Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Why the UK is the only country with the IMC Rating

I have occasionally asked instrument pilots which part of the EASA IR theory and practice warrants it being considered “superior” to the IMC rating for those of us who fly GA airplanes which are capable of slow flight. I never got an answer.

Perhaps I should re-phrase.

To operate a well-equipped Maule or Husky safely in IMC, what do we need to know that is not taught as part of the IMCr course and can not subsequently be self-taught by an ordinary private pilot doing his typical weekly flight in IMC?

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

The UK IMCr has been an excellent safety case study, and this record has been used to defend it. It was not intended for regular use in IMC but to assist pilots to get out of trouble and reduce the VMC into IMC accident rate.

The EASA IR is mainly a stepping stone on the way to a multi crew type rating. Probably 95% plus are issued in connection with fATPL programmes. While flying single crew MEP might have once being a paying your dues job in aviation, it is now the exception.

I expect the main practical differences between a typical IMCr and an IR, are:

- the IR is conducted in an MEP with requirement for asymmetric EFATO drills, and OEI approaches with go around under instrument flying (yes the odd SEP IR is issued, but 99% are MEP)
- you fly a series of routes in Class A over a longer period of training
- the exam tolerances are stricter
- there is an expectation of CPL standards in terms of flight management and planning, although the performance class B net take off flight path calculations seem to have gone into the old timers file, as does the Morse code test

The airlines are looking for certain best practice in terms of instrument flying which hopefully the fATPL programmes are able to produce. The MPL route where a more extensive amount of IR training is conducted in a Jet SIM arguably is more logical.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

RobertL18C wrote:

It was not intended for regular use in IMC but to assist pilots to get out of trouble and reduce the VMC into IMC accident rate.

I’ve heard this said before, but is there any tangible evidence for this? Clearly we know currency in IMC is pretty much king, and if you have the rating, using it as much as reasonably pratical to keep yourself up to speed as far as I see cannot but help safety. I will admit that with the lack of flying until recently my instrument skills certainly had slipped and because of that I’ve been far more cautious to go into it (especially as I’ve not got an autopilot).

RobertL18C wrote:

The UK IMCr has been an excellent safety case study, and this record has been used to defend it. It was not intended for regular use in IMC but to assist pilots to get out of trouble and reduce the VMC into IMC accident rate.

I agree with the first bit, but dont agree that the original reason the IMCR was introduced was this. What you have said above is what was later touted by the CAA when JAR & the EASA happened, when I was learning to fly. I think with a little research you will find that the reasons it was introduced were as mentioned above: ie it was about “keeping cloud rights” for the then much more influential private pilots, as Commercial aviation became more widespread and regulated – I believe it came about in a time before the present Class A-G of airspace existed in the UK.

Regards, SD..

It was not intended for regular use in IMC but to assist pilots to get out of trouble and reduce the VMC into IMC accident rate.

We can’t know the intentions of someone in 1969 but the fact is that the privileges of the IMCR do not reflect the above description. It has full IR privileges except

  • Class D,E,F,G only (there used to be some obscure VFR/SVFR min vis improvement in any airspace class, because VFR could be done in 1500m)
  • UK only
  • min vis for departure and arrival is 1500m AFAIK (used to be 1800m but since 1500m came in for VFR this got silly, and IIRC this got changed, I think) but this is pilot interpreted anyway at any airport where no RVR measurement equipment is installed

In practice it cannot be used on Eurocontrol IFR flights but that’s only because the UK has too little Class D to be useful.

The training towards the IMCR is fully accepted by the FAA towards the FAA IR. On EASA IR or CBIR I have no idea but it was not acceptable towards the 50/55hr JAA IR.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

On EASA IR or CBIR I have no idea but it was not acceptable towards the 50/55hr JAA IR.

The hours flown PIC XC IFR are accepted toward CB/IR.

And I believe they’ve changed ANO in 2019 and now Class C is included.

EGTR

RobertL18C wrote:

I expect the main practical differences between a typical IMCr and an IR, are:

- the IR is conducted in an MEP with requirement for asymmetric EFATO drills, and OEI approaches with go around under instrument flying (yes the odd SEP IR is issued, but 99% are MEP)
- you fly a series of routes in Class A over a longer period of training
- the exam tolerances are stricter
- there is an expectation of CPL standards in terms of flight management and planning, although the performance class B net take off flight path calculations seem to have gone into the old timers file, as does the Morse code test

Some of this is not exactly true:
PPL-IR is also done wit SEP-CR. MEP is a separate thing and (as already discussed) Class A is not present in many countries.

Exam tolerances and higher expectations are exactly true – and in line with the core idea of “creating an easy entry into IFR for amateurs at least in areas where they don’t interfere with pros too much”.
Let’s face it: lower altitude IFR flying in areas where no other traffic is around should not be banned by a big licensing hurdle. But if you want to do an approach at a busy airport where separation minimas are actually used, you might even have parallel approaches and on the director frequencies there is a constant flow of clearances, etc. you better know what you do because the harm you can do to the other traffic is much bigger.

Germany

Being a bit pedantic was there really an IMCR before EASA introduced it recently in order for the UK to defend its IMC rating?
The logic of what seems to be argued here is that an IMCr rating should be seen as the same as an IR to be used worldwide despite the need for a lot less training, either theory or practice.
The logic would then follow that with the UK NPPL a pilot should be able to fly anywhere in the world.
Or a ULM qualified pilot with suitably equipped aircraft should be entitled to fly his/her ULM freely across international boundaries in any weather.
I know many who would be happy with that, but whether many National aviation authorities especially the UK CAA would go for it, I very much doubt.
Incidentally one reason for the theory training must be to learn the ridiculous number of acronyms in the aviation industry. The first three or four pages in all 7 of my IR theory books is taken up with an explanation of these.
One only has to look at many of the posts here to see what I mean. No offence to Ibra but his last post contained 9 acronyms on 2.5 lines of text.

France

The IMC Rating has been around since 1969. It was recently named IR(R) and some people prefer that because it sounds more like an “IR”.

There is some subtle difference which someone posted here a while ago; I don’t recall the details but it was something along the lines of the IR(R) being usable with an EASA issued PPL, whereas the IMCR needs the UK national PPL.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

gallois wrote:


The logic would then follow that with the UK NPPL a pilot should be able to fly anywhere in the world.

This seems like quite a big logic step to me. I would have thought most would a sensible ICAO IR like the US has, with one exam and being accessible to the ppl. The IMC rating has maybe 80-90% of this. With good instruction, I do not see why the practical instrument skills far off a full IR. with my instructor we did all the approaches practicing to IR minimums.

I’m not sure anyone is claiming the UK IMC rating should be allowed to be used worldwide, I intend to eventually get my FAA IR but have been sitting tight just to see how the whole thing shakes out. I think the FAA IR should be allowed to be used worldwide and shouldn’t need some bizzare european add on for residents of requiring a european IR in addition.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top