans etc] accept this, so now you can fly OUT of sight of the surface [outside CAS] abroard. Of course in the N reg you can fly full airways.

The FAA IR is by no means easy,the standard of flying is the same as for the JAA one, but the big difference is it takes into account previous instrument time. So the big plus for IMC holders with 50 hrs of Actual or Simulated is that you can go to a place in the UK or US do a 15 hr course with a CFII, which includes your qualifying X countries ["Air traffic directed routing" 250nm I think] take the ground exams [not difficult if you self study], take the oral [difficult but ok if you know your onions], and finally successfully complete a flight test with an examiner[hard, but fair]. You can even do this in your own G reg aircraft if you wanted. Now you are entitled to fly full airways in an N reg , IFR in the UK using your IMC rating [issued for free by the CAA if you didn't already have one] in a G reg, or IFR in IMC outside CAS abroard in a G reg. You never need to 'revalidate' and FAA IR as long as you remain current.....


I've written to the CAA asking whether my IMC rating needs to be revalidated as it was issued on the basis of an FAA IR. If not, then this route seems even more attractive.

Cheers
EA

[Northern Highflyer]

Wcollins

Thanks for the information but I was aware of what the IMC allows me to do, i.e. fly in cloud (or visibility less than that needed for VFR flights) if I want to.

My question, answered by keef and 2donkeys, was regarding flying above cloud, i.e. out of sight of the ground. I was confused initially by the fact that this could be classed as VFR as I assumed VFR meant being able to see the ground, but it's all clear to me now.

Thanks again.

[2Donkeys]

The FAA IR is by no means easy,the standard of flying is the same as for the JAA one,

A trivial point perhaps, but this one surfaces quite regularly. There are differences in the LASORS standards and the FAA Practical Test Standards.

Perhaps the best example relates to permited ILS deviation, where the FAA IR accepts upto a 3/4 scale deflection. 1/2 scale deflection is the CAAFU requirement. You'd be surprised what a difference that makes as you come below 500 feet.

I am not suggesting that this in any way devalues the FAA IR, but it is worth knowing. Unlike the UK, a wanabee US airline pilot going for his ATP exams will get a second instrument exam with much tighter ILS tolerances even than CAAFU. The absence of a second test in JAA-land makes it important that the standards are higher in the one and only test you'll be doing.


2D

[slim_slag]

2Donkeys,

More triviality , but you do not get to take your ATP test in the US until you have 1500 hours, so when times were good and they were hiring with 1000 hours, you could be sitting in the RHS of a commuter with only an FAA CPL. You would then go do the ATP, thus allowing you to be captain, when you had the hours. Of course a FAA CPL includes the IR, which is not as big a deal as other authorities make it, but not as easy as others think it is either.

To get the FAA ATP you really need to keep the needles in the donut. Then there is the type rating, which is a tricky thing to get too..

[2Donkeys]

Thanks for the advice slim_slag. Been there, done that, got the epaulettes

The type rating flight test, as you may well be aware is essentially a re-run of the ATP flight test, on the aircraft concerned.

There certainly is no shortage of opportunities to be tested under the FAA system

Of course a FAA CPL includes the IR

You are mistaken there I'm afraid. The IR is an entirely different qualification. An FAA CPL can be issued without an IR in which case it is known as a "restricted CPL" which does not permit the holder to carry passengers at night, and a couple of other distance related restrictions.

2D

[slim_slag]

2Donkeys,

You got me on that one, was thinking about it when I posted, but thought it too trivial 250 miles during the day I think, but hedge my bets as it could be 100. Nautical or statute is even too trivial for me

[2Donkeys]

Not even close I'm afraid. The distance limit is 50 nautical miles, and it is not "per day". The limit is imposed on cross-country flight.

I think that your licence to advise on FAA trivia is in real danger of being revoked here.

2D

[slim_slag]

50 measly miles!

What use is that then? Probably why I have never met one, or a recreational pilot for that matter.

Ah, but a cross country flight can be less than 50 miles. So take that piece of FAA trivia! I promise to shut up now though

[Chilli Monster]

slim_slag

Ah, but a cross country flight can be less than 50 miles.

Unless you're using it towards the qualifications for the grant of a rating (14 CFR part 61.1(b)(3))

[Red Chilli]

Hi folks, just to let you know re: my recent posting on the topic of a European wide IMC rating that I've had a very positive response from Martin Robinson at AOPA, who is commencing discussions with the CAA SRG re: this very topic. Martin will also be pushing for any new rating to include and I quote... 'the training must include GPS for en route approach (non precision and precision to near CAT1)' - he also states that NATS are on his side re: GPS trials. So looks like things are shaping up, I sent him the output of this forum discussion and the 112 replies (all from 2D's! - well nearly ) on the Flyer site to aid debate!. englishal - I also wasn't aware of the CAA technicality re: use of the FAA/IR in a G reg. outside the UK - an interesting point, which as you say makes that route even more attractive if nothing else materialises

[RodgerF]

2Ds

I was interested in your observation that the FAA IR allows 3/4 of full scale deflection on the ILS. The CAAFU requirement of 1/2 scale deflection is a requirement of the ILS procedure design.

PANS-OPS 8168 is quite clear on this.

'ILS obstacle clearance surfaces assume that the pilot does not normally deviate from the centreline more than half a scale deflection after being established on track. Thereafter the aircraft should adhere to the on-course, on-glide path position since more than half course sector deflection or more than half course fly-up deflection combined with other allowable system tolerances could place the aircraft in the vicinity of the edge or bottom of the protected airspace where loss of protection from obstacles can occur'

[Tinstaafl]

USA uses (used to use?) TERPS I seem to recall.

Interesting some of the comparisons:


UK: PPL must remain in sight of SFC + usual cloud spacing
US: PPL must maintain cloud separation. Slightly different to ICAO? No requirement to remain in sight of SFC.
Oz: PPL must maintain cloud separation. No requirement to remain in sight of SFC as long as defined nav. requirements are met.

UK: A non-instrument rated pilot can fly IFR (but clear of cloud etc)
US: An IR is a prerequisite for IFR flight
Oz: An IR is a prerequisite for IFR flight

UK: CPL must hold an IR. What happens when the IR lapses?
US: No IR required but limits on distance & day only
Oz: No IR required, no limits on distance. Night VFR if rated but that rating only available for Pvt. & aerial work flights.


UK: ATPL is issued on application once the required hours are gained. Must have an IR at the time of issue.
US: ATP is flight tested. Quite similar to an IR test but with some tighter tolerances eg 1/4 scales ILS deflection
Oz: is issued on application once the required hours are gained. Must have an IR at the time of issue.


UK: IR uses PANS-OPS tolerances.
US: IR uses less than PANS-OPS tolerances (3/4 scale deflection)
Oz: IR uses PANS-OPS.


Tests in general:

UK: No real pre-flight examination
US: In depth pre-flight examination. Very in depth.
Oz: In depth pre-flight examination.

UK/JAR: In depth knowledge required. (althought theory exams can contain lots of irrelevent questions. Can anyone justify why I needed to know the colour of a RLG?). Some parts are very basic, even at higher licence levels eg ATPL flight planning, othewise generally in depth knowledge required.
US: Theory exams are relatively simple. All questions available for public scrutiny. Compensated by having thousands of questions in the data bank (if you can memorise the answers to all of them then chances are you know the subject well).
Oz: In depth theory knowledge required.


Just my rough observations from getting ATPLs in all three countries.

[Timothy]

Tinstaafl

When did the rules change such that a UK CPL must have an IR...was that a JAR thing, and if so does it apply to CAA CPL?

Is it now true that CPL -> ATPL is simply an exercise in hours? I did the CPL exams (because I never intended to captain jets) and then had to do the ATPL exams from scratch , (because someone wanted me to captain jets).

Also is it not true that a JAR ATPL must be current in a two-crew aircraft, whereas a CPL doesn't, but a CAA ATPL doesn't have this requirement (which is why I hold a CAA ATPL)?

W

[Tinstaafl]

The old UK CPL as I understand it (not the BCPL) required an IR

The UK ATPL has no requirements for multi-crew experience. I know. I have one & am employed in SP ops. The JAR ATPL is different.

It's always been the case that a UK or Oz ATPL gets issued without further test once the experience requirements are met.

Remember, these are just my observations from stumbling through the different systems. They're not necessarily the definitive answer.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've heard a great many continental pilots describe the IMC rating with some envy, so I doubt that there'll be much objection from "rank and file" aviators to a JAR-IMC, it's just "regulating man" who might, as ever have problems with it.

I think if you check the regs, there are two types of JAA CPL. These are called CPL/IR and CPL/VFR, which probably tells you all that you need to know.

Did the old UK CPL not include training that was equivalent to an IMC rating if you didn't hold an IR, and then gave the privileges of an IMC holder for private flights only?

G

[FlyingForFun]

I think if you check the regs, there are two types of JAA CPL. These are called CPL/IR and CPL/VFR

Never heard of that one before, Genghis.

There is only one type of JAR CPL, and it's called a CPL. One of the requirements for the CPL is to have passed either the CPL exams, or the ATPL exams.

If you've passed the ATPL exams, then once you've got an IR, 1500 hours of which several hundred are on multi-crew aircraft, and met several other requirements (including not letting your exam credits lapse) your CPL can be upgraded to an ATPL.

If you've passed the CPL exams, but not the ATPL exams, then you can't get an ATPL once you meet all the other requirements (even if you then did the IR exams and got an IR). The license that you have, though, is exactly the same as if you'd done the ATPL exams - it's a JAR CPL.

I think.

And what has any of this go to do with the IMC???

FFF
-------------

[Timothy]

Tinstaafl

The old UK CPL as I understand it (not the BCPL) required an IR

Certainly not true when I did my CPL in the early 80s, but it may well have changed after that but before JAR. Maybe that requirement came in with the BCPL (mid 90s ish?)

W

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've just double checked, I've a copy of a 2001 CAA leaflet on the JAR-FCL CPL(A), it lists separate syllabi for CPL(A) and CPL(A)/IR. It seems to say that to get a CPL(A) you have to pass the CPL skills test (on either a single or multi-engine type) and ground exams, and for a CPL(A)/IR you have to pass that plus an I/R test on a multi-engine type.

So my terminology was slightly off, but the principle correct, at least according to what CAA were publishing slightly less than 2 years ago.

The document is referenced GID No.24 issue 04 dated 12/10/01.

And as you point out, it's not got all that much to do with the IMC.

G

[Keef]

My distant memory from when I did the IMC rating was that (in those days, anyway) a CAA CPL automatically had the privileges of an IMC rating. I don't remember how that was renewed (if it was), and I don't know if it's still the case now.

When I did my US IR, and contemplated doing a CPL (bit silly, really, given my age) it was impressed on me that the FAA CPL without an IR is no use to anyone - with the 50nm radius from base, no night flight, etc limitation.

One of the ATPLs (FAA or CAA or JAA) automatically includes an IR, if I remember right. Not something I've studied lately, so might be different now.