PPL IR towards CPL IR

[jxc]

Hi
If i get a PPL IR and then go on in the future to do cpl ATPL's what will the IR I got during my ppl counts towards Commercial IR including exams ?


Cheers

JXC

[Shunter]

An IR is a rating, not a license. It's exactly the same as the IR you would attach to a CPL, so if you do your PPL first, then get an IR, when you subsequently do the CPL (which is reduced to 15hrs flying for an IR holder) it will automatically come back with the IR on it. If, during your PPL, you did a single-engine IR, you would have to retest in a multi as and when you required it.

IR exams do not credit towards ATPL exams (apart from IFR Comms, the 'joke' exam). They're a slightly different syllabus, more europe-centric. As far as numbers go the IR course has 7 exams and the ATPL has 14. Depends what you want your IR for really as to whether it's worthwhile potentially having to resit a load of almost identical exams. For most intents and purposes, an UK IMC rating is as good as an IR if you don't want to fly abroad or in Class A. The IR elite like to slag off the IMC rating, but it's hugely more accessible than the IR, lets you shoot approaches down to 200ft just like an IR and permits IFR and 3km SVFR in Class D. Plus it's valid for 2 years instead of 1. Whilst there are also rumours of its long term survival, it won't be disappearing for years to come yet.

[portsharbourflyer]

Shunter, an IMC does not allow you to shoot approaches down to the same minima as an IR holder.

An IMC holder should add 200 ft to the published DH, MDH to obtain their personal minima and also consider the absolute minimas for an IMC holder are 500 ft DH and 600 ft MDH.

[Shunter]

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.

YOU CAN SHOOT APPROACHES TO 200ft (300ft NP) WITH AN IMC RATING.

There is an ADVISORY for an IMC holder to add extra height, but IT IS NOT LAW. So many people misunderstand this. Please get your facts right. It's all in print in the AIP/ANO. I also have it in writing from the CAA.

Regards,
Shunter
Shooting precision approaches to <300ft perfectly legally with an IMC rating since 2006

3.3.2.1 Pilots with a valid Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Rating are recommended to add 200 ft to the minimum
applicable DH/MDH, but with absolute minima of 500 ft for a precision approach and 600 ft for a non-precision approach. The UK IMC
Rating may not be valid outside UK territorial airspace, therefore IMC Rated pilots should check the validity of their rating for the State
in which they intend to fly. If the rating is not valid pilots must comply with the basic licence privileges, subject to the regulations of that
State.

[helimutt]

Shunter, I would actually disagree with you based on what you've highlighted. It states 'but with absolute' minima. Now I would take it that the 'absolute' minima is just exactly that??
As I hold an IR and never held an IMC rating, i'm interested to find the exact legal standpoint. Is it a recommendation to add 200' 'but' with proviso that there is an absolute?

[portsharbourflyer]

Let me clarify for everyone.

Take Bournemouth or any other airport at Sea level, DA is approx 230 ft, ie: 200 above the runway threshhold ht of 30 ft, so if you hold an IR your decision altitude is 230 ft (DH 200ft). If you hold an IMC the recommedation is to add 200 ft, this therefore gives a DA of 430 ft (DH of 400), however this is below the absoute minima of 500 ft, therefore for an IMC holder the DH is 500 ft.

Therefore an IMC holder is not entitled to fly to the same minima as an IR holder.

[Walk the line]

Shunter, I hope the CAA don't read PPRUNE-you've been breaking the law "flying down to minimum for years"

[jxc]

Basically I cant make up my mind as to whether go for the cpl ATPL's etc and go for a career being 36 in August ( not even going to start that the am i to old bit !! )

If i decide not to go commercial I want to have the freedom of more flying and lots of european travel as my business is abroad in eastern Europe . If i have a UK JAA ppl could I get the IR abroad in another JAA state ?



Cheers

[Adios]

I think they'd have to catch him in the act to write him up. They know to be on the lookout now though.

[portsharbourflyer]

Jxc,

If you did the FAA IR, you could then with an N registered aircraft still fly in the airways to Europe. I know the DOT were trying to clamp down on N reg aircraft based in the UK but to my knowledge this hasn't happened. If you did then wish to go commercial the FAA IR can be converted by then taking the relevant JAA exams, 15 hours additional training and skills test.

In answer to your question you could do your IR in another European state, there seems to be enough people doing IRs in Spain (another thread regarding standards).

[Cobalt]

Originally Posted by jcx

Basically I cant make up my mind as to whether go for the cpl ATPL's etc and go for a career being 36 in August ( not even going to start that the am i to old bit !! )

I wanted the IR for my personal flying and I wanted a CPL for potential instructing later as I would never instruct for free, and compared to what I see others do in their IR exams it was a LOT more. And with EASA I might not need the CPL after all in a few years time, ho hum.

So unless you have some certainty you want an airline career, I wouldn't bother.

If i decide not to go commercial I want to have the freedom of more flying and lots of european travel as my business is abroad in eastern Europe.

Only if your business is doing well and you can afford AT LEAST a very fast single (SR22 turbo, newer turbo Mooney, Columbia (sorry, Cessna) 400, Mailbu) with L/R tanks. You will have 700+ NM / 4hr+ sectors to get to somewhere like Gdansk, in Poland and if your destination isn't close to a major airport you will be faster than using an airliner.

One class below these machines might do it (TB20/21, Saratoga, etc.) but will add a good hour to these trips.

If you want any dispatch reliability, you will need turbo and oxygen (portable ok) to get above the weather and for higher cruise speeds, de-icing and a stormscope, too. And nerves of steel doing all that in a single, some might say.

And some might say >500NM you should consider a turboprop. Cost wise, the sky is the limit.

[VLJ01]

Eclipse 500

If your business is doing extremely well buy an Eclispe 500 and get an IR

[Shunter]

I suggest you lot get back to the books and get your facts right. This has been done to death over and over again. It is absolutely legal to fly to the same minima as an IR holder. The AIP/ANO says so, the CAA say so, and I flew to 250ft with screens on my initial skills test because the examiner also says so. The 500/600ft minima are RECOMMENDATIONS.

I couldn't give a toss if the CAA read PPRuNe, because I (and many others) are doing nothing wrong whatsoever. I've sat down over tea and biscuits at Gatwick AND ASKED THEM. This is commonly misunderstood by many pilots, and even some instructors. Ask your CFI next time you're in (assuming you do actually fly real planes of course). I will entirely agree in that flying minima approaches if you're not both CURRENT and COMPETENT is stupidity itself, but what it certainly is not is illegal.

[pondlife]

Viz

My interpretation has been same as Shunter regarding MDA and DH minima. Legally they are the same for an IMC and an IR holder.

Unless it's changed recently there is an in flight viz difference though.
An IMC holder requires a viz of 1800m below cloud for landing, an IR holder does not.

[Walk the line]

Well Id rather fly on an actual IR, that involves an actual IR Course of 55hrs! I guess it doesn't matter-you would breaking the law in any country other than the UK. My understanding was the 500/600 rule supersedes the 200 feet recommendation which should be added on if the total doesn't equal 500/600. I don't agree that the privileges should be, or indeed are the same.

[Keygrip]

My 2p.

I used to disagree with Shunters interpretation - until I specifically asked a senior inspector (that I've known and respected for many years) at the Ministry of Planes and was told quite categorically that the minima ARE THE SAME.

IMC to 200'.

Now, I'm not saying I would advocate doing it - but it's legal.

Shunter is correct.

[Shunter]

Well Id rather fly on an actual IR

What difference does it make (assuming UK-only flying of course, and the other IMC restrictions)? Obviously if you're going pro, IR is obligatory, but as far as general flight safety goes, I know IMC pilots with hundreds of hours experience who can wipe the floor with newbie IR holders. Then again I also know IMC rated pilots who are an absolute liability, so swings and roundabouts. The key is currency and knowing your limits, regardless of rating. I'd rather fly with a current IMC pilot than an IR holder who's done nowt for 11 months since his last renewal. Instrument flying is very much "use it or lose it".

I've had an IMC for some time, and recently got an IR. The latter is more difficult, of course it is, but your implication that you can't safely and competently fly to specific minima on the former is absolute tosh I'm afraid.

[Walk the line]

You are very right, any pilot should know his/her limits-I'm sure there are many competent IMC pilots who could fly safer than IR pilots! But, I think there are more idiotic liabilities within IMC circles than within full IR circles. My understanding is that the IMC is very much a "just in case I need to get out of trouble rating" and not one that private pilots routinely use under IMC to get from A to B!

[Shunter]

You're right of course, the IMC requires a lot less training than the IR so it stands to reason that the average skill level of an IMR holder is going to be less than that of an IR holder. A minimum of 15hrs, although many take far more. Sure, the average IMC holder isn't going to do so well if he suddenly has to figure out the correct join for a VOR/DME fix holding pattern for example, but then he's almost certainly never going to need to, that's why it's not in the syllabus.

What he will however be able to do it take off in BKN040 2000, fly a SID, pop through the clouds, fly on top using whatever beacons are available to him, then descend at destination (also BKN040 2000) and fly an IAP to a safe landing.

Seems to me the only people who regard it as a "get out of trouble rating" are those who don't have one! Of the IMC holders I know I'd say more than 50% have used it to the limits of the conferred privileges, but all of them use it regularly to some extent and none of them would regard it as a "get you out of trouble" rating.

[portsharbourflyer]

Fair enough Shunter it appears you are correct, however I have no guilt about misadvising any of the IMC holders when I was a sole instructor at a registered facility, as the advise I gave at least was on the side of caution.

Also the 1800 m visibility requirement can makes quite a difference to the probability of landing after descending to minima. Yes you can get a two hundred foot cloud base with 1800m viz below cloud, but more than often fog or heavy rain will limit horizontal viz meaning that on occasions that you are descending to the minima the viz is more likely than not to be below 1800m (hence the recommendations for higher DA/MDH for an IMC holder). It is rare you get situations right down to minima anyway, so the recommended minima are going to be sufficient on most occasions you need to use your IMC.

That said I will agree a current PPL/IMC holder is safer than a CPL/IR who hasn't flown for a year. However I will say the phasing out of the IMC becasuse of EASA regs is certainly a backward step with regard to safety.

It was better pilots received some kind of instrument training than none at all. Most students will take 25 hours to complete an IMC rather than 15.