Using the IMC abroad..
 

Hi all,

I know that the IMCr is only a UK rating – however.. I would be interested to hear how people with this rating deal with certain situations when travelling outside the UK

You check the weather for your destination – say some airport just outside of Paris (any good recommendations would be appreciated as well for my June 11th trip) and the forecast is for scattered cloud at 2500 or something. You decide to go – yet approaching Paris it is clear that the cloud has got thicker and that in order to land you will need to descend through cloud (no holes immediately visible)

As I am new to it – perhaps my assumptions are wrong?

Am I right in thinking that you can only fly above cloud outside of the UK only as long as you are in the sight of the surface (i.e some hole somewhere that lets you see the ground)? Or can you fly above cloud irrespective of being insight of the ground?

Either way you are not allowed to climb through or descend through cloud or to fly an approach as you don’t hold an IR? And that you are not allowed a traffic service as you are not IR and you have not filled an IFR plan?

If these are correct – how do people deal with the above situation?

Are you just meant to look for a hole? Turn around and go home? Or do people just let down through the cloud regardless while tracking a certain route/VOR knowing that you will come out at a safe height to land visually? Would it ever be acceptable to fly the published approach? Or only under an emergency?

I don’t ask to see where I can bend the rules – I am not looking to do more than I am allowed – I am just trying to think ahead to the inevitable day when this situation presents itself

Any advice, experiences, would be much appreciated

Thanks in advance – Nick

If you have an IMC, it generally has two benefits:

1. It lifts certain restrictions that are placed on your vanilla UK PPL, including the "in sight surface" restriction.
2. It gives you the ability to fly in IMC conditions, outside controlled airspace.

Item 1 applies worldwide, but item 2 is UK-only.

So outside the UK you have to fly in VMC conditions. Those VMC conditions limits are defined on a per-country and per-airspace class (A-G) basis. But I'm not aware of any VMC condition in any class anywhere that allows you to fly in cloud. So any kind of cloud flying is forbidden. Also, mind that certain classes of airspace in some countries have an "in sight surface" requirement attached. In that case you still have to follow that requirement even though that requirement is lifted from your license.

So to descend through a cloud layer you have to find a hole. A hole which is actually big enough to satisfy the VMC conditions with regards to cloud clearance: Just the width of your wings may not satisfy VMC conditions unless those limits are just stated as 'clear of cloud'.

Or you rely on a bit of common sense and the fact that it'll be extremely hard for a prosecutor to successfully prosecute you for not maintaining VMC. (So don't put your "marginal VMC" flight on Youtube...)

An IMCR substantially expands your ability to do VFR flights abroad, because you can fly and navigate in lower vis, fly and navigate above an overcast, and you can penetrate IMC if this is necessary. In an emergency situation you can fly an IAP also, because you know how.

It makes you a much more confident pilot. Almost no really long VFR trip is possible as 100% totally clear of any cloud whatsoever. Well, it is possible if you are a permanent retired pilot with plenty of time :)

I would still be really careful to avoid ending up looking like a d1ck at the destination, because if the wx is OVC002 and you call up "VFR inbound" at 5000ft overhead, it is kind of obvious.... but enroute is a different thing.

The IMCR will not help you with a departure from a non-UK towered airport because they have VMC/VFR minima e.g. 1500ft cloudbase so if it is BKN009 you are stuck there no matter what. That actually happens quite often to VFR pilots.

"In sight of surface" is unenforceable and meaningless - assuming you are technically capable.

BTW the IMCR allows IFR in Class D,E,F,G in UK airspace, not just Class F,G.

There is an old quote from "bookworm" describing a few worldwide differences, clearly contradicting point 1.

From studying for the Belgian Air Law exam, I seem to remember that VFR above a cloud layer in Belgium was prohibited. In France, by day, it certainly is allowed and is stated explicitly in my "Manuel de Pilote Privé" which I bought for the inevitable small French airfield A/A and local regs.

As none of the countries outside the UK recognise the IMCR, I doubt very much that it would be of any use for the objectives you mentioned.

Also, in regards to "declaring an emergency" there was an interesting incident about a year and a half ago with a Dutch IFR rated pilot asking for an IFR clearance when getting above a cloud layer and Bremen Control (manned by an inexperienced stressed young lady) refusing first and arguing until the pilot in desperation declared an emergency to obtain his clearance. This then escalated into a full blown LBA-investigation and enforcement action, questioning pilots in the surroundings etc...

So don't try this above Germany :E

Hope this helps,

PP

PP, do you have a *UK issued* JAR-FCL compliant PPL?

This is taken straight from the ANO, which is the law governing anything that has to do with UK-issued PPLs:

These are restrictions on the *license*. They apply worldwide unless the applicable condition (IR or IMC) is met. So the holder of a UK-issued (JAR-FCL or national) PPL may not fly out of sight of the surface UNLESS he holds an IMC or IR. Period. And yes, this is not entirely according to JAR-FCL. So this *license* restriction is lifted (or replaced by something else) if you trade in your UK-issued license for another countries license.

Now IF said PPL holder also holds the IMC or IR, the *license restriction* is lifted. But there may still be *airspace restrictions* or other restrictions in place that required him from flying out of sight of the surface. These restrictions may be buried in the VMC minima that are defined for the various classes of airspace (A-G) or elsewhere. That's what bookworks quote is about.

(Edited: The ANO section quoted is about old-style UK licenses. But the section on JAR-FCL licenses is essentially the same and has the same restrictions.)

Which is pretty much true for all VFR minima enforcement. 1500m horizontally from cloud? Not even P3 Orion full of the Royal Navy's most high tech equip could measure that with any accuracy.

Read this carefully.

If you fly a lot and actually go places you will do well at some point not too come a little unstuck with the weather.

The key is that the IMCr doesnt know where you are and doesnt care, and you know how to get yourself out of trouble.

Obvioulsy you never set out to abuse your priviliges and obviously you will think carefully should the need arise, but it is good to know that if all else fails "in an emergency situation" you can get yourself down, just as well as you could in the UK.

Wot he said.

Not quite...

What I meant, of course, was that there may be other restrictions in place that *forbid* him from flying out of sight of the surface.

:ugh:

ANO Schedule 7 Part Bso how does this apply outside the UK?

It doesn't.

The bit of the IMCR which applies outside the UK is the removal of the UK-issued PPL to be in sight of surface for VFR.

Far be it for me to argue with you, Whopity :)

Indeed, but there is a subtle difference between going somewhere if

- IMC (or low vis) will kill you
- IMC (or low vis) won't kill you

You could be flying over the Channel on a hazy day and you see absolutely zilch. It is just like IMC. But 100% legal VFR. You can even see the water surface if you look straight down.

So instrument capability, even if not legal, is worth a huge amount - because VFR license privileges are impossible to fully explore on the basic PPL training one gets.

Pre-IR, I used to plan my long cross-Europe VFR trips very carefully, to make sure I would never make a fool of myself.

My only reflection on those long trips (all the way to Crete) is that I had much better weather back then. Since I got the IR, the weather has been much worse :)

Yes, exactly and I think you are reading between the lines.

To be blunt, if you go places you WILL get caught out by the weather sometime be it your example or something else. I know you know that!

So you will use your IMCr in earnest and be pleased your skills are current and ready.

Some may be even more "cavalier" and if some are to be believed this is as true of us and our European cousins.

To this day I still recall an afternoon at a well kown destination in France when conditions became distinctly IMC. I dont think there was one other IR or valid IMCr holder in the airport on that day but I can guarantee you there werent any aircraft left on the tarmac either. ;)

They do what the French do - lie and say they're in VMC.

The restriction in question is in Schedule 7 Part A:

Section 1 – United Kingdom Licences
Sub-Section 1 AEROPLANE PILOTS
Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
(2) The holder may not:
...
(c) unless the licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an instrument
meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command of such an
aeroplane:
...
(iii) out of sight of the surface;

Similar for the JAR-FCL version.

You are the commander of the aircraft and responsable for the safety of your aircraft and its pax.

As such your decisions relating to the above overide any other laws.
Should you with an IMCR rating and with the skills and currency to boot inadvertantly get into an IMC condition where you deem your SAFEST option is to take an instrument approach then do it and argue the situation on the ground.

As long as you explain to ATC your predicament and intentions I cannot see how legally you could have the book thrown at you.

The situation can occur with N v G reg. Pilot X flies his Cirrus SR22 to a french location. He flies IFR and lands off an instrument approach with overcast 300 feet in his N reg Cirrus with aN FAA PPL IR.

Next day Pilot X with a Basic European licence flies the same trip but VFR in the same aircraft type but G reg.
A front moves in much faster than forecast (it does happen and Pilot X is trapped from behind and infront.
Now his destination 25 miles ahead is 300 overcast what does he do?
It is pretty obvious that anything less than flying an IFR approach is risking his aircraft and the lives of those on board.

Douglas Bader quote " Rules are for fools to obey and wisemen to question".

As Captain do whatever you consider is your safest option for the flight and argue it later. You cannot argue from a coffin just because you stuck to the rules.

To takeoff knowing your conditions at the other end are likely to be IMC and then take an instrument approach then you will be in trouble legally if anyone cottons on.

Addendum

Rules should be in place to protect us from ourselves and to make flying safer as such we should try to keep to them.

Sadly EASA a supposed safety body has shown this NOT to be the case.Their regulations are more and more politically motivated and less and less safety orientated GO FIGURE?

Pace

Hello!

Yes, but really only in an emergency. Like in your deteriorating weather example. In all other cases, you as the commander must base your decisions on the laws in force.

I personally know of several cases here in Germany where continuing flight into adverse weather conditions by non IFR-rated (but obviously capable) pilots has resulted in accusations of "endagering the safety of an aeroplane and its occupants in grossly negligent manner". The prosecutors/authorities have won every time.

It is also the Captains position to stop a potential emergency situation arising.

The key here is to explain to ATC your predicament and your intentions.
To mislead ATC that you hold ratings that you dont or to say little when you have safer options available than taking an instrument approach will proabably result in a prosection.

But to have it recorded that you have entered adverse weather that you hold an IUK MCR rating and on the grounds of safety you would like vectors onto the XYZ ILS ???

The French who have no IMCR have a bad VFR fatality rate. Hence there is a move in France to push through an FAA style french PPL IR.

As EASA continue down their politically motivated regulation path and fail to follow their SAFETY mandate I can see more successful challenges in the courts based on safety against EASA.

I maybe wrong but regarding FAA IR v JAA IR I do not think there has been a prosecution against an FAA IR flying a JAA aircraft IFR?

Pace

There's an old saying "it's always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

You are a fool and deserve to have the book flown at you if, outside the UK, you deliberately plan to fly IMC on an IMC rating.

You are an even bigger fool if you get into a situation that you didn't expect, and you don't use IMC training to get you out of trouble if that is the solution which puts the aircraft and its occupants least in harms way. If you get prosecuted for this, tell the truth and let the local legal system do its worse - you'll still be alive to take the punishment, but the odds are any sensible legal system will not be particularly severe anyhow.

G

I have been caught twice by worse than expected weather in Germany while an IMCR holder in both cases the safest course of action was to climb into IMC and seek a diversion to a VFR field which was organised with little or no drama. I wasn't even asked if I had a problem, so I suspect it's not that uncommon.

Similarly in France low cloud rolled in and screwed up my planned route royally. That time I was actually VFR on top and again with ATC help found a suitable alternative plan, though they had to work at it before we finally ended with Toussus le Noble as an alternative stop to Troyes.:p

Speaking very much from personal experience, I'd caution IMC holders to think very carefully before planning an international flight in dubious weather conditions. It's terribly easy to be tempted into pressing on and once the trap is sprung, you can very quickly run out of options.

I learned this the hard way and was lucky to escape with my life. Not being prosecuted & getting to keep my licence was an unexpected bonus.

That seems to be a very German thing.

What exactly were the circumstances? Except in obvious cases, like departing VFR into an ATC-assessed OVC002 (and bear in mind and doing so into OVC006 would be prob99 legal in UK Class G because you can fly at 500ft AGL), only the pilot can know his actual flight conditions.

The FAA has also successfuly prosecuted pilots for "VFR in IMC" but only in such obvious near-airport cases.

Maybe the German accused just pleaded guilty, like a good citizen should :)

Can you describe what happened?

Legalities aside, IMC is the same in the UK as France etc. There is no obvious reason why you should get killed in France (e.g.) and not doing the same thing in the UK.

I would not suggest somebody embarking on an obviously illegal flight, on the basis of the IMCR, but that is a different line to saying that somebody might get killed when using the privilege abroad.

Hello!

Of several cases I know of, here are two very different ones as examples:

a) One is an instructor colleague who at that time had no IFR rating but was quite proficient at instrument flying. He was on a VFR flight with a passenger and pressed on through clouds, knowing (or hoping?) that his destination was VMC. In the cloud they experienced severe icing, had to declare an emergency and were vectored onto the ILS of an international airport nearby.

b) The other one is a training captain at a large airline who was flying privately with a helicopter. He had promised the flight to some relatives who were on a tight schedule and took off despite a thin layer of low stratus that had already started to dissolve. The tower controller who knew that the type of helicopter was not cleared for instrument flying immediately reported the incident and again the pilot was met by some officials right after touchdown.

In both these cases they did. Because you are usually given two options:

1. Go to court. In case you lose you have a criminal record, "endangering the safety of an aeroplane" being a criminal offense. Not a good thing for any pilot and most certainly the end of the career of an airline pilot.
2. Plead guilty, accept a fine at the discretion of the aviation authority and have the criminal charges dropped.
Which option would you chose - good citizen or not? (BTW: I once infringed a miltary zone during aerial work (an offense even worse than flying IFR without a rating) and very gladly accepted option 2 without even asking what the fine would be or what my chances would have been to win the court case...)

Regards, max

NB: Anonther instructor colleague of mine did the same thing as our colleague in example a) above. The exact cause of the accident could never be determined (there were no survivors) but airframe/pitot icing with subsequent loss of control by a pilot not trained for instrument flying seems to be the most probable. Since this accident I really understand the reason behind prosecuting this kind of activity. The pilot can decide for himself, but his unsuspecting passenger(s) deserve to be protected.

Departing knowing your destination will involve an IMC descent is asking for trouble. Such an IMC descent is pretty much guaranted if the forecast is overcast x with no prob relief.

However anything involving a probable VMC on top that becomes less than VMC is going to be tough to argue the toss over should you decide to press on.

Anything involving an arrival with a reasonable prob of broken or scattered is a reasonable departure.

The get out of jail card is to declare an emergency; I cant imagine if you have departed in any of the above circumstances (except the first) a prosecution would be sucessful.

The rating has had no idea whether you are in France or the UK anymore than the fella with an FAA IR is more or less capable of flying an approach in IMC in France in a G reg aircraft (which would of course be illegal). I would love to see a case where this happens and the pilot is brave enough to fight his corner in court.

So let me see, the FAA consider I am qualified to fly the approach, the JAA consider I am qualified to fly the approach if the aircraft has an N on the side, but if I paint a G on the side, all of a sudden I am not long capable. That is a convincing argument - not! Imagine try to persuade a jury they should convict the pilot. I bet the judge would have to do a lot of directing. ;)

Similarity being that 70%mg.bal might get you killed on a sharp bend whilst a bit tired in any of those countries, regardless of the legalities. And in pretty much all cases, being banged up in the local clink for a while is still better than being wrapped around a lamp-post.

We do need I think to separate out:

- Deliberately flying illegally when it wasn't necessary.

- Saving an aircraft from unforseen circumstances, using available equipment and training, and happening to break the law whilst doing so.


Except in very exceptional circumstances, nobody needs to deliberately launch a car with alcohol inside them, or an aeroplane into marginal VMC for which they're not formally qualified.

I can't imagine any jury / magistrate / prosecutor / authority will struggle too much to understand the difference between breaking the law because you believed you'd get away with it, and breaking the law because it was the best way to get safely onto a runway.

I suspect that the difference will be between a mild slap on the wrist, and a hefty fine or short spell in the local clink.

G

Socal i dont disagree, but there is a distinction between your example.

A country may have its own view on a safe alcohol level, and who is to say their view is wrong, and they may have a view that an faa ir does not cut the mustard - and who is to say they are wrong. However to cut the mustard in an identical aircraft distinguished only by the letter on the side is banal. In your example that would mean you would be legal in a car in holland with 10 mg in your blood but change the plates on the car and you would mysteriously be illegal. The faa ir is good enough with a n on the side but not good enough with a g. The imcr is good enough to the fir but 10 feet the other side isnt even though we are meant to all be in the same european boat. Imagine the french refusing to accept a britsh driving licence! Or we a french licence.

The law is the law, but just sometimes it takes brave people to point out the law is an ass. :)

The whole basis of the Chicago Convention, of-course, is based upon the homogenous safety of an aircraft + flight crew licences + ground crew licences + operating procedures combination.

And in 1944, that did make a lot more sense than perhaps it does now when global equipment and training standards are a lot more universal. What makes it even more daft in Europe is JAA and now EASA which has created uinversal standards in many things, but it remains the case that each national authority is still lord of its own airspace.


Instrument flight is probably a latecomer for necessary global convergence. As I understand it, the "vanilla" FAA IR is rather closer to the UK IMC - which since US airliners aren't routinely embarrassing themselves around the world presumably means that there's additional training in the ATPL and/or type rating courses for the airlines. Fair enough.

In the meantime, I learned the other day that Transport Canada has "VFR Over The Top" or VFR-OTT rating, FAA has an IR which is affordable and sensible for a PPL, the UK has the IMC rating which is also affordable and sensible for a PPL... Even the French are now talking about something that looks like an IMC rating.

... we aren't going to change the ICAO convention requirement to match licence with state of registry.

So what we need is an ICAO IR for PPLs that is acknowledged across the world. The right solution to this is probably that the IR in Europe, and I'm sure one or two other places, is trimmed down to the ICAO minimum (which will then look rather like the FAA IR), and additional material needed for the airlines is moved over to type rating training and tests where it really belongs.

Maybe this would be a worthy project for IAOPA?

G

If the Commander of the aircraft decided he was in a situation where his aircraft was in danger then his decisions over ride any laws which are in place.
Following that he could not be found guilty of breaking such a law because as Captain he has the ultimate authority.

He may have broken laws taking him to the point that requires him to overide laws to save his aircraft but that is different.

Here we are talking about a pilot flying VFR who is forced by weather into IMC and decides his best option is to use skills he has to fly an instrument approach.

That is different to knowingly flying outside the legal boundaries of his licence.

N reg V JAA reg? Pilot is qualified to fly IFR but not legal to do so. I would imagine he could not be found guilty of endangering his aircraft and occupants but would be found guilty on technicalities.
Not sure what would happen with insurance etc.

Pace

Genghis i think you will find the faa ir is every bit as hard as our equivalent - some would say "harder" some would say the emphasis has far more to do with real world application. I dont think anyone seriously argues these days there is much between them. In fact the evidence is faa ir holders in europe have a lower accident rate than jaa ir holders. I dont think the cat enviroment is relevant - instrument flying in a multi crew commercial cockpit is very different than single pilot ifr ops. One might say single pilot ops with a six pack and no ap outside cas is as tough as it gets. Some are even currently questioning the instrument skills of certain french atpls at the moment.

In brief, on a flight from the UK to Holland, the knowledge that I was flying illegally once in dutch airspace compromised my decision-making & I then concentrated on trying to cover up what I had done when I should have been asking for help. The knowledge that I could be prosecuted for my actions definitely compounded my earlier bad judgement.

ICAO does "require" mutual acceptance but in practice nearly all countries have washed their hands of it, especially for the IR.

What next your two examples were what I would call "obvious" :) The first man was a fool to fly in potentially icing conditions on a VFR flight plan, and the helicopter man was a fool to do an obviously "license illegal" flight.

IMHO all that you can do in that situation is declare an emergency, tell them you are instrument capable, and ask for an IAP. I doubt anybody is going to make a fuss. If you just carry on, you are very likely to stick out like a sore thumb because the process of requesting an IFR clearance involves a little bit of terminology which an IMCR pilot may not be familiar with. I know people who got away with this kind of thing but they had the right "lingo", as well as the capability. ATC can usually see from a mile away if somebody is pushing things, and while policing is not their job in most of Europe (I am told German ATC are a part of the police) somebody might decide to report it.

"Hard" as in the cost and complexity of obtaining and maintaining it.

If those were as easy for the JAR-IR, then we wouldn't see so many N registered high performance singles and light twins in Europe.

G

Exactly right.

European protectionism and job creation has screwed up safety for decades, and everybody knows it.

Yep, frightening isnt it that in allegedly the most safety conscious business safety is compromised by politics and commercial interest - you couldnt make it up.

Maybe we will get to a point where someone will take EASA to court for endangering the lives of pilots with their rulemaking and political motivations.
You only have to look at the french AS to see how bad they are for French VFR Pilots yet EASA continue to block any practical PPL IR.

Pace

What I should have done was to turn back before the FIR boundary & divert to Luton (it was SRZ airspace in those days & I could have legally flown the approach with an IMC rating). I'd filed a "Y" flightplan with the intention of descending over the North Sea but in deteriorating Wx the London FIR controller asked me if I wished to refile IFR & being a total idiot I just replied "affirm". "G-xx for Amsterdam squawk xxxx maintain 5" and the trap was sprung.

I think in those days (this was the mid 1980's) controllers generally turned a blind eye to the dubious activities of PPLs & in some cases seemed to actively condone it.

My point in posting is that there is often an opportunity to 'rescue' a flight before exceeding the privileges of one's licence &, with the benefit of hindsight, I'd encourage others to do so whenever possible. Having an IMCr may tempt you into places you've no business going - but equally the skills you've acquired in the process might also one day save your life .

Thank you for the replies above

It seems inevitable that if you are allowed to fly above cloud in France that at some point a situation will arise where you need to break cloud in order to land

I guess this will depend on the set of conditions that one places on him or herself before making such a trip

My post was not to see where I can push the boundaries on this – more to see what the correct procedure is should this event occur

An emergency case almost seems more straight forward to me – you just ask for the approach procedure under an emergency and deal with the issues later

The part that I am more concerned about is the grey area, where you are above cloud, the forecast was for broken or scattered at 2500 and on arrival it is solid with no holes, and even though the base is at say 2500, you have to get through (if you are intent on landing). Knowing that the rating doesn’t allow for this, what is the correct procedure?

Thanks for the replies
Nick

And we wonder why the regulators are so anti the rating.............

Maintain VFR and either go back to get under the layer in VMC or divert to somewhere you can land at within your licence and rating privileges. If you can't, declare an emergency. It's black and white. Sorry if I am being dense, but what is "grey" here?

There is nothing special about flying VFR on top that "sort-of-kind-of lets you do a bit of IFR" because inevitably you might need to sometimes. It's just plain vanilla PPL VFR stuff which happens not to be permitted in the UK, but is in many parts of the world, and the majority of the world's PPLs (ie. FAA PPLs) manage fine.

There is a paper here: http://www.pplir.org/images/stories/...t%20review.pdf
that discusses the consequences of pushing "marginal" conditions and flight rules.

Well it is not for the reasons you imagine it to be. ;)

Quote:

---

Maintain VFR and either go back to get under the layer in VMC or divert to somewhere you can land at within your licence and rating privileges. If you can't, declare an emergency. It's black and white. Sorry if I am being dense, but what is "grey" here?

---

If you are following a milk float at 10 miles an hour along a 3 mile stretch of single carriage with double white lines, nothing coming the other way and a clear view, of course the correct thing to do is to stay behind the milk float for 3 miles at 10 mph.

I always remember I got asked that question at the end of my driving test - I told the examiner that obviously the correct answer was to stay behind the float but if it were going that slow and I had a clear view I would overtake - I passed. ;)


I think pilot's are required to display a certain level of intelligence, presence and ability to assess situations. I think that if I arrived at my destination to find a thin overcast, which had been forecast as broken or scattered when I set off with a METAR showing perfect conditions below, I only had an IMCr, and I had done my home work on the MSA I would make a decision based on the facts as presented.

For those reasons I dont understand the point of the presentation to which you link 421C. A pilot with an IMCr or IR is capable of doing some pretty stupid things. The evidence is that an IR doesnt make him any less immune - infact the evidence is that he is far more likely to kill himself.

As others have said rules are terribly important, and on the whole flight safety rules exist to protect us from ourselves, BUT equally as others have said, you are the commander, you are in charge of the flight and there will be times you must make an intelligent assessment of the facts.

FA - I think that is the crux. Weather is fluid, it changes, and in our systems, can change pretty rapidly. The pilot makes hopefully balanced and intelligent decisions, based on past experience and what he knows. Obviously there are times when we get caught out, however, if a pilot has gained, and used his IMCR then that should get him home.

I used to fly long distance VFR, down through France and Spain, and got caught out once. I came home and immedaitely got my IMC plus night. I then used that rating as much as I could - legally.i.e. I still check weather at departure, on route and at destination. If it looks crap, and I do not, or cannot, file an IFR plan I do not go.

In a sense the IMC does not fully fit some conditions, hence I am studying for IR. My decision. The rating has definately made VFR transit for me safer, in that you can go on top, you can descend knowledgeably through or up through layers. Again, where it is legal to do so.