Tim wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Tim J wrote:

If the DE thinks you can't fly IMC, then why the hell would he/she give

you

a rating? The practical test is supposed to check to see if you can go

fly

it. The personal minima stuff is scary to me. If you can't go out and

fly

to minimums, then something is wrong.

Sorry, but no test can cover every eventuality. And there is a lot of
difference between being minimally competent (basically a freshly minted
instrument pilot) and being a confident, proficient, expert instrument
pilot.


Then the training was lacking.

Baloney. Training and capability and confidence learned through
experience are two different things entirely. I don't care if we are
talking about flying, driving, or a profession, the training/education
are just the beginning. Practice and experience beyond that is what
makes you a good driver, pilot, doctor, engineer or whatever. If you
really don't know the difference here, then I feel really sorry for you.


Two acquaintances just took their
checkrides. The DE did all the communicating, spent about 5 minutes on the
oral, partial panel was a few turns at standard rate (not even timed). The
exam was a joke. (apparently the DE is so booked he has to rush through
them all to collect all the checks) No wonder some DEs tell "freshly
minted" instrument rated pilots not to go out and fly in IMC.

That's unfortunate. My instrument test was nearly 3 hours long, about
1.5 on the ground and 1.5 in the air. I passed, but wouldn't launch
into low IFR to an airport reporting minimums at that point in my
instrument flying career.


I didn't kill myself on my first real instrument flight alone,
but I was very nervous, wandered off course and altitude several times
during the first 30 minutes of the flight (mainly while trying to copy a
full route amendment and get the GPS reprogrammed - thanks NY Center!).
I never felt in danger of losing control, but I sure wasn't smooth,
calm and confident. A year later, I could simultaneously maintain
altitude within 20', talk with ATC, reprogram the GPS and carry on a
conversation with a passenger - and this was in a non A/P Skylane. It
really isn't any different than the difference between a 16 year-old
with a brand new driver's license and a person who has driven for 20
years.


I also contend that the driving tests are a bit too relaxed and many people
who have driving licenses should not have them.

I agree, but no amount of training or test rigor will ever make a new
driver as capably as one with many years of experience.


You simply get better and more capable with practice and after
having experienced many hours or years of various adverse situations.



Agreed - and perhaps more should be done in TRAINING, not after you get a
rating that the examiner said you shouldn't use. Why should I not be able
to fly an approach to minimums from the very first day I get my rating?

There are many levels of "using" of an instrument rating. The
regulations have to cover all pilots of all levels of experience.
Suggesting that a rookie instrument pilot not exercise the full range of
the privileges of his/her license is very prudent.

As to your question: would you want a doctor who had just graduated from
medical school perform his/her first
quadruple bypass on you without a more experienced surgeon in the
operating room?

I know that is not a popular way of thinking and supposedly "unsafe" or
whatever is the politically correct term, but if you can't fly to the
standards expected, why get the rating?

The standards are minimums. Look at them again ...


I know what the standards are and I don't need to look at them again. If
you can't safely fly an IFR flight and an ILS approach to minimums (or any
other approach) then you shouldn't have gotten the rating. Period.

No one here was talking about being exactly on altitude and reprogramming a
GPS and talking to a passenger and copying a clearance - the issue I think
was that a DE said he shouldn't go out and exercise the priveleges that he
just gave. My point is that the DE should not have given the rating then.
What kind of message does that send?


they allow amazingly
wide tolerances on altitudes, headings, ILS needle deflection, etc. A
proficient instrument pilot will fly much tighter than the PTS standard
requires.



The DE can't put on the certificate that the holder is only allowed to

do

vector approaches or 1000' ceilings...

I just don't get it.

That's unfortunate ... that you don't get it, I mean.


I just don't understand how the popular viewpoint can be defended. (Again,
I am not talking about getting better with experience - clearly that is what
will happen, but why is it unsafe to fly like you were trained to fly, and
tested?) The only thing I can think of is that the training wasn't adequate
and the testing wasn't adequate.

I don't understand why an examiner would say that a person shouldn't be
flying actual when he just PASSED him. I understand a DE can't run through
everything, but the training certainly should have.

That simply isn't practical. I'm an engineer by training, but my four
years in school hardly prepared me for EVERYTHING I'd encounter as an
engineer. Same is true for flying. Training and certification testing
is only intended to get one to a point where they are competent to
function at a minimum standard and able to progress from there.

I'm a licensed professional engineer. I specialized in communications
and digital systems. I can legally stamp plans for a power system. I
would be crazy to do so given that I have had little education in power
systems and no experience designing them. What is legal and what is
smart/prudent, are two different things.


Matt