"Counting" approaches in visual conditions with no foggles for currency - where does this idea come from?

jsstevens said:
IPC like a check ride. Sounds pretty good to me. I did my last IPC in our club twin because I wanted more twin time. The CFI kept a constant stream of instruction going and was often telling me to do something just about as I was going to. After one flight like that (and we hadn't completed the tasks through no fault of his or mine, just busy airspace and limited time), we prepared for the second flight and I asked him to not bother me with stuff unless I was going to get us killed or bend the airplane. Went much better. It's on me for not asking him to be quiet the first time. CRM and all.
Click to expand...
Probably one of the more widespread instructor problems. Unfortunately many people (trainees and instructors alike) don’t recognize that you can’t evaluate proficiency if you’re always teaching.
 
jsstevens said:
IPC like a check ride
Click to expand...
It is but covers less. But that’s the reason I’ve fallen out of love with it as a proficiency check. If you really think back to the practical test flight, the required maneuvers are easy. You’ve done those approaches many times. And with the new age of avionics, the checkride barely scratch the competence surface.

One day I spoke with a CFII from a remote flight school who was present for a student’s instrument checkride. I asked, “if they pass, are they ready to file and fly IFR tomorrow?” “Absolutely not,” was the answer, with no hesitation. I think that’s generally true and mostly about avionics knowledge.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It is but covers less. But that’s the reason I’ve fallen out of love with it as a proficiency check. If you really think back to the practical test flight, the required maneuvers are easy. You’ve done those approaches many times. And with the new age of avionics, the checkride barely scratch the competence surface.

One day I spoke with a CFII from a remote flight school who was present for a student’s instrument checkride. I asked, “if they pass, are they ready to file and fly IFR tomorrow?” “Absolutely not,” was the answer, with no hesitation. I think that’s generally true and mostly about avionics knowledge.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the ACSs all make statements regarding application and correlation levels of learning…requiring a pilot to figure out something he’s never seen or done is still technically fair game.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Keep in mind that the ACSs all make statements regarding application and correlation levels of learning…requiring a pilot to figure out something he’s never seen or done is still technically fair game.
Click to expand...
True, but there's a flip side. Even with the good changes in the latest ACS in terms of types of approaches, there's still a bit of "let's do something you will never use" or "let's pretend" in order to cover the required tasks. For example, if the GPS WAAS is feeding the transponder ADS-B Out, we will still usually need a ground-based nonprecision navaid approach. In some areas, the ones left are LOC or VOR approaches which require DME. No real DME, it's an approach that will probably never be used. No local LOC-only, and it's pretend there's a "GS UNUSBL" NOTAM on that ILS or LOC. You still wind up with a "check the box and move on." A good CFI can come up with better proficiency exercises based on the pilot's equipment.

Not saying tying the IPC to the ACS is a bad thing. Might even be necessary. And I have definitely withheld my endorsement because the pilot was not proficient on the basics. But as a true measure of proficiency, the "standard" IPC is lacking. Just IMHO.
 
midlifeflyer said:
True, but there's a flip side. Even with the good changes in the latest ACS in terms of types of approaches, there's still a bit of "let's do something you will never use" or "let's pretend" in order to cover the required tasks. For example, if the GPS WAAS is feeding the transponder ADS-B Out, we will still usually need a ground-based nonprecision navaid approach. In some areas, the ones left are LOC or VOR approaches which require DME. No real DME, it's an approach that will probably never be used. No local LOC-only, and it's pretend there's a "GS UNUSBL" NOTAM on that ILS or LOC. You still wind up with a "check the box and move on." A good CFI can come up with better proficiency exercises based on the pilot's equipment.

Not saying tying the IPC to the ACS is a bad thing. Might even be necessary. And I have definitely withheld my endorsement because the pilot was not proficient on the basics. But as a true measure of proficiency, the "standard" IPC is lacking. Just IMHO.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I’d also extend it to say that as a true measure of proficiency, the ACSs are lacking in general. Training is key.
 
flyingron said:
Ooops.. I meant to say IMC is everywhere that's not VMC.
Click to expand...

So..... cloud deck at 12,000. You're at 11,100. Clear all the way to the ground.
You can't fly VFR because you're too close to the clouds.

Are you in IMC, even though horizontal visibility is unlimited, and you can see all the way to the ground?
In other words, in this case can you "create" a VMC environment by flying at 10,900, or an enter an IMC environment by flying at 11,100?

Is then VMC and IMC dependent upon how we define legal VFR?
 
WDD said:
So..... cloud deck at 12,000. You're at 11,100. Clear all the way to the ground.
You can't fly VFR because you're too close to the clouds.

Are you in IMC, even though horizontal visibility is unlimited, and you can see all the way to the ground?
In other words, in this case can you "create" a VMC environment by flying at 10,900, or an enter an IMC environment by flying at 11,100?

Is then VMC and IMC dependent upon how we define legal VFR?
Click to expand...
You are in IMC by the regulatory definition. Any time the conditions are less than what will allow legal VFR flight, it is IMC. I don't know how I can make it any simpler. IMC and VMC are defined by the VFR cloud clearance, visibility, and ceiling requirements. If you are not legal to be VFR by those, you are not in VMC and you are in IMC.

This is why the logging rules are distinct from the flight rules. You can be in instrument conditions while in VMC and not in instrument conditions while in IMC.
 
Last edited:
A few of you have used the "P" word. How does one evaluate proficiency? Is it a gut thing? Do you seek input from someone you think is more qualified than you are? If currency is binary, and proficiency is continuous, how do you rate where you stand?
 
SLB said:
A few of you have used the "P" word. How does one evaluate proficiency? Is it a gut thing? Do you seek input from someone you think is more qualified than you are? If currency is binary, and proficiency is continuous, how do you rate where you stand?
Click to expand...
Could you pass an IPC (or instrument checkride) without any prompting from an instructor? If so, that's a minimum level of proficiency. I'd probably also add "in actual IMC".
 
SLB said:
A few of you have used the "P" word. How does one evaluate proficiency?
Click to expand...
Let’s separate these questions out a bit…
SLB said:
Is it a gut thing?
Click to expand...
No. It needs to be an evaluation against an objective standard. Probably the most readily-available objective standard is the appropriate ACS, but other standards may be appropriate, depending on what operation your trying to evaluate.
SLB said:
Do you seek input from someone you think is more qualified than you are?
Click to expand...
Outside input is often more objective than self evaluation, but again, the selection of someone to give you input has to be objective, not just “someone you think is more qualified than you are.” Are they familiar with the objective standard you’re being evaluated against, and can they clearly communicate your performance relative to that standard? An instructor is often the easiest choice, and flying with an instructor more often than just when you need to for a flight review is recommended anyway. But as we all know, instructors are not all created equal, so you need to evaluate your instructor (or whomever you choose to work with) with regard to their ability to give you the information you need.
SLB said:
If currency is binary, and proficiency is continuous, how do you rate where you stand?
Click to expand...
You have an objective standard. Do you meet that standard, for example, do you normally maintain altitude within 100 feet? Do you exceed that standard, say maintain altitude within 50 feet? Have you improved, stayed the same, or gotten worse since you looked at it last?
 
flyingron said:
You are in IMC by the regulatory definition. Any time the conditions are less than what will allow legal VFR flight, it is IMC. I don't know how I can make it any simpler.
Click to expand...
Neither can I. But it's difficult to overcome "belief" especially when there's also a common generic use of IMC to mean "actual." For every "negative contact. We're in the clouds" there's probably 20 "Negative contact. We're IMC." Some of us have more difficulty conceptually separating technical vs generic usage.
 
SLB said:
A few of you have used the "P" word. How does one evaluate proficiency? Is it a gut thing? Do you seek input from someone you think is more qualified than you are? If currency is binary, and proficiency is continuous, how do you rate where you stand?
Click to expand...

On a practical standpoint, can I perform the tasks within ACS standards. There’s tools you can use to help you objectively evaluate this in debrief.

I personally like cloudAhoy. Sample below.
a940ebcdbc06d34e05237259dbbcf419.jpg


Yep, I boff’d it laterally on IF to IAF leg. I also know why that happened; an unexpected “jumpers away” call forced me to sequence the hold as the next leg. About the time I got it set up in the box, I got “jumpers on the ground” and abandoned the idea of going to the hold.

Some good ADM conversations with my safety pilot ensued in debrief.
 
TCABM said:
On a practical standpoint, can I perform the tasks within ACS standards. There’s tools you can use to help you objectively evaluate this in debrief.

I personally like cloudAhoy. Sample below.
a940ebcdbc06d34e05237259dbbcf419.jpg


Yep, I boff’d it laterally on IF to IAF leg. I also know why that happened; an unexpected “jumpers away” call forced me to sequence the hold as the next leg. About the time I got it set up in the box, I got “jumpers on the ground” and abandoned the idea of going to the hold.

Some good ADM conversations with my safety pilot ensued in debrief.
Click to expand...
Funny you mentioned CloudAhoy. That’s what prompted my original question. Most of my scores are in the 90s, but my rating is still new enough that I figure the app is generous. Perhaps I have a little imposter syndrome.
 
Appreciate the discussion.

flyingron said:
This is why the logging rules are distinct from the flight rules. You can be in instrument conditions while in VMC and not in instrument conditions while in IMC.
Click to expand...

Can you give an example of how/where I would not be in instrument conditions while in IMC?

That is, where can I be not in instrument conditions - by definition flying VFR - while in IMC?
 
SLB said:
Funny you mentioned CloudAhoy. That’s what prompted my original question. Most of my scores are in the 90s, but my rating is still new enough that I figure the app is generous. Perhaps I have a little imposter syndrome.
Click to expand...

Depending on version, all the parametric info is available to compare against ACS criteria.

I’ll also say you’re likely most proficient the minute you get your ticket punched and it degrades from there over time.
 
WDD said:
Can you give an example of how/where I would not be in instrument conditions while in IMC?

That is, where can I be not in instrument conditions - by definition flying VFR - while in IMC?
Click to expand...
“By definition flying VFR” is not the same as not being in instrument conditions.
 
unless you're in the training business of course, which is one of the things I love about my occupation, built in recurrency. I remember coming back to it from my operational assignment. Good lord how hands atrophy in operational flying.

For instrument scan proficiency, the simulator is my go to option these days. Glad to hear homemade/redbirdy type sims are fully embraced and available without a CFI tethering. I'd quit [rec IFR] if I had to maintain currency in the aircraft by relying on IPCs or safety pilot potato. I already have a wife I got to joust/tether with, I don't need another one for recreation. :biggrin:

ETA: oh don't look over on DOD world...cuz that's exactly [no foggles] how we log approaches. Somebody should DOGE/ban the military, those heathens are just dangerous. :stirpot:
 
MauleSkinner said:
“By definition flying VFR” is not the same as not being in instrument conditions.
Click to expand...
What scenario can you give where I can be clear of clouds enough and have enough visibility to be legally VFR but I’m in IMC?
 
WDD said:
Appreciate the discussion.



Can you give an example of how/where I would not be in instrument conditions while in IMC?

That is, where can I be not in instrument conditions - by definition flying VFR - while in IMC?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the second sentence means but I'm pretty sure the easiest example has been given:

You are flying above 10,000 msl, 900' below an overcast ceiling. Visibility is unlimited otherwise, both down and laterally in all directions.

We could use 400' below an overcast below 10,000 msl, but I think that 900' make the point better. But in both cases, if you are operating under visual flight rules, it's a pilot deviation.

@flyingron quoted them earlier. The FAA definitions:

VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS- Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling equal to or better than specified minima.​
​
INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS (IMC)- Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions.​
 
TCABM said:
I’ll also say you’re likely most proficient the minute you get your ticket punched and it degrades from there over time.
Click to expand...
Man I hope not. For both my PP and instrument tickets my instructor told me that I would learn how to pass the checkride, and then he would teach me to fly (working on that now). I want to believe I’m better with experience, not worse.
 
SLB said:
Man I hope not. For both my PP and instrument tickets my instructor told me that I would learn how to pass the checkride, and then he would teach me to fly (working on that now). I want to believe I’m better with experience, not worse.
Click to expand...

I think something’s being lost in translation if your CFI means the training he provided you to conduct flight by reference to instruments are inadequate to fly by reference to instruments in actual IMC.
 
Most of my dual instruction is with aircraft owners that fly for a hobby. Light business use sometimes, but mostly recreationally. For that group, I would say that almost certainly they are most proficient on the day of their instrument checkride. Because for the most part, they 1) don't fly enough, 2) don't fly on instruments enough, and 3) rely on the autopilot almost exclusively. I will see them again every so often for an IPC (usually right before a big trip they want to make), but it's been years since they flew any real IFR. So it's almost like starting over again, and the IPCs generally then take a couple of flights minimum.

I'd estimate that the most common way that such a hobbyist/recreational instrument-rated pilot maintains currency is right before their currency expires, they go up with a friend and do 6 approaches and a hold. Then 6 months - 12 months later they do the same. That's no way to be proficient.
 
RussR said:
Most of my dual instruction is with aircraft owners that fly for a hobby. Light business use sometimes, but mostly recreationally. For that group, I would say that almost certainly they are most proficient on the day of their instrument checkride. Because for the most part, they 1) don't fly enough, 2) don't fly on instruments enough, and 3) rely on the autopilot almost exclusively. I will see them again every so often for an IPC (usually right before a big trip they want to make), but it's been years since they flew any real IFR. So it's almost like starting over again, and the IPCs generally then take a couple of flights minimum.

I'd estimate that the most common way that such a hobbyist/recreational instrument-rated pilot maintains currency is right before their currency expires, they go up with a friend and do 6 approaches and a hold. Then 6 months - 12 months later they do the same. That's no way to be proficient.
Click to expand...
Are these folks regularly filing IFR?

Whats your advice to stay proficient in hand flying? Go do some pattern work ? Hand fly some practice approaches?

It seems to me that in IMC, single pilot, using the AP and monitoring SEEMS to be the safer choice than hand flying, but the catch 22 is not maintaining the hand flying skills.
 
dans2992 said:
Are these folks regularly filing IFR?

Whats your advice to stay proficient in hand flying? Go do some pattern work ? Hand fly some practice approaches?

It seems to me that in IMC, single pilot, using the AP and monitoring SEEMS to be the safer choice than hand flying, but the catch 22 is not maintaining the hand flying skills.
Click to expand...
Not much filing, or if they do, the weather is fine VMC anyway.

Knowing your autopilot is important. Knowing your hand flying is important. You need to force yourself to alternate or something to keep both skills sharp.
 
RussR said:
Not much filing, or if they do, the weather is fine VMC anyway.

Knowing your autopilot is important. Knowing your hand flying is important. You need to force yourself to alternate or something to keep both skills sharp.
Click to expand...
I’m flying a single engine turboprop, so every flight is > FL180 for the most part. Trying to strike the right balance.

If not using the AP, do you advise use of the FD when hand flying?
 
TCABM said:
I think something’s being lost in translation if your CFI means the training he provided you to conduct flight by reference to instruments are inadequate to fly by reference to instruments in actual IMC.
Click to expand...
They probably mean that while your hand flying skills are top notch, you have zero experience with IFR flight in the NAS and very limited knowledge of your avionics beyond the very basics needed to pass the checkride. Both true.
 
flyingron said:
You are in IMC by the regulatory definition. Any time the conditions are less than what will allow legal VFR flight, it is IMC. I don't know how I can make it any simpler. IMC and VMC are defined by the VFR cloud clearance, visibility, and ceiling requirements. If you are not legal to be VFR by those, you are not in VMC and you are in IMC.

This is why the logging rules are distinct from the flight rules. You can be in instrument conditions while in VMC and not in instrument conditions while in IMC.
Click to expand...
OK, right here is why there's confusion over these terms. If you expand the abbreviations, you just said:

You can be in instrument conditions while in Visaul M* Conditions and not in instrument conditions while in Instrument M* Conditions
Click to expand...
So, you can be in instrument conditions while in visual conditions, and you can be in visual conditions while you're in instrument conditions?
 
dans2992 said:
I’m flying a single engine turboprop, so every flight is > FL180 for the most part. Trying to strike the right balance.

If not using the AP, do you advise use of the FD when hand flying?
Click to expand...
Then your case is a little different than the average hobby pilot that I have experience with. You're filing IFR all the time, so you're in the system and are used to that. That's good. But try to avoid the habit of autopilot on at 400 ft on takeoff and off at DA on approach.

I fly a King Air and Challenger for work, and I will as a matter of routine not turn the autopilot on until some thousands of feet have passed on climb. On approach, I try to hand fly some and autopilot others. And yes, FD on and FD off are good practice modes too.

Now, you're single pilot IFR in a turbine, so I'd probably leave the autopilot on for the more challenging weather. But make sure to fly with it off sometimes too.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
OK, right here is why there's confusion over these terms. If you expand the abbreviations, you just said:


So, you can be in instrument conditions while in visual conditions, and you can be in visual conditions while you're in instrument conditions?
Click to expand...
No. Whether or not the word “meteorological” is there changes the meaning of the term.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
OK, right here is why there's confusion over these terms. If you expand the abbreviations, you just said:


So, you can be in instrument conditions while in visual conditions, and you can be in visual conditions while you're in instrument conditions
Click to expand...
No, again. Instrument and visual METEOROLOGICAL conditions refer to the VFR weather minimums.

Instrument conditions for logging refers to being able to fly without visual reference.

In the case that you are skimming along just below the ceiling, you are in IMC but you are not in instrument conditions.

On a hazy dark night with just 3 miles visibility and no clouds but with no discernible horizon you are in VMC but you are in instrument conditions.
 
dans2992 said:
Whats your advice to stay proficient in hand flying? Go do some pattern work ? Hand fly some practice approaches?

It seems to me that in IMC, single pilot, using the AP and monitoring SEEMS to be the safer choice than hand flying, but the catch 22 is not maintaining the hand flying skills.
Click to expand...
You have to do some of both (autopilot and hand flying). Your goal is for the passengers to not be able to tell the difference.

If you only fly the bare minimum to stay current, you'll never be proficient. IMO, a short cross country flight every three weeks is the bare minimum, and hand fly at least one complete leg except maybe the level in cruise portion (but don't flick the AP on until the airplane has accelerated to cruise speed and you're fully trimmed for hands-off flying anyway).

MauleSkinner said:
No. Whether or not the word “meteorological” is there changes the meaning of the term.
Click to expand...
Yabut, "meteoroligical" means weather and is modifying the word Conditions, which to me means (V/I)MC is referring only to "weather conditions"... But we're defining it relative to Rules.
flyingron said:
No, again. Instrument and visual METEOROLOGICAL conditions refer to the VFR weather minimums.
Click to expand...
To me, it would make more sense to say "VFR Conditions" as in "VFR is legal", while "Visual Meteorological Conditions" would mean "I can see stuff out the window." Especially since we now have "VMC" which means "VFR is legal" while we don't have a word or abbreviated phrase for "I can see stuff out the window" and more importantly "I *can't* see stuff out the window."

And I'm sure I'm not the only one, which is why there is confusion. In fact, based on @midlifeflyer's anecdotal evidence, the vast majority of pilots think that "IMC" means "I can't see stuff out the window."

midlifeflyer said:
For every "negative contact. We're in the clouds" there's probably 20 "Negative contact. We're IMC."
Click to expand...
Finally, we have this whole category of accidents called "VFR into IMC". I don't think anyone dies from flying too close to a cloud, they die from flying INTO it.

Yes, I know I'm wrong per the FAA's definition. I'm just saying I think that definition is stupid.

flyingron said:
Instrument conditions for logging refers to being able to fly without visual reference.

In the case that you are skimming along just below the ceiling, you are in IMC but you are not in instrument conditions.

On a hazy dark night with just 3 miles visibility and no clouds but with no discernible horizon you are in VMC but you are in instrument conditions.
Click to expand...
Yep, no confusion there whatsoever. "Operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top