No its not.

Now now FFF, how do you know what we may or may not want to do?;) Besides, if the engine quits at least you can't see what you're going to hit:}

BTW, I thought Manchester was Alpha? Oh and the Channel Islands are Delta :D

By the sounds of it in summary the only difference is that you can't fly along airways and in class A with the IMC, and the minimas are higher. Apart from that, there is very little more in the syllabus i take it?

Jam

Correct, enjoy, good luck

It's pants flying in clouds, they're cold, wet and sometimes very bumpy.
:}

The IMC rating exists because the IR is seen by many as OTT

Only circa 20 PPL/IRS a year out of 60,000 PPLs in the UK !!!!!!!

:eek:

i.e. the PPL IR take up rate is laughable......

And as Beagle points out why the IAOPA/AOPA ICAO IR proposal
is being considered

pressman not exactly sure what you mean. The IMC allows you to fly instrument approaches at any airfield where there is a legal instrument approach (as long as it is not in class A). The only difference to the IR is the minima for the approach.

but that doesn't really limit your options much in this country, as there is only Heathrow that is Class A and how many people would want to spend the money to go there.

in fact that is the main disadvantage a lot of PPLs who fly for business find, not being able to use the IMC in europe.

Don't forget too that typically the IR is tested on a twin engine aircraft whereas the IMC is usually tested on a single. Not that flying IFR in a twin is difficult as such, but its a bit more to cope with, and in the flight test one of the approaches has to be asymmetric which can be demanding, especially in turbulence and with marginal performance on 1 engine!

Perhaps another difference is that due to the need to enter an Airway, you have to climb higher, and the descent will take slightly more planning than from lower level in a single engine.

No single part of the IR is difficult, but putting the entire thing together in a competent manner and maintaining your scan for 2 hours whilst dealing with nav, RT, engine failure, weather, icing, fuel, timing etc requires some practice.

This isn't entirely germane to the question of "what is the difference?". However, I am about halfway through my IMC training. One thing is clear to me: I am a better pilot now than I was when I started. I am also convinced that the improvement in my skills, attitude and professionalism is due in large measure to the extra discipline that is imposed on me by having to aviate, navigate and communicate without visual reference to the outside world during my training. This improvement has been observed not only by myself but also by people who fly with me regularly who have commented on the greater precision with which I now fly in VMC.

However, what is also clear to me is that while the toolkit of skills I am learning for IMC is "good enough" to get me back on the ground safely, it is not going to be refined to the level where I would have comfort departing in IR minimum conditions, flying cross country in those conditions and landing on the other end in those same minimum conditions. In my mind, that is the practical difference between the IMC and the IR.

Re: the amateur vs. professional debate. I have always stuck to the basic premise: "Amateurs practice until they can get it right, Professionals practice until they can't get it wrong"

Jjhp,

Well done on realising the limitations of your experience. You are quite right, you will not be equiped to carry out a flight entirely in IMC, with weather at minima at either end, immediately after completing your IMC course.

But that is not because of the IMC course itself, it's because of your level of experience. After completing the course, if you chose to regularly fly in real IMC (but setting yourself minima which realistically reflect your experience), and to regularly fly approaches to minima under foggles with a safety pilot, you would no doubt soon gain the experience to be able to undertake much more challenging IFR flights - as long as you had access to a suitably equipped aircraft, of course.

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

Have got an IMC, used it 2!!!

I kept myself current with a few approaches each month. I enjoyed my training, enjoyed the qualification even more!

From a PPL holders point of view it'll sharpen your flying, and you will wonder how you flew before you did the course! It will all start coming together after a few hours (Fly it, Point it and Talk it!)

Going through IR training now, the IMC rating has helped as i've had the practice at cockpit workload/chart prep! Also, like mentioned above, the instruments used by a IMC rating do require a bit more thought! i.e DI-HSI, RBI-RMI..

One question - Why do you need to do such aggressive unusual attitudes (UP's)? Seems like its the examiners play time 2 me!

NDB

I thought the IMC was great, but I can't say it improved any fundemental aspects of my flying. If anything, my instrument flying has developed a couple of slight rough edges during my CPL since the IMC. I think this is possibly because much of my CPL instrument time was partial panel or being lobbed about the sky with great abandon.
Except I was almost thrown in my CPL exam because the examiners idea of an unusual attitude was wasn't terribly unusual a bit of a steeper climbing and descending turn almost. I was so used to being chucked all over the place by my instructor.