Some will fly many more hours to get themselves to a place where they can pass the test than the minimums. Just having the extra hours doesn’t necessarily make them a better instrument pilot. (not that I am denigrating those who take more than near minimums to pass) But people do things at different speeds, and surely what is important at the end of the day is the ability to do the task asked.
I don’t see why a current and up to speed IMCr rated pilot is less capable of good instrument flight than someone holding a full IR
I did the IMC about 1990. I didn’t renew it as I wasn’t keeping currency.
I learnt nothing from the IMCR to the IR.
The theory was useless for anything specific to Europe; a JAA/EASA IR graduate will not even be able to develop and file a route EGKA-LFAT.
One just gets to be a better pilot after all that flying, but really only if you do it in your own plane, which prob99 won’t be the case since most FTOs don’t touch customer planes.
You will probably get somewhat better instructors on average too; the IMCR training can get a bit comical at times. I had perhaps 5 instructors (for various reasons partly due to moving schools, renting PA28s from another school, finishing it in my own TB20, etc) and some were OK while two were a good laugh.
The IMCR will never be international because it is sub-ICAO on the training hours – it is roughly 25hrs short of an ICAO IR. And there may be other stuff.
You are only as good as your last flight, and your currency, your aircraft (and how well everything works and how well you know the systems) and your attitude to getting better and staying good enough.
Peter wrote:
But these are just normal enroute flying, using navaids or GPS as appropriate.
I’m not saying they’re difficult, but they’re not normal enroute flying. There are frequently climb/descent restrictions that have to be adhered to. If you fly them using conventional navigation there can be lots of NAVAID switching in a short period of time.
Are the test standards stricter in the case of the IR? Am thinking practical test standards on altitude and speed deviation, and while the half deflection on approaches is similar, the IMCr minima are higher. The IR aims for a one dot tolerance as this is the standard at ATP.
The three main differences in the test are (well, were when I did them)
Also, as the test is done at the home airport so you can pass it by flying one particular approach very well.
So if you can hold an ILS together down to 500ft (which is not that hard), and if you have decent radio navigation experience VFR with the instrumentation used IFR, it can actually be done in the minimum hours.
Then you are granted privileges exceeding what is tested by far, and need to exercise them responsibly as you gather experience. Which is exactly the same with a PPL, you are allowed to fly in 1,500m visibility at 500ft, but the PPL skill test tends to be with cloud base > 2,500ft and 8k+ visibility.
If you are looking to force a case that an IMC pilot should really be allowed IR privileges I really do think there is too much of a gap.
Like most things in life there will be extremes.
Take the extremes in standards and knowledge between the worst newly qualified IMC pilot and the worst or best new IR pilot.
The worst IMC pilot, has sat a very basic knowledge exam, almost achievable in a weekend of study and flown 15hrs quite possibly mostly OCAS. Afforded larger margins, completed only basic additional radio work, and possibly all on an aircraft at the very minimum fit for instrument flight training.
At this point there may have been no requirements for Flight plans, IFR Comms, air law pertaining to ICAO/EASA standards. SID’s STARS, airways route planning including understanding the charts, performance calculations.
The very worst qualified IR pilot will have at least been exposed to and accomplished this at some point. Most likely in a suitably equipped aircraft and demonstrated the minimum skills to use the appropriate systems.
International IFR flight may be all in VMC and possibly only in CAS because it works that way, but there’s a bit more to it than just being able to shoot the ILS in cloud, because when it’s not like that and the going gets tough you’re supposed to be able to deal with that too. Or make executive decisions of when not to.
Clearly a very capable IMC pilot, very keen, very current and knowledgeable, doesn’t have far to go to be up to speed, but based on the standards set out for an IMC rating pass isn’t (IMHO) equipped for IFR all around Europe.
Cobalt wrote:
So if you can hold an ILS together down to 500ft (which is not that hard),
Indeed. As Timothy likes to point out, if you do things right it is easy to go down to 200’ — but even if you do things wrong and the approach is unstabilised it is pretty easy to go down to 500’ with the needles in roughly the right places and you’ll have enough time to sort things out if you get visual at that point. Its below that height you’ll start having problems if you’re not properly stabilised.
You are supposed to go around if LOC or GS goes past half scale, and that is true all the way to the DH. You are supposed to be able to land from 200ft if within half scale, though it could be challenging…
There is also a reason for the half scale: obstacle clearance all the way down the GS.
But this isn’t today’s reality. Only sky-gods fly by hand just for the fun of it. In real weather almost everybody uses the autopilot, because even a sky-god is much safer with that.
GA_Pete wrote:
The worst IMC pilot, has sat a very basic knowledge exam, almost achievable in a weekend of study and flown 15hrs quite possibly mostly OCAS. Afforded larger margins, completed only basic additional radio work, and possibly all on an aircraft at the very minimum fit for instrument flight training.The very worst qualified IR pilot will have at least been exposed to and accomplished this at some point. Most likely in a suitably equipped aircraft and demonstrated the minimum skills to use the appropriate systems.
Not my thoughts when I worked an aerial photography gig.
Back then the majority of the IR holders had qualified in Spain. Many hadn’t even flown in cloud, had flown only one route for training AND test and I’m pretty sure the stories of doing the IR skills test VFR looking out of the window were true. Later every one seemed to have trained in Poland where the standard was if anything worse.
Those guys with an IMC rating however had at least flown in IMC conditions. They were also used to flying with minimal nav kit as most of it was marked INOP.
Very little of this flying was actually IMC but you would be expected to fly VFR in less than 5km vis. We even had a newly minted east European pilot who refused to ferry an aircraft 12 miles in 7KM vis, 1200 feet cloud base and with nothing to hit.
Not very good at all really.
