difference in IR and IMC rating
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Julian, I think the FAA thought of that one first 
There is exactly zero prospect of getting a "private IR" out of JAA. It may be only when EASA takes over FCL, and if some of their officials' statements (along the lines of a "straight swap" from an FAA IR to a JAA IR) come true, that anything might happen. Even then, it will happen only as a result of the growing N-reg activity in member states.
There is exactly zero prospect of getting a "private IR" out of JAA. It may be only when EASA takes over FCL, and if some of their officials' statements (along the lines of a "straight swap" from an FAA IR to a JAA IR) come true, that anything might happen. Even then, it will happen only as a result of the growing N-reg activity in member states.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fuji Abound
"and to all of us who have an IMC, and are current, this matters - a lot."...............
Some other examples that might be equally justified:
The PPL is not designed from a six hour cross country trip through Europe,
............
and most importantly,
The IR is not designed for a pilot who is not current to undertake the same flight as a pilot with an IMCR who is very current.
What really must not be forgotten in all this is that the IMCR was originally introduced by some very wise people who realised that in this country a private pilot is safer if he can undertake training ro enable him to fly in marginal weather.
Some other examples that might be equally justified:
The PPL is not designed from a six hour cross country trip through Europe,
............
and most importantly,
The IR is not designed for a pilot who is not current to undertake the same flight as a pilot with an IMCR who is very current.
What really must not be forgotten in all this is that the IMCR was originally introduced by some very wise people who realised that in this country a private pilot is safer if he can undertake training ro enable him to fly in marginal weather.
The PPL is designed to enable a pilot to plan for and having done all the planning exectute a round the world trip VFR. The JAR sylabus covers all the international standards etc and if that is not covered then the problem lies with the teaching of the sylabus rather than the licence itself. No one says that a UK PPL needs to know the requirements for flying in Canada but they should know the worldwide AIS system and how to obtain the information they need.
Talking about some current pilot being of a better standard than an non-current one makes no difference. You have to compare like with like.
If one was to follow your ideas with regard to the use of ratings and licenses, you would no doubt support the removal of all restrictions to minima and start flying to CAT 2 minima.
As for the reason why the IMC rating came into being - it certainly was not to permit pilots to fly in marginal weather.
No safe pilot will ever intentionally put themselves in a situation where they fly in marginal weather. - That is why it is called marginal!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I promised to not feed the trolls but I just don't have enough willpower
The PPL is designed to enable a pilot to plan for and having done all the planning exectute a round the world trip VFR
Yeah, right..........
The PPL is designed to enable a pilot to plan for and having done all the planning exectute a round the world trip VFR
Yeah, right..........
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"No safe pilot will ever intentionally put themselves in a situation where they fly in marginal weather. - That is why it is called marginal!"
Marginal for the VMC pilot.
"Why not then agree with a system that in effect puts in place an easily understood method for calculating minima which also covers some areas missed currently."
In my view the present system is very easily understood with may be the exception of redrafting the "but" clause more clearly. I see no evidence for restricting the existing privileges.
"The PPL is designed to enable a pilot to plan for and having done all the planning execute a round the world trip VFR."
You got to be joking! I must ask the next newly qualified PPL to plan and set off on a trip to the south of France.
"Talking about some current pilot being of a better standard than an non-current one makes no difference."
It makes every difference in the world. I fly with a pilot who has 10s of thousand of hours, ATPL multi crew and single IR - he wouldn’t fly to IR minima and nor would I with him at his present level of currency and he tells me so every time.
"If one was to follow your ideas with regard to the use of ratings and licenses, you would no doubt support the removal of all restrictions to minima and start flying to CAT 2 minima."
With respect you are missing the point. There are quite different skills in play flying to CAT 2 notwithstanding the different interplay with the FDE to enable the operation to be performed. One would therefore expect wanting to ensure a demonstrated ability on type.
There is no difference in skills play or equipment in flying to a 250 foot minima in stead of a 500 foot minima, although I would of course agree the tolerances must be more precise. In my view any instructors who during an IMCR who does not ask the pilot to demonstrate an approach to IR minima are negligent. I don’t mean negligent in law but negligent because they should know they are (or aren’t capable) of flying to minima. Unfortunately I cant guarantee with the present quality of forecasting and with all the diversion planning in the world that a pilot with an IMCR having departed with the comfort that minima will be above 500 feet, will never in fact find they are lower - can you? Every time I fly a practise approach it is to minima - every time. Every time I fly with any one else for a practise approach it is to minima (unless of course it goes wrong or they are not yet at that stage!)
Marginal for the VMC pilot.
"Why not then agree with a system that in effect puts in place an easily understood method for calculating minima which also covers some areas missed currently."
In my view the present system is very easily understood with may be the exception of redrafting the "but" clause more clearly. I see no evidence for restricting the existing privileges.
"The PPL is designed to enable a pilot to plan for and having done all the planning execute a round the world trip VFR."
You got to be joking! I must ask the next newly qualified PPL to plan and set off on a trip to the south of France.
"Talking about some current pilot being of a better standard than an non-current one makes no difference."
It makes every difference in the world. I fly with a pilot who has 10s of thousand of hours, ATPL multi crew and single IR - he wouldn’t fly to IR minima and nor would I with him at his present level of currency and he tells me so every time.
"If one was to follow your ideas with regard to the use of ratings and licenses, you would no doubt support the removal of all restrictions to minima and start flying to CAT 2 minima."
With respect you are missing the point. There are quite different skills in play flying to CAT 2 notwithstanding the different interplay with the FDE to enable the operation to be performed. One would therefore expect wanting to ensure a demonstrated ability on type.
There is no difference in skills play or equipment in flying to a 250 foot minima in stead of a 500 foot minima, although I would of course agree the tolerances must be more precise. In my view any instructors who during an IMCR who does not ask the pilot to demonstrate an approach to IR minima are negligent. I don’t mean negligent in law but negligent because they should know they are (or aren’t capable) of flying to minima. Unfortunately I cant guarantee with the present quality of forecasting and with all the diversion planning in the world that a pilot with an IMCR having departed with the comfort that minima will be above 500 feet, will never in fact find they are lower - can you? Every time I fly a practise approach it is to minima - every time. Every time I fly with any one else for a practise approach it is to minima (unless of course it goes wrong or they are not yet at that stage!)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DFC
What does everyone think of a proposal to make the following the legal and clearly expressed minima for IMC rating holders in current practice;
1. DA(H) to be not lower than IR published DA(H) plus 300ft
2. MDA(H) to be not lower than IR published DA(H) plus 300ft
3. Visibility/RVR to be published IR minima + 1000m
4. Take-off minima to be ceiling = IMC approach DH+100ft and Vis / RVR 1800m or the approach Vis/RVR if higher
5. Requirement to teach and in practice to comply with the increased planning minima for alternates.
6. IMC rating limited to Single engine unless test done in Multi engine.
DFC
1. DA(H) to be not lower than IR published DA(H) plus 300ft
2. MDA(H) to be not lower than IR published DA(H) plus 300ft
3. Visibility/RVR to be published IR minima + 1000m
4. Take-off minima to be ceiling = IMC approach DH+100ft and Vis / RVR 1800m or the approach Vis/RVR if higher
5. Requirement to teach and in practice to comply with the increased planning minima for alternates.
6. IMC rating limited to Single engine unless test done in Multi engine.
DFC
2.Disagree
3.Disagree
4.Disagree
5.Agree (with reservations)
Personally, I keep very, very current with my IMC allowed IFR flying. Consequently, I would be extremely annoyed, dismayed and frustrated to be placed in a position whereby your suggested NEW, and in my view, wholly unwarranted minima, were ever introduced and had to be observed.
I also consider it disengenious of you to solicit views in this manner. The results would be open to potential abuse. What where/are you going to do with the results? Bolster your arguements? Use them to 'persuade' the CAA to change the law?
Sorry, but I'm disappointed in you.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
Marginal VMC is Marginal VMC for any pilot.
You got to be joking! I must ask the next newly qualified PPL to plan and set off on a trip to the south of France.
If they have been properly trained they will already know that they need to consult the French AIP and will already know what the various airspace classes mean and the requirements to file a flight plan, how to do so (or where to find that tinformation) and when an ATC clearance is required and when lifejackets / raft is required (or where to find that information) not to mention how to navigate visually. What else is there for the basic PPL flying VFR in good weather?
I don’t mean negligent in law
So that means that they are not negligent then.
Unfortunately I cant guarantee with the present quality of forecasting and with all the diversion planning in the world that a pilot with an IMCR having departed with the comfort that minima will be above 500 feet, will never in fact find they are lower - can you? Every time I fly a practise approach it is to minima - every time. Every time I fly with any one else for a practise approach it is to minima (unless of course it goes wrong or they are not yet at that stage!)
That is a disturbing statement. Mostly because you clearly state that having set a certain minima at the planning stage you will fly lower if the weather is worse than planned.
The point that is being missed because it is not well covered during the IMC course is that if you are flying to an airfield and have a planned minima of 500ft / 1800m and the actual and forecast weather seem to indicate that this is possible then your alternate must have a higher margin above the minima there so that you are unlikely to end up with both airfields below minima.
If the minima are less than you planned for before you start the approach or pass through 1000ft, you don't continue the approach - you hold for improvement or divert. The whole reason for the approach ban is to prevent pilots doing exactly what you say - arriving at 500ft still in cloud and making a decision to go lower just to get visual.
If you set off to a destination that is below minima but you expect it to improve, you need two alternates which are going to be above minima - simply again so that you do not get caught out.
I know much of it is down to training and unclear instructions but many of the things you say go against all the normal procedures for IFR IMC flying and it only bolsters the point that IMC holders are not equipped for such operations.
Perhaps pilots place too much reliance on the forecaster and met observer. The rules require that you consult the available information. However the interpretation and use of that information is up to the Captain. The forecaster will never say don't fly today. That decision is up to the aircraft commander.....so don't try to pass the buck if the decision made is incorrect.
Each year, I divert on occasions because the weather is below minima. What professional pilot does not. Sometimes that diversion is initiated long before destination. It is less usual for an approach to go missed and then divert because of the weather - wastes fuel, pax moan and you end up at the alternate anyway without the transport which could have been arranged had one planned in advance. I have never and never will arrive at the minima planned and not being visual try a bit lower.
Yes we practice approaches and will do them to minima - the minima we will use for real. No point in saying that you will use a DH of 500ft in anger and spend a taining hour bashing the ILS and missed approach with a DH of 200. Two reasons -
1. The missed approach profile you are acheiving in training is not the same as the one you will end up with in the real situation - you will be higher, will reach the altitude restrictions quicker and will be further back from the runway when you start it.
2. If you use look up at 200ft and take in the outside picture, this will not be anything like the picture you will get at 500ft again because you are in a different location at a different height.
-----------
Ni Thomas,
The reason for making the suggestion in public was to permit discussion and objection from people. I do not know how a proposal to change the system could bolster a debate about the current system.
What do you suggest for items 1, and2? If you say IR minima would you support a further training requirement to acheive this?
If one uses the 500ft/600ft absolute or plus 200ft whichever is higher then one is in the position of using minima that put you closer to the obstacles when they are significant than when they are not. i.e. Approach to a runway in a flat desert has a MDH of 300ft and the pilot uses 600ft. Down the road there is the same type of approach with some nice big hills, trees, pylons etc and an OCH of 500ft so that pilot uses 700ft. This means that the more challenging the approach in terms of obstacle environment, the closer the IMC holder gets to those obstacles while the IR holder has a consistent approach to such situations.
That is one area that needs to be looked at regardless of which view one holds.
Remember point 3 comes about because of the minima in 1 and 2. You can not use a minima of 600ft and expect to see the runway environment when you are 2nm from the threshold and the vis is 1nm. That leads to flying level at 600ft MDH and trying to spot the runway which will happen at less than 1nm which puts the aircraft in an position of being too high to land and too low to circle!
I am very surprised that you disagree with item 4.
As you are aware, many IMC pilots depart in weather that may be 600ft ceiling and 1800m..........but they forget to check that they will be unable to return and will not have planned for what to do. They have made allowance for an engine failure......but what about a suction failure shortly after going IMC at 600ft...........not great if IR approach minima are MDH700 and the nearest diversion is 1 hour away.
As to what the results will be used for? This is simply using a good oportunity to get a straw poll of what people would think of having to use certain minima.
Regards,
DFC
Marginal VMC is Marginal VMC for any pilot.
You got to be joking! I must ask the next newly qualified PPL to plan and set off on a trip to the south of France.
If they have been properly trained they will already know that they need to consult the French AIP and will already know what the various airspace classes mean and the requirements to file a flight plan, how to do so (or where to find that tinformation) and when an ATC clearance is required and when lifejackets / raft is required (or where to find that information) not to mention how to navigate visually. What else is there for the basic PPL flying VFR in good weather?
I don’t mean negligent in law
So that means that they are not negligent then.
Unfortunately I cant guarantee with the present quality of forecasting and with all the diversion planning in the world that a pilot with an IMCR having departed with the comfort that minima will be above 500 feet, will never in fact find they are lower - can you? Every time I fly a practise approach it is to minima - every time. Every time I fly with any one else for a practise approach it is to minima (unless of course it goes wrong or they are not yet at that stage!)
That is a disturbing statement. Mostly because you clearly state that having set a certain minima at the planning stage you will fly lower if the weather is worse than planned.
The point that is being missed because it is not well covered during the IMC course is that if you are flying to an airfield and have a planned minima of 500ft / 1800m and the actual and forecast weather seem to indicate that this is possible then your alternate must have a higher margin above the minima there so that you are unlikely to end up with both airfields below minima.
If the minima are less than you planned for before you start the approach or pass through 1000ft, you don't continue the approach - you hold for improvement or divert. The whole reason for the approach ban is to prevent pilots doing exactly what you say - arriving at 500ft still in cloud and making a decision to go lower just to get visual.
If you set off to a destination that is below minima but you expect it to improve, you need two alternates which are going to be above minima - simply again so that you do not get caught out.
I know much of it is down to training and unclear instructions but many of the things you say go against all the normal procedures for IFR IMC flying and it only bolsters the point that IMC holders are not equipped for such operations.
Perhaps pilots place too much reliance on the forecaster and met observer. The rules require that you consult the available information. However the interpretation and use of that information is up to the Captain. The forecaster will never say don't fly today. That decision is up to the aircraft commander.....so don't try to pass the buck if the decision made is incorrect.
Each year, I divert on occasions because the weather is below minima. What professional pilot does not. Sometimes that diversion is initiated long before destination. It is less usual for an approach to go missed and then divert because of the weather - wastes fuel, pax moan and you end up at the alternate anyway without the transport which could have been arranged had one planned in advance. I have never and never will arrive at the minima planned and not being visual try a bit lower.
Yes we practice approaches and will do them to minima - the minima we will use for real. No point in saying that you will use a DH of 500ft in anger and spend a taining hour bashing the ILS and missed approach with a DH of 200. Two reasons -
1. The missed approach profile you are acheiving in training is not the same as the one you will end up with in the real situation - you will be higher, will reach the altitude restrictions quicker and will be further back from the runway when you start it.
2. If you use look up at 200ft and take in the outside picture, this will not be anything like the picture you will get at 500ft again because you are in a different location at a different height.
-----------
Ni Thomas,
The reason for making the suggestion in public was to permit discussion and objection from people. I do not know how a proposal to change the system could bolster a debate about the current system.
What do you suggest for items 1, and2? If you say IR minima would you support a further training requirement to acheive this?
If one uses the 500ft/600ft absolute or plus 200ft whichever is higher then one is in the position of using minima that put you closer to the obstacles when they are significant than when they are not. i.e. Approach to a runway in a flat desert has a MDH of 300ft and the pilot uses 600ft. Down the road there is the same type of approach with some nice big hills, trees, pylons etc and an OCH of 500ft so that pilot uses 700ft. This means that the more challenging the approach in terms of obstacle environment, the closer the IMC holder gets to those obstacles while the IR holder has a consistent approach to such situations.
That is one area that needs to be looked at regardless of which view one holds.
Remember point 3 comes about because of the minima in 1 and 2. You can not use a minima of 600ft and expect to see the runway environment when you are 2nm from the threshold and the vis is 1nm. That leads to flying level at 600ft MDH and trying to spot the runway which will happen at less than 1nm which puts the aircraft in an position of being too high to land and too low to circle!
I am very surprised that you disagree with item 4.
As you are aware, many IMC pilots depart in weather that may be 600ft ceiling and 1800m..........but they forget to check that they will be unable to return and will not have planned for what to do. They have made allowance for an engine failure......but what about a suction failure shortly after going IMC at 600ft...........not great if IR approach minima are MDH700 and the nearest diversion is 1 hour away.
As to what the results will be used for? This is simply using a good oportunity to get a straw poll of what people would think of having to use certain minima.
Regards,
DFC
Last edited by DFC; 17th Mar 2006 at 11:49.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC, can you cite any sort of evidence that there is a problem with the current arrangements? One doesn't hear much on the various online forums about IMC-only rated pilots getting themselves in to trouble though I don't know if that means it does or doesn't happen.
What I do know and what you seem to be missing is that there are quite a lot of pilots around who legally have to operate within the confines of the IMCR but who have been trained to operate to IR minima, namely all the people with FAA IR who don't fly in N-reg planes. If one interprets the infamous sentence as a recommendation rather than mandatory, everybody (except you?) is fairly happy - as stated elsewhere the IMC training and lots of published information makes it clear it isn't designed for planned continued operation in IMC so inexperienced instrument flyers tend towards the higher minima whilst the FAA IR crowd can operate to the minima to which they have been trained.
What I do know and what you seem to be missing is that there are quite a lot of pilots around who legally have to operate within the confines of the IMCR but who have been trained to operate to IR minima, namely all the people with FAA IR who don't fly in N-reg planes. If one interprets the infamous sentence as a recommendation rather than mandatory, everybody (except you?) is fairly happy - as stated elsewhere the IMC training and lots of published information makes it clear it isn't designed for planned continued operation in IMC so inexperienced instrument flyers tend towards the higher minima whilst the FAA IR crowd can operate to the minima to which they have been trained.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Marginal VMC is Marginal VMC for any pilot."
Did you miss we are not discussing VMC?
"If they have been properly trained .. .. .."
Not many flying schools will let a PPL go cross channel without a cross channel check - that is just your starter for 10, I suspect we can think of a host of reasons why a newly qualified PPL should hesitate before setting off for the south of France. I leave others to put forward a few suggestions!!!!
"So that means that they are not negligent then."
Afraid not.
"Mostly because you clearly state .. .. .."
I did not clearly state any such thing.
"so don't try to pass the buck if the decision made is incorrect."
I am not - however as IO540 said on another thread clearly there are some pilots who think they know more than professional forecasters who have spent their lives forecasting the weather and have more data available than we. I am very happy you second guess the forecasters, I tend to rely on their forecasts unless I have a very good reason for not doing so.
You should take a look at how the commercial forecast decision making process operates and you will have a better appreciation of the issues.
"but many of the things you say go against all the normal procedures for IFR IMC flying and it only bolsters the point that IMC holders are not equipped for such operations."
I do not even remotely see the wisdom in a newly qualified pilot setting off for the South of France, so we clearly do not agree on normal VFR procedures and so we have fundamentally different views of what happens in the real world and I suspect we have fundamentally different backgrounds which impact on our respective views.
Drauk - I too would love to see some evidence. So many of the regulatory changes come from an over zealous and protectionist training industry who are more concerned with protecting their own egos or commercial advantage than from any basis in quantitative evidence that the changes are justified. This thread is a very good example where it is quite clear the industry (in some cases) is prepared to go on teaching bad practices and incorrect air law. If you wish to change the legislation start by setting out what problems the legislation is currently causing and then what changes might be introduced to solve those problems.
In the day job fortunately the over inflated egos have all but disappeared but it is still rife in the training world of the PPL industry.
DFC would clearly like the legislation clarified, and he is absolutely right - I believe it has been, but others do not. I hope it will be because at least those whose teaching is based on incorrect assumptions can correct their training - which must be for the good of all concerned.
Once the position is clear, there may be those who consider the minima too low. They will have to produce evidence to support their argument and even then there remains a fundamental chicken and egg problem - if the legal minima had been correctly applied and taught during training would any of the problems that they might identify actually exist. Until and unless those conditions can be satisfied any desire to change the legislation can only be based on the most dubious motives!
Did you miss we are not discussing VMC?
"If they have been properly trained .. .. .."
Not many flying schools will let a PPL go cross channel without a cross channel check - that is just your starter for 10, I suspect we can think of a host of reasons why a newly qualified PPL should hesitate before setting off for the south of France. I leave others to put forward a few suggestions!!!!
"So that means that they are not negligent then."
Afraid not.
"Mostly because you clearly state .. .. .."
I did not clearly state any such thing.
"so don't try to pass the buck if the decision made is incorrect."
I am not - however as IO540 said on another thread clearly there are some pilots who think they know more than professional forecasters who have spent their lives forecasting the weather and have more data available than we. I am very happy you second guess the forecasters, I tend to rely on their forecasts unless I have a very good reason for not doing so.
You should take a look at how the commercial forecast decision making process operates and you will have a better appreciation of the issues.
"but many of the things you say go against all the normal procedures for IFR IMC flying and it only bolsters the point that IMC holders are not equipped for such operations."
I do not even remotely see the wisdom in a newly qualified pilot setting off for the South of France, so we clearly do not agree on normal VFR procedures and so we have fundamentally different views of what happens in the real world and I suspect we have fundamentally different backgrounds which impact on our respective views.
Drauk - I too would love to see some evidence. So many of the regulatory changes come from an over zealous and protectionist training industry who are more concerned with protecting their own egos or commercial advantage than from any basis in quantitative evidence that the changes are justified. This thread is a very good example where it is quite clear the industry (in some cases) is prepared to go on teaching bad practices and incorrect air law. If you wish to change the legislation start by setting out what problems the legislation is currently causing and then what changes might be introduced to solve those problems.
In the day job fortunately the over inflated egos have all but disappeared but it is still rife in the training world of the PPL industry.
DFC would clearly like the legislation clarified, and he is absolutely right - I believe it has been, but others do not. I hope it will be because at least those whose teaching is based on incorrect assumptions can correct their training - which must be for the good of all concerned.
Once the position is clear, there may be those who consider the minima too low. They will have to produce evidence to support their argument and even then there remains a fundamental chicken and egg problem - if the legal minima had been correctly applied and taught during training would any of the problems that they might identify actually exist. Until and unless those conditions can be satisfied any desire to change the legislation can only be based on the most dubious motives!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not think that the means by which one obtained a rating should change the way in which the rating is used.
Currency, personal ability, aircraft, environment can all provide factors that change the minima used.....but the amount of training one needed to (or decided to) complete in order to obtain an IMC rating should not be a factor.
Are you suggesting that we should have a multi tiered IMC rating? Get the rating with 15 hours training use certain minima, fly more hours to obtain the rating and have different minima?
How would you differentiate between the pilot who struggled and just got there in 50 hous training and the pilot for who it was a breeze but did lots of extra training that is not part of the sylabus?
Perhaps there could be a two tiered system - 15 hours training - high minima, 50 hours training and some exams - IR minima with the posibility to use the 15.
Of course the FAA IR holders will not rely on the IMC rating for long as once they have gained the required experience (75 hours IFR) they will go for the JAA PPL/IR so the pilots in that group are only going to be there for a very short period if they keep current and have any sense.
Regards,
DFC
Currency, personal ability, aircraft, environment can all provide factors that change the minima used.....but the amount of training one needed to (or decided to) complete in order to obtain an IMC rating should not be a factor.
Are you suggesting that we should have a multi tiered IMC rating? Get the rating with 15 hours training use certain minima, fly more hours to obtain the rating and have different minima?
How would you differentiate between the pilot who struggled and just got there in 50 hous training and the pilot for who it was a breeze but did lots of extra training that is not part of the sylabus?
Perhaps there could be a two tiered system - 15 hours training - high minima, 50 hours training and some exams - IR minima with the posibility to use the 15.
Of course the FAA IR holders will not rely on the IMC rating for long as once they have gained the required experience (75 hours IFR) they will go for the JAA PPL/IR so the pilots in that group are only going to be there for a very short period if they keep current and have any sense.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, DFC, but with respect you are still missing the point.
Whether the IMCR training is adequate to enable the pilot to embark on what he is legally entitled to do is debatable - IMO it is not. It is no more or less debatable than for an IR. Would you put a newly qualified ATPL in command, have you seen what some of them get up to when an approach goes wrong? No of course you would not. They have the protection of multi crew operations and the commanders experience.
In the same way you would IMHO no more want to send the newly qualified PPL off to the South of France the day he qualified and fortunately the vast majority would not go.
I know I keep coming back to the analogy but how many people felt uncomfortable the first time they drove on a motorway or drove abroad.
An IMCR is a license to learn. I find no evidence that the vast majority treat it otherwise. In fact fortunately the accident rate for pilots with IMCRs using their rating appears very low. The training is very good at emphasising - “recognise the boundaries of your training and experience”.
For me the evidence that the level of training is adequate is reflected in the accident statistics in the same way that there is no evidence of a problem with the landing minima being recommended.
As you know IR training sets out to achieve a different purpose. The emphasis has always been far more on procedural flying seeking to get the pilot to a level where he should be capable of hard IFR sectors within the system and be substantially ready to use that knowledge to its fullest extent.
No one has ever pretended the IMCR seeks to achieve the same goal. Its aim is to ensure the pilot is able to fly competently on instruments in benign conditions and without anything substantially going wrong. It is a license to learn and IMHO achieves this goal very well. For those who are prepared to learn it provides an achievable means of “serious” and safe IFR operations.
Consider the actual life of the average PPL - he qualifies, he is legally entitled to fly to the South of France but he doesn’t yet have the experience to do so. His longest flight was one of his cross countries around the local home page - all reasonably familiar territory with procedures to which he is accustom. At some point he goes with a friend or instructor cross channel. He has done a bit of instrument training of course but he has never been over water before. He has hopefully been up on poor viz days but the ground has always looked like the ground and the sky the sky and of course there is a horizon in between. You get the picture. Having got that under his belt he has “qualified” to go cross channel and his local rental will tell him so. It is not another rating - he was always legally entitled to do it. France beckons and of course he goes to L2K - no instructor now. Oh, the language is a bit different, no one mentioned that during his training, and the ATIS is in two languages, good thing he listened to the whole recording. The procedures are a bit different too - these French seem terribly laid back. Has he moved up another step on the ladder? Finally a longer trip beckons. He keeps on waiting for the right weather. Finally it looks good but it is a five hour trip with a stop on the way. The controller wants him to report 50N, what is that all about, something about ORTAC, where has London info gone, no one wants to talk to me(!), oops there is some high ground, my training around London never mentioned that, a bit of rotor, I read about that but it seems different in the flesh, oh and the vis is looking a bit dubious, that certainly wasn’t forecast, better sort out a diversion on the hoof. You get the picture. He has moved up another step.
So what ratings has he got now? Ah but he is still a “mere” PPL, unofficially cross channel, high terrain and foreign operations rated. All in the PPL syllabus - I don’t think so!
Move on and he gets an IMCR. His instructor taught him to fly IR minima - well at least he has seen that and understands the potential problems of not dealing with that accurately - he now wishes he had similarly been taught about the problems of that short hop across the channel . SIDs - he has heard of those, never did any, and he is back to his PPL days cross channelling again. Ah, his good old instructor suggests getting a SID or two under the belt, and after a while he is pretty comfortable with that - another step up. And so we could go on.
A license to learn - a good license, no need to change anything, no multi tiered system, any more than the PPL is multi tiered.
Whether the IMCR training is adequate to enable the pilot to embark on what he is legally entitled to do is debatable - IMO it is not. It is no more or less debatable than for an IR. Would you put a newly qualified ATPL in command, have you seen what some of them get up to when an approach goes wrong? No of course you would not. They have the protection of multi crew operations and the commanders experience.
In the same way you would IMHO no more want to send the newly qualified PPL off to the South of France the day he qualified and fortunately the vast majority would not go.
I know I keep coming back to the analogy but how many people felt uncomfortable the first time they drove on a motorway or drove abroad.
An IMCR is a license to learn. I find no evidence that the vast majority treat it otherwise. In fact fortunately the accident rate for pilots with IMCRs using their rating appears very low. The training is very good at emphasising - “recognise the boundaries of your training and experience”.
For me the evidence that the level of training is adequate is reflected in the accident statistics in the same way that there is no evidence of a problem with the landing minima being recommended.
As you know IR training sets out to achieve a different purpose. The emphasis has always been far more on procedural flying seeking to get the pilot to a level where he should be capable of hard IFR sectors within the system and be substantially ready to use that knowledge to its fullest extent.
No one has ever pretended the IMCR seeks to achieve the same goal. Its aim is to ensure the pilot is able to fly competently on instruments in benign conditions and without anything substantially going wrong. It is a license to learn and IMHO achieves this goal very well. For those who are prepared to learn it provides an achievable means of “serious” and safe IFR operations.
Consider the actual life of the average PPL - he qualifies, he is legally entitled to fly to the South of France but he doesn’t yet have the experience to do so. His longest flight was one of his cross countries around the local home page - all reasonably familiar territory with procedures to which he is accustom. At some point he goes with a friend or instructor cross channel. He has done a bit of instrument training of course but he has never been over water before. He has hopefully been up on poor viz days but the ground has always looked like the ground and the sky the sky and of course there is a horizon in between. You get the picture. Having got that under his belt he has “qualified” to go cross channel and his local rental will tell him so. It is not another rating - he was always legally entitled to do it. France beckons and of course he goes to L2K - no instructor now. Oh, the language is a bit different, no one mentioned that during his training, and the ATIS is in two languages, good thing he listened to the whole recording. The procedures are a bit different too - these French seem terribly laid back. Has he moved up another step on the ladder? Finally a longer trip beckons. He keeps on waiting for the right weather. Finally it looks good but it is a five hour trip with a stop on the way. The controller wants him to report 50N, what is that all about, something about ORTAC, where has London info gone, no one wants to talk to me(!), oops there is some high ground, my training around London never mentioned that, a bit of rotor, I read about that but it seems different in the flesh, oh and the vis is looking a bit dubious, that certainly wasn’t forecast, better sort out a diversion on the hoof. You get the picture. He has moved up another step.
So what ratings has he got now? Ah but he is still a “mere” PPL, unofficially cross channel, high terrain and foreign operations rated. All in the PPL syllabus - I don’t think so!
Move on and he gets an IMCR. His instructor taught him to fly IR minima - well at least he has seen that and understands the potential problems of not dealing with that accurately - he now wishes he had similarly been taught about the problems of that short hop across the channel . SIDs - he has heard of those, never did any, and he is back to his PPL days cross channelling again. Ah, his good old instructor suggests getting a SID or two under the belt, and after a while he is pretty comfortable with that - another step up. And so we could go on.
A license to learn - a good license, no need to change anything, no multi tiered system, any more than the PPL is multi tiered.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with comparing the IMCR with a Euro IR is that the two were meant for very different things.
The IMCR was designed to be of real use to private pilots. Most of these are "old" people - few people under 40+ have the money to do any real flying, so there aren't complicated exams for example because few people in that age bracket would be able to do them, due to lack of time.
The IR, as formulated in Europe, has always (well as long as anybody I know can remember) been designed to be study material for young men with plenty of time, very little money, who want to be airline pilots.
The FAA IR misses out vast swathes of knowledge but covers everything that a private pilot needs to fly IFR in the same airspace as the big stuff. Anything extra (like knowing which buttons in a Citation do what) is dealt with by a Type Rating, which is how it should be.
The IMCR was designed to be of real use to private pilots. Most of these are "old" people - few people under 40+ have the money to do any real flying, so there aren't complicated exams for example because few people in that age bracket would be able to do them, due to lack of time.
The IR, as formulated in Europe, has always (well as long as anybody I know can remember) been designed to be study material for young men with plenty of time, very little money, who want to be airline pilots.
The FAA IR misses out vast swathes of knowledge but covers everything that a private pilot needs to fly IFR in the same airspace as the big stuff. Anything extra (like knowing which buttons in a Citation do what) is dealt with by a Type Rating, which is how it should be.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
You would not believe what some "ATPLs" try to do! There are two types of ATPL holder;
The ones who "qualified" under the old CAA system having flown nothing more than a C172. Probably what you would call a licence to learn; and
The ones who obtain one under JAR with lots of multi pilot time required.
Will one be better than the other....possibly but not always the one you would expect! However, they both have to operate to the same minima.
If there is an ATPL in the right seat, and they are the handling pilot for the sector, there will be occasions when the Captain must according to the rules do the approach / landing regardless of their ability. Depending on the make-up of the crew, the minima may be higher for certain airfields where CAT2 or CAT3 minima are available. Note I said regardless of ability. The reason is safety.
Ask a current co-pilot what they would do if their allowed minima were 500ft but the Captain suddenly decided to use another operator's minima of 400ft because they were not visual at 500? I don't think that you as a passenger would like to fly with that type of individual.
As for accident stats; Here is a widely distributed quote from the CAA:
All but one of the pilots killed when they lost control in IMC were flying in instrument conditions without an Instrument Rating. This is extremely unwise to say the least. Possibly they believed that their IMC rating was sufficient........
Unless you use very high minima indeed (CAVOK), you can not reguluarly depart for a flight that involves an approach in IMC without having a probability of prolonged flight in IMC.
Filing to depart IFR and not being able to fly the SID due to lack of ability, lack of currency or lack of training is simply not acceptable. Does anyone seriously expect ATC to put in extra work to accomodate such situations. Furthermore does anyone expect that the other aircraft behind should be delayed while ATC provide some extra service to the IMC holder? ATC should tell the pilot to return to the apron and wait until a VFR departure becomes available.
Same goes for having to hold in IMC for an extended period - something that can happen on any arrival in IMC. Does anyone think that the IMC rating holder who can not fly a hold should get vectors to final while everyone else holds?
Should IMCrating holders who do not understand the approach ban clutter the arival pattern with approach and go-arrounds when it is below their minima?
Or do IMC holders who can not join the arrival route or standard holding patterns via class A expect ATC to give them a vector ahead of all the other inbounds?
The objections to minima that reflect the average ability, the statements of ducking under chosen minima when not visual, the expectation that one can file and fly IFR without the ability to fly in IMC for long periods in "challenging conditions" in the UK (which is all winter and much of the "Summer"!), the lack of knowledge regarding diversions including planning to return after a departure all go to paint a very poor picture of the average IMC rating holder.
If people what the IMC rating to survice the oncoming onslaught in terms of ATS service providers, airspace changes and EASA regulation, they have to project the best image and that is not being done currently.
The IFR flying environment in the UK has vastly changed from the days when the IMC rating was conceived. many regional airports that only had a bit of an SRZ and few commercial flights now have class D and a steady stream of IFR inbounds via the airways. Many other airfields are not only busy but their standard holding pattern(s) are in Class A airspace.
As little as 10 to 15 years ago certain aerodromes did not permit IMC holders to fly IFR in their airspace. Perhaps it is time that the CAA looked at aerodromes in Class D and the effect IMC holders can have on the standard IFR traffic loadings. Then perhaps some aerodromes could be put back on the list of aerodromes where IMC holders can not make an approach except in an emergency.
As for the driving comparison.........does france publish an equivalent of the AIP for Drivers and do many drivers actually check the rules before flying in France? Do you fly on the left of the centerline in England and to the Right in France? NO. Bad comparison!
-------
IO540,
I wonder how people can have time to complete say 60 to 70 hours in what has to be benign good VMC weather doing a PPL with lots of exams but then think that it is impossible to find the time to do the IR with probably far less flying with less requirement to match bookings with such good weather and the posibility to complete the majority in a sim not to mention far fewer exams?
Excuses such as those will not get the system changed.
Any mini-IR would have to comply with ICAO requirements or at least satisfy the requirements to pass a safety case showing that it would not have any effect on regular IFR flights in the system........that problem will always bring us back to the current IR.
If the IMC had more clearly laid down minima which were easily applied without having to be an expert reader of the ANO and the use of the IMC rating was not open to the critisims I highlighted above then it is possible that people from places like Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain and Ireland would see an advantage. Currently all they see are the critisims above and images of pilots flying in IMC waiting to be the next accident. Not an image that is going to make progress in Europe.
Has anyone ever done what the CAA advise and asked if they can use the IMC rating to fly IFR in any country outside the UK?
Regards,
DFC
You would not believe what some "ATPLs" try to do! There are two types of ATPL holder;
The ones who "qualified" under the old CAA system having flown nothing more than a C172. Probably what you would call a licence to learn; and
The ones who obtain one under JAR with lots of multi pilot time required.
Will one be better than the other....possibly but not always the one you would expect! However, they both have to operate to the same minima.
If there is an ATPL in the right seat, and they are the handling pilot for the sector, there will be occasions when the Captain must according to the rules do the approach / landing regardless of their ability. Depending on the make-up of the crew, the minima may be higher for certain airfields where CAT2 or CAT3 minima are available. Note I said regardless of ability. The reason is safety.
Ask a current co-pilot what they would do if their allowed minima were 500ft but the Captain suddenly decided to use another operator's minima of 400ft because they were not visual at 500? I don't think that you as a passenger would like to fly with that type of individual.
As for accident stats; Here is a widely distributed quote from the CAA:
All but one of the pilots killed when they lost control in IMC were flying in instrument conditions without an Instrument Rating. This is extremely unwise to say the least. Possibly they believed that their IMC rating was sufficient........
Unless you use very high minima indeed (CAVOK), you can not reguluarly depart for a flight that involves an approach in IMC without having a probability of prolonged flight in IMC.
Filing to depart IFR and not being able to fly the SID due to lack of ability, lack of currency or lack of training is simply not acceptable. Does anyone seriously expect ATC to put in extra work to accomodate such situations. Furthermore does anyone expect that the other aircraft behind should be delayed while ATC provide some extra service to the IMC holder? ATC should tell the pilot to return to the apron and wait until a VFR departure becomes available.
Same goes for having to hold in IMC for an extended period - something that can happen on any arrival in IMC. Does anyone think that the IMC rating holder who can not fly a hold should get vectors to final while everyone else holds?
Should IMCrating holders who do not understand the approach ban clutter the arival pattern with approach and go-arrounds when it is below their minima?
Or do IMC holders who can not join the arrival route or standard holding patterns via class A expect ATC to give them a vector ahead of all the other inbounds?
The objections to minima that reflect the average ability, the statements of ducking under chosen minima when not visual, the expectation that one can file and fly IFR without the ability to fly in IMC for long periods in "challenging conditions" in the UK (which is all winter and much of the "Summer"!), the lack of knowledge regarding diversions including planning to return after a departure all go to paint a very poor picture of the average IMC rating holder.
If people what the IMC rating to survice the oncoming onslaught in terms of ATS service providers, airspace changes and EASA regulation, they have to project the best image and that is not being done currently.
The IFR flying environment in the UK has vastly changed from the days when the IMC rating was conceived. many regional airports that only had a bit of an SRZ and few commercial flights now have class D and a steady stream of IFR inbounds via the airways. Many other airfields are not only busy but their standard holding pattern(s) are in Class A airspace.
As little as 10 to 15 years ago certain aerodromes did not permit IMC holders to fly IFR in their airspace. Perhaps it is time that the CAA looked at aerodromes in Class D and the effect IMC holders can have on the standard IFR traffic loadings. Then perhaps some aerodromes could be put back on the list of aerodromes where IMC holders can not make an approach except in an emergency.
As for the driving comparison.........does france publish an equivalent of the AIP for Drivers and do many drivers actually check the rules before flying in France? Do you fly on the left of the centerline in England and to the Right in France? NO. Bad comparison!
-------
IO540,
I wonder how people can have time to complete say 60 to 70 hours in what has to be benign good VMC weather doing a PPL with lots of exams but then think that it is impossible to find the time to do the IR with probably far less flying with less requirement to match bookings with such good weather and the posibility to complete the majority in a sim not to mention far fewer exams?
Excuses such as those will not get the system changed.
Any mini-IR would have to comply with ICAO requirements or at least satisfy the requirements to pass a safety case showing that it would not have any effect on regular IFR flights in the system........that problem will always bring us back to the current IR.
If the IMC had more clearly laid down minima which were easily applied without having to be an expert reader of the ANO and the use of the IMC rating was not open to the critisims I highlighted above then it is possible that people from places like Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain and Ireland would see an advantage. Currently all they see are the critisims above and images of pilots flying in IMC waiting to be the next accident. Not an image that is going to make progress in Europe.
Has anyone ever done what the CAA advise and asked if they can use the IMC rating to fly IFR in any country outside the UK?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
I have enjoyed our debate which has become a bit one to one.
Whilst I have taken on board some of the issues you raise, I have to say I dont understand a lot of the points you make, particularly in the last post.
I beg to disagree with your views and I am simply not convinced that they are born from any real world application of the issues.
I also dont think you will find a lot of support for them here, but that is for others to judge.
Finally I am not convinced any evidence has been forthcoming to support your views. There is an old saying - if it isnt broken then dont fix it. The IMCR has served a great many pilots for a very long time without any obvious problems. The one thing I do know is whenever I am GAing in Europe I hear repeatedly we wish we had the IMCR. Sadly, what many do becasue they dont have the rating is break the law, and that is not acceptable.
On this one we will have to agree to differ!
The thread remains important in so far as the debate about IMCR landing minima are concerned. At the risk of repeating myself I am satisfied the landing minima are recommended not mandatory. I have asked the CAA whether anything can be posted here or else where to clarrify the matter for others and I will be back to report what they have to say on this issue. In the mean time make your own mind up or write or phone the CAA - they really are rather nice people!
Until then .. .. ..
I have enjoyed our debate which has become a bit one to one.
Whilst I have taken on board some of the issues you raise, I have to say I dont understand a lot of the points you make, particularly in the last post.
I beg to disagree with your views and I am simply not convinced that they are born from any real world application of the issues.
I also dont think you will find a lot of support for them here, but that is for others to judge.
Finally I am not convinced any evidence has been forthcoming to support your views. There is an old saying - if it isnt broken then dont fix it. The IMCR has served a great many pilots for a very long time without any obvious problems. The one thing I do know is whenever I am GAing in Europe I hear repeatedly we wish we had the IMCR. Sadly, what many do becasue they dont have the rating is break the law, and that is not acceptable.
On this one we will have to agree to differ!
The thread remains important in so far as the debate about IMCR landing minima are concerned. At the risk of repeating myself I am satisfied the landing minima are recommended not mandatory. I have asked the CAA whether anything can be posted here or else where to clarrify the matter for others and I will be back to report what they have to say on this issue. In the mean time make your own mind up or write or phone the CAA - they really are rather nice people!
Until then .. .. ..
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am currently training for the IMCR and I have been taught holds in case I ever have to use them. I have been told that examiners in our area will include a hold in the test, probably not a bad thing. I did ask about SID's as they are mentioned in Thom 5 and I was avdised that I did not have to worry about them. With that in mind if anyone feels that IMCR pilots should be able to fly SIDs then they should loby the CAA to include SIDs in the IMC syllubus and test. I am happy with the minima that is given for IMCR pilots but what I am not happy with is people trying to tell me that I am allowed to fly down to the publised minima. 500ft absolute minima is low enough for my liking and I cannot see myself flying below 800ft in reality without being visual.
My main reasons for doing the IMC is to aid me flying when the vis is arround 7K or below - legal VFR but not that good, I also want to fly above the clouds as the air is smoother up there most of the time. Given the choice of having to fly a hold or orbit for more than 5 mins I would choose the hold any day. Incidently if I had the time and money I would do the IR though I would still stick to the IMC minima.
My main reasons for doing the IMC is to aid me flying when the vis is arround 7K or below - legal VFR but not that good, I also want to fly above the clouds as the air is smoother up there most of the time. Given the choice of having to fly a hold or orbit for more than 5 mins I would choose the hold any day. Incidently if I had the time and money I would do the IR though I would still stick to the IMC minima.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helen
There is a reasonable reason for not dealing with SIDs and STARs in the IMCR syllabus: the IFR privileges of the IMCR are specifically limited to the UK, and no Class A, and over here there is little or no prospect of flying one of these procedures without going in or out of Class A.
Actually flying one of these is easy - it is no more than a list of climbs / descents / turns and someone who covered the IMCR requirements properly can fly them OK.
The way one uses the IMCR in the UK, one doesn't need to fly SIDs/STARs. One flies mostly in Class G, occassionally popping into a bit of Class D.
In this context, holds are very rarely flown in reality; they are taught because you have to be able to do them, they form parts of some instrument approaches, and they are great for separating the men with hairy chests from those without
There is a reasonable reason for not dealing with SIDs and STARs in the IMCR syllabus: the IFR privileges of the IMCR are specifically limited to the UK, and no Class A, and over here there is little or no prospect of flying one of these procedures without going in or out of Class A.
Actually flying one of these is easy - it is no more than a list of climbs / descents / turns and someone who covered the IMCR requirements properly can fly them OK.
The way one uses the IMCR in the UK, one doesn't need to fly SIDs/STARs. One flies mostly in Class G, occassionally popping into a bit of Class D.
In this context, holds are very rarely flown in reality; they are taught because you have to be able to do them, they form parts of some instrument approaches, and they are great for separating the men with hairy chests from those without
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji,
Here is a free lesson.
Aviation risk management has a very well defined and widely known decision path.
1. Perceive the Hazards - Pilot, Aircraft, Environment, External Factors
2. Process Risk Level - Consequences, Alternatives, Reality, External Factors
3. Perform Risk Management - Transfer, Eliminate, Accept, Mitigate
One of the biggest hazards is peer pressure to fly faster, fly lower, fly in poor weather, use lower minima.
To use IR minima when one does not hold an appropriate Instrument Rating does nothing for risk management.
-------
IO540,
Many UK airfields in class D have SIDs that are designed to get the pilot into class G. It is simply not acceptable that pilots filing IFR can not fly a SID because the notified ATC IFR capacity is based on all IFR pilots being able to fly the procedures.
Having a flow restriction in place because there are IMC pilots about will not wash well with the service provider (who work hard to avoid any delays) or the Dept of Transport who have to answer to airlines asking why their flight 123 had to holds while (as they see it) an unqualified pilot jumped the que.
Are we going to find that legislation will prevent pilot exercising their IMC ratings in class D?
What about when the future airspace changes happen? Will Euro airspace permit non IR holders to fly IFR IMC? NO.
Regards,
DFC
Here is a free lesson.
Aviation risk management has a very well defined and widely known decision path.
1. Perceive the Hazards - Pilot, Aircraft, Environment, External Factors
2. Process Risk Level - Consequences, Alternatives, Reality, External Factors
3. Perform Risk Management - Transfer, Eliminate, Accept, Mitigate
One of the biggest hazards is peer pressure to fly faster, fly lower, fly in poor weather, use lower minima.
To use IR minima when one does not hold an appropriate Instrument Rating does nothing for risk management.
-------
IO540,
Many UK airfields in class D have SIDs that are designed to get the pilot into class G. It is simply not acceptable that pilots filing IFR can not fly a SID because the notified ATC IFR capacity is based on all IFR pilots being able to fly the procedures.
Having a flow restriction in place because there are IMC pilots about will not wash well with the service provider (who work hard to avoid any delays) or the Dept of Transport who have to answer to airlines asking why their flight 123 had to holds while (as they see it) an unqualified pilot jumped the que.
Are we going to find that legislation will prevent pilot exercising their IMC ratings in class D?
What about when the future airspace changes happen? Will Euro airspace permit non IR holders to fly IFR IMC? NO.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC, you are spouting nonsense again.
The IMCR is not valid (for IFR) outside the UK, so your sentence "Will Euro airspace permit non IR holders to fly IFR IMC? NO." is meaningless. It doesn't matter what the rest of Euro-land thinks of the IMCR; the CAA can do whatever it likes in its own back garden - just like they have done with the NPPL, or non-expiring UK PPLs.
I don't think you fly a plane for real. If you did, you would know that a SID usually takes you to an airways join, and a STAR does the opposite. This stuff is mostly Class A over here. Very different abroad (may not be Class A) but the IMCR isn't valid for IFR abroad so it's moot.
In fact, most SIDs/STARs are not actually flown (or not fully) because one is usually under radar vectors....
A properly trained IMCR pilot can fly any SID or STAR. They are a piece of cake. It's just a short chunk of route, from A to B to C etc. You fly the chart or description. No rocket science.
The IMCR is not valid (for IFR) outside the UK, so your sentence "Will Euro airspace permit non IR holders to fly IFR IMC? NO." is meaningless. It doesn't matter what the rest of Euro-land thinks of the IMCR; the CAA can do whatever it likes in its own back garden - just like they have done with the NPPL, or non-expiring UK PPLs.
I don't think you fly a plane for real. If you did, you would know that a SID usually takes you to an airways join, and a STAR does the opposite. This stuff is mostly Class A over here. Very different abroad (may not be Class A) but the IMCR isn't valid for IFR abroad so it's moot.
In fact, most SIDs/STARs are not actually flown (or not fully) because one is usually under radar vectors....
A properly trained IMCR pilot can fly any SID or STAR. They are a piece of cake. It's just a short chunk of route, from A to B to C etc. You fly the chart or description. No rocket science.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK will in time have Euro Airspace. It has started with Class C replacing the national class B that the UK uses for the upper air and will extend to the lower levels in time. The Single sky for Europe project is something that you need to be aware of as something like the French system in the lower levels would not be great for the IMC holder (able to fly IFR in class E) but could be the end of the IMC rating - the powers that be are not going to have IMC rating holders effectively being given access to UK airways by European directive when they can not fly IFR IMC outside the UK. The will use pilots comments about ducking under and such like as a lever to get rid. Get the idea.
I'll ignore your typical childish insult and simply refer you to the following;
Stansted Barkway 4R and 2S departures
Luton K, M, N, P and R, S, T, U and Victor departures.
Examples of departures that are designed to take the flight out of controlled airspace.
Never mind departre procedures designed to leave controlled airspace. The fact is that any pilot filing IFR should be able (personally and legally) to fly the appropriate SID to a point where it is convenient for ATC to get the aircraft out of controlled airspace taking into account other users. Operators will not stand for being delayed by unqualified pilots expecting something special from ATC.
I know that an IMC rating holder can not fly in class A. many operators both UK and abroad operating at UK airports would simply say that if an IMC rating holder can not fly in Class A and the SID takes them there then simply hold them until they can depart VFR (in appropriate weather).
Not many IMC rating holders operate to/from Stansted. However the current system allows it and people can be suckered into situations that they do not fully understand or more importantly do not realise the consequences of what they do.
The important words in your final statement is "properly trained".
It is a bit of a quandary for the CAA.
Restrict the IMCrating to Class G would please operators that moan about delays from unqualified pilots. Many would say that most IMC operators operate in class G with only a few infrequent exceurions into class D.
However, it is not as simple as that.
Many training organisations are based at airfields in Class D and provide IMC training using instructors that only hold IMC ratings. A ban would reduce their revenue. The every increasing numbers of flights to regional airports will cause more Class D to be established and in time it would be a race between the UK putting more class D in plance and the Single Sky as to which would be first to finish off the IMC Rating.
Possible advances in GPS could help somewhat. However, it is not going to be simple.
The CAA have had a proposal on the back burner for a few years to remove the requirement for ATC at any arfield with a published instrument approach procedure but the kickback would be making it a requirement for all procedures used (including private ones) to be published.
Want to invest in something and are a GPS believer, invest in procedure design because when GPS is approved for NPA, it will be a requirement for an approved procedure design organisation to organise the surveys and draw up the procedure before it can be used.
Isn't it about time that the CAA got out a bit more like the FAA and did ramp checks. The did it years ago.I remember the CAA checking qualifications of pilots landing in Jersey when the weather was not exactly nice.
Regards,
DFC
I'll ignore your typical childish insult and simply refer you to the following;
Stansted Barkway 4R and 2S departures
Luton K, M, N, P and R, S, T, U and Victor departures.
Examples of departures that are designed to take the flight out of controlled airspace.
Never mind departre procedures designed to leave controlled airspace. The fact is that any pilot filing IFR should be able (personally and legally) to fly the appropriate SID to a point where it is convenient for ATC to get the aircraft out of controlled airspace taking into account other users. Operators will not stand for being delayed by unqualified pilots expecting something special from ATC.
I know that an IMC rating holder can not fly in class A. many operators both UK and abroad operating at UK airports would simply say that if an IMC rating holder can not fly in Class A and the SID takes them there then simply hold them until they can depart VFR (in appropriate weather).
Not many IMC rating holders operate to/from Stansted. However the current system allows it and people can be suckered into situations that they do not fully understand or more importantly do not realise the consequences of what they do.
The important words in your final statement is "properly trained".
It is a bit of a quandary for the CAA.
Restrict the IMCrating to Class G would please operators that moan about delays from unqualified pilots. Many would say that most IMC operators operate in class G with only a few infrequent exceurions into class D.
However, it is not as simple as that.
Many training organisations are based at airfields in Class D and provide IMC training using instructors that only hold IMC ratings. A ban would reduce their revenue. The every increasing numbers of flights to regional airports will cause more Class D to be established and in time it would be a race between the UK putting more class D in plance and the Single Sky as to which would be first to finish off the IMC Rating.
Possible advances in GPS could help somewhat. However, it is not going to be simple.
The CAA have had a proposal on the back burner for a few years to remove the requirement for ATC at any arfield with a published instrument approach procedure but the kickback would be making it a requirement for all procedures used (including private ones) to be published.
Want to invest in something and are a GPS believer, invest in procedure design because when GPS is approved for NPA, it will be a requirement for an approved procedure design organisation to organise the surveys and draw up the procedure before it can be used.
Isn't it about time that the CAA got out a bit more like the FAA and did ramp checks. The did it years ago.I remember the CAA checking qualifications of pilots landing in Jersey when the weather was not exactly nice.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the FAA IR holders will not rely on the IMC rating for long as once they have gained the required experience (75 hours IFR) they will go for the JAA PPL/IR so the pilots in that group are only going to be there for a very short period if they keep current and have any sense.
Why would they???
They may not want to spend 12+ months and £3500 on pointless exams and then more £££ on the extra 15 hours training and flight test when they already have a perfectly good IR - why not just join an N reg group or hire an N? Thats what I would call having sense and an extra £10k in the bank!!!!
I would have thought that the only ones who may take the route you are suggesting (and I take it you mean an IR in addition to the PPL as the much talked about PPL/IR still doesnt exist), are those who are going all the way on the JAA side to go Professional.
For those not going Pro they will then have the extra exam rides, etc to keep it valid - another waste of time and money! Something else the FAA have got right basing it on experience but there again if the CAA followed this lead they would lose out on the massive cash cow they currently have.....
Why would they???
They may not want to spend 12+ months and £3500 on pointless exams and then more £££ on the extra 15 hours training and flight test when they already have a perfectly good IR - why not just join an N reg group or hire an N? Thats what I would call having sense and an extra £10k in the bank!!!!
I would have thought that the only ones who may take the route you are suggesting (and I take it you mean an IR in addition to the PPL as the much talked about PPL/IR still doesnt exist), are those who are going all the way on the JAA side to go Professional.
For those not going Pro they will then have the extra exam rides, etc to keep it valid - another waste of time and money! Something else the FAA have got right basing it on experience but there again if the CAA followed this lead they would lose out on the massive cash cow they currently have.....