IR Rating Dumbed Down?

[Jaybird180]

Just finished reading another aviation article (not going to link- t'was a Cirrus bashing article and I want to try and minimize thread creep the author also made many highly debatable statements)....

In this article the author stated that the IR rating requirements has been relaxed over the years (at the request by GA 'experts' namely AOPA)and that the newly rated IR pilot hasn't a clue 'about flying in the clouds'. He knows only procedures and compared to the pros he's 'infinitely' behind especially considering he's likely to fly single pilot IFR vs a commercial with a crew of 2+.

What say ye?

 

[ja_user]

How specifically were they relaxed? Besides the total time requirements, which were relaxed because new PP time builders kept killing themselves trying to build that time, so they could work on their IFR training

 

[poadeleted20]

My question is the same as Sam's. Other than the reduction and then elimination of the 200 hour total rime requirement, I don't see any significant difference between when I got mine in 1971 and today.

 

[Teller1900]

By any chance, did the author also write about how he used to have to walk to school, in snow, uphill both ways? And then yell at those damn kids to get off his lawn?

 

[Ghery]

By any chance, did the author also write about how he used to have to walk to school, in snow, uphill both ways? And then yell at those damn kids to get off his lawn?

Hey! I did walk uphill both ways to get to/from high school. And often in the snow. My kids didn't believe me until they went to college in that town. Now they do.

Now, I don't have a lawn, so I don't have to worry about yelling at kids to get off it.

Oh, and I hate to think what the ride was like before if mine was dumbed down.

 

[wby0nder]

If you can use an Ipad on the ride, like I'm told, there is no question it's easier then it used to be. I've been studying for the ride for about 25 years and it's certainly looking easier nowadays!

 

[douglas393]

Certainly GPS, moving maps, I-pad, and other modern advancements have made IFR flying and thus the training easier, but is that the same of dumbing down? I do not think so. My guess is the vast majority of GA flying IFR is using GPS and moving maps, and few are flying by heading and VOR to VOR. The techniques of situational awareness may have changed, but the practice of flying by instruments I would bet is the same today as it was in the pre GPS days.

Is it easier, no just different.

Doug

 

[Jaybird180]

My question is the same as Sam's. Other than the reduction and then elimination of the 200 hour total rime requirement, I don't see any significant difference between when I got mine in 1971 and today.

I'm now wondering about the wide-latitude of creative licensing the author took in writing the article. Unfortunately, after looking at the name, I just realized that it's an author who's opinion I respect (maybe I saw too many Sporty's videos)...Mr. Richard Collins.

As previously stated there are other debatables in the article. Make your own judgements

http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dicks-blog-whats-wrong-with-cirrus-pilots/

Thanks Ron and Sam (face-slap).

 

[tonycondon]

i believe they did take steep turns and slow flight/stalls out of the PTS between the time I got my rating (late 2002) and CFII (early 2004)

 

[ja_user]

i believe they did take steep turns and slow flight/stalls out of the PTS between the time I got my rating (late 2002) and CFII (early 2004)

And those were the hard part of the rating?

 

[JHW]

I'd say the opposite. You used to be able to train using minimal equipment, for example if you had an autopilot you could ignore it. Now you are required to show you know how to use all the equipment on board. A change for the better no doubt, but there's no arguing from a teaching perspective there is more to be taught than there used to be.

 

[Everskyward]

I'd say the opposite. You used to be able to train using minimal equipment, for example if you had an autopilot you could ignore it. Now you are required to show you know how to use all the equipment on board. A change for the better no doubt, but there's no arguing from a teaching perspective there is more to be taught than there used to be.

I agree with this point. Also, I think that all the button-pushing has, in some ways made it harder rather than easier. Sure the displays, especially the moving map, are nice, but you really need to know what is going to happen when you press certain buttons and it can sometimes be difficult to correct after a wrong push. Oops, what happened??

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm now wondering about the wide-latitude of creative licensing the author took in writing the article. Unfortunately, after looking at the name, I just realized that it's an author who's opinion I respect (maybe I saw too many Sporty's videos)...Mr. Richard Collins.

I used to respect Richard L. Collins, but his work has faded the last 15 years or so, and I don't any more.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm now wondering about the wide-latitude of creative licensing the author took in writing the article. Unfortunately, after looking at the name, I just realized that it's an author who's opinion I respect (maybe I saw too many Sporty's videos)...Mr. Richard Collins.

As previously stated there are other debatables in the article. Make your own judgements

http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dicks-blog-whats-wrong-with-cirrus-pilots/

Thanks Ron and Sam (face-slap).

Since reader comments are allowed, maybe you should ask him for specifics on what requirements were relaxed for the instrument rating.

 

[Jaybird180]

In the hopes of achieving...??? (over and above that provided here)

 

[Palmpilot]

In the hopes of achieving...??? (over and above that provided here)

I guess it was Sam who asked "How specifically were they relaxed?" so I guess I should have suggested it to him.

If that question has been answered, I missed it.

 

[ja_user]

He will probably tell you that people today don't have to shoot NDB approaches to minimums using their wristwatches for timing

 

[Jaybird180]

He will probably tell you that people today don't have to shoot NDB approaches to minimums using their wristwatches for timing

I hope that's not it

My wristwatch (Citizen Black Eagle) is automatically re-set every morning at 4a to the NIST time clock via RF. Are you telling me that I cannot use it as an IFR legal timekeeping device?

You can certainly use it to do all your IFR timing, but the aircraft still must have an installed, operable clock to be IFR legal per 91.205(d)(6). And yes, this one's been tested in an enforcement case, and the NTSB agreed with the FAA that you cannot legally substitute a wrist watch for the installed clock required by 91.205(d)(6).

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

How specifically were they relaxed? Besides the total time requirements, which were relaxed because new PP time builders kept killing themselves trying to build that time, so they could work on their IFR training

Was this actually the justification for dropping the total time requirement? I'm not sure I understand why the best response to a group of people who can't manage to fly VFR without killing themselves is to give them even more privileges.

 

[ja_user]

Was this actually the justification for dropping the total time requirement? I'm not sure I understand why the best response to a group of people who can't manage to fly VFR without killing themselves is to give them even more privileges.

You are giving them around 40 hrs more training with an IFR rating, before they get more priviledges. A lot of new ppl could use it. Hell, a lot of old ppl could use it too... The idea is, rather than send someone out to burn holes in the sky for 200 hours, they could be getting dual IFR training while building thier 50 Xc hours.

 

[poadeleted20]

Was this actually the justification for dropping the total time requirement?

Yes, it was. The FAA saw a huge spike in accident rates in the 100-200 hour range. First they dropped it from 200 to 125, then they eliminated the total time requirement completely.

I'm not sure I understand why the best response to a group of people who can't manage to fly VFR without killing themselves is to give them even more privileges.

Not more privileges -- more training.

 

[poadeleted20]

You are giving them around 40 hrs more training with an IFR rating,

I'm not sure what the average number of hours of training is, but I suspect it's somewhat less. Many folks get a big chunk of the required 40 hours of instrument time flying with a safety pilot between training sessions, and the regulations only require 15 hours of actual training (although I suspect the average is rather more).

The idea is, rather than send someone out to burn holes in the sky for 200 hours, they could be getting dual IFR training while building thier 50 Xc hours.

You got it.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

Yes, it was. The FAA saw a huge spike in accident rates in the 100-200 hour range. First they dropped it from 200 to 125, then they eliminated the total time requirement completely.

And did those changes get rid of the spike?

Not more privileges -- more training.

Certainly lowering the barrier for additional training is beneficial, but if you believe that the accident spike is best resolved by more training, doesn't that imply that private pilot training is/was insufficient?
It seems maybe there was a better solution they overlooked, namely making sure people are adequately trained before they get a private rating so there is no huge accident spike to begin with. After all, instrument rating is voluntary and even some of those who do get it flew for years before starting that training.

 

[Z06_Mir]

And those were the hard part of the rating?

I'm only 1/2 way through my instrument training, but I'd bet if I did bust the ride and there were steep turns involved, those would be the culprit. My school still teaches them during the rating but doesn't waste a lot of time on them. Mine were terrible.

Also, the DPE my school has doesn't allow iPads as far as I'm told. We still do our training on all paper. I have a 430 in my plane, but believe me it "fails" all the time doing stuff... unreliable piece of junk!

 

[DavidWhite]

I had a really bad day once during my instrument training - full vacuum and pitot static failure

 

[jesse]

I'm not sure what the average number of hours of training is, but I suspect it's somewhat less. Many folks get a big chunk of the required 40 hours of instrument time flying with a safety pilot between training sessions, and the regulations only require 15 hours of actual training (although I suspect the average is rather more).

You got it.

My instrument students have gotten the whole 40 with me. I guess they didn't know safety pilots or they thought paying the little I charge to be worth it.

 

[Everskyward]

i believe they did take steep turns and slow flight/stalls out of the PTS between the time I got my rating (late 2002) and CFII (early 2004)

I'm surprised they took those out. When we go to training they are the first things we do, every time, and they are on the checkride too. Speaking of training I will be in ICT 11/29-12/4.

 

[wabower]

I did all with CFII too. Figured I would learn something and he would hold my feet to the fire if I screwed up. I'd do it the same way again. All X/C's were at night, many of the training flights were actual IFR. My first trip after completing training was IMC with back-course down to non-precision minimums, seemed like a piece of cake.

My instrument students have gotten the whole 40 with me. I guess they didn't know safety pilots or they thought paying the little I charge to be worth it.

 

[tonycondon]

I'm surprised they took those out. When we go to training they are the first things we do, every time, and they are on the checkride too. Speaking of training I will be in ICT 11/29-12/4.

yea i always like to start my IPC's with them and the same when I give IPC's.

We should be around during that time. Let me know what works best for you for getting together for supper or something.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

I had a really bad day once during my instrument training - full vacuum and pitot static failure

Based on the picture, i'm going to blame that on pilot error. If you had bothered to do a proper preflight, I'm sure you would have noticed something wrong with the instrument readings.

 

[DavidWhite]

Based on the picture, i'm going to blame that on pilot error. If you had bothered to do a proper preflight, I'm sure you would have noticed something wrong with the instrument readings.

1 by 1 they started to fail. My CFI said stuff like "Turrible" and "Oh the Humanity"

Heck even my tachometer failed.

 

[ja_user]

I'm not sure what the average number of hours of training is, but I suspect it's somewhat less. Many folks get a big chunk of the required 40 hours of instrument time flying with a safety pilot between training sessions, and the regulations only require 15 hours of actual training (although I suspect the average is rather more).

You got it.

And it may be less on average. I personally used a cfii for all 30 plane and 10 sim for mine, but I have helped safety pilot for people as well. Regardless, I don't think most get it done in the minimal 15 dual required.

The ir rating seems to be the one that you can do in minimums, if you apply yourself, without skipping on quality.

 

[aterpster]

I used to respect Richard L. Collins, but his work has faded the last 15 years or so, and I don't any more.

Spot on.

 

[ja_user]

1 by 1 they started to fail. My CFI said stuff like "Turrible" and "Oh the Humanity"

Heck even my tachometer failed.

Funny, I had a similiar situation once, where on approach the VSI and turn coordinator where the only things working

 

[Jaybird180]

Funny, I had a similiar situation once, where on approach the VSI and turn coordinator where the only things working

What situation whatever cause only a VSI to continue to work of the static instruments? Scratching head

 

[wabower]

Malfunction of sticky stuff on post-it note.

What situation whatever cause only a VSI to continue to work of the static instruments? Scratching head

 

[ja_user]

What situation whatever cause only a VSI to continue to work of the static instruments? Scratching head

YOu can bust the front of a vsi, if your static system doesn't work...


But yeah, we ran out of post-its...

 

[denverpilot]

1 by 1 they started to fail. My CFI said stuff like "Turrible" and "Oh the Humanity"

Heck even my tachometer failed.

That same guy was on board when a bunch of stuff failed in my airplane, too. Seemed to happen right when I was thinking life was good and intercepting a DME arc and things like that.

I'd keep that guy away from your new Mooney if I were you.

 

[denverpilot]

What situation whatever cause only a VSI to continue to work of the static instruments? Scratching head

Having now seen (with that same dang guy that kills instruments, on board) a real static system failure that did incredibly weird things, I will never ask that question again.

You know it's weird when you're on the ground, watching the altimeter show a climb slowly going up, same with the VSI, and the airspeed indicator is also climbing off of the peg at zero slowly.

Open the alternate static, everything resets. Close it, they start climbing again.

Best theory was the static lines in the cabin were hot from the flight, an slowly being cooled by cabin temperature dropping so when the blocked static system was selected, the sealed static system was creating its own lower pressure as it cooled off.

Open the alternate inside the cabin, instant drop to ambient.

That made sense, but...

Airplane has two static ports. So...

Best anyone could ever figure out was a static blockage via moisture on an extremely cold night, but neither static port was iced over, so it was inside the cockpit somewhere on the instrument side of the "T" that goes to left and right static ports.

Problem with that theory was, that warm cockpit... it shouldn't have been anywhere near freezing at that spot in the system. So maybe just water.

We inspected all visible static lines with our heads under there and a flashlight. Never saw anything like water in the lines.

Eventually, no problem was ever found, not even during subsequent static system checks. The problem cleared up on the next flight, but the ASI did very odd things at takeoff.

 

[gismo]

Hey! I did walk uphill both ways to get to/from high school. And often in the snow. My kids didn't believe me until they went to college in that town. Now they do.

Oh, and I hate to think what the ride was like before if mine was dumbed down.

I too had to walk uphill both ways to school and was carrying a French Horn to boot (of course it was only uphill part of the way with a compensating downhill portion of the walk and the total elevation change was probably less than 10 ft).

As to the "dumbing down" of IR training requirements I see no evidence of this beyond the elimination of four course range navigation and the reduced emphasis on ADF/NDB approaches.