Should actual IMC be a requirment for IFR training?

[MauleSkinner]

That's why many people advocate "personal minimums", I guess.

 

[Captain]

Area weather patterns are not the issue. Being in real weather is. Real weather has distractions that a sterile environment can not replicate.

That means nothing in this conversation. What you have to prove, having the burden of proof, is that the sterile environment you describe leads to incompetent pilots. My hunch is it doesn't.

 

[tree96]

Two questions:

1. How much IMC are you requiring in your special FAR? How many hours, how many approaches? How do the ceilings have to be?

2. Are you willing to pay for their travel and lodging to get to an area where they can meet your requirement? I know a good number of pilots who would be quite happy with that. Or are you just making up rules that other people have to pay for? And if so, what is your data other than, "I think it's right so others should have to pay"?

I'm not proposing a certain requirement of hours or anything like your suggesting. When I typed that I had just gotten in from the airport and was high on the experience I just had in IMC for the first time. I will back off my should be required to highly recommended if that makes you happier.

The point I was trying to make is that is that my first experience in actual was a reality check of how different simulated conditions are compared to the real thing. Take that as you may. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[rocketflyer84]

I understand that actual just isn't available often in some areas of the country with a lot of training, but I'm still inclined to say yes. Actual IMC is nothing like simulated. It always amazes me that someone could get an Insturment ticket without ever having experienced actual IMC conditions.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm not proposing a certain requirement of hours or anything like your suggesting. When I typed that I had just gotten in from the airport and was high on the experience I just had in IMC for the first time. I will back off my should be required to highly recommended if that makes you happier.

The point I was trying to make is that is that my first experience in actual was a reality check of how different simulated conditions are compared to the real thing. Take that as you may. Different strokes for different folks.

Makes me much happier. I completely agree it's a very good idea and should be done if at all feasible.

But I know that "highly recommended" is a very different concept from "should be required." Don't you?

 

[Palmpilot]

I understand that actual just isn't available often in some areas of the country with a lot of training, but I'm still inclined to say yes. Actual IMC is nothing like simulated. It always amazes me that someone could get an Insturment ticket without ever having experienced actual IMC conditions.

Considering the number of training flights that will end up being flown in icing or other dangerous weather, and the number of pilots who simply won't get an instrument rating because the cost of traveling to areas of the country with safe IFR conditions will be excessive for some people, I think this proposal will kill more pilots than it will save. It amazes me how many pilots don't see that.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I understand that actual just isn't available often in some areas of the country with a lot of training, but I'm still inclined to say yes. Actual IMC is nothing like simulated. It always amazes me that someone could get an Insturment ticket without ever having experienced actual IMC conditions.

Same questions I asked tree96.

1. How much IMC are you requiring in your special FAR? How many hours, how many approaches? How do the ceilings have to be?

2. Are you willing to pay for their travel and lodging to get to an area where they can meet your requirement? I know a good number of pilots who would be quite happy with that. Or are you just making up rules that other people have to pay for? And if so, what is your data other than, "I think it's right so others should have to pay"?

 

[jordane93]

Considering the number of training flights that will end up being flown in icing or other dangerous weather, and the number of pilots who simply won't get an instrument rating because the cost of traveling to areas of the country with safe IFR conditions will be excessive for some people, I think this proposal will kill more pilots than it will save. It amazes me how many pilots don't see that.

Same questions I asked tree96.

1. How much IMC are you requiring in your special FAR? How many hours, how many approaches? How do the ceilings have to be?

2. Are you willing to pay for their travel and lodging to get to an area where they can meet your requirement? I know a good number of pilots who would be quite happy with that. Or are you just making up rules that other people have to pay for? And if so, what is your data other than, "I think it's right so others should have to pay"?

This. Again.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Interesting... the poll shows almost 60% in favor of forcing other pilots to get actual during their instrument training, whether or not it costs those pilots money and without any evidence of a problem that needs correcting.

The political philosophy of both groups would be interesting - particularly the correlation (or lack) between those folks who would object to similar rules being applied to them but are perfectly happy applying them to someone else, even if we limit it to just aviation.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Interesting... the poll shows almost 60% in favor of forcing other pilots to get actual during their instrument training, whether or not it costs those pilots money and without any evidence of a problem that needs correcting.

FWIW, I voted in favor of requiring it, but fully acknowledge the challenges involved with that and admit that I'm not sure it is a problem that needs mandating.

I personally think the better solution is already out there: that any CFII worth their salt endeavors to get their student into actual at some point in their training, but it isn't the end of the world if they can't.

 

[Captain]

Interesting... the poll shows almost 60% in favor of forcing other pilots to get actual during their instrument training, whether or not it costs those pilots money and without any evidence of a problem that needs correcting.

The political philosophy of both groups would be interesting - particularly the correlation (or lack) between those folks who would object to similar rules being applied to them but are perfectly happy applying them to someone else, even if we limit it to just aviation.

Yeah, it's really odd. I know for a fact that a good chunk of those yes votes are folks who also rail against overburdensom big government with too many rules. Even FT (post right above) admits he voted for it but doesn't think it's necessary or the best solution.

 

[PPC1052]

A DPE or CFI will still be assigned the majority liability in the event of an accident for two reasons,

I am actually involved in a matter right now that touches on this issue. I think that there is a strong argument that a DPE performing a check ride would be entitled to tort claims immunity as a federal officer.

 

[petrolero]

In addition to IMC during the IR, we should also require:

• Full acro spin training during PPL
• High DA mountain training for all pilots
• Flight in moderate turbulence at night
• Landings on fouled runways
• Grass runway ops
• Tailwheel
• High performance
• Complex
• Rotor wing
• Glider
• 500 hours PIC time
• Watching King Videos until Martha looks even hotter than she already does!

...for all pilots. I mean they're all good ideas, right? Why shouldn't they be required?

/sarcasm

Some people are just *sure* they know what's best for everyone else.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Yeah, it's really odd. I know for a fact that a good chunk of those yes votes are folks who also rail against overburdensom big government with too many rules. Even FT (post right above) admits he voted for it but doesn't think it's necessary or the best solution.

I admit it.....I clicked the button to vote first and then gave it some thought.

 

[PPC1052]

Interesting... the poll shows almost 60% in favor of forcing other pilots to get actual during their instrument training, whether or not it costs those pilots money and without any evidence of a problem that needs correcting.

The political philosophy of both groups would be interesting - particularly the correlation (or lack) between those folks who would object to similar rules being applied to them but are perfectly happy applying them to someone else, even if we limit it to just aviation.

How about we let people get their rating, but they can't fly in IMC without logging an hour of dual in IMC. If you really live in an area with no IMC, it shouldn't be too limiting.

 

[Jaybird180]

Might be an interesting experiment to have POA members vote on a topic, then discuss then see the % change of votes after a vigorous debate on the topic. Treadmill Thread comes to mind as an example.

 

[PPC1052]

Might be an interesting experiment to have POA members vote on a topic, then discuss then see the % change of votes after a vigorous debate on the topic. Treadmill Thread comes to mind as an example.

Agreed.

 

[fiveoboy01]

I admit it.....I clicked the button to vote first and then gave it some thought.

Same here. My intentions were good but applying it in reality isn't going to work everywhere.

I'm not for dictating things for everyone else and don't think I know what's best for everyone so some of you can get off that train.

 

[EdFred]

1. How much IMC are you requiring in your special FAR? How many hours, how many approaches? How do the ceilings have to be?

2. Are you willing to pay for their travel and lodging to get to an area where they can meet your requirement? I know a good number of pilots who would be quite happy with that. Or are you just making up rules that other people have to pay for? And if so, what is your data other than, "I think it's right so others should have to pay"?

I'll answer.

1.
5 hours IMC
6 approaches in IMC where...
...ceilings are below the FAF, or <500' above DA/MDA if there is no FAF.

2. No
No one picked up the tab except me when I went to get my Seaplane rating. "What do you mean I can't fly a seaplane in central Nevada? I demand that everyone else pay my expenses for getting a seaplane rating where there's actual water!!!"

 

[Everskyward]

Might be an interesting experiment to have POA members vote on a topic, then discuss then see the % change of votes after a vigorous debate on the topic. Treadmill Thread comes to mind as an example.

Sounds like the podcast Intelligence Squared....

I voted no to begin with and, if anything, lean more strongly in that direction after the debate.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Its not a serious proposal.

 

[Scrabo]

Yes it should.

Arizona gets more than 1 IMC day a year if you fly north of the rim during summer months.

 

[MotoFlier]

I voted on day one of the thread and have not followed it. I think it should be required now i'm going to read through it and edit this.


EDIT: Interesting, I didn't think completely about making it a requirement, I agree we don't need more rules and restrictions. However I have heard over and over that simulated and actual are not the same at all. I have 15hrs of instrument and have not been in actual yet but My CFI said I'm ready to file so we will be going in the soup as long as icing wont be an issue.
Some guys have started threads asking if they should cancel a checkride if it will be in actual, I think that in itself makes a statement.
You can be a CFII without ever flying in actual AYFSM... Does anyone agree with this?
My question if you live in an area that gets 1 day of actual per year why are you needing the IFR ticket? and how the heck do you plan to stay current?

 

[Palmpilot]

My question if you live in an area that gets 1 day of actual per year why are you needing the IFR ticket?

People who fly sometimes fly outside their area of residence.

and how the heck do you plan to stay current?

Actual is not required to maintain currency.

 

[MotoFlier]

People who fly sometimes fly outside their area of residence.

Seems like a guy would be willing to do a cross country to fly into some soup to meet the requirement. I can't and won't try to speak for everyone but to go from only flying simulated to than choose to do an actual cross country sounds like a suicide mission. I would seriously question the sanity of someone who does it.

That said guys do it so this is all just my opinion.

Actual is not required to maintain currency.

Good point

 

[MauleSkinner]

Seems like a guy would be willing to do a cross country to fly into some soup to meet the requirement. I can't and won't try to speak for everyone but to go from only flying simulated to than choose to do an actual cross country sounds like a suicide mission. I would seriously question the sanity of someone who does it.

...because no one in aviation sets any kind of personal limits that are appropriate to their experience, as has been recommended by numerous well-published pilots and instructors over the years. They'd all just dive right into IMC over 0-0 weather until they get to their destination with 100-ft ceilings and 1800 RVR.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Your brain doesn't care how high the ceilings are if it's experiencing spatial disorientation.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Your brain doesn't care how high the ceilings are if it's experiencing spatial disorientation.

True...but if you can't concentrate on the instruments and fly the airplane for a couple of minutes as you pass through a layer, your instructor should've figured out that you were looking outside during your instrument training and not signed you off for the checkride. Even if he wasn't that smart, the examiner should have enough experience to figure that out and sent you home without a rating.

 

[RotorDude]

I was thinking that this topic/question is similar to the issue of mountain flying after a PPL obtained in flatland.
Nothing prevents you from heading out to mountain country and killing yourself and your pax, but most pilots are smart enough (weeded out by Darwin?) to take it easy, or get local mountain flying training before messing with serious cumulogranite.
Or some just get lucky and manage to fill the experience bucket before the luck bucket runs out.
So IMC after a non-IMC IFR rating is similar. I guess statistically, in both cases the problem is not of epidemic proportions, or there would be a lot more accidents.

 

[fiveoboy01]

I agree with you. There always isn't the benefit of climbing through a thin layer. Maybe ATC has you in the soup for half an hour. I'd hope that most even semi-serious IFR machines have an autopilot... But that could fail and hand fly might be the order of the day. Or maybe you hand fly all the time. Maybe an hour in actual doesn't bother one guy, and it forms sweat beads on the brow of another. 3-4 hours under the hood did somewhat exhaust me. It does get easier the more you do it.... Not sure if or how much worse it would be if it was actual.

FWIW, I am not sure that soup flying is much more difficult than foggles, but it does look and feel very different. I think it's more of a psychological thing.

After this discussion I am not so sure that I would vote yes again, but I'm still not sure I'd vote no, either.

 

[MauleSkinner]

There always isn't the benefit of climbing through a thin layer. Maybe ATC has you in the soup for half an hour....

In those cases you treat it just like any other flight...the first is a simple go/no go decision. In the second, if you're in danger due to spatial disorientation, you declare an emergency.

 

[Palmpilot]

Seems like a guy would be willing to do a cross country to fly into some soup to meet the requirement.

...thus running up the cost of getting the rating. Remember, that includes the cost of the instructor's time away from home, not just the operating cost of the aircraft. And given the potential for icing, pilots in colder climates might need to wait until Spring.

I can't and won't try to speak for everyone but to go from only flying simulated to than choose to do an actual cross country sounds like a suicide mission.

That statement sounds like quite an exaggeration.

If a significant number of instrument rated pilots were crashing the first time they got in actual, then it should be possible to find data to that effect. Unless I missed it, no one in the thread has presented such data as of yet.

It would be a lot more practical, and fulfill much of the same purpose, to require some of the instrument training to be done at night.

 

[Captain]

There are businesses who's model depends on fast IFR training and they would be shuttered if this rule was implemented.

Now, I'm not a fan of these schools but not because they use foggles in Arizona...and the fact that they seem to be spitting out competent IFR pilots has me reconsidering my original objection.

I do find it silly that you can be a CFII without .1 actual and would welcome a 1 hour requirement of dual actual for the CFII practical.

 

[Captain]

...thus running up the cost of getting the rating. Remember, that includes the cost of the instructor's time away from home, not just the operating cost of the aircraft. And given the potential for icing, pilots in colder climates might need to wait until Spring.



That statement sounds like quite an exaggeration.

If a significant number of instrument rated pilots were crashing the first time they got in actual, then it should be possible to find data to that effect. Unless I missed it, no one in the thread has presented such data as of yet.

It would be a lot more practical, and fulfill much of the same purpose, to require some of the instrument training to be done at night.

My instructor made a practice of taking me over the ocean on moonless nights and would point it out. "Look, we're VMC and IFR at the same time!" I'd peer out of the plane and not a single thing could be seen except the dim glow of a guy looking just like me looking back in.

We'd log it as actual and go on with our flight. He did it all through my training, not just IFR, and I continued the practice making a point to show students how certain lighting conditions can be full Flight Ref to Insts even while VMC.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I voted no. While immensely beneficial, requiring actual would be prohibitive to many pilots trying to add the rating. An instrument rated pilot without actual IMC is still more prepared than one without the rating. I think requiring actual IMC would reduce overall safety within GA.