VFR on top
 

Flew a short trip a few days ago, and we were VFR at 3000 on top of FEW 1200. the flight was uneventful, but it got me thinking...

What sort of legal limits are in place for VFR on top. Looked in my AirLaw book and it says a PPL with no IMC or IR, must remain in sight of the surface.

Does this mean that you could fly VFR on top, in BKN cloud, provided you had the surfact in sight?

(Sorry if this has been asked before, I did perform a seach but nothing came up.)

Yes it's been covered before ;)

First thing to remember - cloud can break up, or it can close in. Licence privileges clearly state "Clear of Cloud and in sight of the surface". So - with those two factors thought about the best rules of thumb are:

If it's FEW or SCT then no problems - providing the holes are big enough to descend through (they will be if that's the cloud cover - SCT being no greater than half sky covered)

If it's BKN then DON'T risk it. The holes won't be big enough to fulfill your legal obligation, plus if they fill in you're going to get caught out above, with the ensuing IMC descent that's going to require.

OVC - self explanatory really

Chilli has it absolutely right.

Understand the difference between "legal" and "safe". "Legal" is in sight of the surface, and you can satisfy that by peering down through a tiny hole.

"Safe" will vary depending on your experience and training, and the aircraft's equipment. You have to consider a) how you will navigate, b) whether you will still be legal 10nm further on, and c) how you wil get back down underneath the clouds.

(Another example of "legal" but not "safe" would be flying cross-country in 3km viz. I have flown in this kind of viz several times, flying IFR and navigating using navaids, but I've attempted (just for fun) to fix my position visually, and it's pretty difficult. Not impossible if you use the correct techniques, but not something to try by yourself for the first time.)

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

Thanks for your replies, I'm a pretty low hours PPL so I would probably think twice about flying above a SCT layer, and BKN would definitely be out of the question. but I was just interested out of curiosity really.

I would imagine VFR in 3km would be very challenging! I've flown in the local area with a vis of 9k and that was unnerving!

The legality is one thing, the practicality is another.

A UK PPL can fly down to 3000m vis but he can't navigate using the methods he's been taught.

A UK PPL can fly above an overcast layer provided there is a bit of the surface visible somewhere.... but he also can't navigate using the methods he's been taught.

Most other countries allow a PPL to fly out of sight of the surface, so I wonder why the CAA did this. It does allow less nav training, of course.....

Of course I can't resist saying that a UK PPL with the IMC Rating is allowed to fly VFR out of sight of the surface in any airspace where this is allowed, outside the UK (even though the IFR privileges of the IMCR are UK only).

The trap in flying above clouds is obviously not getting back down, or not getting back down legally :O

Well, I have managed to find my way round the circuit in that sort of visibility when for a fair proportion of the time I couldn't see both ends of the runway at once ... but I did have an instructor with me.

Thats what "Practice ILS's" are for ;)

Care to expand on that IO540?

Why could you not navigate using the methods taught at PPL level? If you're flying something like, for example a Luton Minor, that poodles along at 60mph and you have a bit of experience, there should be no great problem, or have I missed something?

SS

This may be a stupid question, and if it is I'll apologise now, but if you are on top and out of sight of the land, is this logged as IFR?

DW.

Shortstripper,

I agree with you that it is easy to navigate in poor viz in, say, a Luton Minor - but I think IO540 is correct that the techniques taught at PPL level don't work in this viz - even more so at low speed. As I see it, there are two problems with flying in very low viz - navigation, and control of the aircraft.

First, navigation:

The ded reckoning techniques which are taught at PPL level will work perfectly well in any weather, including in IMC.

However, ded reckoning is only as good as the wind forecast you have to work with. If the forecast is not accurate, you have to back the ded reckoning up with some other means of navigation - map reading being the one which is taught at PPL level, and which should always be the primary one for VFR flight.

The techniques are based on the idea that if you follow your ded reckoning plan, you will be close enough to your track to be able to see features which are on or near your track, estimate how far off track you are, and make corrections. As the viz decreases, a number of problems arise. First of all, if you are not within a couple of miles of your track, or easily recogniseable features near your track, you will not see those features. The slower you travel, the more effect the wind will have on you, therefore the further off-track you might be if the wind forecast is wrong - so I would guess this particular aspect of navigation would be more difficult in a slower aircraft. (I believe that fast jet pilots have very few problems ded reckoning because they go so fast the wind has very little effect on them whatsoever, but maybe someone else can confirm?)

Also, it is more difficult to possitively identify features, because it is not so easy to compare a feature to its surroundings and see combinations of features when the surroundings and nearby features are further away than the limits of the viz - this, though, I don't think is affected by speed.

So what we need is an alternative method of navigation. The easiest way, I find, is by using line features. (I'm quite lucky in that right now I fly near a very big line feature called "the coast", which makes life very easy!) My first choice option is to follow line features. If that's not possible, then I would fly towards a line feature, making sure I keep to one side of where I would like to reach the line feature - typically to the right hand side. That way, when I reach the line feature, I know I have to turn left to arrive at my destination. In contrast to ded reckoning, this technique does work very well at low speeds, which is why if I'm anything much faster than a Luton Minor I would put some flaps down and use a "slow, safe cruise". The other thing I would do when planning a trip in this weather is make sure I am very aware of any obstructions along the way, and either fly at a height above the legal IFR MSA (even though I am VFR), or if that's not possible, find another way of definitely staying out of the way of the obstructions (e.g. knowing that the obstruction is to the north of the motorway, so remaining south will keep you clear.)

The second issue of how to control the aircraft without a horizon is a completely different one, and comes down to a combination of visual flying and instrument flying, very similar to what you do at night.

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

This is not a dig, more of a question. I know this isn't taught as part of the NPPL syllabus, But weren't we all taught to track TO / FROM a VOR. Surely in certain circumstances this could be a handy backup for checking TMG.

"If you're flying something like, for example a Luton Minor, that poodles along at 60mph and you have a bit of experience, there should be no great problem, or have I missed something"

At 60mph yes, watching out for pylons, towers, etc. But as FFF says, DR navigation will be correspondingly harder because the slow airspeed will give rise to huge wind (heading) corrections, say 30-40 degrees, for typical values of wind aloft, but the poor vis will make it hard to make the corrections.

Also 3000m vis will invariably mean no horizon. In the UK, it is either due to very heavy rain, or (more often) due to haze. In the latter case, you are flying in IMC in all but name. It's like being in an aquarium that hasn't been cleaned for a year. From say 3000ft, you can see the surface but only just, so unless you have instrument skills you have to be down (say 500-1000ft) and then you can't see far ahead to navigate.

During my PPL training, I was with an instructor who was a bit of a cowboy. He liked to demonstrate things like stopping the engine totally and gliding (C152). But he taught me a few good things, like flying in 3000m vis in drizzle, low down, between hills, and you quickly realise it's an easy way to die. It's easy to see how getting into that situation quickly becomes a fight to just stay away from terrain. DR nav, with its high workload, will go straight out of the window. If the poor vis is due to rain, there will very likely be low cloud (say OVC007) and then a pilot without instrument skills is stuck between ground and low cloud, with poor vis. I've heard it on the radio a few times and it is quite scary.

Like a lot of things in flying, it's OK in a familiar area, and this is the unstated perspective which a lot of people are writing from. If you did a survey of typical trip radius for 60mph planes, you'd see this :O

A GPS is the best way to navigate. VOR tracking is also fine (and is sort-of mentioned in the PPL) but if one is low down the reception might not work, so one has to fly higher and then (in 3k vis) you won't see much of the ground so you need reasonable instrument skills. DME reception disappears particularly fast when low down.

One thing worth noting about navigation aids in this kind of weather: Yes, they are extremely useful, and you should make full use of them. But there is a real danger that if you spend too much time heads-in watching the navaids, you will inadvertantly enter IMC.

As long as you are aware of this, and make a concious effort to focus your attention outside with only occassional glances at the navaids to confirm you position, any navaid will be a great help, but without being aware of the potential danger you might find you're worse off with the navaids than you would have been without them.

(This obviously doesn't apply so much when VFR-on-top as it does in poor viz.)

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

If you can't navigate in 3 Km visibility then clearly you are not being taught the correct techniques!! The VFR minima is 1500 metres! The UK doubled that for UK issued licences but the holder of a foreign PPL can fly to the 1500 ft minima and MUST be able to navigate! I certainly teach my students to, they may not be able to do it but then they add their "personal allowance"

Taking 1500m vis, the correct technique would be?

(Assume completely unfamiliar territory, no obvious landmarks i.e. within PPL privileges)

You call it "adding personal allowances".

I call it "not being trained adequately for the licence privileges".

:O

And I call it "knowing the difference between legal and safe" :rolleyes:

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

Do you mean IFR (in which case it depends whether you're IFR or VFR - self explanatory); or do you mean Instrument Flying. If the latter is the case then the answer is no - because you're NOT flying with sole reference to instruments.

There is no way that i would want to be up in 1500m vis at all.:eek: Thats getting to the point that you will be struggling to see the runway in the circuit, if at all. I dont care if it is legal in other countries. It just isnt safe!:suspect:

Id rather sit down, have a brew and read my mag:ok:

3k vis applies to all JAA PPL's. See schedule 8 of the ANO. 1500m is the VFR minima, but only CPL holders or PPL/IMC holders can fly in these conditions under VFR. In both cases the pilot has had training in the use of radio navigation equipment. This would suggest that the CAA recognise that pure visual navigation is impractical in such conditions. Also, the requirement for 1800m vis for take-off and landing for an IMC holder suggests that when you really do need to see something (ie a runway), 1500m is inadequate.

With 1500m vis you have a circle of view of 3k (1.6nm). At 90kts this means you are potentially uncertain of your position every 1 minute if using ground features and dead reckoning. Keeps you busy in the cockpit! Fly over a featureless patch for 1 minute and your guessing (or hoping) really.

IMHO the correct technique to navigate in such conditions is to build up experience in better conditions first, then apply said experience along with further training (such as IMC) to do it safely. There is a lot more to flying in poor vis than just navigating.

Don't agree with that one. It is one of many means to navigate by. The other systems are also available for flying an approach.

Quote
A GPS is the best way to navigate.


Quote
Don't agree with that one.


Stirring the old GPS pot again then. Ok - give me just three reasons why GPS isnt the best way - and please exclude it might just stop working because so might any of the radio navigation aids - and we are discussing navigating not flying an apporach.

My GPS doesn't show me the position of the masts near my home airfield.

Granted this is a limitation of the data which is in the GPS, and not of the GPS itself, but if I'm flying in the kind of weather we are talking about here, and the cloudbase is low enough that I can't be 100% certain I'm above those masts, then I'm going to be pretty damn sure I'm nowhere near them - and that needs a navigation method which represents the masts.

Of course, it might be that I review a chart, and decide that I will fly my whole detail to the north of a particular river (knowing that the masts are to the south of the river). I might then get airborne, and use GPS to back up my visual navigation and ensure I stay north of the river.....

Once again, GPS is a very valuable tool, and anyone who says it shouldn't be used needs to learn to move with the times. But once again, anyone who thinks it is the answer to all their problems is going to find themselves in trouble unless luck is on their side.

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

"masts, then I'm going to be pretty damn sure I'm nowhere near them - and that needs a navigation method which represents the masts"

and which method of navigation would that be then??

DrE

You are mixing things up a bit.

1500m is the ICAO minimum for VFR. It is also allowable for VFR if you have an IMCR or IR. Maybe the old UK (not JAA) CPL also because with that you got a honorary IMCR...

If you are lost (let's not use the much longer CAA name for it) every 1 minute in 1500m, you will be lost every 2 mins in 3000m. That's not a whole lot better. Nobody will be flying 1 or 2 minute legs with the stopwatch :O

"the correct technique to navigate in such conditions is to build up experience in better conditions first, then apply said experience along with further training (such as IMC) to do it safely"

No, we are talking about a plain PPL here. An instrument qualified pilot (IMCR or IR) has far better ways to navigate, and isn't going to be kerb crawling in 1500m or 3000m looking for villages, hedges, roads, lakes...

Building up experience will never let you see what you can't see. Unless you mean building up knowledge of one's local area, which is fair enough (I could fly in 1500m visually around where I live for sure) but is useless relative to PPL privileges which extend a bit further than that!

I wonder how the French (to give one of many cases) handle their PPLs' ability to fly above an overcast layer. Anyone here know the French PPL training syllabus?

FFF - you may be interested that your home masts can now be displayed on your GPS, with extra data files for the 296 - see this link from the Flyer forum - the add on has now matured into a comprehensive upload which can be found within one of the many posts :)
http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic....tacle+data+296

Red Chilli

Add ons like these are very useful and are now present in a number of database.

However they are add ons and there is some inherent risk their position (and whether they are all included) may not be wholly accurate.

You would not catch me flying below the safe sector height unless I was quite certain I could see AND (have time to) avoid obstacles.

If I wasnt certain then it is time to climb in IMC as required, declare IFR, and continue en route without that sort of pressure :) .

Fuji - I quite agree and I would do the same, the info is simply there to be used as circumstances dictate, perhaps more for VFR nav. than for any procedural flying in IMC!

Interesting, Red Chilli - didn't, know that, but I will read up on it. And I will also take Fuji's words of caution on board, too.

The method of navigating I'm talking about, Fuji, is using a map which represents the masts, together with the techniques I've described already. Saying "A GPS is the best way to navigate", as IO540 does, might suggest that taking the normal precautions of drawing a route on a chart which avoids controlled airspace, programming it into your GPS and flying it will be sufficient. What I am trying to emphasize is that in good VMC this is fine, because you can visually avoid terrain. In poor VMC, you must plan a route which avoids the terrain before turning on the GPS (notwithstanding what Red Chilli has said). Sorry if I didn't make that 100% clear.

A minority of posts on this thread seem to suggest (whether intentionally or not) that every PPL should be able to fly in 1500m viz since this is the legal minimum for VFR, or possibly 3000m viz since this is the legal minimum for a PPL - this is an attitude which I find extremely dangerous, and I hope that I have misunderstood those posts concerned.

I have already highlighted the difference between safe and legal. To suggest that every PPL must be able to do everything he is legally allowed to do the moment he is issued with his license is complete nonsense. And one of the things he is legally allowed to do, but should not attempt, is fly in 3km viz.

IO540, in your last post, you say:This is generally true, but the restriction to 3km viz which is legally placed on JAR PPL holders is removed when they get an instrument qualification for a reason. The reason is two-fold: first, they might well need to navigate in this kind of viz to approach an airfield without a published instrument approach, after either flying an instrument approach at a nearby airfield, or descending to VMC not below 1000 feet above the nearest obstacle within 5nm - or even to circle-to-land at an airfield with an instrument approach. (There is a separate issue here of home-grown instrument approaches, but that's an entirely different subject altogether.) Secondly, the instrument-qualified pilot is better equipped to use his instruments to keep the aircraft the right way up in these conditions.

So I would suggest that it is the instrument-qualified pilot who is more likely to be flying visually in these conditions, in the final stages of a flight, rather than the PPL who is not instrument qualified, who will hopefully be sitting in the club-house with a cup of tea (or a pint of beer if the weather is set to stay for the day)?

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

I consider myself a bit fortunate in that I had some instructors at about the 200hr mark that taught me to relish the difficult rather than the easy, and how to develop the mindset and skills to deal with that.
Safe vs Legal: personally I would far prefer to fly under a 400ft base with good vis than under a 1000ft base with less than 5000M.
I probably wouldn't fly in much less than 5k unless I knew the area well.
And those sorts of minima (for me) vary with type. Eg 172 happy low and slow,can be put down anywhere; AA5 not so.
The workload is high, forward planning essential, and it's much easier if there is another pilot helping with map reading/local knowledge. But it can be done, with less safety than cavok, but still safely.
One of the tricks to learning this is controlled and deliberate exposure to gradually worse and worse weather. Going from being a fair-skies aviator straight to tackling VFR at the minimums isguaranteed to shorten the life expectancy, regardless of total time aloft.
I don't have a lot of total time at all, but I know very well what my limits are likely to be on the day, on the type, for the route. And GPS doesn't feature at all in this process. GPS to me is a useful monitoring tool, that's all.

FFF

As you can probably tell, a lot of my arguments are more rhetorical than anything else. Personally I don't care about most of this; I know my rights and my legal limits and I am happy to fly right up to them.

I get a perverse enjoyment out of taking the p*ss out of regulations that allow a pilot to do one thing, while providing a training syllabus which doesn't allow the same pilot to actually do it.

I believe flight planning should be a purely technical exercise based on rules and knowledge, just like it is in commercial ops. A commercial pilot doesn't look at the sky one day and say "better to be on the ground wishing you were up there than the other way around", "a licence is a license to learn", "there are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots", etc etc etc etc and all the other cr*p they put up on the overhead projector in the CAA safety seminars, which the training industry and its sponsors use to walk away from responsibility for pilots who legally choose to exercise their privileges and come unstuck.

Call me cynical if you like :O but I think it all rolls along fairly smoothly because only a very small percentage of fresh PPLs get anywhere near to exercising their privileges. The majority chuck in flying pretty fast, having stuck to CAVOK days before they did so. The rest mostly hang in there on a very low currency, again sensibly sticking to nice days.

If every new PPL had to go places seriously, the whole system would collapse (through CAS busts never mind anything else) and the inadequacy of the training would be exposed for all to see. But, with most punters doing very little actual flying, there is very little risk of that happening.

It makes me sad to see most people blow away about £8000 around their local airfield, banging some C152 down on the runway for 50-60 hours, only to chuck it in soon afterwards, and I can't help thinking that modernising the whole process would help keep more people in there. A lot of talent is being wasted, and an above average proportion of the wasted talent is among punters who DO have the funds to do something with flying and who could take the whole scene forward.

Still, we need to be grateful for small mercies because it is these transient passers-by that keep the whole GA scene financially afloat. The industry knows that, of course.

Call me cynical if you like



CYNICAL :) :) :) :)


.. .. .. but sadly true

An Irish PPL also allows you to fly over an overcast. There is very little radio navigation included in the syllabus. We have to show we can track directly to a VOR, and from a VOR on a radial, but that's about it. In fact come to think of it, I'm not sure I was even asked to demonstrate this on my skills test, but that could be a memory error.

There is also some VOR stuff on the ground exams, but not much.

Certainly nothing to prepare you for flying withour reference to the surface.

dp

I vaguely recall being told (so this is not first hand) a French PPL just needs to be able to do VOR tracking, and (more hearsay) that some/most French clubs will require that the pilot does not go above an overcast layer as a condition of rental. How they enforce that, god knows.

My suspicion, based purely on human nature, is that French pilots must do an awful lot of DIY letdowns. It's generally easier out there though because they tend to have a higher cloudbase than the UK; of the order of 4000ft. With the big exception of the Bay of Biscay where low cloud (OVC007) is common but there it's easy to fly offshore for a bit where you "find a hole in the cloud" :O Or N France where the weather is a bit like the UK.........

However it's possible that the whole pattern of flying in France differs from the UK, and that most club-level flying there is very short local hops. I am always amazed when out there at how little traffic there is; of the order of 1/10 of the UK, based on both radio traffic and sightings.

I cant speak for the North of France, but down here in the south I would say that generally the locals only fly on Gin-Clear Sunny days, and there is far more sun down here than in the UK, so the "On Top" bit doesnt really apply in the first place. The weather really is generally much, much better here than in the UK!!

Regards, SD..

I think it is very easy for "experienced" pilots to forget some of the problems they had earlier in their "careers".

In theory new PPls can fly in pretty awful viz. however in reality the training is inadequate for them to do so. In theory after an IMC course you should manage an ILS let down to minima, however in reality you are unlikely to achieve a satisfactory performance.

It is commonly said PPLs are at their best just after having completed the course.

Not so.

Whilst it will vary from person to person I suspect on the whole the average PPLs skill levels gradually deteriorates after completing his course. If he continues to fly only in the local area, on good days, and, as many do, stops practising PFLs and cross wind landings and the host of other skill improvers, his skills will continue to deteriorate. In the end he will be unwilling to fly in anything other than excellent conditions or will give up - as so many do. However, some continue to stretch their horizons. These are the few that disprove the truism. Initially like everyone else their skill level deteriorates. Why - because they realise they are on their own, maybe scare themselves a few times, rightly are very wary of weather (because this was drummed into them during their training) and stop doing all the handling skills because it all seems a bit scarier without an instructor with them to save the day when things go wrong.

Sounds familiar?

These few disprove the truism because they realise if they are going to continue flying safely and more widely they need to hone their PPL skills. Somewhere around 200 and 400 hours they really start improving their skills again and will be far better pilots than they were when they finished their PPL.

Why does this happen?

As has been said on so many occasions before I think the anser is relatively simple. The PPL course is very good at wrapping the pilot in cotton wool. (And I am not saying that is wrong). However, the cotton wool is suddenly taken away - there is no support, no more experienced pilots to fly with, no reason to take on longer trips. Some pilots have sufficient self motivation to find another way. Some are fortunate in joining good groups or clubs early on. Most are not so fortunate or motivated.

In short, and as others have said, conditions of poor viz and “flying on top” are in my view not the conditions for a new PPL to go and enjoy. In my view the training is not good enough to deal with these conditions on your own. However, get some hours under your belt with more experienced pilots as soon as you can after your PPL - you will be amazed at how quickly your skill level will continue to improve IF you follow this course.

I am not having a go at GPS, I simply said it is one of many means. However the fact remains that at present you cannot use GPS for approaches, so it is less useful than the others. Let me reverse the question, and ask for three reasons why you think it is so great compared to other methods.

Don't think I am. VFR minima is 1500m. CPL holders are allowed to fly VFR in these conditions whether old UK or new JAA. PPL holders with IMC/IR can also fly VFR in these conditions. Anything less is IMC and requires IMC/IR rating.

That was kind of my point.

Neither does any other form of tracking aid. That is why a map must also be carried and used. I know this is what you mean FFF, but it does highlight the problems caused by over-reliance on GPS, and why it does not protect people from incursions etc.

If someone cannot achieve a satisfactory letdown using an ILS they should fail their IMC test. Granted they may struggle with an NDB approach, but an ILS? The problem afterwards is lack of practice. Instrument skills degrade very quickly. There is a huge difference between those who actually use the IMC rating and those who do not. Those that do develop good instrument skills and are better pilots for it. Others who do not use it and come back for renewals tend to be of a poor standard after two years of neglect and need further training.

Regarding PPL drop-out after training, this has always been the case. The reasons are numerous, and not just down to training standards.

Fuji,are you saying fly with another more experienced pilot in the cockpit or fly in company?
I was told by my CFI that when I get the licence I should spend some time on my own,remembering and practising all the skills I had just learned before I started to take passengers.
He also recommended, all through my flying life always to practice all the things that maybe some pilots don't like, such as ,incipient spins ,PFL's,stalls,etc , so that when they happen there is less risk of a panic type reaction.
Lister:)

"However the fact remains that at present you cannot use GPS for approaches,"

Lille - although of course I did make the point that my comments excluded approaches.


"Let me reverse the question, and ask for three reasons why you think it is so great compared to other methods."

1. Excellent situational awareness,
2. No requirement to be in range of a VOR (particularly useful at low level as is common for most GA ops),
3. Enables almost instant flight planing on the hoof without the need for time spent with you head in the cockpit.

GPS is happily up to the challenge of stating its advantages - so come on having reveresed the question without having answered it, lets have three good reasons for using any other form of navigation (approaches excluded for the sake of this discussion).

"Neither does any other form of tracking aid. That is why a map must also be carried and used."

I would encourage everyone to read the posts when following a thread. Your GPS may well show you the position of the masts - many now do.


"If someone cannot achieve a satisfactory letdown using an ILS they should fail their IMC test."

Maybe - but how many during their IMC flew an approach down to the legal minima NOT the minima people so often wronly assoicate with the IMCR? How many passed their IMC with an ILS approach which was OK down to 600 feet but knew full well it was a big ragged at the edge? How many know that the standard of their ILS approach for the IMC may have secured a "pass" but would have not done so for an IR? My point was that just as with a PPL or an IMCR or even for that matter with an IR the test and training achieves for the pilot a minimium standard but that does not mean you stop learning.

Liser Noble

Fly with another experienced pilot in the cockpit.


You had a good instructor.

However it still begs the question how many actually keep up the skills developed during their training? How many regularly practice PFLs, fan stops after take off, even tight turns or slow flight? Why? They were in their comfort zone doing it with the instructor - after all the instructor would always save the day. Does that sound like you or have you kept all those skills going since getting your PPL?

As previously stated, I am not having a go at GPS. Your comments are all valid. I am no Luddite and use GPS myself when required (and available). I do however feel it is too easy to rely on GPS. Having the skills to use all the other options (VOR, NDB, RNAV, etc) make for a better understanding of how to use GPS effectively, and the environment you are operating in (ie poor vis, as per the original discussion).

What's that saying again about anyone can take a plane off the ground. You cannot exclude approaches. If you are flying in poor weather conditions you may well need one.

So how do you expect someone with 15hrs training to achieve the same standard as someone with 55 hrs (for PPL IR). If well trained and current an IMC holder should be able to perform a perfectly satisfactory ILS (ie within half scale glideslope/localiser) down to the CAA recommended minima. I know the minima are different, but the CAA recommendations are on safety grounds and I believe them to be valid, due to the difference in amount of training between the two ratings. I agree that you do not stop learning, and made that point regarding currency. Once an IMC holder has learnt more, then they can think about lowering their minima.

As an aside, the legality of an approach depends on RVR, not cloud levels.

Someone inferred that "GPS is best". GPS is excellent, but if I'm trying to get home on a murky day, then my favourite is ILS every time. Belt and braces-like, I use GPS and VOR and ADF and anything else that's available (RIS or RCS is nice, too).

Which is "better"? The one that works right now - which has sometimes been the poor, maligned, clunky ADF, which nevertheless got me safely down where I wanted to go, without needing to divert somewhere else.

Flying a G-reg on an IMCR, I fly the ILS down to the IR minima - the "IMCR recommended minima" are an interesting checkpoint on the way down, but I certainly don't go around at 500 feet on an ILS.

Flying an N-reg, there's no problem because the IR now works.