[chevvron]

IMCr training, current or not, is better than none at all.
Back in the day when Cessna 150's were brand new, I was caught out by deteriorating weather and lived through it by luck alone. I had less than 100 hours and was a basic VFR pilot. Rather than listening to advice to climb above the weather or turn around, my advice is not to push your luck like I did and turn around before get into cloud. Build time and then go for an FAA IR.

Back in '71 on my QXC routing from Ely to Norwich in a C150, I saw a 'bar' of cloud ahead of me which was obviously below me, so I started descending to go under it. I glanced down as I did so to see a Buccaneer passing below me, same direction about 1000ft below but considerably faster than me.
As I passed the bar of cloud, I saw something out of the corner of my left eye; it was a Victor, same level as me, turning away towards Marham; it had been 'hiding' in the cloud until then.

[David Wood]

Bashing IMCr / IRR / IR holders is pretty silly because all of them are quite capable of falling out of currency, but in every case the fact that they once went through the process might still just save their lives one day. Obvioulsy far better they remain current, but far better we all maintained the ideal weight - unfortunately life isnt quite like that.

Personally, what I find far more worrying is instructors who should know better spouting this rubbish, which to me is indicative of their complete lack of real world experience.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood or misinterpreted your post, IMCR, but I feel that I ought to respond. I'm not trying to get into an argument, but I do just need to correct a couple of things.

Firstly, I'm not bashing IMCR/IRR or IR holders; not at all. I'm not clear if you directed that remark at me but, just to be clear, I'm absolutely in favour of pilots gaining an instrument qualification of some sort. As you say, it might save their lives one day and it will certainly expand their flying horizons. So, no bashing from here.

However, (and secondarily) there is little doubt that instrument flying skills are the most perishable of flying skills. I notice myself that if I haven't flown an approach for a few weeks then I'm noticeably poorer at it than when I'm current. Ditto hand-flying on instruments. Currency is king.

So I'm not sure what rubbish you're referring to, or what real world experience you imply may be lacking [on my part?]. Maybe you weren't swinging at me at all, I'm really not sure. But I don't think that anyone can legitimately take issue with the importance of currency. My point was merely that having taken the trouble to get the qualification it seems a shame not to keep the currency up. But I obviously appreciate that it's expensive and sometimes inconvenient to do so.

[matthew_w100]

Perhaps planning to fly in 3nm Vis without an IMC at least is not a great idea. I suppose the TAF was showing an improvement to 10k+?

Yes. It was. We had a proper briefing from the Met Office stand at the Popham show. Weather was clear at start and finish, with an iffy band on track that was already legal and was improving. And while 3nm may not be a lot in a 120kt hotship, it's 5 minutes flying in a 40kt flex wing. So we felt good to go.

I don't think I've ever had a flight where *something* wasn't marginal. If everything had to be perfect you'd never get into the air

[IMCR]

David there were two comments that caused me concern.

One was;

"As has been said, the rating without the currency is like a chocolate tea-pot."

which followed

"The general standard of people who turn up for renewal on IMCr tests with me is shocking. Most of them would end up dead in seconds. Currency is king."

The context of this discussion were the techniques that could be employed to prevent disaster in an unintentional encounter with IMC.

In this context I think any trained instrument skills whatever the lack of currency is an advantage over the complete absence of these skills or the far more limited skills taught during the initial PPL.

I wasnt swinging at you with respect to the points you raise. Within the context, I was swinging at an instructor who took the opportunity to pick on the alledged lack of currency of many IMCr holders when they present for revalidation. Within the context, my reason for doing so was that of course I hope we all agree currency is king and ideally learned instrument skills should be kept current. In reality, for various reasons (some of which have been covered by others), this does not prove possible for many. Never the less I would strongly argue having once been trained to fly in IMC, however much you may lack currency, gives you a far better chance should you inadvertently enter IMC and require nothing more than an escape. In short some of the basic skills take a long time to be lost. Therefore within the context, to make the connection between an inadvertent incursion into IMC and an IMCr holder surviving seconds would seem motivated by some other agenda. There are some that take every opportunity to deride the IRR because in their eyes it falls short of an IR, which is a great disservice to the rating. In reality, on the topic you raise, whether you hold an IR or IRR both are equally subject to the drawbacks of lack of currency, so it also seems bizarre to single out IRR holders. For these reasons, I would also argue that any trained instrument skills, whatever the degree of currency, are better than a chocolate tea pot. Therefore we are talking about degrees. We agree currency is king, we agree ideally anyone with an IR or IRR would keep current, but whether we agree that this training within the context of the OPs question whatever the state of currency gives a pilot a far better chance of survival I am not sure? If we do agree, then I am not sure the relevance of either comment (again within the context of this thread), and so while both comments may well be accurate, I dont see they relevant to this discussion, and more especially the context of this discussion. Of course, had the comments been caveated along the lines suggested, then that would have been a reasonable, but they were not.

[QSD]

The EASA PPL syllabus contains a bit more than straight and level and a180 degree turn.

Ex 19 includes:-

(a) straight and level at various air speeds and configurations;
(b) climbing and descending;
(c) standard rate turns, climbing and descending, onto selected headings;
(d) recoveries from climbing and descending turns.

So a competent PPL should be able to climb or descend on instruments in an emergency if this is a better option than a 180 degree turn.