IFR en route, VFR departure and landing

Handsfield

Handsfield

Pre-Flight
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
43
Location
Seattle
Display Name
Display name:
Hunter Handsfield
Has there ever been consideration of a middle ground IFR rating that would allow instrument privileges en route but not require them for approach and landing?

It seems to me that the skills and experience required for en route, cross-country flying are different (and more forgiving) than those for approach and landing, and to some extent for departure. What if there were a rating that allowed departure and arrival in VFR or MVFR conditions, not requiring competence for approach in IMC? It seems this could allow safe en route flight between layers or IMC, without the compency required for an IFR approach to minimum. How many pilots would have expanded horizons and options if they could depart in VFR conditions, fly through a layer or even continue long distances IMC, knowing that the destination was forecast to have, say, a 2500' ceiling that would allow a safe VFR arrival without an instrument approach?

I don't recall ever seeing a discussion along these lines. Any thoughts?

HHH
 
Last edited:
Handsfield said:
Has there ever been consideration of a middle ground IFR rating that would allow instrument privileges en route but not require them for approach and landing?

I don't recall ever seeing a discussion along these lines. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I seem to remember an article to that effect in AOPA Pilot shortly after September 11th when the "enhanced class B" thing was still in effect and trapping an awful lot of airplanes. They talked about it being an "IFR in VMC" type of rating.

There are certainly some advantages to it - And I can remember wishing there were a way I could "solo" when working on my IR - but I don't think there's enough benefit to make the adjustments to the system.

I would imagine that it would lead to more accidents, with people getting into weather they're not prepared for. Weather conditions can change in a hurry - In fact, on my most challenging IFR flight, I was expecting 1000 AGL ceilings at my destination - Turned out it was 100 feet, and I had to miss the ILS and go to my alternate, which then dropped from 9,000 scattered and 10 miles to 300 overcast and 3/4 mile in under 15 minutes. (I made it in on the ILS, the jet behind me made it in, and that was it - field went below minimums until the following afternoon.) That's not a situation you really want to get into without a full-on instrument rating, is it?

It seems that we've talked about it here before at some point, but it also seems that this sounds like a good idea until you actually have your instrument rating, and then it doesn't sound like a good idea any more. ;)

I, for one, believe that flying IFR at all, you should not even have personal minimums WRT approaches - If you can't confidently fly an approach all the way to minimums, you have no business flying IFR at all - That's just how it turns out sometimes, and that was hammered home for me on the flight I described above.
 
I'd have to second that. I flew in to ACK a while ago, and it was forecast to be 2000 bkn. I filed IFR and flew around thunderstorms and finally arrived, and it was 100' overcast. I could see the other side of the island, but the side the airport was in was socked in. I went missed twice, trying to get in, as Cape Air was continuing to get in. (cretins went below mins) and got in on the third try as the clouds lifted a little.

Weather is not always as forecast, and what will you do if it turns out you need to do a precision approach to get in to both your 1st choice and your alternate?
 
I would tend to agree. Either you have an instrument rating or you don't. I don't see having an intermediate instrument rating to be the best idea.
 
The British have something like that, but to my knowledge, it's never been seriously considered by the FAA.
 
When I started my IR training I had similar thoughts i.e. wishing for an intermediate IR that didn't allow approaches and required forecasted VFR weather under the clouds or something along those lines. But I concluded that there are two major problems with that concept. One is that when you're VFR you are able to remain VFR simply by changing course and/or reducing your altitude when clouds/low vis intrudes on your flight path. If you're flying "limited IFR" above the clouds you don't have that choice and you can't really determine if the weather below the clouds is VMC. As a result you could end up flying several hundred miles to a destination forecast to have nothing but a scattered layer at 3000 AGL only to find that Mother Nature didn't read that forecast and the actual weather is 800 and 2 over a wide area surrounding the destination. Granted, that might be a lot less likely today with downlink weather in the cockpit but then you'd have to be required to be flying an airplane with a panel mounted weather display (the FAA never condones handheld devices) and even that wouldn't eliminate the possibility of rapidly deteriorating conditions. I suppose you could also require that fuel planning include enough to reach the destination then return to the departure or some other distant point where the weather is "guaranteed" to be acceptable.

The other issue is that the current system just isn't set up to handle this. Major rule changes would be needed along with methods for dealing with the various situations that might arise and the chances of the FAA going through all that to allow some less trained folks fly in IMC are pretty slim. Unlike most of the rest of the world we already have the ability to fly over an undercast and that rarely works to anyone's advantage AFaIK. An "IFR-light" rating probably wouldn't do much better.
 
"Special VFR" is about all I can think of and I don't think the proposal of the OP is going to be a good one. If you can't go through the IR certification then you really don't belong in the clouds.
 
I agree that having a "middle IFR" which would allow you to fly through clouds enroute is a bad idea. The weather forcast changes so much, and if you dare try to fly through clouds enroute, your destination airport could quickly close in leaving you stranded in the air with no legal way down. Murphy says it will and Murphy doesn't play nice.

I could agree that attitude recovery, partial panel, and just navigating enroute in clouds shouldnt be too difficult, but I think we would see a lot more pilots getting stranded with no legal way down when the weather gets horrible due to bad forcast (which should be expected and planned for), and when pilots try to extend their range to a VFR airport, risk fuel exhaustion.

And I am willing to bet if you get stuck in the air, and declare an emergency to get through to the ground, you'll get in some trouble providing you survive the approach for poor planning and not having all available information or something like that.
 
This almost sounds like flying on an IFR flight plan and just flying a visual approach weather permitting, but this still sounds like a bad idea to me.
 
I'm currently TDY so I can't look at my copy of Buck's "Instrument Flying" but I seem to recall the author recommending newly minted IFR pilots to progress from

1) VMC departure, IMC enroute (with VMC options), VMC arrival
2) VMC departure, IMC enroute (withi VMC options), IMC arrival
3) IMC departure, IMC enroute (withi VMC options), IMC arrival

(I may have #2 and #3 switched)

Anyway, the author seems to be ok with relatively inexperienced pilots doing IMC enroute but with VMC departures and arrivals.

Perhaps the OP can get the full rating but leave his personal minimums high enough that he'll only need the rating enroute. Doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
 
Any student pilot can put the airplane on auto pilot and cruise at 4,000 for a couple hours. But it takes a trained, and proficient, aviator to make an instrument approach through the clouds.

You either are, or are not, instrument rated (and current). There is no in between.
 
Hunter, the AFS 620 guys are stting around trying to figure out how to make the ratings HARDER, e.g, MORE RIGOROUS. That's why there's discussion as to the PVT ASEL XC not counting toward Commercial. PTS standards have been added r.e, Aerial decisionmaking and the DPE have received instructions on application to all areas of the PTS.

The reason Alan Englehart quit giving the CFI renewal courses was he just couldn't stand his FSDO- DuPage, and they are some of these guys.

I don't think the idea is a happening thing.....
 
Thanks, Bruce. As I replied in a follow-up on the AOPA forum, I'm not actually proposing a half-way IFR rating. However, as others have said, most IFR flights don't end in approach in "hard" IMC conditions, and a lot of pilots would be safe departing in VFR conditions, ascending through clouds, and descending through a later to VFR conditions; or to get past an IMC area to known VFR conditions. But I also understand this ignores the risk of an unplanned landing if an emergency or urgent situation arises en route, where conditions may be low IFR.

Thanks again for your personal counsel a few months ago.

Regards to all-- HHH
 
Even if there was a rating like this I'm not sure how useful it would be. It seems to me that if any IMC is going to limit you it's usually a low layer which prevents a VFR departure or arrival with it being clear on top.
 
Everskyward said:
Even if there was a rating like this I'm not sure how useful it would be. It seems to me that if any IMC is going to limit you it's usually a low layer which prevents a VFR departure or arrival with it being clear on top.
Click to expand...

I've seen far more IMC enroute than either at the departure or arrival airports.

Remember, some aircraft would have trouble topping IMC (e.g., a cherokee 140).
 
I think the "Hard IFR" idea is counter-productive.

I know it means "Minimums or close" but quite frankly you can either shoot an approach to minimums or you can't, and if you can't you probably shouldn't be flying in IMC.

While approaches are challenging to learn and continuously do well, at bottom an approach is merely the combination of tracking while descending.

I've done approaches to mins in calm, smooth, foggy air that were far easier than a fairly straightforward IFR flight that included 3000' feet of descent through rock n roll CU to break out 1000' AGL.

While the IR is challenging, it's still merely a ticket to learn. Adding a super-IR won't make you a better IR pilot, and adding a sorta-IR to a VFR pilot's certificate won't do much either.

Count me a "no" on this proposal.
 
Bob Noel said:
I've seen far more IMC enroute than either at the departure or arrival airports.

Remember, some aircraft would have trouble topping IMC (e.g., a cherokee 140).
Click to expand...
I guess you're right. a lot of people cruise at 2,000' AGL or thereabouts whereas that would be part of the approach for me.

I don't think the enroute IFR rating is that great an idea but I don't have any problem with people deciding they want to set their own limits for minimums. The caveat would be that they do their planning that way too. Part 135 (Part 121) have higher minimums for low time PICs.

135.225(e) The MDA or DA/DH and visibility landing minimums prescribed in part 97 of this chapter or in the operator's operations specifications are increased by 100 feet and 1/2mile respectively, but not to exceed the ceiling and visibility minimums for that airport when used as an alternate airport, for each pilot in command of a turbine-powered airplane who has not served at least 100 hours as pilot in command in that type of airplane.
Click to expand...
 
Handsfield said:
It seems to me that the skills and experience required for en route, cross-country flying are different (and more forgiving) than those for approach and landing, and to some extent for departure.
HHH
Click to expand...

Think of the instrument rating as "precision flying" rating rather than a "bad weather" rating.
 
I know I'll get flamed for this, but after getting caught by surprise by IMC, and after getting my IR, I think IR should be part of your PPL, not an add on.

Go ahead and start throwing eggs. I've got my hockey helmet on.
 
Rykymus said:
I know I'll get flamed for this, but after getting caught by surprise by IMC, and after getting my IR, I think IR should be part of your PPL, not an add on.

Go ahead and start throwing eggs. I've got my hockey helmet on.
Click to expand...
I think a healthy dose of IMC avoidance training and some hood training is all that is necessary. Instill a great respect for the dangers and wise pilots will stay away from IMC before they are more skilled. There are enough barriers to GA flying as it is.
 
Why all the angst against personal minimums and the chest beating, of if you can fly IR you can fly to minimums otherwise you are not IR....

I think the idea is a good one, is it likely. Absolutely fricking not.
The examples given of ceilings dropping and other conditions could have screwed any normal VFR pilot who is scud running or flying VFR over a layer of clouds expecting broken at the destination and planning to go through a hole. This would help such a pilot get out of the situation. However the counter argument is it will encourage pilots to take risky flights they may not have, and this will be the winning argument. There just is not enough of a demand to push/advocate for such a complex and large change.

Tim
 
Rykymus said:
I know I'll get flamed for this, but after getting caught by surprise by IMC, and after getting my IR, I think IR should be part of your PPL, not an add on.

Go ahead and start throwing eggs. I've got my hockey helmet on.
Click to expand...
I won't throw any eggs! I've said many times that I think that even VFR pilots should have MUCH more than the required 3 hours of instrument training, and to practice instrument skills on a recurrent basis. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the required hours should be upped or that everyone should get the IR along with the PPL, though. I don't think the full IR program is necessary to save yourself if you get into IMC. In addition to the basic skills, you also need to have knowledge of regulations, ability to decode charts and plates that VFR pilots have no need to read, etc. I just think it's important for a VFR pilot to be completely comfortable keeping the airplane under control without visual reference, indefinitely.

I suspect that's really what you are saying, too, but I don't want to speak for you, so I'll shut up.
 
whattauser said:
I think a healthy dose of IMC avoidance training and some hood training is all that is necessary. Instill a great respect for the dangers and wise pilots will stay away from IMC before they are more skilled. There are enough barriers to GA flying as it is.
Click to expand...
The problem is that to be 100% certain that you won't encounter unexpected IMC is not always possible, and if you need to be 100% certain, you will often scrub flights that you could have taken. I was a careful VFR pilot in 2005, and would scrub flights if I thought I had more than about a 10% chance of encountering less than VFR conditions. Once I was doubtful, but a Lockmart briefer encouraged me by telling me that conditions were improving and were expected to keep getting better. Boy, was he (and I) wrong!

There are also pilots who fly out of airports where going at night often means a black hole departure, or approach. If they don't have instrument skills, they can't fly at night period, or at least not without an instructor.
 
Holy necro :confused: but I'll reply anyway

I have long thought to myself that a limited instrument rating allowing IMC at cruise would be useful for when there is a scattered cloud layer at your desired cruise altitude, while the bases of the clouds were above the MEA or at least the MVA. The idea is that, on a decent VFR day, you can elect to fly in cool smooth air over or through some clouds rather than fly down low in hot bumpy air.

That said, I'm not sure it could ever be written into the regs without making overly complex or opening a can of worms. A first step, or a compromise, might be to allow special VFR in any kind of controlled airspace instead of just surface areas, but I believe even that would be difficult from an ATC perspective. You have to remember than instrument rating isn't just about flying approaches, it's about flying in a system where ATC is required to strictly separate traffic, and it's hard to separate out components of that system.
 
I got my PPL in Argentina last year. They actually have something like this called VFR Controlado (VFR controlled). You need it to take off or land in any tower controlled airport, but you don't do instrument approaches, arrivals, or departures. You do have to learn somethings that we only learn in IFR training in the US, like course reversals (ICAO / teardrop / 90/270), ADF flying (they still use NDBs some places), QDR and QDM stuff. If you don't have VFR controlado, I think you can only fly in non-controlled airspace and at non-controlled airports (which still covers a lot of places in Argentina).
 
azure said:
I won't throw any eggs! I've said many times that I think that even VFR pilots should have MUCH more than the required 3 hours of instrument training, and to practice instrument skills on a recurrent basis. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the required hours should be upped or that everyone should get the IR along with the PPL, though. I don't think the full IR program is necessary to save yourself if you get into IMC. In addition to the basic skills, you also need to have knowledge of regulations, ability to decode charts and plates that VFR pilots have no need to read, etc. I just think it's important for a VFR pilot to be completely comfortable keeping the airplane under control without visual reference, indefinitely.

I suspect that's really what you are saying, too, but I don't want to speak for you, so I'll shut up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, actually, I think that is what I'm saying. The first time I got caught by IMC, I didn't feel at all prepared. If I hadn't had an autopilot to use, I don't know if I'd be typing this. The second time was way worse, but I was nearly done with my IR training by that time, so I was far better prepared. I could definitely see more time under the hood, with emphasis being on simulating accidental IMC and how to get out of it.

Edited to add: I don't see the need for cruising through IMC. But I could see it useful to be trained to descend safely through a layer to get to a VFR/MVFR airport if you get caught on top by an overcast layer. I could even see being able to climb through a layer with additional training, and save the IFR departures/approaches for IR pilots.
 
Rykymus said:
Yeah, actually, I think that is what I'm saying. The first time I got caught by IMC, I didn't feel at all prepared. If I hadn't had an autopilot to use, I don't know if I'd be typing this. The second time was way worse, but I was nearly done with my IR training by that time, so I was far better prepared. I could definitely see more time under the hood, with emphasis being on simulating accidental IMC and how to get out of it.
Click to expand...
So how do you get "caught by IMC"?
 
MauleSkinner said:
So how do you get "caught by IMC"?
Click to expand...
A few possible ways:

1. Flying at night, when you can't see the clouds.

2. The visibility gets worse and worse, insidiously, until conditions are less than VFR.

3. Not recognizing that the bases up ahead are getting lower and lower. This last is what happened to me, and it all happened VERY fast, within 30 seconds or so. In view of the briefer's words, there was an element of denial in the whole thing: I couldn't believe this was actually happening. I was still a fairly low-time pilot, under 500 hours, less experienced in reading the weather in flight, and a little less wary of things that didn't look quite right than I am now.

It can happen, especially to low-time pilots,and it happens all the time. It's easier than you might think.
 
azure said:
A few possible ways:

1. Flying at night, when you can't see the clouds.

2. The visibility gets worse and worse, insidiously, until conditions are less than VFR.

3. Not recognizing that the bases up ahead are getting lower and lower. This last is what happened to me, and it all happened VERY fast, within 30 seconds or so. In view of the briefer's words, there was an element of denial in the whole thing: I couldn't believe this was actually happening. I was still a fairly low-time pilot, under 500 hours, less experienced in reading the weather in flight, and a little less wary of things that didn't look quite right than I am now.

It can happen, especially to low-time pilots,and it happens all the time. It's easier than you might think.
Click to expand...
I just looked,at the Private Pilot ACS...Apparently enroute evaluation of ceiling and visibility is no longer important to the FAA. 2 & 3 above really don't happen "fast". You have to be not paying attention or, as you indicated, be in denial.

I've often thought the FAA screwed up in requiring private pilots to fly instruments like instrument-rated pilots. Instrument flying for non-instrument-rated pilots is an emergency, and there are better ways that don't require a level of proficiency that they don't have and/or won't maintain.

 
azure said:
Once I was doubtful, but a Lockmart briefer encouraged me by telling me that conditions were improving and were expected to keep getting better. Boy, was he (and I) wrong!
Click to expand...

The LockMart briefers who didn't come from the FAA were *AWFUL* for the first couple years.

I can't wait for ATC to go the same route! :hairraise::no:
 
MauleSkinner said:
I just looked,at the Private Pilot ACS...Apparently enroute evaluation of ceiling and visibility is no longer important to the FAA. 2 & 3 above really don't happen "fast". You have to be not paying attention or, as you indicated, be in denial.
Click to expand...
2 doesn't have to happen fast, in fact it is worse when it happens slowly, insidiously. I once took off into conditions like that, and turned back when I realized that I was flying on the gauges and that I was either already illegal, or soon would be. By that time I had already had plenty of instrument training, but wasn't rated yet.

More common is conditions that are legal VFR, but still requiring flight by instruments (JFK Jr. conditions). Very easy to get into in some parts of the country.

I won't try any harder to convince you, but I feel pretty strongly that VFR pilots who don't seek out that training will need to be a lot more conservative in their ADM than most think (certainly than I thought when I was VFR-only and low time) to be completely safe from encountering instrument conditions, if not frank IMC.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So how do you get "caught by IMC"?
Click to expand...

That's what I always said, until it happened to me.

The first time I was flying up the coast toward Arcata with my daughter. We were VFR on top, and there was a scattered base at about 3k below us. Along the way, my daughter decided she wanted to stop somewhere to pee. I checked weather conditions ahead via ATIS at intended destination, which reported ceilings of 3k and broken. I descended through a very large gap, was approaching the airport at about 2k agl, 1k below the broken ceiling. That ceiling suddenly started dropping, and I descended to 1k. I was about to turn around and go back to the hole and climb back up, when the ceiling fell to the water and we were engulfed. I was a few miles off shore, 1k above the ocean, and I was below radar coverage and no longer had contact with Oakland center. I climbed and started a left turn, away from the shore, because I didn't know the elevation of the coastline. That fog bank must have moved north awfully quickly, because it took me (what seemed like) forever to get back out. We climbed back up over and continued to our destination, which was clear. This incident is what made me start instrument training.

The second time was near the end of my instrument training. I was on my way back from San Diego after dropping my daughter off. I had just taken off from a pit stop at Bakersfield, taking off with about 45 mins of daylight left for a 90 minute flight. The forecast was overcast at 7k. Several of the airports along the way (there are a ton of them in the valley) were reporting broken at 7k, but my home drome was reporting overcast. My wife (who was at home) wasn't feeling well, and I felt pressured to get home. Although the forecast indicated that the overcast would be clearing near my arrival time, I decided to stay under the overcast at 6k. Somewhere over Lemoore, the lights below me suddenly vanished, and all I could see was my strobes reflecting off the cloud layer I was surrounded by. Seconds later, all hell broke loose. I was being beaten by rain (possibly hail, I don't know) that sounded like it was going to come through my roof, and I was being tossed about like a rag doll, hitting my head several times on the ceiling, despite a very snug seatbelt and shoulder harness. My VS was going all over the place, as was my altimeter and DG. I called ATC to try and get vectors out, but their weather radar was down. This lasted about 5 minutes, and the entire time, all I could think of was how I was going to be one of those guys in the crash review videos that I always yelled at saying "how could they possibly do that?" Then it just cleared up, and I was fine. I was 90 degrees off course, and 2,000 ft lower than I had been when it started, but I was alive. The rest of the flight was calm, as forecast, and at my destination the overcast was gone.

I was one of those who always said, "only an idiot would get caught by IMC by accident." In neither situation, did I have any weather forecast info that indicated either situation would be likely to happen. I even reviewed both incidents, including all weather forecasts with my CFI afterward, and he didn't think I missed anything either.

It can happen. Anyone who thinks they are immune to it is a fool.
 
Rykymus said:
I was one of those who always said, "only an idiot would get caught by IMC by accident." In neither situation, did I have any weather forecast info that indicated either situation would be likely to happen. I even reviewed both incidents, including all weather forecasts with my CFI afterward, and he didn't think I missed anything either.

It can happen. Anyone who thinks they are immune to it is a fool.
Click to expand...
I guess I have issue with saying "I was caught by IMC...even the slowest airplanes I've flown could outrun it. I had to fly into it.

I also learned early on that forecasts aren't law...But it takes conscious effort to evaluate conditions as you fly to stay VMC.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
I guess I have issue with saying "I was caught by IMC...even the slowest airplanes I've flown could outrun it. I had to fly into it.

I also learned early on that forecasts aren't law...But it takes conscious effort to evaluate conditions as you fly to stay VMC.
Click to expand...
I've flown into IMC while VFR on flight following. It was snowing and the snow got heavier. It's tough to judge 3 miles visibility but I initiated the 180 when I started losing ground contact. ATC was nice and gave me a pop-up clearance so I turned back on course and continued on my merry way. The only thing ATC wanted was an icing report and I was happy to tell them negative icing.

Another one that can get you is smoke. Visibility can drop rapidly when flying into the heart of the plume and it really doesn't look much thicker as you approach it. I think that at night it could get really interesting quite quickly for a VFR only guy.

I agree that we always need to be evaluating conditions when flying, VFR or IFR. Sometimes it's just boring slogging Along with no changes but there have been enough times with 'interesting' conditions that I'll make the blanket statement of 'always'.
 
Clark1961 said:
It's tough to judge 3 miles visibility..'.
Click to expand...
It's actually pretty easy...in my 100-knot Maule, it would be just under 2 minutes from where I could first see an object until it was under me. One mile would be just under 40 seconds.
 
MauleSkinner said:
It's actually pretty easy...in my 100-knot Maule, it would be 2 minutes from where I could first see an object until it was under me. One mile would be 40 seconds.
Click to expand...
Lol. Think about it just one second. Visibility down does not equal visibility forward or to the sides which is what we need to see and avoid traffic. In fact the rules specify lateral clearance from clouds for VFR flight. Of course you know this and just have to be negative or obtuse anyway.
 
Clark1961 said:
Lol. Think about it just one second. Visibility down does not equal visibility forward or to the sides which is what we need to see and avoid traffic. In fact the rules specify lateral clearance from clouds for VFR flight. Of course you know this and just have to be negative or obtuse anyway.
Click to expand...
You might reread my post and try to grasp the concept of looking out the windshield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top