Question to the IFR Pilots Out There

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.

No need to feel sorry for me. I already conceded that experience will make
you better. What you have still not convinced me of is that after I get my
rating I should be "prudent" and not actually fly to the standards I was
training at and took the practical? You are confusing two different
issues. What I would like someone to explain is why a person who just
passed the practical should not be able to file a plan, fly in actual and
complete an approach to minimums. I argue that if they can't then:

1. Their training was insufficient
2. The examiner did not do their job

On your own without an instructor is no way to "learn" how to do an approach
to minimums. (I can not figure out how else you get to that point on your
own, since it seems that you are arguing that a person's training did not
prepare them to make a flight in IMC and land after doing an approach to
minimums)


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.


Damn right it is unfortunate. Why wouldn't you have?


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.



I had already agreed to that. The point is that after the test you should
be expected to fly in IMC on your own and make an approach at minimums -
after all that is what you trained and tested for.

I will make it clear again - I am not arguing that a person who just passed
his practical is going to be a wunderkind and be able to fly better or has
better habits or is more capable than one who has been flying for years.


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.

No - it hides the fact that the training and testing could have been
inadequate. I understand some people don't want to fly to minimums all the
time or only want to break through ceilings on their way up and down, but
the the bottom line is that the rating says you should be able to fly IMC
and do approaches. Not just some of them or part of the flight in IMC, but
the whole deal.


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?

Totally different and your example is not even close in so many ways.



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.


Yes - and to me that means that you should be able to launch into IMC and do
approaches with no problem.

What isn't practical? Making a student fly an approach to minimums during
the test and expecting them to do it correcty? The training certainly
should have allowed and ensured that the student flew in IMC or simulated
and did approaches to minimums.


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.


I don't see what this has to do with flying IFR. I expect that if I get a
rating that I am competent enough to use it.



Matt