Should actual IMC be a requirment for IFR training?

[Palmpilot]

I voted yes because I, personally, would like to have the experience during my IR training, but I'm not in support of more regulations... Not long ago I was talking to a guy who went to some 2 week, IR speed-course, somewhere... He was about to set off on his first flight in real clouds... I could tell he was really nervous about it... I don't want that to be me...

Being nervous (in moderation) keeps you honest.

 

[Henning]

I voted yes because I, personally, would like to have the experience during my IR training, but I'm not in support of more regulations... Not long ago I was talking to a guy who went to some 2 week, IR speed-course, somewhere... He was about to set off on his first flight in real clouds... I could tell he was really nervous about it... I don't want that to be me...

Exactly, you should choose to do so for your own confidence and experience, but in the end, your friend survived, because IMC is not necessary to train someone to competently fly in IMC. Overcoming the nervousness solo and succeeding probably did more for him than had he spared himself the anxiety with having done it in training. Just because it may be desirable is by no means to say it needs to happen to be safe or competent.

 

[MAKG1]

I trained with goggles and never got outside cues without looking for them, even on short final with a close, high contrast scene forward.

How would you know?

I figured it out when I took a night flight with foggles on, and instantly (as in seconds) got convinced the AI was "wrong." I had it figured out inside 30 seconds, but that lesson really stuck. Permanently. When I went up again at night (actually, there were two more night lessons after that), it was gone.

The problem with inadvertent "cheating" is that it's, well, inadvertent. You do it because you don't know you're doing it.

To this day, I still don't know exactly what the cue was, only that it was absent at night. I suspect shadows.

 

[Ghery]

It would be a good idea, but I don't know that I'd make it a requirement. It might be a big problem for some people out west.

Depends on what you mean by "out west". Here in the Pacific Northwe(s)t actual isn't hard to come by, most any time of the year. I was exposed to actual while learning for my PP cert. Heck, the day before my private check ride I was exposed to actual, ice and a C-182. Two of the three weren't bad, but I hate ice on a non-FIKI aircraft.

However, I voted "no" on the question. Personally, I prefer actual over foggles. For me it's easier. The problem I have with foggles is that not only do they cover distance (fine), but they also cover the part of my blended lenses that focuses at the distance needed for the radio stack. Not really a problem for most items, but if I'm flying the C-172N that has a Garmin GNS-430W in the panel I can't see the small print, like the countdown timer. Easy without the foggles. A nit, I'm sure, but...

 

[AustinPilot]

I wasn't talking about under the hood, reread my post.

Night, no outside lights, or anytime you cannot discern a horizon and need to use the instruments to keep the shiny side up... can be logged as actual. Clouds or not.

It can be logged as "actual instrument" but it is not IMC. IMC is anything less than VFR minimums and requires operating under IFR. "Actual" can be logged in VFR conditions in the scenario you mentioned.

One regulates your operating rules, the other is just for logging purposes.

 

[Henning]

How would you know?

I figured it out when I took a night flight with foggles on, and instantly (as in seconds) got convinced the AI was "wrong." I had it figured out inside 30 seconds, but that lesson really stuck. Permanently. When I went up again at night (actually, there were two more night lessons after that), it was gone.

The problem with inadvertent "cheating" is that it's, well, inadvertent. You do it because you don't know you're doing it.

Because if I looked, I could discern nothing, I can't think of a more relevant test. The fact that 30 years later I can still fly instruments in the soup with no autopilot quite well with about 10 minutes required to get up to speed after 10 years of VFR only, much of it VFR with no instruments to look at, I figure my training worked sufficiently well.

My point is that the view limiting device is a red herring issue. The cues don't matter if you are focused on interpreting the instruments. It's not the view limiting device that is the factor, it is the focus and intent of the student. Most people rightly take IR seriously and don't try to 'Cheat'.

Peaking at the beginning to quickly solve confusion is very useful because it quickly solves confusion, but by the end of the first hour you shouldn't need to peak to get a mental picture of the world from your panel. If you are concentrating on flying the instruments, you will build instrument proficiency whether you have on a view limiting device or not.

 

[Everskyward]

I think it's more a confidence issue than anything else. There's a first time for everything and sometimes there is not an instructor along. I remember my CFI taking me out in some pretty heavy rain (but still VMC) when I was getting my private. He said something about it being good to experience various conditions with an instructor so it's not so much of a anxiety-causing mystery later. But should we require all potential private pilots to get time in the rain?

 

[fiveoboy01]

Here are the main differences I have noticed between hood training and actual:

1. The first time I was about to descend into a solid cloud deck on an approach after getting the rating, I felt a little fear. I handled it by pretending I was in a simulator, and making sure I flew as I was trained.

I did numerous actual IFR flights with my safety pilot friend and I'd be lying if I said I didn't get a bit scared descending into a layer.

 

[Phoenix]

It is an Instrument rating not an IMC flight rating. If someone trains in AZ then goes cloud flying in the New England winter with that mental wiring something else in Aviation would kill them soon enough anyway.

 

[fiveoboy01]

It can be logged as "actual instrument" but it is not IMC. IMC is anything less than VFR minimums and requires operating under IFR. "Actual" can be logged in VFR conditions in the scenario you mentioned.

One regulates your operating rules, the other is just for logging purposes.

Thanks for the correction. You're right, it's not actual IMC even though it can be logged as such. My last post was trying to correct the poster's assertion that you can only log actual in actual IMC. But I do see I stated that the lack of a horizon would be actual IMC, which is clearly not correct.

 

[fiveoboy01]

It is an Instrument rating not an IMC flight rating. If someone trains in AZ then goes cloud flying in the New England winter with that mental wiring something else in Aviation would kill them soon enough anyway.

Those were my thoughts and the basis for creating the poll but it has been pointed out that due to weather patterns in different areas, it might be completely impractical bordering on impossible to require it.

 

[Palmpilot]

How would you know?

I figured it out when I took a night flight with foggles on, and instantly (as in seconds) got convinced the AI was "wrong." I had it figured out inside 30 seconds, but that lesson really stuck. Permanently. When I went up again at night (actually, there were two more night lessons after that), it was gone.

The problem with inadvertent "cheating" is that it's, well, inadvertent. You do it because you don't know you're doing it.

To this day, I still don't know exactly what the cue was, only that it was absent at night. I suspect shadows.

One of the reasons I prefer a hood instead of foggles is that I can (and do) adjust it to maximize the blocking out of outside references. (Foggles also don't fit over my glasses all that well.)

I did quite a lot of my instrument training at night, but the time when I had the strongest illusion of the instruments being "wrong" was on a night VFR flight approaching Phoenix. I had gotten in an unintentional bank while fiddling with the avionics, and when I looked up, what I saw out the window made no sense whatsoever. I remember having to overcome a sensation of the attitude indicator being wrong too, but given what I was seeing out the window, I really had no choice but to force myself to follow the instruments.

 

[Kritchlow]

I'm blown away at the results of the poll so far... Wouldn't have guessed this one in a million years, especially after the extra night requirement for ppl thread several months back.

 

[Palmpilot]

It can be logged as "actual instrument" but it is not IMC. IMC is anything less than VFR minimums and requires operating under IFR. "Actual" can be logged in VFR conditions in the scenario you mentioned.

One regulates your operating rules, the other is just for logging purposes.

And you can be in IMC without being able to log instrument time, because 900 feet above a cloud deck in controlled airspace is IMC under that definition.

 

[Palmpilot]

Thanks for the correction. You're right, it's not actual IMC even though it can be logged as such. My last post was trying to correct the poster's assertion that you can only log actual in actual IMC. But I do see I stated that the lack of a horizon would be actual IMC, which is clearly not correct.

And of course, 91.51 states actual "instrument flight conditions" as the requirement, not actual instrument meteorological conditions (IMC).

 

[Gubbins]

I'm blown away at the results of the poll so far... Wouldn't have guessed this one in a million years, especially after the extra night requirement for ppl thread several months back.

Yes so am I. I think if the poll had some more options we might see a difference. If there was an option "Actual IMC trained should be done wherever possible" we might get more switching over to that. I think everyone agrees training in actual is beneficial. The question is should it be REQUIRED as opposed to RECOMMENDED. I am very surprised the majority here are in favor in more regulation and more requirements.

 

[Henning]

There is no problem with it being a personal retirement, but a legal one would be counterproductive, and potentially dangerous. Besides, the FAA would not take on that liability and their lawyers wouldn't allow it to be written.

 

[fiveoboy01]

"Whenever possible" is a given. I've never heard anyone suggest against it in training.

The poll is flawed because one option isn't practical.

Curious to what or how opinions might change if the entire country was like the midwest where it wouldn't be too difficult to get actual, provided it wasn't during the winter where the freezing level was on the ground...

 

[Jaybird180]

Because if I looked, I could discern nothing, I can't think of a more relevant test. The fact that 30 years later I can still fly instruments in the soup with no autopilot quite well with about 10 minutes required to get up to speed after 10 years of VFR only, much of it VFR with no instruments to look at, I figure my training worked sufficiently well.

My point is that the view limiting device is a red herring issue. The cues don't matter if you are focused on interpreting the instruments. It's not the view limiting device that is the factor, it is the focus and intent of the student. Most people rightly take IR seriously and don't try to 'Cheat'.

Peaking at the beginning to quickly solve confusion is very useful because it quickly solves confusion, but by the end of the first hour you shouldn't need to peak to get a mental picture of the world from your panel. If you are concentrating on flying the instruments, you will build instrument proficiency whether you have on a view limiting device or not.

The IR student already got the first hour (and more) during PP training.

 

[EdFred]

provided it wasn't during the winter where the freezing level was on the ground...

That's not necessarily a no go even in a plane without de-ice.

 

[fiveoboy01]

I know that. I'm speaking in most cases.

 

[old cfi]

I think the instructor owes it to the student to try every way possible to get some actual IFR in during training especially if that student has jumped right from the PPL to instrument training. At least back in the old days (150 hrs. required before instrument) the newbie had some time under their wings. Sometimes now with the lack of really good PPL training that low-time pilot isn't ready for the real world of hard IFR. Personal limits definitely need to be set and drilled home by the CFII.

 

[fiveoboy01]

I had about 150 hours when I started my IFR.

Maybe I'm just slow and dumb but I don't see how any fresh-minted PPL could even handle IFR without some more VFR practice. I know that when I passed the private checkride, it was JUST enough to keep me from killing myself. It took a good number of hours to get a little comfortable flying, and then when I started IFR, it was like I started all over again.

 

[old cfi]

When I was instructing, the 150 hr rule was in effect. There were pros and cons about removing it. Problem is, exactly as you stated, some newbies just are not ready for the degree of concentration and skill it takes to fly in real IFR. Throw in some turbulence and ATC changing your clearance and you've got your hands full especially if you have to reprogram that GPS and don't have Otto Pilot aboard.

But for the ones that can handle it, I'm glad they removed the restriction. Just emphasizes the need for personal limitations for awhile to get warmed up to the type of flying necessary. When I got mine, didn't fly with GPS, RNAV or even an HSI and definitely no AP. Think all those not being available made me a better pilot. Really learned to multi-task!!!

 

[EdFred]

I think my second IR lesson was in actual, and was a cross country. But I also launched into the IR pretty soon after the private. I did all 40(.2) with a CFII, and had my IR ticket with under 105 hours TT. I didn't waste much in the way of flying time not being applied towards the IR.

 

[Palmpilot]

I flew an ILS in below-minimums weather the day after I got the rating.

 

[EdFred]

I flew an ILS in below-minimums weather the day after I got the rating.

But did you go missed?

My first flight after my IR was 3.5 hours in the soup from CLT area to CMH area in a plane brand new to me. I also got a 7600 on that flight (diverted/fixed - I blame gremlins), and after relaunch a set screw came loose on one of the nav radio so I was single com, single nav the rest of the way.

Didn't have to shoot an approach though, but the x-wind was such that I ran out of rudder and still had to crab 20 degrees to maintain centerline.

Fun times!

 

[fiveoboy01]

But did you go missed?

(Quietly re-seals the worm can)

 

[Maverick]

I have seen CFIIs who would not do any training in actual IFR conditions. I personally flew with an instructor who liked and was very comfortable teaching in actual IFR. I believe I got much more benefit from those hours spent with him in actual IMC conditions. In addition to him being a CFII he was a 20,000+ hour ATP as well. He was a great pilot and instructor.

 

[Palmpilot]

But did you go missed?

Yes, as I was planning all along. I didn't have any need to land there - I just wanted to fly the approach to restore my confidence, after barely squeaking by on the check ride the previous day. (It worked!)

 

[Henning]

The IR student already got the first hour (and more) during PP training.

I take into account that limited experience, as well as the likely time since, into account. I leave my statement as it stands, you should be over feeling the need/desire to 'peek' by the end f your first hour. If you are still having trouble with interpreting instruments at that point, advise your CFII so they can address it right away.

 

[RotorDude]

It shouldn't be murky.

Sounds like you busted the regs on a checkride. You can't act as PIC on an instrument flight plan without an instrument rating. The DPE either is, or isn't PIC. You should have had that conversation before hand. FWIW, while they don't prohibit it, the FAA strongly discourages DPEs from acting as PIC on a practical test. The DPE also being a CFII has no bearing on whether he/she is also PIC.

I think it's very clear to everyone that if the fit hit the shan and all lell broke hoose, like losing an engine or an in-flight fire (or both) for real, the (normally) vastly more experienced DPE would take over from the applicant. That FAA or its lawyers discourage the DPE from acting as PIC would carry no weight in such situations.

 

[Brad Z]

I think it's very clear to everyone that if the fit hit the shan and all lell broke hoose, like losing an engine or an in-flight fire (or both) for real, the (normally) vastly more experienced DPE would take over from the applicant. That FAA or its lawyers discourage the DPE from acting as PIC would carry no weight in such situations.

Really? I have hundreds of hours in my 182. A few years ago I took a CFI reinstatement checkride. Both the DPE and I agreed that I was PIC, and if anything were to happen, I was going to be the flying pilot and would ask for assistance from the DPE as necessary.

It sounds like you assumed the DPE would take over if that's the case. Better to discuss before hand. Of course as PIC you can delegate the flying to the DPE, but it would be inappropriate for the DPE to take the controls unless you were going to do something that would result in greater danger.

 

[midlifeflyer]

There is no problem with it being a personal retirement, but a legal one would be counterproductive, and potentially dangerous. Besides, the FAA would not take on that liability and their lawyers wouldn't allow it to be written.

I can see potential for bad publicity for the FAA if we start seeing instructional flights in actual resulting in high numbers of fatalities (not that likely to begin with; at least I haven't heard this was a problem where it is done often as a matter of course). But liability? I don't see it.

Or are you referring to something altogether different?

 

[RotorDude]

Really? I have hundreds of hours in my 182. A few years ago I took a CFI reinstatement checkride. Both the DPE and I agreed that I was PIC, and if anything were to happen, I was going to be the flying pilot and would ask for assistance from the DPE as necessary.

It sounds like you assumed the DPE would take over if that's the case. Better to discuss before hand. Of course as PIC you can delegate the flying to the DPE, but it would be inappropriate for the DPE to take the controls unless you were going to do something that would result in greater danger.

I was referring specifically to the typical IR checkride, with a wet-behind-the-ears recent PPL IR student, not a review checkride for an expired CFI. I certainly agree that in a flight review, esp. when taken in the applicant's own aircraft, the DPE is less likely to be more experienced or qualified in emergencies.
For comparison, when I took my RW add-on checkride a few years ago, my DPE specifically addressed the PIC issue in case of a real emergency, and said to let him have the controls if he requests them, but he would try his best to hold off until absolutely necessary.

 

[Kritchlow]

And back to the topic... I have yet to hear a reasonable arguement for needing actual prior to the rating, although the votes are there. I suspect the majority of those votes are from guys that don't have hour 1 of instrument training.

In many circumstances, simulated is way better than actual.

 

[fiveoboy01]

In many circumstances, simulated is way better than actual.

Curious to know the reasoning behind that belief.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I was referring specifically to the typical IR checkride, with a wet-behind-the-ears recent PPL IR student, not a review checkride for an expired CFI. I certainly agree that in a flight review, esp. when taken in the applicant's own aircraft, the DPE is less likely to be more experienced or qualified in emergencies.
For comparison, when I took my RW add-on checkride a few years ago, my DPE specifically addressed the PIC issue in case of a real emergency, and said to let him have the controls if he requests them, but he would try his best to hold off until absolutely necessary.

The DPE not being PIC is something referred to by lawyers as a "legal fiction." Everyone knows the DPE is in charge, but the rules say he isn't in order to meet a policy goal.

 

[Sundancer]

I think recency of experience is neck-and-neck with total experience, in value. A low-time guy who has done PP, Inst, and maybe commercial over the last year or so can have a proficeiency level as good or better than a 3,000 hour guy who has been coasting for a while.

And I don't mean the guy who has one hour, three thousand times, either. Not de-valuing experience, just suggesting that recent and intense training is probably at least as vsluable as total hours -in mist/many cases.

 

[Kritchlow]

Curious to know the reasoning behind that belief.

Basically simulation. I have done five type ratings in simulators. Approaches were set at ceiling zero, with whatever appropriate RVR for the occasion. You can't do that on actual (usually),and you can't do that with a hood. A simulator can do that plus do it single engine.

Now, I realize we are talking about a hood/foggles and not a 25 million dollar simulator.
That said, what do you do when you train with 2,000 foot ceilings? Wait until he breaks out then hand him the foggles??