Stingray Don
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
- Location
- Indianapolis, Indiana
- Display Name
Display name:
Stingray Don
So, if the weather is good enough to take off, but closes down en route...you aren't allowed to land?There are limitations with the basic instrument rating, including:
- ...
- ...
- Approach minimums raised 200 feet above standard
- No less than one mile visibility (1500 meters)
- Pilots can’t take off unless the departure and destination airports are forecast to be at least 600 foot ceilings and one mile visibility
What?!!! POA is in unanimous agreement on a topic?! Have I entered an alternate reality?
Truer words have never been spoken!European problem is too many stupid rules
Ok, I’ll bite. Sounds like worth more discussion/consideration. I followed the link and read the atual proposal...
Change any minds?
If anything in light of some crashes I've seen, I think the IFR rating may be too easy in this country.
I'm thinking a yearly IPC might not be a bad idea.
I think the problem is proficiency. The courses, checkride, etc., are fairly rigorous. What happens though is many people receive hardly any (<5 hrs) of actual instrument time in their training.. and once they're rated they lose their proficiency. 6 months is very lax for one hold and 6 approaches.. I think that's what burns people. "When were you in the clouds last Jimmy?" - "Oh not since 2015. But I'm totally current, my buddy came up with me and we logged some approaches a few months ago so I'm fine" (what he's not telling you is the CDI needle was pegged and he employed very "basic" use of the foggles)I think the IFR rating may be too easy
I'm thinking a yearly IPC might not be a bad idea.
However I think it goes beyond that - some people just aren't very good instrument pilots and they either need to continue working to get to an appropriate level of competency, or they need to get told "This ain't for you."
I think the problem is proficiency. The courses, checkride, etc., are fairly rigorous. What happens though is many people receive hardly any (<5 hrs) of actual instrument time in their training.. and once they're rated they lose their proficiency. 6 months is very lax for one hold and 6 approaches.. I think that's what burns people. "When were you in the clouds last Jimmy?" - "Oh not since 2015. But I'm totally current, my buddy came up with me and we logged some approaches a few months ago so I'm fine" (what he's not telling you is the CDI needle was pegged and he employed very "basic" use of the foggles)
There is no room for participation trophies in aviation.
If anything in light of some crashes I've seen, I think the IFR rating may be too easy in this country.
Not sure it's "too easy" but I think people aren't being held to the standards that already exist. Some of the flying on IPC's I've "tried" to administer was a joke. Most of these pilots probably end up doctor-shopping until they find someone that will sign them off.
That's one of the things I love about aviation. There are no safespaces or rewards for "trying hard" and showing upThere is no room for participation trophies in aviation.
That's one of the things I love about aviation. There are no safespaces or rewards for "trying hard" and showing up
That's one of the things I love about aviation. There are no safespaces or rewards for "trying hard" and showing up
I'm thinking a yearly IPC might not be a bad idea.
Sarcasm on. Good idea. Let's pile more requirements in pursuit of safety. I suggest we make it hard enough to earn and retain that no recreational pilot one ever pursues or uses an instrument rating, I don't care if they only use it to legally fly through a 100' layer at 3000 feet on the way to the beach...... sarcasm off.
You do realize that when you make things too hard people just go do them anyway and abandon any semblance of training/standards? The FAA made a conscious decision years ago to allow people to pursue an instrument rating pretty much as soon as they finished their private to incentive additional formal training into an arena where the PPL was basic at best (instruments). We now have a much greater emphasis on controlling risks in a business that is potentially rife with them and baking that risk assessment into training and mindsets. The result (obviously not due to this alone) is an increasingly safer GA population.
I'm one of those guys pursuing an instrument rating essentially as soon as I finished my private. Not counting 48 hours in 1984, and not counting 2500 hours of NFO time 87-07 , I just passed 100 hours. I have about 20 more hours of sim/actual instrument to go and check ride is 6 May. I fly 2-3 times a week with the CFII. I live in a place where I have gotten no actual instrument time yet since the freezing level usually hovers around pattern altitude the last 3 months as I've worked on the rating. If that works out I'll have my IR < a year from my PPL.
Aviation is a serious business and I suspect I have buried more friends killed via aviation than the majority of folks here. There is a lesson to be learned from every mishap. The way to do this is to ensure we ensure everyone with that coveted plastic card in their wallet understands this is an always learning environment and that means in the cockpit and out and ensuring we understand our and our equipments limitations not by piling on regulations. What will keep us safe is the gray matter between our ears learning how and continuing to learn, not another line in a part 61 and not another $4000 addition to the price of a PPL or IR.
Note that my flying club requires a BFR in the most complex airplane at the rating you're quailed in every year. That kind of self-regulation is fine since I volunteered for it.
Pretty sure an IPC doesn't cost $4,000. At the end of the day it doesn't matter to me, the place I'm renting from wants a proficiency check every 6 months, every other one is basically an IPC and I'm fine with that. I just passed my IR checkride, good stuff, good luck on yours.
Sarcasm on. Good idea. Let's pile more requirements in pursuit of safety. I suggest we make it hard enough to earn and retain that no recreational pilot one ever pursues or uses an instrument rating, I don't care if they only use it to legally fly through a 100' layer at 3000 feet on the way to the beach...... sarcasm off.
I always figured once I get my IR, I'd do an IPC every 6 months or so just to keep sharp. (Haven't gotten it yet, but that's what I figured.)
Ok, I’ll bite. Sounds like worth more discussion/consideration. I followed the link and read the atual proposal. A few points the article either omits or glosses over.
- it is a three-stage training/test process. 1. Basic instrument control/flying. Must pass stage one before proceeding on. 2. Departures/approaches/SIDS/STARS. 3. En-route IFR. (There is a 4th stage for engine out operations if you want to fly ME).
- there is no relaxation of performance standards, only a relaxation of minimum training hours. Once you can pass the test, you get the rating. I am old enough to remember when the FAA required 250 total hours before you could take an instrument check ride.
- the rating expires after 1 year. To keep it active, you must pass a proficiency check every 12 months. No self-certifying of currency.
Change any minds?
Very basic way to die IMHO.
I certainly don't think that the PTS should be made any less stringent, let's put it that way. But we must also realize the reality of adherence to those standards in terms of letter vs. intent, and people who just pencil whip things.
Let's take the altitude adherence. "Maintains altitude within +/- 100 feet during level flight, headings within +/- 10 degrees, airspeed within +/- 10 knots, and bank angles within +/- 5 during turns."
Let's say you take a pilot who is just bad at instruments and while going along is constantly +/- 100 ft bouncing off those markers, headings constantly bouncing between +/- 10, airspeed all over the place but still within +/- 10 (that will happen if you're doing those previous items), and bank angle constantly shifting, unable to hold a steady bank.
That person has legally met the PTS in all of the requirements, but should not be flying in the clouds. I would not sign off anyone who flew like this, but other CFIs would. Then you have DPEs who will say "Well, I guess I'll pass you since you did technically meet the PTS." Then they go to get a type rating and "Well, you were bouncing all over but you did technically meet the standards."
Then you have the Learjet that crashed in TEB.
There is no room for participation trophies in aviation.