Imc
 

Hi Guys!

Nearing the end of my PPL (well about 3/4 of the way through anyway) and thinking of doing the IMC rating due to the rubbish weather in this country. Only thing is I'm not too sure what it entails and what it entitles me to. I'm aware it's only valid in the UK but apart from that, what is the difference from an IR?

Thanks!

No IFR in class A

1800m minimum met vis for take-off and landing

Higher "advisory" minima for cloud base during instrument approaches.

minimum 15 hours rather than 50 hours (for single engine IR), one short exam rather than 7; cost about £2,000 rather than £9,000!

Well worth doing, but probably better to get a few hours under you belt first. I think in fact you need 25 hours P1 to apply for the rating, but not to start the training.

Thanks, that's what I though. I can't really understand why a full IR is soooo much more expensive (well obviously it's because it's 50 hours but you know what I mean :rolleyes: ).

So apart from Class A airspace you can fly full IFR type stuff?

thats the $64million question. technically yes (no airways of course) but it comes down to currency and the quality of the instruction as well as having an aircraft that is capable of IMC flight AND navigation.

Most hired aircraft are not IMC capable, whether it is crap avionics that are not FM Immune or accurate or just that dont work at all. Also the UK generally has very low freezing levels which again most club hire aircraft are nopt capable of dealing with as they have no de-ice/anti-ice.

The quality of instruction is also very variable going from failry low hours FI's able to teach the IMC to high hours full IR instructors.

The IMC is a great rating, well worth doing. It needs constant practice at all aspects of flying IMC, this includes, sustained instrument flight, and approaches. It is very easy to get out of currency and expect to just be able to switch back to the guages when you hit IMC because you have a ticket that says you can and thats when things have the potential to go wrong.

My view personally is go out, get some experiance flying in day VFR try other new things and mature as a pilot before you try Instrument flight. (There will of course be the usual round of people telling you do aeros and tail wheel conversions instead, not my cup of tea really allthough I have done them).

It strikes me that a lot of people go into the IMC "early" after listening to talk in the bar/club of pilots "larging it up" about how clever they think they are because the can fly in cloud.

At your stage in your flying you are barely able to operate the aircraft let alone contemplate flying it with sole reference to the instruments. If the weather is so marginal you may end up in IMC then is it a good day to fly?

Enjoy your flying, look out the window and admire the view, this is one of the key things about learning to fly and when you are ready to expand the envelope then consider the IMC.

I am an Instrument rated pilot and find there is nothing like climbing above an overcast and sitting in the sunshine, but conversly there is also nothing like cruising along below watching the sun poke through in beams and lighting the landscape.

It doesn't happen all the time, but I totally agree with bose-x's comments above.

When you have your PPL and have reached that point in your flying where the basic PPL doesn't allow you to do the things you want to do, then is the time to address which additional ratings you need...

It needn't take years or even months post-PPL to come to these conclusions, but I suggest it should take "hours" :)

c-bert,

For most recreational pilots the JAA IR is not really practical unless you have a great amount of time and money to put aside for the training. Unless you have a real use for it (the need to make business trips around Europe and not be delayed so much by weather for example) then you will find it a costly indulgence. Too costly for most UK PPLs.

It isn't only the extra hours that make the IR more expensive. The exams are far more challenging and are more akin to the ATPL ones than those for the PPL.

One solution that many people use is to get an FAA IR and an N-reg aircraft to go with it. The US qualification (the exam in particular) is a much more practical proposition for most people.

If you use the forum search facility you will find a great deal of discussion of these issues and the pros and cons of the IMC qualification.

There is an organisation which promotes PPL IR flying here.

By the way - the good news is that you can fly IFR to your heart's content in the UK without going to the trouble of getting an IMC - you just do it in VMC.

Thanks for the replies guys (& girls?). One further question though on Fly Stimulators point about IFR. Am I allowed to file an IFR flight plan on just a basic PPL? I know nothing about IFR procedures or instrument approaches (nothing official at least!) so how can I fly IFR?

Or do you just mean VFR but with reference to the instruments and radio nav aids?

Just for info, my main reason for doing the IMC would be so that I can still fly on the decidedly marginal VMC days we often have here in the winter. It's frustrating leaving home in VMC and getting to the airfield only for the cloud to have thickened enough to preclude flying.

C-bert, then my previous comments apply, if it is marginal at your level of experiance it is better sit in the bar and tell tall stories!

Fair point! Although they are more likely to be short stories....:( :D

c-bert,

Somebody always chucks in the IFR vs IMC distinction in these discussions so I thought I'd just get it out of the way early for efficiency's sake! ;)

Best to talk it through with your instructor, but in a nutshell IFR and VFR are just sets of rules to fly by. The IFR rules involve things like the levels you have to fly at for certain headings, the clearance you have to allow over the ground and so on.

If you comply with these rules you can claim to be flying IFR, even if there's not a cloud in the sky. So, even without an IMC rating you could fly IFR. What you can't do without an extra rating is to fly in IMC, which is the term that relates to the weather conditions rather than the flight rules.

In short it's a technicality which brings you no practical benefits, other than an ability to recount tales of your IFR flying in the pub afterwards.

The IMC is useful both in itself and for the extra discipline it can bring to your flying, but the above posts make good points. Give yourself a little time to get a little more experience first. Most of us have found the IMC training is hard enough work for the brain as it is without having to still be devoting mental capacity to basic flying skills at the same time.

And don't forget that most airfields that recreational flyers go to do not have any instrument approach facilities. Even with an IMC or IR your day trip for a £200 bacon roll in the rain will probably end up with you returning to your nearest large airfield which may not be where you started from or left your car!

Thanks. I fly from Southampton so I've got all manner of whizzbang nav aids to get confused by (and airliners to get in the way of!) although the aircraft I use doesn't...oh well, it probably is a good idea to tonk around in the sunshine for a while first.

I would say that is not a good idea, even for a relatively experienced pilot. Others much more experienced than me will tell you that flying in IMC for an extended period is a hell of a strain and you really need an aircraft with an autopilot to reduce the work load. Not only that, in winter you have serious risk of airframe icing in and often below cloud.

I use my IMC to get above cloud where I am as certain as I can be that I can go VMC on top and that the cloud base is not likely to deteriorate to a point where making an instrument approach is going to be difficult (because of the minima for IMC rated pilots). It is also very useful training for those occasions when you enter IMC inadvertantly, but even then I descent to VMC unless it is obvious that the IMC is very temporary.

Flying is more enjoyable when you can see the ground. I would not set off in 'marginal' VMC unless I was very confident that the weather is improving or it is or will very quickly become VMC at my destination.

Too right, Justiciar.

I assume that c-bert wants to fly purely for fun (if he has aspirations of professional flying, I'd say bypass the IMC altogether and get a proper IR) ... and flying around in "decidely marginal VMC" is far from relaxing.

It is always worth asking these "is the IMC Rating worth doing" people what their budget is. If it is £1000/year then the "correct" answer is going to be NO; just keep renting the Cessna 150 :O In most cases, this turns out to be the case, and probably this is why most IMC Ratings are lapsed. But for pilots that do the right amount of flying in the right plane, etc, it is a great privilege.

I fly IMC (IFR) as necessary/possible but do find that most flights are in fact done in VMC (above, between or below the clouds; the first two not being legal for a basic PPL). But even if one is fussy about conditions, what the IMC option gives you is flying when the weather is too marginal for a basic PPL pilot (much of the time in the UK).

Without the IMCR, I would perhaps do 1/4 of my present hours, and my currency would fall to a point where it would be sooo easy to just pack it in altogether. Not to mention all the cancelled flights, which make flying with passengers very awkward.

Re the "proper IR" as some put it, there is nothing useful about the proper IR if the destination is an airfield without an IAP (which is true for most UK GA airfields) or the icing level is below the MSA (true much of the winter) etc. In the UK, the IR may be useful over the IMCR if you have a de-iced plane with a turbo engine, but then one is going to be above the clouds with no view. The IR really comes in for foreign trips.

Incidentally if a JAA IR costs £9000, that is cheap on the scale of what it will cost over the next 10-20 years actually making use of it. For starters, one needs to get one's hands on a decent plane (which is equally true for the IMCR) and the extra cost of that will dwarf the cost of the training. For anyone who is gainfully employed, the real cost of a JAA IR will be far more than £9000, due to the time spent on the ground school.

Just to clarify, the only difference in minima between an IMC and an IR is the requirement for 1800m horizontal vizability. All other limits are ADVISORY. There is no reason an IMC holder cant do an IP to published minimums other than currency.

When I did my IMC I was taught down to minimums which stood me well for IR training.

Is this now established beyond reasonable argument? Both you and 2Donks said the same thing, but I'm sure one of you used to argue that those limits were, infact, mandatory:confused: What's changed? Or have I, again, got the wrong suspects :8

The ceiling limits concerned are published in the AIP using phraseology that is not particularly clear. I think that the advisory nature of the ceiling minima and the mandatory nature of the 1800m minimum are pretty widely accepted.


2D

Thanks :) So 'twas ever thus?

No, twasn't!

;)

FD

I have no idea whether twas ever thus. It matches what I was taught in the 1980s. I went through a brief period of being a believer in the ceiling limits being mandatory when I first saw the AIP section. Wise voices talked me out of that belief, and I have now returned to my previous position.

As is so often the case, a simple concept is overcomplicated by poor drafting. Something the FAA by and large manages to get right.

2D

Hear, hear.

I think that R was referring to past (tedious) discussions where the subject was whether the minimums for IAP for IMC holders were mandatory and absolute or advisory and therefore relative.

The FAA have circumnavigated that particular issue by allowing us lesser gods to get a meaningful internationally recognised IR.

FD

Yes, but also that when I did my IMC (1999) it was taught that way - i.e. mandatory 500' minimum DH for an ILS.

Period.

For me, now academic, but I did recall a discussion or seven about it :)

I think you have to look at this in a slightly wider context.

The article of the ANO mandating aerodrome operating minima for non-PT flights was introduced in about 1992. Before that, an IR holder on a non-PT flight was not bound by any particular minima. Thus everything in the AIP was advisory. AOC-holders had minima dictated by their Ops Manual (which was undoubtedly based on the same calculations as in the AIP).

When the guidance to IMC-holders was drafted, it was done with that as a backdrop. I don't think that anyone foresaw that it would be interpreted as mandatory at some point in the future. The Schedule 8 minimum of 1 nm for t/o and ldg was always there.

I can guess at why it has been left the way it is. The (mis-)interpretation of the AIP as mandating 500/600 ft minima suits the CAA position of discouraging IMC-rating holders from tackling difficult approaches. So clarifying the AIP entry as being recommended only is unhelpful for that cause. But changing the entry to indicate that the increments are mandatory would be a substantial erosion of rights that would require consultation, time and resource. So as with so many things in aviation, we're left with the status quo. But that's just a guess.

I think that\'s partly because the FAA gets regulatory stuff into the FARs and advisory stuff into the AIM. None of these notifications as we have.

Excellent post, thanks bookworm. :)

I was always one of the voices that stated it was advisory and not law.


:O

Compliance with aerodrome DA/MDA is in article 40 of the ANO; the 1800' take off minimum is in Schedule 8 of the ANO, which contains the privileges of licenses and ratings. Any restriction on IMC rated pilots would be expected in one of these two locations. The fact that the ANO is silent suggests very strongly that the 500'/600' minima are indeed only advisory.

My thoughts, for what they are worth.

I did my IMC after 30-odd hours post PPL. I enjoy flying in IMC, but for extended periods it can be tiring, and as such, I apply a simple rule:

IMC is NOT an instrument rating. It is a "get me home on that iffy day" rating, NOT a "go flying on that iffy day rating."

Last Sunday, I Wx diverted on a trip to Ireland - even though the forecasts and reports from Ireland were good, and so no sweat over there - because it was too much like hard work to fly for an hour in IMC. I'll wait for a better day.

Having said that, I find that my flying is MUCH more precise now after doing the IMC, in terms of holding headings, speeds and altitudes - which in itself made it worthwhile.

TA

The IMC is an instrument rating if taught correctly and is not a get you home rating. Anyone who enters into an IMC rating with the view of getting the rating as an emergency escape card on a bad day is fooling themselves.

Instrument flight requires constant practice to be current enough to use it anger. Whether it is an IMC rating or a rull IR the same skills need to be practiced.

Sustained flight in IMC is hard work. The IMC rating training tends to focus on shorter duration instrument only flight than the IR with a view to using it for getting above cloud into the cruise and back down again at the other end. I found IR training focused more on airways joins and exits, IFR RT and some sustained IMC flight but the preference always being to get on top above the weather. As an IMC pilot I needed no work on holds or procedures.

A good IMC pilot who practices regularily is just as capable of flying in sustained IMC, you develop and practice the skills and can either fly the guages or not.

Anyone who feels that they could not fly comfortably on the guages for a lenghty period of time should not be excercising the priveledges of an IMC.

I'm really not sure I agree with that.

Yes, I practice instrument approaches and IMC flying so that I am not "out of practice". When I use it "in anger", I do so in the knowledge that I can fly on the gauges, and am within the limits of my ability. But my point remains - flying as the only pilot into IMC conditions is a lot harder than flying in VMC, and I still say that the IMC is a "get you home" rating. I don't know of any IMC rated pilots who would actually want to fly on a day when they are going straight into IMC for the duration anyway. I fly for my own enjoyment - professional pilots with IRs get paid to go up in the cr@p, and then they do it in pairs.....

I would say anyone who takes the IMC thinking it gives them the same, but slightly watered down, priviledges as a full IR is fooling themselves personally.

TA

go and do an IR then pass comment. Trust me there is little extra in an IR that is not in an IMC unless the IMC was badly taught in the first place!

The IMC rating is NOT and never will be an instrument rating. It is a valuable addition to the ppl in that it gives a very sound introduction to the use of instuments and radio aids, but as Twin Aisle quite rightly states it is a 'get out of jail card' for those occasions when wx conditions deteriorate and make things difficult.

The world is unfortunately full of idiots with a ppl/imc who think they are airline pilots. They are a danger to themselves and everyone else.

Have you ever wondered why it is not recognised outside the UK?

Remember the ppl/imc that died trying to do an ILS approach into Le Touquet?

If you wanna fly with the big boys do an I/R....otherwise stick to nice sunny days.


rabbs

:}

If an IMC is well taught, and then well practiced - it is an incredibly good addition to the PPL. It isn't an IR, so shouldn't be used as an IR. I have an IMC and use it often - either for getting on top of cloud, or getting the last 15 miles home on a cr@ppy day. I wouldn't drem of setting off on a day like that though, knowing that it was going to be IMC all of the way. That kind of flying is for people who REALLY need to be somewhere. For those people - get an IR. Personally, I have a company car with fuel included. It may take me a bit longer, but at least I will arrive fresh (ish).

I think that your world being full of idiot PPL's with an IMC is nowhere near the world that the rest of us live in. In fact I think your assessment of PPL/IMC holders is pretty offensive!

My point was the the IMC is not a get out of jail free card, that instrument flight requires skill and practice. So I say again anyone who thinks that getting an IMC for this reason is seriously fooling themselves.

As I recall there have been very few incidents of IMC PPL's crashing and burning but I am happy to be corrected nothwithstanding your LFAT incident. I wonder in the case of the LFAT incident was the IMC holder actually current at IMC flight or was he just trying his get out of jail card???

But to add perspective while doing my IR training I was quoted a number of IR holder incidents of the same ilk.

It does not matter which piece of paper you have, if you are not current then it is a waste of time.

Gotta agree with Skyrabbit on this, and with TM.

As for

Well - his IMC rating was not valid at LFAT - whether he was current or not.

As I say - I practice IMC flying - a lot - but I still would never take to the skies to fly end-to-end IMC. Like TM, I would rather drive it. As Rabbit said, if you want to fly with the big boys, get an IR.

TA

I wasn't questioning whether the IMC was valid at LFAT as it clearly was not. I was asking about currency.

I am however very flattered to be considered one of the "big boys" even cruising around in my 152........

Twice in as many days I find myself agreeing (at least in part) with bose-x... Did you spike my drink? ;) :rolleyes:

I find myself agreeing with SkyRabbit, Twin Aisle and Trodden masses here.
Bose-x I understand your viewpoint but am afraid i can not concur with you.
Although we are unable to ask people under what license they are flying it becomes blatantly obvious when conditions deteriorate who is flying under an IMC rating and who is on an IR rating, the lack of confidence can become quite apparent. That is not to say that those flying with an IMC lack skills , far from it they are pilots who have committed time and expense to their hobby,but that is what it is to the majority of them simply a hobby. Those with IR ratings in the main have them as they wish to or either already do so fly commercially.
I see what you say about practice and experience and there will always be those who buck the trend, but the IMC rating was never designed as anything other than a " get me out of this" rating ideally suited to the British Climate and the tendency for the weather to rapidly change

Can I just ask what else is involved in the IR that isn't included in the IMC rating? I've not got an IMC rating but am planning on getting my IR next year, and I'm interested to know how, if they're essentially the same, one can be 35 hours longer than the other? Granted, the IR involves airways flying, but surely that doesn't justify the difference? Or am I missing something? :confused:

1. Proper instruction according to a mandatory syllabus by Instrument Rated instructors

2. Appreciation of weather related issues.

3. Appreciation of the IFR system.

etc etc.

Until you do an IR you don't know what you have missed by doing just an IMC.

True, as Bose X says there are some competent IMC PPLs around who use the rating for more than a get out of jail card. They are however a miniscule fraction of the total of people with an IMC.

It is however a bit unfair to make out everyone with an IMC rating out to be a cowboy ready to fly beyond the limits of their abilities and rating. The lack of IMC related accidents by IMC rated folks proves that in my opinion.

FD