Are there any schools that conduct training towards the instrument rating in actual IMC?

Are there those that don't, as a practice?

Back when I was our school's MIFR guy I did all the time, and that was just business as usual. It was great never being constrained by VFR, so we were able to fly virtually every day as long as our finicky airplane wasn't grounded.

I don't know of anyone actively avoiding it. It's just that more items need to line up to make it consistently happen. The prairies are generally out: in winter you have the constant freezing conditions in cloud. In summer weather is usually good, except for thunderstorms.
Coastal areas might have IMC conditions where you don't want to fly a single piston in. Many years ago a school wanted at least 500ft agl for IFR training, to at least give you a fighting chance if your engine decided to quit. Then there's the issue of currency for the instructors (not just legally but also practically). And maintenance for the aircraft. An old instrument that 'sort of' works is borderline ok to play around with in VMC but not IMC.

digits_ wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2026 5:33 pm I don't know of anyone actively avoiding it. It's just that more items need to line up to make it consistently happen. The prairies are generally out: in winter you have the constant freezing conditions in cloud. In summer weather is usually good, except for thunderstorms.
Coastal areas might have IMC conditions where you don't want to fly a single piston in. Many years ago a school wanted at least 500ft agl for IFR training, to at least give you a fighting chance if your engine decided to quit. Then there's the issue of currency for the instructors (not just legally but also practically). And maintenance for the aircraft. An old instrument that 'sort of' works is borderline ok to play around with in VMC but not IMC.

I think this is pretty much it. Heck even our military flying around the prairies, winter IFR is out for icing and summer IFR can be sketchy with convective activity. Even we have no icing equipment or weather radar. The "IFR equipped machines" at most flight schools have some very nice / new Garmin boxes that can fly an LPV, but are still coupled to old DGs that precess 10 degrees every 10 minutes, ADIs that don't hold level very well, and forget about de-ice or weather radar.

I had the luxury of doing my MIFR on a DA62, which with FIKI and weather radar, we could - and did - fly in just about anything. But I think that's the exception, rather than the norm.

TL;DR - training in actual IMC is generally limited by the equipment offered by the flight school.

DanWEC wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2026 3:37 pm Are there those that don't, as a practice?

Back when I was our school's MIFR guy I did all the time, and that was just business as usual. It was great never being constrained by VFR, so we were able to fly virtually every day as long as our finicky airplane wasn't grounded.

I always did actual IFR when I did IFR's. Apparently, it common practice, including at a large volume IFR school in Ontario for the minimum clouds to be 500' above the PT altitude so that they don't run the risk of going in cloud.

digits_ wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2026 5:33 pm I don't know of anyone actively avoiding it. It's just that more items need to line up to make it consistently happen. The prairies are generally out: in winter you have the constant freezing conditions in cloud. In summer weather is usually good, except for thunderstorms.

careerpilot? wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 6:47 am I think this is pretty much it. Heck even our military flying around the prairies, winter IFR is out for icing and summer IFR can be sketchy with convective activity. Even we have no icing equipment or weather radar.

Are the Prairie's bad for icing in the winter? It's freezing cold in the winter. Very little moisture and no super cooled water. In my area (NWO), winter IFR has very little ice. Fall on the other hand...

Bede wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2026 6:45 amApparently, it common practice, including at a large volume IFR school in Ontario for the minimum clouds to be 5000' above the PT altitude so that they don't run the risk of going in cloud.

This seems bizarre. Is this perhaps a typo? (did you mean 500ft above PT?) But even then it's definitely a sad policy....
Are they perhaps operating VFR only equipped aircraft for their IFR training? Not that this would be a valid excuse.

Bede wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2026 6:45 am Are the Prairie's bad for icing in the winter? It's freezing cold in the winter. Very little moisture and no super cooled water. In my area (NWO), winter IFR has very little ice. Fall on the other hand...

Not really, but if the GFA is forecasting their standard potential for icing, it's hard to justify as an FTU to go into clouds.

You can definnitely argue if that standard statement on GFA charts qualifies as a forecast, but in a training environment where everybody erring on the side of caution often with overzealous TC inspectors, I can understand one doesn't fly in clouds in freezing temperatures.


Another advantage of flying IFR in VMC during approach training: ATC (and thus the instructor) is much more relaxed. In IMC the student has to fly the approach to standard, in VMC there's more room for error when practicing.

Bede wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2026 6:45 am

digits_ wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2026 5:33 pm I don't know of anyone actively avoiding it. It's just that more items need to line up to make it consistently happen. The prairies are generally out: in winter you have the constant freezing conditions in cloud. In summer weather is usually good, except for thunderstorms.

careerpilot? wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2026 6:47 am I think this is pretty much it. Heck even our military flying around the prairies, winter IFR is out for icing and summer IFR can be sketchy with convective activity. Even we have no icing equipment or weather radar.

Are the Prairie's bad for icing in the winter? It's freezing cold in the winter. Very little moisture and no super cooled water. In my area (NWO), winter IFR has very little ice. Fall on the other hand...

Pretty much what digits said, we often debate what “forecast” icing is, but the most conservative interpretation generally is any visible moisture above the freezing level.

However, the really cold days (-20 or below) are more rare than you might think, and when they do come they usually correspond with beautiful high pressure system days with blue skies and light winds. Those are the good flying days, but often the extreme low temps have other issues - aircraft break, or temps are below aircraft operating limits, or flight schools (even military) have minimum temps below which flying stops for safety reasons.

So when it’s warmer, it’s usually cloudy and icy. When it’s colder it’s clear and / or below icing temps, but safety factors or aircraft limitations ground flying anyway.

careerpilot? wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2026 4:42 pm Pretty much what digits said, we often debate what “forecast” icing is, but the most conservative interpretation generally is any visible moisture above the freezing level.

I think it depends on circumstances. If there is no convective activity, and the ASEP shows no risk of icing, and you can safely duck beneath the clouds if you do end up with any icing, I think it is safe to go above the freezing level in IMC. Obviously if you don't do your due diligence it can go badly wrong.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... w0027.html

CpnCrunch wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 10:08 am

careerpilot? wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2026 4:42 pm Pretty much what digits said, we often debate what “forecast” icing is, but the most conservative interpretation generally is any visible moisture above the freezing level.

I think it depends on circumstances. If there is no convective activity, and the ASEP shows no risk of icing, and you can safely duck beneath the clouds if you do end up with any icing, I think it is safe to go above the freezing level in IMC. Obviously if you don't do your due diligence it can go badly wrong.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... w0027.html

I don't disagree. However, with the GFA note of "trace/light icing in cloud above freezing level", it's probably correct to interpret any visible moisture above the freezing level to constitute forecast icing... I'm simply outlining some of the more conservative interpretations that are often used at the flight school level, and even by some operationally. I didn't necessarily say I agree with it Whether it's safe or legal to fly in forecast icing is another debate.

It's all about maintaining an out should conditions be worse than forecast. I've even flown briefly in known icing when airmanship dictated it was the safer option (brief cloud break through a thin low overcast layer vs scudd running VFR at night under that layer, for example).

Side note - why does the avcanada language filter remove scu(d) but not the F word (which I've seen in other recent posts)?

careerpilot? wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 10:57 am I don't disagree. However, with the GFA note of "trace/light icing in cloud above freezing level", it's probably correct to interpret any visible moisture above the freezing level to constitute forecast icing... I'm simply outlining some of the more conservative interpretations that are often used at the flight school level, and even by some operationally. I didn't necessarily say I agree with it Whether it's safe or legal to fly in forecast icing is another debate.

The correct limitation is "known icing", not forecast icing.

careerpilot? wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 10:57 am Side note - why does the avcanada language filter remove scu(d) but not the F word (which I've seen in other recent posts)?

Because there's a competing forum with that in it's name.

Bede wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 8:09 am

careerpilot? wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 10:57 am I don't disagree. However, with the GFA note of "trace/light icing in cloud above freezing level", it's probably correct to interpret any visible moisture above the freezing level to constitute forecast icing... I'm simply outlining some of the more conservative interpretations that are often used at the flight school level, and even by some operationally. I didn't necessarily say I agree with it Whether it's safe or legal to fly in forecast icing is another debate.

The correct limitation is "known icing", not forecast icing.

Is it? CAR 605.30 specifically mentions forecast icing:

De-icing or Anti-icing Equipment
605.30 No person shall conduct a take-off or continue a flight in an aircraft where icing conditions are reported to exist or are forecast to be encountered along the route of flight unless

(a) the pilot-in-command determines that the aircraft is adequately equipped to operate in icing conditions in accordance with the standards of airworthiness under which the type certificate for that aircraft was issued; or

(b) current weather reports or pilot reports indicate that icing conditions no longer exist.

One could argue the "unless the PIC determines the aircraft is adequately equipped... statement provides the PIC some lattitude, but I'm not sure how much scrutiny it would actually hold up to...

careerpilot? wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 10:57 am Side note - why does the avcanada language filter remove scu(d) but not the F word (which I've seen in other recent posts)?

Because there's a competing forum with that in it's name.

That's hilarious.

careerpilot? wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:01 am

One could argue the "unless the PIC determines the aircraft is adequately equipped... statement provides the PIC some lattitude, but I'm not sure how much scrutiny it would actually hold up to...

I think the latitude is in the forecast itself. The "NIL-LGT RIME ICGIC ABV FZLVL UNLS NOTED" is just a catchall, but if you look at the ASEP forecast it will give a more detailed icing forecast along the planned route.

careerpilot? wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:01 am

Bede wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 8:09 am

careerpilot? wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2026 10:57 am I don't disagree. However, with the GFA note of "trace/light icing in cloud above freezing level", it's probably correct to interpret any visible moisture above the freezing level to constitute forecast icing... I'm simply outlining some of the more conservative interpretations that are often used at the flight school level, and even by some operationally. I didn't necessarily say I agree with it Whether it's safe or legal to fly in forecast icing is another debate.

The correct limitation is "known icing", not forecast icing.

Is it? CAR 605.30 specifically mentions forecast icing:

De-icing or Anti-icing Equipment
605.30 No person shall conduct a take-off or continue a flight in an aircraft where icing conditions are reported to exist or are forecast to be encountered along the route of flight unless

(a) the pilot-in-command determines that the aircraft is adequately equipped to operate in icing conditions in accordance with the standards of airworthiness under which the type certificate for that aircraft was issued; or

(b) current weather reports or pilot reports indicate that icing conditions no longer exist.

One could argue the "unless the PIC determines the aircraft is adequately equipped... statement provides the PIC some lattitude, but I'm not sure how much scrutiny it would actually hold up to...

I stand corrected. I would still argue that the nil-light in a GFA does not constitute a forecast of icing.

Bede wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 6:15 pm

careerpilot? wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 11:01 am

Bede wrote: ↑Mon May 25, 2026 8:09 am
The correct limitation is "known icing", not forecast icing.

Is it? CAR 605.30 specifically mentions forecast icing:

De-icing or Anti-icing Equipment
605.30 No person shall conduct a take-off or continue a flight in an aircraft where icing conditions are reported to exist or are forecast to be encountered along the route of flight unless

(a) the pilot-in-command determines that the aircraft is adequately equipped to operate in icing conditions in accordance with the standards of airworthiness under which the type certificate for that aircraft was issued; or

(b) current weather reports or pilot reports indicate that icing conditions no longer exist.

One could argue the "unless the PIC determines the aircraft is adequately equipped... statement provides the PIC some lattitude, but I'm not sure how much scrutiny it would actually hold up to...

I stand corrected. I would still argue that the nil-light in a GFA does not constitute a forecast of icing.

I tend to agree. This is where much of the debate lies! Some take the more conservative approach, some don’t. I believe flight schools tend to err on the conservative side when it comes to training in actual.

One should also consider the definition of light icing:

The rate of accumulation may create a problem if flight is prolonged in this environment (over 1 hr)

Are you punching through a layer, or going to be in it for the duration of the flight? If the duration will be relatively short, can the PIC decide IAW the CAR that the aircraft is adequately equipped given this definition? I think when it comes to forecast light icing, there is some leeway to be had.