Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cleared for the Approach' started by Captain, Dec 5, 2015.
So, we discussed. Folks still feel the same way or have minds changed?
still no evidence that would justify making having actual a requirement
No change here. The instrument rating and the training for it have great benefits to pilots in terms of their skill and aviation knowledge. I would not like to see a situation in which it adds substantial costs for pilots who live in areas with limited flyable actual or acts as an incentive to avoid instrument training altogether without some evidence that the lack of a requirement is a problem.
I would think you are going to get four different opinions on this. That said it might be more informative to break it down into four groups.
1. from CFII
2. from CFI
3. from IR Pilots
4. from non IR Pilots
Nobody has made any persuasive argument for anything.
Is actual a useful thing in training? Yes.
Did I have some? Yes.
Do I think it is essential? Not at all.
Do I think it justifies a change to the regs? HELL NO!
I still went with yes but my feelings were altered.
I think if it is not practical or safe to fly in actual for a few hours, you have to fly at night for a few hours in conditions that require flight by instruments without the need for view limiting devices. IE dark away from city lights this should be a non issue for those in great weather state's and should not add any cost.
So who's going to reimburse me for travel expenses when I go get my AMES add on? I mean, we can't have pilots incurring additional expenses now can we?
Good point. After all, a pilot who gets an instrument rating without actual gets it for free, right?
Aside from that, you can certainly compare the overall value of the instrument rating useful to pilots in general no matter where they are located, where they intend to fly, or how they plan to use it, with the overall value of an aircraft rating that is rare enough that one has to travel somewhere to get any of it done.
I wouldn't, but you can.
If IMC is so rare that they can't get actual in training, then why do they need the IR? I don't NEED any aircraft ratings. They are all elective. So if IMC is so rare that they barely use it, what's the difference in getting an elective rating like the IR that it is barely needed vs getting any other rating that will rarely be needed?
There is benefit to an IFR flight besides going into clouds. Most 121 is required to file for every flight even if VMC prevails. If there were no benefit that would not be the case. I don't begrudge a pilot for wanting an IR and I certainly don't want to erect unnecessary barriers.
Actual IMC time should not be a requirement; although it is probably a good training event for the client to have while with a CFII. The instrument rating is not designed to have the pilot go out and hunt for clouds to penetrate, but to provide options in time of marginal weather. The Commercial pilot on the other hand is a different story, and pilots would benefit greatly knowing how the body interprets sensations from being "in the soup". Still should not be a "required" item though. Why? Because a few flights in actual IMC wont make a real difference in the overall training.
What is the benefit of going into IFR with a CFII if that CFII has never been in it himself?
Welcome to POA!!
How many students will chose a CFII that doesn't have actual IMC experience?
I'm not a CFI or CFII, I'm instrumented rated, I have actual, I don't think I had any IMC prior to the checkride (it's been a long time since my checkride in 1990 or 1991).
But none of that is relevant to justification for making it a requirement (and no sufficient evidence has been provided to justify it as a requirement).
99% of the Arizona pilot mill students.
First post! Welcome to PoA
I voted no both times. I am a CFII although I have not used it much and have never taken someone all the way through their IR from the beginning.
I flew in IMC with my CFI before I got my private. I don't remember whether or not I flew in IMC while getting my IR. If I did, I was probably under the hood at the time. I got my IR in St. Louis, so it's possible. I must not have found it significant, though. I don't remember my first flight in IMC at a PIC, so that must not have made much of an impression either. I should add that I was flying in small airplanes all the time as a passenger during the time I was getting my IR, so the whole sensation of being in IMC was not foreign, in fact, being in a GA airplane was quite normal. Guessing most IR students are not in this situation.
You can also add whether the person answering did have actual during their training and their political persuasion.
You have to be savy enough to get it on your own. Southern California coast has benign IFR in the summer. And VFR is not far away if you have instrument breakage or just need to get out of it. I went and flew IFR along the coast of California. It was warm, MEAs are low, and morning fog burns off as the day goes on. All sorts of good challenges.
The safest IMC is with VFR under you above the MVA though. I got some of that on my own too.
Somewhere start getting some real IMC so you gain confidence you can do it.
Thats all so difficult to do reliably though. It would really complicate the rating.
Is it Buck's "Weather Flying" or Taylor's "Instrument Flying" that talks about the following?
New IR pilots starting with VMC departure, IMC enroute, VMC arrival
Then moving to VMC departure, IMC enroute, IMC arrival
Then doing the IMC departure, IMC enroute, IMC arrival.
Not sure about you, my boss covered mine, the whole MES thing was a bonus for getting the boat to Jakarta.
How about replacing the check ride with 5 solo trips in IMC?
Um, as a guy in those clouds I think I'd like the test passed before they join me solo!
That's ATC's worry.
Probably those references and many more.
"License to learn" and all that stuff. Whatever certificate or rating we get, we still don't know everything about every operation and task it permits.
But you bring up the the other problem with making it a requirement. Let's suppose everyone agrees that it should be - watch the fun when they actually have to agree on the details. And don't forget the required recurrent cloud training for those with the rating who haven't been in the clouds for some to-be-determined period of time.
That doesn't necessarily coincide with what nature allows for though. In California for IFR I was almost always IMC on departure and arrival with clear above enroute, because 99% of the flyable IMC was a marine layer between 1000'& 3000' thick.
I voted no, but once I'm far enough along in my IFR training to be fairly proficient I want to do it with an instructor at least once before I'm out on my own.
Agree. As a student I'd push for the same. As a central Florida CFII I'd have my students plan their first flight to the south and their second to the North. Now we have a plan in both directions and can launch either way TOWARDS the weather. I always opted to have my students wear clouds instead of foggles.
And I still vote no. I recognise my experience doesn't HAVE to be everyone's.
It's a good idea but not very practical to enforce. I vote no.
Thinking about it more didn't seem to make it more necessary or practical to achieve.
My answers are the same as these.
No!! I live in Colorado and we get very, very few IFR days. If/when there are clouds, they're at 14,000' MSL. Me and my little Cessna simply aren't equipped for that altitude.
If there are lower clouds, there is a good chance they won't last for long. I think it would take over a year for a Colorado-based pilot to be able to predict and coordinate CFII time to get even 5 hours in actual conditions.
It can usually be done once a year over about 3 weeks that appear in the May-July timeframe. But you have to catch it just right to get more than a tenth or two. A lot of Front Range CFIIs look forward to it and try to schedule the dual cross country then. But even on the days it's there, it doesn't last long since "the skies are not cloudy all day."
Why do you want the rating than? Sounds like the 10+ grand could be better applied on AV fuel?
I think this is just silly. The real difference is not en route IMC, but rather an ILS to minimums. If anything should be required it should be an hour in a *real* simulator doing approaches. Even if it's a far different type of airplane than you fly, you will get the sensation of what it's all about. That said, I don't think that should be required either.
Now, how about real IMC for an ATP? They may have taken care of that in the new-ish trading requirements.
Maybe he wants to be able to fly to other parts of the country.
Or perhaps he just wants to fly within the IFR system.
Based on my frequent trips to Phoenix, I don't think it's all that easy to find conditions like that, even over the desert.
I did a pretty good chunk of my IFR training under a hood at night, and based on that experience, I don't see why that wouldn't be sufficient to address the concern.
For most GA trainer types, Phoenix is within 2-3 hrs of LA of San Diego. Not that hard to find a day with good marine layer and use the hood enroute and get the actual experience on the approach.
Good suggestions on how someone could get experience in IMC, but not reasons to require it.