IMC Rating News

[Bald Sparrow]

From the ANO

You can't "unless the licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane) or an instrument meteorological conditions rating (aeroplanes), fly as pilot in command or co-pilot of such an aeroplane flying in Class D or E airspace in circumstances which require compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules;"

That statement and lots of other bits in the ANO make it clear an IMCr affords the pilot more than "no additional privileges over the PPL apart from a small reduction in visibility minima."

My impression is that AOPA's approach is rather like Basil Fawlty. "Don't mention it's almost an IR. I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it".

[G-BLEW]

If I fly into Bournemouth I don't have to fly the approach procedure if I can maintain VMC. If I can't maintain VMC then compliance with IFR is required, I can't fly in there unless I have an IMCR or IR and I must fly the procedure.

Sorry Mike, I explained myself badly.

An IMCr holder can fly IFR in class D and below in IMC. He/she can fly approaches in IMC in class D or below. Both seem to me to be a considerable extra privilege. As I said, I support the retention of the IMCr, but don't understand why IAOPA refers to it as a rating that only allows flight in slightly reduced visibility.

I may of course be missing something that is obvious to everyone else.

Ian

[Mike Cross]

I don't think you're missing anything. I admit to the same scepticism when I first saw that wording being used. However the way that UK law is worded means that the requirement to fly under IFR in airspace where you can also fly VFR kicks in as a result of visibility. The IMCR allows you to fly when the visibility has fallen below VMC minima.

The effect of the IMCR is to allow you to fly in those conditions and to do the things that you would be able to do if it was VMC (But not in Classes A B or C). AFIK a plain vanilla PPL can fly an instrument approach in VMC, the IMCR allows him to do it when vis is below VMC minima.

It's an interesting argument but it appears to hold water to me.

So you then get on to the empirical question of whether it is dangerous to extend the privileges of the PPL in this way. The evidence seems to suggest that it is not.

The difficulty with the IMCR in Europe is that it works in conjunction with the UK's system of airspace classification. The FCL001 NPA proposes that States may designate which aerodromes require the pilot to hold a mountain Rating. One approach for the IMCR would be to allow States to designate which airspace it could be used in. The UK designates Class D and below, everyone else designates no airspace. Simples! Then it would be up to pilots in other countries to lobby their NA's to designate some airspace if they want to use the privileges.

As far as I can see this is a totally different animal to the proposed En-Route IR, which would be valid in all classes of airspace anywhere in EASAland and would be basically an IR without the ability to fly approaches (and presumably SID's) in IMC.

The two don't seem to me to be mutually exclusive.

[mm_flynn]

I don't think you're missing anything. I admit to the same scepticism when I first saw that wording being used. However the way that UK law is worded means that the requirement to fly under IFR in airspace where you can also fly VFR kicks in as a result of visibility. The IMCR allows you to fly when the visibility has fallen below VMC minima.

The effect of the IMCR is to allow you to fly in those conditions and to do the things that you would be able to do if it was VMC (But not in Classes A B or C). AFIK a plain vanilla PPL can fly an instrument approach in VMC, the IMCR allows him to do it when visa is below VMC minima.

Which is virtually the same effect as having an IR (in Class D-G airspace). So broadly an IR gives a PPL no extra privileges in class D-G other than further reduced takeoff/landing visibility requirements. Interestingly a plain vanilla PPL can not fly an approach under IFR in Class D regardless of the visibility

(The logic is even worse on this than AOPAs - "a PPL CAN fly IFR in Class D, unless in circumstances when compliance with IFR is required. One must ask for an IFR clearance to be issued to fly IFR in Class D. If the PPL accepts the clearance then he is in circumstances that require compliance - so he CAN'T fly IFR - No joke that is the answer I got from SRG!)

[KNT754G]

Interestingly a plain vanilla PPL can not fly an approach under IFR in Class D regardless of the visibility

Indeed, but he/she can do so legitimately under VFR and many airports will allow exactly this.

[nickwilcock]

I'm sure that the 'plain vanilla' PPL practising such flights is fully aware of the ANO requirements pertaining:

Simulated instrument flight
23 (1) An aircraft shall not be flown in simulated instrument flight conditions unless the conditions in paragraph (2) are met.
(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:
(a) the aircraft is fitted with dual controls which are functioning properly;
(b) an additional pilot (in this rule called a 'safety pilot') is carried in a second control seat of the aircraft for the purpose of providing assistance to the pilot flying theaircraft; and
(c) if the safety pilot's field of vision is not adequate, both forwards and to each side of the aircraft, a third person, who is a competent observer, occupies a position in the aircraft from which his field of vision makes good the deficiencies in that of the safety pilot, and from which he can readily communicate with the safety
pilot.

Practice instrument approaches
24 (1) An aircraft shall not carry out an instrument approach practice within the United Kingdom if it is flying in Visual Meteorological Conditions unless the conditions in paragraph (2) are met.
(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:
(a) the appropriate air traffic control unit has previously been informed that the flight is to be made for the purpose of instrument approach practice; and
(b) if the flight is not being carried out in simulated instrument flight conditions, a
competent observer is carried in such a position in the aircraft that he has an adequate field of vision and can readily communicate with the pilot flying the aircraft.

[Mike Cross]

I'd hope the IR holder is also fully aware Nick. I didn't mention it earlier as it's not relevant to the issue under discussion.

[bookworm]

As I said, I support the retention of the IMCr, but don't understand why IAOPA refers to it as a rating that only allows flight in slightly reduced visibility.

It's just like a Cat IIIc authorisation, Ian. All that does is "allow flight in slightly reduced visibility" compared to a vanilla Cat I IR. As long as you consider reducing a visibility of 3000 m outside controlled airspace or 5000 m inside controlled airspace to a visibility of zero to be "slightly reduced visibility", the argument makes perfect sense. Nothing to it really...