Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1911911
Having done the IMCR test , the FAA/IR check ride and the IR test ( twice :oops: ), IMHO the ‘CAA ‘ IR test was by far the most stringent of the three.

With the possible caveat that if you don’t pass the preliminary FAA/IR oral ( which can last for well over two hours ) on the day, the IR check ride doesn’t happen…… :shock:
#1911924
IainD wrote:One of the sad things of this report from the pictures is it looks like if they diverted North for a few miles then easterly they could have avoided the cloud. Not sure why you would choose to continue straight through if you see shower squalls down to sea level ?

Iain


Perhaps they didnt see the cloud as a threat so tried to follow the magenta line straight through it, or perhaps due to lack of recency of the faster aircraft type and its panel mount IFR GPS they got to it quicker than expected whilst overloaded trying to program a route change?
or ....
User avatar
By defcribed
#1911953
The IR test may be harder, but that's not really anything to do with one's ability to keep an aircraft right-side-up in a cloud.

It's harder because it's a relatively long and highly-choreographed procedure, with a hundred things you must remember to do just as the examiner wants, encompassing just about every phase of flight crammed into barely enough time to do it. It's such that one is always working flat-out on procedural stuff - radio, nav, checks, changes to plan, failures, mental arithmetic - and is always being given maximum mental overload on top of the task of flying the aeroplane.

Most of it is totally unrealistic anyway. If you lose comms on a partial-panel NDB approach to minimums with one engine out then you don't go missed and take up the hold via the prescribed entry method. You ruddy well land, come what may. Do you want to live, or follow the book? Perhaps the latter, because you should have called Mayday long ago.

It's great for hardening people up, but it doesn't mean people who've not done it can't fly an aeroplane on instruments.

The IR(R) test on the other hand is very sensible. It replicates a typical flight using the rating. One takes off and flies somewhere that has instrument approaches, Class G or D as the route requires. Shoot two different types of approach to show that you can, no holding required unless its actually required - and even then it's about whether you went round a roughly sensible path in a sensible time - not about being within 5 degrees of inbound track for 30 secs etc. Fly home, on the way demonstrating that you can track a navaid and then a bit of partial-panel and unusual attitudes on same to show you can get yourself out of trouble. Bad weather circuit and then inside for tea and paperwork. The only real test is of the FLYING, not the faff that goes with it. I don't have to prepare for a reval, I just have be at least slightly current.
Rob P, Ibra, AlanM and 1 others liked this
By Big Dex
#1912034
I hold an IMCR and regularly fly IFR in IMC. Having spent 15 years prior being taught that flying in cloud = 3 mins to live, it took a while post-rating to become comfortable in the soup, but I felt (and feel) that regularly flying in IMC is crucial to being safe doing so, to the point that in OVC3000 days, I choose to (hand) fly at 3200', and minimise my use of the autopilot in IMC; treating it as being there to give me a break if I want it, rather than a crutch to rely upon.

Obviously convective cloud or icing conditions are to be avoided, but that's down to proper planning.
mick w, defcribed liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912039
To suggest that the IMCR test is more realistic than the IR test, is cobblers. For my IMCR test we did not even leave the local area.

There are no doubt people who use their IMCR to its full potential and who maintain currency. The vast majority however never do and may renew a couple of times and that, if at all. Does that mean there's no point in doing the course and test? No, but doing it does, in itself, not make for a competent and capable IMC equipped pilot.

Does the IR (of whatever flavour) do that?

A lot more so, but even those with a full IR have plenty more to learn about flying 'the system' be it in the UK, EASA land or the US.

And unless you have very deep pockets, and loads of time on your hands, there will always be limitations to capability; either you only have one engine, and a carburettor normally aspirated one at that, or no de-icing, or a lack of currency, or no proper AP, or convective activity, or no Wx-radar, or no pressurisation, or no oxygen, or, or.

Each step to more capability costing exponentially more in money, training and currency.

Each to their own of course but after some years I've decide that I either go in non-marginal VFR weather, wait or don't go at all.

For the rest there's time and mastercard.
A4 Pacific, IainD liked this
#1912054
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:To suggest that the IMCR test is more realistic than the IR test, is cobblers. For my IMCR test we did not even leave the local area.


Cobblers. IMCr tests vary, obviously. Perhaps you did it an an airfield with instrument approaches? Mine has none, so you go somewhere - via a realistic route and at a realistic altitude - which is what you use the rating for. How realistic is the IR test? If intending to fly from (say) Bournemouth to Cardiff IFR, do you file some absurd route through the Class A at 2x GC distance and at some altitude it's clearly not worth climbing to for such a short flight? Of course not - it's totally contrived and just to get you into Class A and talking to London Control.

Flyin'Dutch' wrote:No, but doing it does, in itself, not make for a competent and capable IMC equipped pilot.


Well, I consider myself a competent and capable IMC pilot - as do many other holders of the rating. You may of course say that's not possible, but you don't know me and I'm not seeking your approval in any case.

Flyin'Dutch' wrote:even those with a full IR have plenty more to learn about flying 'the system'


Right, so it is about procedural stuff and not about how to keep the aeroplane right-side up.

Flyin'Dutch' wrote:And unless you have very deep pockets, and loads of time on your hands, there will always be limitations to capability; either you only have one engine, and a carburettor normally aspirated one at that, or no de-icing, or a lack of currency, or no proper AP, or convective activity, or no Wx-radar, or no pressurisation, or no oxygen, or, or.


Perhaps we finally agree on something. I have never suggested that an IR(R) gives me a 100% dispatch rate or makes weather a non-issue for me. What is does do is remove the 'must be able to see out of the window no matter what' limitation, which is very handy in British weather. I'm well aware of all the limitations you list and many more.

Part of the reason I don't do the full IR (along with time, money, and a low tolerance for BS) is that I don't have an aeroplane that is well-equipped to make good use of the privileges: normally aspirated with a carburettor, not de-iced, and a book ceiling of 13,000ft that is actually a practical ceiling of 10,000ft. Then the fact that our airspace structure and ATC model, with hard borders between Class A and everything else, makes it impractical to fly 'in the system' IFR at FL50-FL80 - other than perhaps some contrived routings for the test.

Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Each to their own of course but after some years I've decide that I either go in non-marginal VFR weather, wait or don't go at all.


Indeed each to their own, but don't make demonstrably ridiculous statements like the rating being a chocolate teapot. It quite obviously isn't, and without it the vast majority of UK pilots would have no instrument capability whatsoever and UK GA activity would be greatly reduced. The fact that you personally happen to be uncomfortable flying an aeroplane by sole reference to instruments does not mean the same applies to everyone.

BigDex' wrote:Having spent 15 years prior being taught that flying in cloud = 3 mins to live, it took a while post-rating to become comfortable in the soup


In other words you were uncomfortable with the idea of it, rather than the actual experience, because people had been filling your head with preachy nonsense for 15 years. I was lucky enough not to experience this, having done the IMCr course as soon as possible after the PPL.
#1912057
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:...
There are no doubt people who use their IMCR to its full potential and who maintain currency. The vast majority however never do and may renew a couple of times and that, if at all. Does that mean there's no point in doing the course and test?


It is relatively easy to enrol on the initial course and do the test.
Apparently it is not so easy to coordinate the reval refresher training and test, so the candidate has to be quite determined to go through all the hassle which can take months.

Most of GA is based at airfields without instrument approaches for the usual reasons of keeping costs down.
Most of GA flights are to airfields that have landing fees less than those aerodromes that have instrument approaches. (The forum has posts going back decades moaning about the difference in fees).
Most of GA flights are to airfields without mandatory handling fees.
Roll out of GPS approaches to grass roots GA airfields is glacially slow.
Less beacons to play with so a longer transit to practice.

This all makes it so much more difficult to maintain an IMCR by keeping in practice in a real aircraft flying real instrument approaches. The high rate of non-reval after the first year or two is probably because it is too much hassle and cost.

VFR flying with all the nav apps is so much easier these days compared to the pre-GPS era.

Flyin'Dutch' wrote:...
Each to their own of course but after some years I've decide that I either go in non-marginal VFR weather, wait or don't go at all.


Me too.
A4 Pacific liked this
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912061
You’re right about the overload and complexity of the IR test.
My training was complex with many IR routes all over the south east and masses of what is now called ‘upset training( unusual attitudes).’

In my first test having just established on the ILS at E Mids ( gear down flaps down all fat and happy ) ATC came on ,called a Tommo up my chuff and requested ‘best speed’

My examiner immediately shrieked at me ‘get the gear and flaps up, more speed ‘

That’s what I did but ballooned and exceeded the ILS limits and failed the test.

That was the first test or exam of any kind from. ‘ O’ levels to FRCS part 2 that I’d ever failed in my life and almost made me give up the IR as it rattled me so .

I later learned from the school ( but too late) that the examiner s actions were grounds for an appeal . I took a year’s break and came back and passed the test ( same ’kin examiner).

But the point about this post is that much of my IFR flying has not been in IMC but warm fat and cosy in airways above the weeds . Much less hassle and looked after carefully all the way .

And as insurance at every other yearly IR reval the examiner signs off my IMCR ( yes inc bad Wx circuit)

I have struggled manfully over the last 25 years despite continual CAA goal-post shifting to keep our arrer ’fully airways ‘ and long may this continue :wink: :thumleft:
defcribed, johnm liked this
User avatar
By AndyR
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912069
That was certainly grounds for a Reg6 appeal @PeteSpencer.

Such a shame that so many seem to have bad experience of IR(R) or IR training.

I agree that the IR is very contrived and is well rehearsed.

I disagree that the lesser version is dangerous.

A non current IR pilot is just as dangerous/unsafe, insert any number of words.
Currency remains king, whatever the flavour of instrument rating you have.

Pick a decent school who will train you to full IR standards and the IR(R) is a great qualification. Find an experienced IRI who flies IFR outside of the training environment and preferably in GA and that will really help gaining some real world tips.
Ibra, G-BLEW, defcribed and 2 others liked this
By Ibra
#1912072
AndyR wrote:Pick a decent school who will train you to full IR standards and the IR(R) is a great qualification. Find an experienced IRI who flies IFR outside of the training environment and preferably in GA and that will really help gaining some real world tips.


That is a good advice, yes an IRI with both IMCR & IR privileges, ideally someone who owns an IFR single engine piston or someone who operate single engine turboprops in small GA airports...theh tend to be well placed to know one or two things about weather and how the system works
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912094
defcribed wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Each to their own of course but after some years I've decide that I either go in non-marginal VFR weather, wait or don't go at all.


Indeed each to their own, but don't make demonstrably ridiculous statements like the rating being a chocolate teapot. It quite obviously isn't, and without it the vast majority of UK pilots would have no instrument capability whatsoever and UK GA activity would be greatly reduced. The fact that you personally happen to be uncomfortable flying an aeroplane by sole reference to instruments does not mean the same applies to everyone.



Talk about ridiculous statements.

Maybe my decision not to fly IFR is based on the knowledge what is required to remain safe when choosing to fly in IMC, including remaining current in flying in IMC conditions, not just donning some goggles when the mood fancies it, than any 'discomfort'

Any flight training is useful, as is the training for the IMCR, but that it's training expands a pilot's despatch rate is a fallacy, as is the fact that the UK has a better safety record as a result.

1. The skies are pretty empty when there is any IMC weather around;
2. CFIT is as prevalent in the top 10 causes of GA fatalities in the UK as it is elsewhere.

There is a tiny fraction of people who get the rating and continue to use it to its full potential and good for them, a few of them recognise its limitations - if nothing else, the geographic limit is a pretty annoying one, and go and get a proper IR. The rest in this group use it regularly and keep themselves out of trouble - the stats show that too.

There is talk about my local getting a GPS approach, should that happen I will renew my IR. The jalopy is airways equipped.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912103
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:The rest in this group use it regularly and keep themselves out of trouble - the stats show that too.

So not "a chocolate tea pot" at all, then?

All agree, everybody's happy. :D
By Ibra
#1912106
Let's not exagerate, the UK does not have much CFIT (nor that many piston icing accidents), it has a warm weather and highest obstacles are Snowdonia & Mt Nevis, non-pressurized normally aspirated 160hp-200hp pistons without boots will do just fine in UK IMC as long as the pilot keeps wing level above 5kft amsl, most of the time even 3kft amsl is enough...however, one has to be careful with CFIA (controlled flight into airspace)

If you look at the data, there has been 4 CFIT in last 70 years, it's not big numbers vs say USA, the first UK CFIT was an iced up airframe that decided to go down bellow safe altitude near Mt Nevis (one out of 3 UK icing accidents in pistons over last 50 years, the other two were icing crashes on approaches, Exeter & Cranfield?), the last UK CFIT was an instructor with IMCR who elected to fly VFR bellow clouds into Glocs hill rather than above his safe altitude like any IMCR pilot is taught to do (freezing level was above his safe altitude)

UK IMC has different risk profile than flying in C172 over the Rockies or the Alps, the IMCR rating tends to hit that sweet spot: teaching people to keep wing level and climb above safe altitude, the majority don't even have to "bother ATC" to do that...the biggest worries of an IMCR holder flying NA SEP with clean wing and sub-200hp engines are carburetors or engine icing in moist clouds (at 10deg C), keeping wing level above safe altitude or busting airspace

I am talking about objective data here: historical accidents, topography, engines, temperatures, obstacles...and why IMCR make sense and why it has a positive safety impact (even if people have different intuitions versus full IR), obviously, anyone who like to go skiing in Samedan in winter will need to get full IR and CJ4, which is probably the reason why Switzerland does not have something like IMCR, it would not make much sense over there due to thr obvious topography & temperatures !
gasman, lobstaboy liked this
By mlawton
#1912109
Back on the main subject, These poor chaps were at 7500 ft , falling at 10,000 fpm! 45 seconds of panic! Either a full loss of control and attitude or a tremendous down draught! ????
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16