I think it's an excellant idea to do an IMC rating as soon as hours permit after the PPL if following the Modular fATPL route.

I did and benefited from a great increase in the accurancy of my flying, as well as the safety benefit already mentioned.

I did my IMC Rating in Florida as a part of an hour building deal. Didn't see much 'actual', but the cost was only another $20 per hour on top of the hire rate, and those hours burnt all count towards the 150 TT CPL requirement.

It definately added value to my subsiquent hour building as even though I couldn't fly IFR, I could shoot approaches, intercept and track VOR radials and practice holding over beacons.

IMC Rating: big thumbs up!

Just my view.....

If you plan to do any sort of hour building in the US in the future you may want to consider an FAA IR. Costs around £1000 more than the IMC rating but gives the IMC as a freebee, plus you can fly IFR in the US. As you're probably well aware, there are no approach / Navigation / landing fees in the US so you can shoot approaches till the cows come home with out incuring any 'hidden' costs you'll get with the IMC in the UK. This also means you can travel around and shoot loads of different approaches rather than shoot you home field ILS all the time to save money (becasue many UK clubs include home field approach fees in the aircraft rental).

Also the extra 25hrs+ of training does more to prepare you for IFR flight in the future......if you're planning to do the JAA IR later on, then the FAA IR will set you up nicely ready for when you do the JAA course. PLus as it is a recognized ICAO IR you may in the future get some credit towards your JAA IR (but not at present). Also, if you decide to fly an N reg in the UK and Europe, you can file IFR.

I'd say for the extra grand it is well worth getting, but don't be mistaken that it is an easy qualification to get. Its probably the hardest rating to get after the initial PPL, and includes a very tough oral examination....but if you go over to the states well prepared you can possibly do the IR in a couple of (hard) weeks.

Cheers
EA

EA is spot on. If you can do the FAA IR, then do. If you fancy a half-way stage along the way, do the IMC (in the USA) on the way to the FAA IR.

I was beaten to answering but yep turn up at the FSDO with your UK licence and an FAA medical (about $50) and fill in a form, 10 mins later you will be in possession of a temporary airman certificate and the permanent is in the post to your home address. This licence is restricted so must be carried with your UK licence. You can then start adding ratings to it, i.e. IR, ME, CFI, CFII, MEI, MEII, etc.....

The IMC costs £64 to add to your licence once back in the UK.

To IMC or not to IMC, that is the question:D

OK so there are differing views abroad as to whether we IMC rated pilots should be let lose in real IMC, but as has been said before, it is experience and currency that is the key not the bit of paper on its own.

When I did my IMC rating I was taught, and tested to +/- 50feet and +/- 5 knots by a real stickler. Apart from the airways sectors,what is the difference between the IMC and IR flying skill requirement?

There is no such thing as a waste of experince, perhaps therefore the PPL should encompass the full IMC sylabus to improve safety and do away with the separte rating. It should also include spinning, but that's another thing (not in IMC although if trapped "on top" with no instruments that might be the best way down!). Aim to improve the thing rather than reduce it to some lower level. What thinketh thou?

What we really need is a JAA IMC rating, or even better a JAA 'private' IR, allowing the pilot to fly internationally on an IFR flight plan. Trouble is with the current IR is that 12 grand is way beyond most PPL's budget, plus all the expense of maintaining it. We need a 30-40 hr course, half of which could be done in a SIM, then possibly an upgrade allowing a PPL to get the CPL IR or even have the CPL course incorporate the upgrade (not to mention 'discounted' approaches / fees for non commercial ops.).

Cheers
EA

Minimums
 

englishal, in answer to your earlier post, yes, the absolute minimum height for an IMC rated pilot is 500ft for precision and 600ft for non-precision. The figures you find on the charts are for the IR guys.


MB:)

But oddly enough the IMC Rating minima are merely 'recommended'!

The IMC revalidation test includes some limited panel work - including UP recoveries. Hence as a test of basic IF skills (as opposed to applied radio navigation skills) it is, if anything, more demanding in purely handling terms than the IR revalidation!

The UK IMC Rating is a very good assessment of flying skill and as long as IMC rated pilots are in current practice, they should be entirely capable of flying safely in IMC within the Rating privileges.

If you can cope with a little spamcan with a suction DI, fixed card ADF and wobbly artificial horizon in actual IMC, you'll find something with a proper autopilot, gyro compass system and an HSI plus RMIs an absolute doddle!

For a holder of an IMC rating limitations for decision heights and minimum descent heights are as far as I am aware are not recomendations, but are absolute limits.
They are the heighest of several considerations including 200 ft above IR allowed heights.
The actual altitude flying limits during flight test are +-100ft same as FAA IR, with a nil tolerance on MDH and DA, and +- 200 ft for engine out or limited panel.
Personal limits may well exceed the descent heights specified, particularly as it is unlikely that a PPL will have the opportunity to have the same recency as an ATPL or CPL, and is usually flying single crew.

The UK PPL is in some ways a restricted PPL compared with say the French version, and adding an IMC and a Night rating merely brings up the validity to that of the French PPL, with the addition of being allowed to fly in actual nil viz and conducting letdowns.

None of this answers the question of whether to go for it or not, but previous replies infer yes as the answer.

As far as the FAA IR is concerned, the flight experience must be invaluable, but there will be the necessity to forget some of the hard learnt rules and substitute new ones for the CAA/JAR version.
European IMC is often a reality, although it is not always accompanied by icing conditions as one poster inferred.

lonerider

Why anyone would want to take a light single into IMC beats me.

To get where you want to go when there is cloud in the way.

Even though you many have an IMC or IR most lights are not cleared for flight in known icing conditions.

Not all clouds have ice in them.

What we really need is a JAA IMC rating, or even better a JAA 'private' IR, allowing the pilot to fly internationally on an IFR flight plan.

Why not just make the JAA IR like the FAA IR, and everybody who wants to fly in clouds gets the same rating. This approach works well in the US, why should it not work in JAA land? (Well I think we all know why :D)

The jet boys stay away from the piston boys enroute because they cruise higher, and in the busier terminal areas the piston boys would not want to go into the same airfields as the jets anyway. Too damned expensive and the smaller GA fields are usually more convenient to boot. ATC can easily do a great job of keeping turbine and piston IFR traffic separated even in the busiest airport TMAs, they just don't interfere if it's done properly.

As far as I was told when I achieved my CPL (which confers the privileges of an IMC) the minima for IMC-rated pilots are simply advisory. Statutary limits are the same as for an IR pilot. However CAA advice is not to be ignored lightly.

Now I don't know why those getting defensive about IMC thought that anyone was saying they cannot use the privileges, I haven't seen anyone stating it here. However there has been a lot of advice that someone with no IR should not intentionally fly long flights entirely under IFR. I would suggest that this is good advice, rather than regulation. If the IMC was intended to equip a pilot for regularly flying such operations then there would be no need for the IR. The fact that an IR course consists of a minimum 55 hours training, approved groundschool and 9 ground exams as opposed to the IMC's 15 hours and less, non-approved groundschool suggests that the IMC-rated pilot is not as well-prepared as the IR pilot.

I would not suggest that the IMC is for emergency use only. There is no reason a pilot should not fly intending to spend part of the flight under IFR. However the pilot must when deciding to fly try to judge his/her own skill objectively against the conditions, and one of the considerations must be that the IR exists for a reason, and is more arduous than the IMC for a reason.

Now I have no doubt that an IMC-rated pilot who has flown in IMC regularly is far more capable than I am at the moment, having not flown in IMC for a year. However when I have my skills back up to scratch I have more background skills and knowledge, hard-earned by study, flying and cursing, to fall back on when the flight gets tough.

Send Clowns....The minima is mandatory - dont have it on me right now but if you check the ANO you will find it. Possibly in the new LASORS booky as well...just about to order mine on the CAA website (5UKP - bargain!)

Interestingly enough IR rated pilots sometimes forget that RVR minima for SPA operations is 800m. This is actually defined in a pink AIC - and only there and not in the ANO AFAIK.

It must be remembered that the ME IR is really geared up for the commercial avaition world. Whereas the IMC rating was not. But as you say - fly within your own experience and limits with regard to the conditions.

Interestingly enough the IMC rating is unrestricted and may be used on twin engine a/c even though it was tested on a single. This does lead to interesting issues surround engine failure.....definitely one thing that should make people think twice before using an IMC rating on a twin unless they have undertaken further appropriate training.


Regards,
FF

Old information I am afraid. The IMC now has to be renewed on a Twin if it is to be valid on a twin.

bluskis Can you tell me where to find the reference that an IMC renewal has to be done on a twin, to be valid on a twin, please?

Blukis: ooh. Cheers. Yep Id be interested in the references on that too....but a CPL with no IR with an ME rating doesnt revalidate.....(AFAIK pls correct me if I am wrong).....another interesting one...

Cheers,
FF

There is quite a bit of gen in this CAA GID,including references to ME training.

GID 15

I would like to know if a night rating still gives you 3 hours off the training time and whether 2 hours can still be done in a sim.

IE is this GID still current ?

What about if you hold a foreign IR. For example, I have an IMC based on my FAA IR, so when it comes to revalidation time, can I just 're-apply' for the IMC rather than revalidate. After all I never took an IMC test in the first place, and as my IR will still be valid then I assume the same excemption will apply????:confused:

Cheers
EA

IMC only valid on twin, if test on twin?
 

I have now waded my way through CAA GID, looking for the answer to this question, but I cannot find it. :confused:

It does state that if the flight test is done on a multi-engine, then it MUST include Flight with Asymmetiric Power (which is fair enough)

It does not seem to mention whether a test passed on a S/E, allows the holder to fly IMC in a M/E

Is there an examiner out there who can clarify this point, please?

PS: I am not affected personally, as I did my last IMC renewal in a twin ..... 'cos its much too scary flying singles in IMC! :rolleyes:

I am afraid I have no written references to hand, and may have misled with my statement, for which I apologise.

However this is what I was led to believe a couple of years ago at a renewal, when I could not find a qualified examiner for my IMC renewal on a twin.

I had in the distant past renewed on singles, but this did not appear to be an option with the post JAR concessions.

I am pleased to be corrected as it will make future renewals more flexible.