Mooney_Driver wrote:
For me, a foregone conclusion is that only airframes which fulfil the following conditions will come into this group:
- at least 500 hrs or more engine potential (as well as 5 years time where that applies)
- avionics suitable for the intended use. VFR that would mean a radio and a mode S transponder plus a portable / semi portable GPS of one’s choice. (Where and when do people actually need 8.33 for VFR for instance? How long can a simple VFR tourer still fly with a 760ch radio?) IFR, what is needed in the country of operation.
- Aircraft should be airworthy, preferrable come with new ARC and 100 hrs check/pre buy inspection (which may be combined.) There should be no deferred maintenance or hidden technical traps.
- No “Projects” but valid, useable “fly away” airframes.
I fit your profile perfectly & bought a Rallye. However, your list of conditions is unrealistic! Or at least you’re not talking about a low-priced plane if it has time on the engine, updated avionics & has not deferred maintenance for technical traps. The new buyer you’re describing by definition is looking at low prices without understanding that they are not indeed that low. It doesn’t mean they shouldn’t buy, just that your list of conditions is a dream list.
Yes. In Canada VFR flight rules require that “the aircraft is operated with visual reference to the surface”, plus all of the usual visibility requirements. There is an add-on rating which allows for VFR flight above cloud, the VFR over the top rating (VFR OTT). The requirements are below:
602.116 Notwithstanding paragraphs 602.114(a) and 602.115(a), an aircraft may be operated in VFR OTT flight during the cruise portion of the flight during the day if
(a) the aircraft is operated at a vertical distance from cloud of at least 1,000 feet;
(b) where the aircraft is operated between two cloud layers, the vertical distance between the layers is at least 5,000 feet;
(c) flight visibility at the cruising altitude of the aircraft is at least five miles; and
(d) the weather at the aerodrome of destination is forecast to have a sky condition of scattered cloud or clear and a ground visibility of five miles or greater with no forecast of precipitation, fog, thunderstorms or blowing snow, and those conditions are forecast to exist
(i) where the forecast is an aerodrome forecast (TAF), for the period from one hour before to two hours after the estimated time of arrival; and
(ii) where an aerodrome forecast (TAF) is not available and the forecast is an area forecast (FA), for the period from one hour before to three hours after the estimated time of arrival.
In a practical way, it is a graduated way of expanding a new pilots skills. For example, with your PPL you will have done 5 hours of dual instrument time. After you get your PPL you will likely do your night rating, which is another 5 hours of dual instrument time (bringing the total to at least 10 hours). Then if you do another five hours of dual instrument time (bringing the total to 15 hours), you can get the VFR over the top rating.
If you do your CPL after a PPL, you would have required a minimum of 20 hours instrument time and the night and VFR over the top ratings are included with the CPL.
There is a VFR over the top rating so that you can fly VFR out of sight of the surface with a PPL. But you must remain above or between the layers. There are no approach privileges.
That’s curious too. By default, a PPL issued by an ICAO contracting state does not require sight of surface for VFR. It is something added by only some countries (UK being one of them, pre-2012). The USA and France never had this on the PPLs they issue, for example. So Canada requires sight of surface for VFR but has a Rating to allow it?
Canuck there used to be a Class II back in the 70’s with higher minima, may have been discontinued.
Any Canadian IMC must have been before my time…There is currently no Canadian IMC rating, but the full IR’s are divided by group:
Group 1 (all aeroplanes) when the flight test was conducted in a multi-engine aeroplane other than a center-thrust multi-engine aeroplane;
Group 2 (all center-thrust multi-engine and single engine aeroplanes) when the flight test was conducted in a center-line thrust multi-engine aeroplane;
Group 3 (all single engine aeroplanes) when the flight test was conducted in a single engine aeroplane.
There is a VFR over the top rating so that you can fly VFR out of sight of the surface with a PPL. But you must remain above or between the layers. There are no approach privileges.
It is widely believed the 2019 IMCR end date will slip indefinitely; the equivalent of being kicked into the long grass. EASA does not have the political power to kill it now. Since 1969, about 20,000 IMCRs have been issued and as Robert says it has proved to be very very safe.
The IMCR (now called the IR(R)) training can be used towards the full IR. I believe this carry-forward requires the IMCR training to have been done by an instructor holding the full IR too, which has in most cases not been the case (an FI with just an IMCR can teach the IMCR).
The IFR privileges of the IMCR are limited to UK airspace. It has had some VFR privileges e.g. the long standing 3000m min vis got reduced to 1500m (but it is now 1500m anyway for EASA PPL holders, as of Feb 2012). And there was something with SVFR… The big VFR privilege of the IMCR was that you did not need to be in sight of the surface and crucially that privilege was not limited to the UK (but the sight of surface also ended for EASA PPL holders in 2012).
The IMCR was brilliant for VFR touring because you could depart the UK in crap wx under iFR, fly VMC on top across Europe, and return to the UK in the usual crap wx under IFR 
An EIR + IMCR holder, flying out of the UK, thus gets pretty well a full IR for airspace access except he still cannot fly sids/stars and approaches outside the UK.
You can fly IFR to the Jepp plate minima, but the min vis for arrivals and departures has to be 1800m.
Australia has a similar thing to the IMCR. I didn’t know about the Canadian one.
I believe it is still the case that no holder of an IMC rating which is current has suffered a VFR into IMC, or CFIT in IMC type accident in the UK. I think the IMC was introduced in the 1960’s?
Airways in the UK are Class A and you are not allowed to fly on an IMC in class A, B or C. However, if you hold an IMC you can get an IR(R) on your EASA licence, although am not sure what privileges, if any, this grants you outside UK airspace.
Instrument time logged as an IMC holder can be credited to the CB IR requirements.
When you renew your IR remember to get your IMC renewed as it is valid for 25 months, and piggy backs the IR renewal.
Whether the self evident safety case is due to the IMC coming with a health warning that it is not for ‘hard’ IR, or IMC holders are more conservative, but nevertheless it has contributed to safety in these foggy isles. The flight planning for an IMC encourages higher minima, although there is no restriction to an IMC holder to fly to Class 1 ILS minima. The Canadians had a class II IR which was similar.
The IMC rating, also referred to as the IR(R) (restricted) is a national UK rating that they can , according to the aircrew regulation, continue issuing until 2019 (?).The EIR is the EASA substitute for the IMC rating, but is more restrictive in the sense that it does not give the holder the privilege to perform IFR approaches. On the other hand it allows flight in all classes of controlled airspace.
You can find some details about it here.
Peter wrote:
(this is largely the result of a small number of “big characters” tossing a lot of arrogant crap all over the pilot forums about the IMC Rating being a “get out of jail free” card and the only proper way is the full IR, etc)
A bit off topic, but what exactly is this IMC rating? (I understand it is some IFR light kind of thing, but do not know the details) Part of why I’m asking is Norway CAA likes to refer to the UK CAA for lots of things, but nothing about this IMC rating. They have also said that EIR and CB/IR would increase safety, but again, nothing about this IMC.
Who would that be? His passenger? I understand ZERO.
You know Weight & Balance is part of the Sport Pilots Licence (in Germany “UL”-Licence) just as it is part of the PPL.
