Question to the IFR Pilots Out There

Tim wrote:
If you feel that you can fly to the edge of the envelope (fully utilize
everything legally available to you in IMC conditions) at day one, what
is left to gain from experience? I'm not being facetrious (sic) here, I'm
really curious as to what value you feel that experience will bring?
Generally, it brings additional capabilities beyond what you had at the
start. But since you can't legally fly in worse weather after 500 hours
than you can after 0 hours (I'm talking post rating here), what is left
to gain from your experience?


What "edge of the envelope?" We are only talking about legal flying and
nothing that wasn't covered in training. The approach minimums give plenty
of safety if they are flown right and my training has given me all I need to
fly IMC safely. Apparently there are those out there who don't think that
is true. I question the training in that case. (And the DE who passed
them)

Once again, I never said experience is not a good thing or that you will not
get better, however, the bottom line is, you should be able to fly IMC and
do an approach to minimums on the day you take your checkride (if the DE
isn't testing that and if you weren't doing that in training, then something
is definitely wrong) Please don't say it is not practical to do an approach
to minimums during training or on a practical.

It is practical to do a simulated approach to minimums during training
and the practical test. It may be practical do an approach to minimums
in actual during training, but it may also not be. I flew for many
months getting my rating and never had conditions that were really close
to minimums. They were either much higher or too bad to fly due to
icing, ground fog, etc.

I think Sydney gave a good reason just a message or two ago.
Transitioning to visual in a real approach isn't nice and binary like
flipping up a view limiting device is.

You've got me curious now, how much IFR and IMC experience do you have?
Where did you train?


Why do you keep bringing the argument back to experience? That is not
relevant. The fact is, one should be able to fly to the standards and
safely fly IMC with an approach after you are properly trained.

Because experience and judgement are always relevent to safe aviation.
Being able to fly a simulated approach to minimums with an instructor or
examiner in the right seat isn't nearly the same as flying a real
approach to minimums by yourself at the end of a long flight. If you
really think it is, then I honestly have to question just how much
flying you've done in IMC. Care to say?


I don't think anyone is claiming that you need to learn to do the
approach. It is a question of precision, confidence, and the ability to
handle the unforeseen that comes with experience. I believe any new
insrument pilot should have the knowledge to fly an approach to
minimums. They shouldn't need to learn anything from a "mechanical"
perspective. That isn't what experience usually brings. It is the
ability to recognize and deal with the non-mechanical aspects (fatique,
etc.) that occur in real flying much more so than during training.



If you don't have the confidence after training and passing the practical,
then sure, don't fly, but I would consider the quality of the training and
the practical then.

That's your prerogative.



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.

Such as?



Just graduating from medical school does not qualify one to do a bypass.
We are talking about flying, not surgery. On the other hand, by
definition, passing the practical means you are qualified to fly IFR. A
single doctor doing a bypass is not likely from my limited knowledge of
medicine. I am open to examples, but this one doesn't do anything for your
argument. (neither does the P.E. one)

You have still not given a reason why a recent IFR pilot shouldn't be able
to fly what he was trained to do and what the DE said he could do. All your
arguments talk about experience years afterwards and about professional
engineers and doctors.

I've given several. You choose not to accept them, but that doesn't
mean they haven't been presented. To recap:

1. An approach in actual isn't the same as, and is more difficult than,
a simulated approach. Often the controllers are busier when every
airplane is flying the approach, communications is more active, etc.

2. The stress is higher on your first approach solo than with another
pilot in the right seat. Stress often causes you to miss small things
such as an altimeter setting, etc.

3. Sydney's reason that the transition to visual is more difficult in
actual than in simulation.

4. You often are more fatigued at the end of a real IFR flight than a
simulated one.


It appears that after this many postings neither of us is going to change
views, nor does it appear that you will answer the question about why it is
not good for a pilot to (foolishly, according to some) fly IMC and do
approaches to minimums as soon as he gets the rating. Perhaps it is best to
let it lie.

As I mentioned earlier, it is well documented that less experienced
pilots have higher accident rates than more experienced pilots. A more
experienced pilot simply has more reserve/margin at 200' on a bumpy ILS
than does a freshly minted pilot flying his first approach in actual.
Starting out with higher personally imposed minimums gives the new pilot
a margin of safety more in line with what an experienced pilot would
have at minimums. This makes it more likely that the new pilot will
live long enough to have the same safety margin at minimums as the
experienced pilot.

Even after probably 100 hours in actual and dozens of approaches into
some of the busiest airports in the northeast, I still avoid approaches
to minimums in some cases such as:

1. At the end of a flight of more than a couple hours, especially if at
night after a long day of work away from home.

2. If I'm just not feeling sharp. Some days I can fly an ILS like I'm
on rails and some days I'm just not as sharp. Same with landings. Some
days I can grease several in a row and some days I can't buy a greaser.
I can usually tell enroute just how sharp I am on a given day (how
well I hold altitude and heading for example) as I never flew with an
autopilot. If I don't feel sharp, I'll add some cushion above what the
FAA requires.

As others have mentioned, judgement is the hallmark of a safe and
experienced pilot. Saying, "I was trained to do X, therefore no reason
I shouldn't always go out and do X" is simply not, IMO, a sign of a
pilot with good judgement. End of my story. :-)


Matt