What well spoken comments from those who know what they are talking about.

I don't need to present you with any proof!

That is hallmark of the really dangerous.

Those that are so arrogant that they have no interest in the eivdence, only to blindingly repeat biased opinions that are derived not from fact but from commercial bias or unfounded elitism.

Quote:

---

Please don't confuse an IMC with being qualified or able to fly PROPERLY on instruments, you are NOT. THAT'S exactly how people KILL themselves!

---

Stellair ... ... your job security with 'Top Notch Airways' is not under threat from hoards of cheap labour IMCrs so please don't get too carried away with your superior qualifications.

You have spent so long at high altitude that you have forgotten (if you ever knew) what the IMCr is all about. It is not for the occasional 'rabbit out of the bag' to get you home safely. If you fly IMC that infrequently then that is where the risk comes from (whether IR or IMCr).

I fly (with PPL/IMC) routinely in IMC without autopilot - so far around 20 hours this year. So long as the minimums are OK at each end then, as far as I am concerned, I am not gambling with the lives on board. IMHO I can fly "PROPERLY" on instruments and certainly, I suspect, as well as you.

Safe flying :ok:

IO540, what an excellent post.

With one exception, though:I'm a JAA IR instructor, but I most certainly do not go along with this idea that the IMCR is a rating not to be used!

Before I had an IR, I had an IMC rating, which I used to use as often as I could, even if it meant wearing foglges and taking a safety pilot. (The fact that the aircraft I owned at the time was day-VFR only meant that I had to go out of my way to hire an appropriate aircraft, but as an IMC rating holder, I understood that I had to keep current at instrument flying if I was to stay safe.)

Before I was an IR instructor, I was an IMC instructor. My IMC students, by the end of their course, were just as capable of doing everything on the IMC syllabus (and more) as my IR students now are of doing everything on the IR syllabus (and more).

So I'm with you 100%, it would be a real shame if the IMC rating were lost to Eurocrats, but please don't assume that IR instructors don't value the IMC rating!!!

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

Whoever says that pilots with licences issued after few hours training should bin their licence must have a very big bin. Of course, since many pilots do not even need a licence to fly in UK airspace (or much of Europe) and now there is the option to fly a fixed wing aircraft that is totally uncertified and untested, one must wonder how big their bin is!

As for the IMC Rating, the postings of many here just show how little understanding many holders of the IMC rating have about IFR IMC operation.

We have IO540, admitting to illegal flying - (you can not say that and at the same time claim that the PIC satisfied themselves pre-flight that the flight could be completed safely and legally there is also the fact that a smart insurance lawyer would easily show that the other pilot was simply a passenger based on what you said.) and others failing to remember or simply forgetting the often transmitted statement from the CAA that the IMC is not designed for prolonged flight IFR in IMC and the reminders that the IMC rating is not an instrument rating.

The UK aviation industry has complained that costs increased because of JAR. There is no evidence to back that up and I can tell you that for many including me (and it should be no different for any other training provider), the costs have substantially reduced...............many of the UK resident pilot population believed what they were being told and happily paid more for the same training failing to recognise that for example RTFs are issued free of charge and simply made the training providers pockets bulge further.

Then there was the CAA paper completed which showed that there was no change in safety caused by JAR-FCL. Why on earth should harmonisation of licensing make things more (or less) safe......it was a harmonisation project not a safety initiative.

The UK has similar weather to Ireland and other parts of the world have worse weather at times. The UK is unique in providing VFR pilots the legal ability to depart VFR when the weather is less than VMC contrary to the VFR rules and the international standards. They can then later abandon the VFR flight to fly in IMC and never be required to report the poor pre-flight planning that caused them to abandon the VFR flight they departed on.

The rules are clear - if you plan to fly A to B VFR then the combination of actual and forecast weather must indicate that the flight can be safely completed in VMC. If not then the options are stay on the ground or plan and execute an IFR flight.

How much safety reporting data is lost in the UK simply because unexpected or rather expected but ignored IMC enroute on VFR flights is simply un-reported.

In other countries, VFR flights going IFR or VFR flights unable to maintain VMC are taken very seriously by ATS and the authorities.......why is the UK so lax?

There are advertisers in the current UK pilot mags providing JAA-IRs for about £6000. That is good value for what you are getting but you will not get it in the UK.....because people there prefer to pay £12,000 or moan.

Regards,

DFC

Stellair is typical of many of the bunch of pilots that we breed over here...
All gob. Although his profile reads that he is all ATPL'd to the hilt, I don't believe it as a) he has not one ounce of professionalism, or b) has a !!!!e attitude - not worthy of an airline captain. Maybe he is not then? Maybe he is just DFC reading from a different book?

What you find is the REAL PROFESSIONAL PILOTS have either a very reasonable attitude, or don't comment at all.

Ha! I knew it would come down to a my IR is better than yours, even IO in trying to stop people doing it sunk to it himself in his last post.

Neither IR is particularly good at preparing you for the Practicality of flight planning across Europe. The JAA IR not gold plated either and is common with many other IR's around the world. The different regulators have choses different areas to focus on outside of the core skills. In the US more emphasis on partial panel and non precision approaches, little in the way of NDB as they have had the good sense to get rid of them. GPS approaches are the way forward and FAA focus on those. In Europe we are still heavily reliant on the NDB and so a large focus is made on getting IR pilots flying them very accurately. Part of the reason the course is longer is the extra focus on the NDB work.

What both IR's do is teach the pilot the most fundamental part of Instrument flying, as the name suggests actually flying on the clocks and that is the same the world over. The JAA IR is not designed for the RHS wannabes it is designed just the same as the FAA IR to get the pilot into Single Pilot IFR OPs safely. Flying the same routes with the sam instrument group of approaches to polish the test is as dull as hell, but is the only way the wannabes can afford the training. Many places will quite happily allow you to choose your schedule and routing. When I did my JAA IR I went on tour across Europe with my Instructor in the Twin, visiting places like Annecy in the mountains.

As IO points out neither course teaches you the really important stuff like getting routes into the system, how to arrange fuel in way out places etc. That is all learnt after the IR. Imagine trying to cover all that on top of what has to be learnt........... Flying is about a lifetime of learning.

Finally if anyone actually bothered to look at the academics they would discover that what is ACTUALLY required as learning material sits neatly in a slim A4 binder which is thinner than the Jepp FAA Instrument Manual. I have such an example sat on the desk in front of me. The questions in the exam bank have been slimmed down considerably as well.


But back to the IMCR.

I am a great supported of the IMCR but have many reservations as well. I believe that the general standard of teaching is very low. Howls of protest will follow about how great everyones Instructor was, how do you know this when you had no prior experience to compare it against.......

The core reason for this in my opinion is that those teaching it have gained the rating from others at the same level and over the years the standards have declined without anyone noticing.

I think that many people treat it as a get out of jail free card and only practice what were poorly taught skills in the first place every couple of years for renewals.

My view is that the IMCR should only be taught by an IRI with a current IR with proven experience on the clocks. Probably around the 150hrs of sole flight by instruments plus the usual CRI/FI requirements.

I think that IMCR holders should be required to maintain a rolling currency in the same was as the FAA IR along with 25 month revalidation.

We did some work earlier this year to tweak the IMCR and if you take a look in LASORS for 2008 you will see they are pretty good enhancements to move towards improving the standards. This work was also put towards the EASA as a recommendation for retaining the IMCR. Our group was a combined industry and CAA group.

The IMCR is a rating created by the late Ron Campbell in the mid 70's for AOPA. So it has not been around the 40 and 50 years people are spouting off on here. How can you be taken seriously at representing this when you have not even done your research on the background of the rating?????

His wife still represents IAOPA at EASA on flight crew licensing.

As Fuji points out holding an IMCR does indeed qualify you to fly on instruments. HOWEVER the CAA's view is that it qualifies you for limited exposure time on instruments NOT the lengthy times that an IR holder trains for. There are some IMCR holders who will go out and continuously train after the IMCR to reach the standards required for extended IMCR flight (an IR by DIY means?) but the average IMCR holder will do not further training after the initial rating. Most IMCR holders keep them as the bragging card in the club house to be able to claim they are an 'instrument' pilot'.

Whilst we can argue that there is a great safety case for the IMCR as has been pointed out there has never been an accident involving a CURRENT IMCR holder, there have been quite a few involving EXPIRED IMCR holders though. Playing devils advocate we can turn it around and ask what all of the people who don't hold IMCR's do? Perhaps we could argue that either the IMCR allows/encourages people to go flying in more marginal conditions or that actually it is a 'badge' and is not used by as many as who actually claim?

I have flown this morning, 8000m FEW1200ft, BKN1900 170/14kts RAIN a perfect flying day for those with an IMCR yet I heard no one else airborne. This is the same pretty much on every other crappy day that I go flying(and there are rather a lot of them).

So I am curious, lets have a few postings of those flights that poster on here with an IMCR (IO540 you are banned from response!) have actually used there IMCR for in 'battle' over the last 6 months and what they have done to retain currency. I am interested only in IMCR holders not FAA pilots with an IMCR on the back of a proper IR.

While this may well be true, it is a badge worth having, just as some swimming "personal survival" badge is...you have it, but hope you never need it to some ;)

Actually, when I did the IR back in 2002, I rememebr thinking that after 15 hours I felt that there was NO WAY I'd venture into the clag on my own. After 45 or so I felt reasonably confident but still pretty nervous. The day after my mate got his IR we flew to stay with my brother-in-law in San Diego. The next day my mate had a date with the "fuel girl" up in LA and in typical fashion the weather was !!!!e. Down to minimums, frontal weather,rain, wind, you name it. He went and I bottled out :O He made it alive, and the fuel girl stood him up :} Still, it showed that his training prepared him for the flight, but he didn't mind admitting that he was shi++ing himself at times, and you can imagine that had something gone wrong it could be a receipie for disaster.

However, 5 years on it is a different matter. We know when NOT to fly, and when it is safe to do so. Our envelopes have also opened up so we WILL fly in worse weather but only if it is safe.

The same can be said of the IMCr. After 15 hours, no one is competent to fly "IFR" as in the airways, on a long cross country IMHO. However, these same IMCr pilots after XX hours "actual" are probably as safe as many IR pilots and probably safer than many, they just don't have the paperwork.

That is my view of the IMCr....a worthwhile rating which if used as a get out of jail free card, may just save your bacon. If used as a "mini" IR then this is ok so long as the experience is there to back up the lack of paperwork....if you get my drift.

Bose-X

I think you hit the nail on the head in that the IMCR is used by some as a get out of jail free card and by others to make it more parctical to use the aircraft for transport while unable to find the commitment to do a full IR. I see nothing wrong with either attitude and they both add to safety in my view. One can survive getting caught out, the other can go in less friendly conditions than he could otherwise.

I see IMCR as to some degree a stepping stone to IR (rightly or wrongly) and was taught by a very professional lady (now a captain for Flybe) and examined by a training captain from a well known airline. I'm revalidated by an FAA/JAA IR examiner who is pretty stern.

I can fly approaches with confidence and fly in solid IMC under IFR outside controlled airspace fairly regularly.

I now have (I hope) the time to pursue an IR and I am going to sign up for groundschool at CATS I will then use it in anger whenever I can in my lowly Archer2 and maybe sell the Archer and buy a share in something a bit beefier.

So I am curious, lets have a few postings of those flights that poster on here with an IMCR (IO540 you are banned from response!) have actually used there IMCR for in 'battle' over the last 6 months and what they have done to retain currency. I am interested only in IMCR holders not FAA pilots with an IMCR on the back of a proper IR.

This kind of survey (attempted by so many) unfortunately means nothing, without looking into what people fly (aircraft/equipment) and what kind of access arrangements they have, and of course time/money budgets. THAT is the biggest limiting factor in pilot currency, not what kind of piece of paper they collected yonks ago.

I don't recall learning anything of relevance to actual instrument flight in the IR. But that could be because I had ~ 600hrs and about 100hrs IMC time (no AP) by the time I did it. Everything needed to fly Euro airways could easily be contained in a slightly modified IMCR syllabus. More than 15hrs would be needed but that's true for the IMCR in practice too.

The challenge would be finding instructors who can teach it out of personal experience (basically, no ATPL hour builders) and the punters would need to be wealthier too because once you starting doing real instrument flight from A to B it will get much more fun but rather expensive.

BTW there is no such thing as accurate flying of an NDB approach. Well, you could fly it accurately as far as the ADF instrument indication is concerned, but where the plane will actually be is another matter ;)

I rarely file Eurocontrol over the UK and just fly on what might be the privileges of the IMCR, Class G. Keeping current is not a problem - one just has to get out there when one can. In this weather it's very hard unless one is unemployed or doesn't have to work for some other reason, yet can still afford to fly. Yesterday was a perfect flying day but that was a rare break.

I am not holding a survey IO, I am asking for real recent experience of people actually using the IMCR not just comments about how all good they are at it. Real flights like this week I flew to south end in a XXX the weather was xxx the approach was XXX and I flew XXX time on the clocks.
I am interested in the responses nothing more sinister than that. So come on all give me real flights and the reasons for them.
I am the only one who flew from our place this morning, the tea shack full of people with IMCR drinking coffee and talking about flying but not actually doing any.
And:
There is such a thing as an accurately flown NDB, how do you think all of us got through our IR's? +-5 degrees from the centerline as well as accurate NDB holds. It is not difficult just takes a fair bit of practice.
Your comment about finding nothing difficult on the iR just proves what I was saying!!
I fly airways in the UK whenever possible. I am below 2 ton and I have an IR so why not?


All badges are worth having otherwise there would be no point in them.......;)

I'll try and satisfy a little of Bose X curiosity.
Two relatively recent examples from me:
Kemble Fowlmere:
Routine VFR flight until the fog rolled up from the South, Fowlmere not accessible. Cambridge ATIS pretty marginal nonetheless upgraded to IFR and flew the Cambridge ILS down to 500ft AGL with no sign of runway lights(my personal view is that I'll take the recommended advice notwithstanding my level of practice or the legalities). Considered another go but the fog was still heading North so I decided to divert to Conington while I still could.
Alderney Kemble
Forecast at destination 6000 broken at 1200 which is above circuit height. Origin broken at 1500 9999
So I fly SVFR to 50N, IFR in class G to Kemble with services from Bournemouth Boscombe and Brize/Lyneham (thank you one and all v professional as always).
Arrive over head in weather rather worse than planned. Cloud base reported below 1000 in heavy rain, but ground visible through broken cloud. Options available divert to Filton/Bristol and take ILS approach or have a go into Kemble.
In the event I got more or less clear of cloud into pretty good visibility overhead the field at my decision height (900 ft agl ) flew a 600 ft bad weather circuit and landed without drama.
I also fly regular routine flights through Brize class d at 3000ft IFR in IMC to keep above their heavies en route Kemble and elsewhere and they merrily vector me all over the place if they need to, but always apologise afterwards:ok:.

I should have added that I've also flown practice ILS into Cambridge and Cranfield in living memory with safety pilot.

Just to point out a small point;

The amount of NDB training completed in the UK for the IR is not done because of a requirement to complete such extended NDB training. It is done because there is a requirement to practice NDB tracking and there is also a requirement to complete training in use of the single pointer i.e. the RMI or RBI.

Much of the single pointer training with the RMI and indeed the elements of the test that require such flying can be completed by using a VOR and the RMI pointer.

Problem is that the UK has far more NDBs at airfields than VORs.

Regards,

DFC

Bose

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=263216

Interesting. Perhaps Mr Pilcher has it wrong then? Any one know any more?


Well, at least that has answered one question that has been really worrying me. I am compelled to say you have no understading of the intention behind the IMCr do you?

Bose-X happy to oblige, but please don't quote me on any illegal bits ! :eek:

Nov Trip to Le Touquet , overnight then on to Rouen, and return to base on day 3. At least two hours of this was in IMC (zero viz), and the same again VFR on top. (all IMC in UK FIR only :}). Planned arrival at LFAT was with cloud break over sea and then final leg at low level.

Nov Bristol Filton from London area base. ILS arrival at Filton. NDB cloud break on return to base day 2. 80% of both legs were solid IMC. Interestingly on return flight from Bristol after signing off with Benson we free-called Farnborough who were so busy providing a single SRA that there was no capacity to provide any service to us ! Incidentally we always try to get a radar service in clag and squawk Mode S at all times.

Oct Overnight to private strip in Norfolk. Great weather up there but cloud from 800' up to 8000' around London. Luton provided a terrific service all the way around London TMA at 2400' (from Maidenhead area). Shot out of cloud just north east of Stansted.

Oct Business trip to Guernsey. Again 800' base. IMC over Farnborough, climbed on top by Isle of Wight at 6000'. Descended into Jersey Zone breaking out at 3000' in time for SVFR, but carried on with ILS for practice.

I won't bore everyone with more detail but other destinations have been Hungary (Gyor) stopping half way in Germany (Speyer). Western Isles (Islay, , Oban, Plockton, Glenforsa . . strongly recommend the Glenforsa log cabin hotel on the grass strip with pilot owner, Brendan Walsh!), Scilly Isles, Bodmin, Exeter, Roserrow, Jersey, Deauville, St Malo (Dinard), Friedrichshafen for the Aero (but that was April). What all these trips have in common is a high percentage of IMC. Without the IMC rating then all of these would not have been possible unless I had zero time constraints (which I don't).

Our aircraft is well equipped with mode S, Garmin 530 with terrain, Stormscope, RadAlt, ADF, VOR, DME, HSI, twin horizons, handheld Garmin 496. There is no autopilot, and this suits me fine as every trip counts as 'real' training. We fly GPS as primary and cross check to VORs/NDBs. We never fly above 12,000' so airways and IFR routing is not a realistic option for us (even if we were to obtain IRs)

We have registered the aircraft with several RAF stations so regularly practice ILSs and PARs with them (in fact if the entire panel went blank then I would feel comfortable flying on the 496 as sole navigation and 'instrument panel' and doing a PAR into Benson on the iCom handheld!).

One personal preference I have adopted is to avoid single pilot IMC without autopilot. I have done a fair amount of it but find the workload is too high to have 'fun' (which is what it's all about for me). Trying to note down and change the transponder code in reasonably strong turbulence , along with everything else, certainly does get my full attention.:ooh:

So for us (there is one other similar minded guy in the group) the loss of the IMC rating would be a disaster. No doubt we would have to get IRs but, and I may be wrong about this, I see so much of that syllabus as being irrelevant to our typical flying profile.

Bose-X . . . . I look forward to meeting you up there some time on a suitably horrible claggy day ! :) I'm relying on you to have the TCAS kit :}

It is rare that I find myself agreeing with BOSE on this forum, but he has made an excellent point.

Whilst unlike BOSE I think that the IMC rating is an excellent qualification and whilst I would dispute BOSE's claim that training for the rating is sub standard; the ability to fly on instruments, just like any other skill, degrades if it isn't practiced regularly.

The FAA IR has a rolling currency requirement. For those unfamiliar, the FAA require you to have logged six instrument approaches which include a hold, an intercept and VOR tracking within the preceeding six months in order for you to exercise instrument privilliges. A change to the IMC rating incorporating something like this, probably wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Rare indeed, but I agree.

IO540, you are correct, I agree 100%..... I'm not questioning the IMC rating, as I said, it should be mandatory for a PPL issue in my opinion, great rating and as many have been quick to point out very safe. Let's not forget the title of this thread! It's not about IR vs IMC although I got sidetracked, it's about people venting anger that the french won't let them fly instruments in their airspace with an IMC.....WHY SHOULD THEY?? IT'S NOT AN IR, IT'S A UK ONLY QUALIFICATION!!! :ugh:

Englishal I agree with most of your points . . . . but not the one above ! Pilots who hold the 'badge' but don't maintain currency are best to avoid IMC at all costs. I may be a particularly poor example, but I find my instrument skills decay at an alarming rate. Just six weeks is enough to go off the boil. If I left it three months, say, then I would no longer regard myself as 'rated' and would do at least an hours sortie with a current mate to get back in the saddle.

This view is supported by Bose's comment (I think it was) that there are a fair number of accidents involving expired IMCrs. This is the worst of all worlds - you think you can do it but the reality is different.

I therefore guess I am agreeing with Bose and Julian Storey that the best way around this is to adopt the rolling currency solution. However, I prefer the self imposed method rather than a statutory licensing requirement !

Out of interest, what is everyones' view on the number of IMC rated pilots who are, in a practical sense, current? i.e regular IMC, or at least 4 hours a year and one flight in the last three months (which must be about as minimal as you could get to be current, wouldn't you say?) My guess is that only about 25% maintain it while the rest see it as a badge. I may be over optimistic in this assessment !

I agree completely.

There is absolutely no reason at all why the French should allow people with a non ICAO, UK IMC qualification fly on instruments in THEIR airspace.

What I find objectionable, is that the folk at EASA would seek to prevent people with a perfectly adequate, UK issued IMC rating from flying on instruments in UK airspace.

There is absolutely no reason at all why the French should allow people with a non ICAO, UK IMC qualification fly on instruments in THEIR airspace.

I wouldnt bang on about that too much.

They dont allow people to fly in their airspace even with an ICAO rating - it has to be of the correct grade as well.