[Carl B]

Just wondering how much the training for the two ratings overlap?

For example, would it be possible to do an IMC rating and then continue on to do a full IR rating using the instrument time already gained doing the IMC?

[Keef]

If you're talking the JAA IR, then "Not any more" is my understanding.
That changed a few years ago.

If you do the IMC rating and use it for a while to get in good practice, then all that will count towards the FAA IR, and will reduce the training required.

There is, I think, some allowance for the FAA IR against the JAA one. I've not investigated that, because life's too short to spend all that time and money for the JAA IR - it's a lot easier to put the aircraft onto the N-reg.

[Carl B]

Sorry, I think I'm not being clear.

According to LASORS, for the IR rating you need "50 hours instrument time under instruction", and for IMC rating you need "15 hours PUT in instrument flying with an instructor".

Therefore, if I have done my IMC, I only need to do a further 35 hours with an instructor to get the IR, rather than having to start from scratch and do the full 50 hours.

Or have I misunderstood?

Presumablly I could do those remaining hours in a simulator, although I'm not sure what, if any, benefit there would be in doing that

[Andrew Sinclair]

Where's 2Donkeys he would know. I have a suspicion that the JAA IR follows a ICAO defined syllabus and the IMC does not so it is not possible to count the IMC hours towards a JAA IR.

I am not any expert though just what I have either read or read into something I was reading. Somebody will either correct me or expand on what I think is the case.

[bunt]

The IR training has to be an approved course under JAR FCL 1. None of the IMC training counts towards this requirement.

[Antony Hirst]

Maybe somebody can correct me. I have recently gain my IMC and have spoken at length to ATPLers about the IR side of things. The techniques taught in the IMC are the same as the IR as far as approaches , enroute, partial panel, etc , etc. An IR is pretty much the same, but more so. Requires a higher standard of tolerance regarding heading and altitude maintenance as well as more refined holding techniques and of course, the Class A airways use. Not to mention more detailed planning and for many the asymetric power approaches that come with training in a twin. Not to mention the strict and formal examination process.

An important point for me is that if my IMC training had been foggles only I would pretty worried about using it for real. Having been fortunate enough to have a reasonable amount of real IMC, I feel reasonably well prepared.