Talk About A Rude Company,

They don't want to take a beginning IFR student in actual

That's actually reasonable, in my experience. At that point, actual
would
largely be a waste of your time and money.

I've heard that argument before, and I don't agree with it, though I
can easily see why it might sound compelling.

Maneuvers are all well and good, but IMO what a beginning instrument
student needs more than anything is just time controlling the airplane
by instruments - level flight, turns to headings, climbs and descents,
tracking a VOR/ADF/GPS/whatever - the fundamentals of IFR flight.
Sure, he might need a little help on the departure or approach, but
most of the flight he can handle - and it's great training. The reason
I think many instructors are not too comfortable with doing it is
simple - the student WILL bank the plane to 60 degrees. He WILL let
the airspeed decay almost to stall. He WILL mishandle the plane. But
truly, you need to be off heading for a while before you get off
course, and a 1000 ft block altitude is usually not hard to get. As
long as the instructor is comfortable that he can recover from an
unusual attitude (induced by the student) in IMC without drama, or
better yet talk the student through the recovery, it's not a big deal.
Thing is, some instructors are not terribly comfortable with that.

If the goal is to get the student to the checkride in minimum time,
then this isn't the most efficient way to go. In fact, if that's the
goal, doing any training at night and/or in IMC is not recommended.
But if the goal is to train a student capable of using his airplane to
go places in lousy weather (down to mins) day or night, then more and
earlier exposure to IMC is best. I'm a pretty strong advocate of IMC
early and often, and have even had a low time (about 150 hours) private
pilot with no complex or high performance experience flying actual
night IMC on his second IFR lesson - the first in his Bonanza that he
just purchased that day.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
They don't want to take a beginning IFR student in actual

That's actually reasonable, in my experience. At that point, actual
would
largely be a waste of your time and money.

I've heard that argument before, and I don't agree with it, though I
can easily see why it might sound compelling.

Maneuvers are all well and good, but IMO what a beginning instrument
student needs more than anything is just time controlling the airplane
by instruments - level flight, turns to headings, climbs and descents,
tracking a VOR/ADF/GPS/whatever - the fundamentals of IFR flight.
Sure, he might need a little help on the departure or approach, but
most of the flight he can handle - and it's great training. The reason
I think many instructors are not too comfortable with doing it is
simple - the student WILL bank the plane to 60 degrees. He WILL let
the airspeed decay almost to stall. He WILL mishandle the plane. But
truly, you need to be off heading for a while before you get off
course, and a 1000 ft block altitude is usually not hard to get. As
long as the instructor is comfortable that he can recover from an
unusual attitude (induced by the student) in IMC without drama, or
better yet talk the student through the recovery, it's not a big deal.
Thing is, some instructors are not terribly comfortable with that.

If the goal is to get the student to the checkride in minimum time,
then this isn't the most efficient way to go. In fact, if that's the
goal, doing any training at night and/or in IMC is not recommended.
But if the goal is to train a student capable of using his airplane to
go places in lousy weather (down to mins) day or night, then more and
earlier exposure to IMC is best. I'm a pretty strong advocate of IMC
early and often, and have even had a low time (about 150 hours) private
pilot with no complex or high performance experience flying actual
night IMC on his second IFR lesson - the first in his Bonanza that he
just purchased that day.

Michael


My feeling's also I am not trying to get it in the quickest time possible i
just love to fly, I fell if I get exposed to it early on the better I will
know what it feels like. I don't see how any one can do all their training
with a hood and feel save in actual but I have never been so I don't know
what that is like. My 150 costs me very little to operate why use a
simulator when I have the real thing available maybe it will take longer but
I feel I will get more skill actually flying then in a simulator. But all is
taken care of I have found me an instructor that don't mind actual but
prefers it and is ok using my 150 for the training now talk about a savings.

This is what we have planned sounds really fun.

30 to 50 hours in my 150 & about 10 hours in an arrow add the extra systems
to the mix of things (my choice)

I plan on flying 2 to 3 hours per day 4 to 5 times a week.

1 hour ground preflight

1 hour ground post flight.

I would like to fly 3 to 4 hours per day but he said 3 max in 1 day is
enough.

So how Much is 2 Much?

My 150 costs me very little to operate why use a
simulator when I have the real thing available maybe it will take
longer but
I feel I will get more skill actually flying then in a simulator.

Actually, I think you are off base there. There are things you can do
with a sim that you can't really do with the real airplane in terms of
system failures. Only thing is, certified sims (at the light GA level
- I'm not talking about the stuff with visuals and motion) are a waste
of time and money. They are inferior training tools to Microsoft
Flight Sim. No, you can't log the MSFS time (except as ground
instruction) but it's quite valuable - and a copy of MSFS costs less
than an hour in one of those sims.

BTW, I see nothing wrong with using a C-150 for IFR training. It's not
really a practical IFR travel machine, but it does fine if you want to
make hundred mile hops in benign IMC.

As for max 3 in a day - yes, usually, but I've had a student who was
able to handle more. Only one, though.

Michael

In rec.aviation.owning Michael wrote:
: They don't want to take a beginning IFR student in actual
snip
: I've heard that argument before, and I don't agree with it, though I
: can easily see why it might sound compelling.
snip
: early and often, and have even had a low time (about 150 hours) private
: pilot with no complex or high performance experience flying actual
: night IMC on his second IFR lesson - the first in his Bonanza that he
: just purchased that day.

Michael I totally agree with you. I hired a CFII and picked up my airplane
in Los Angeles as a 75-hour PP. We flew 2 days (almost 25 hours) of actual
instrument time to get the plane back to Mass. This was a most beneficial
experience.
--
Aaron Coolidge

Aaron Coolidge wrote:

Michael I totally agree with you. I hired a CFII and picked up my airplane
in Los Angeles as a 75-hour PP. We flew 2 days (almost 25 hours) of actual
instrument time to get the plane back to Mass. This was a most beneficial
experience.

Okay, well, I'll defer to your experience. Most of my non-training IFR
flights have involved a lot of straight and level, with the occasional
maneuver mixed in just to keep me awake. For early training, this seems
like a lot of wasted time. But if you got a lot out of it, then who am I
to argue?

To this I should add that my CFII took an instrument student on an actual
flight that was not as I described above. He flew from CDW to MMU (about 5
miles), flew multiple approaches, and then went back to CDW. I'm
astonished that TRACON accomodated this in IMC, but it does show that
actual flying can be set up to involve little straight and level.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
Okay, well, I'll defer to your experience. Most of my non-training
IFR
flights have involved a lot of straight and level, with the
occasional
maneuver mixed in just to keep me awake. For early training, this
seems
like a lot of wasted time. But if you got a lot out of it, then who
am I
to argue?

And maybe you're one of those people who 'got' straight and level right
away, and could hold +/-40 ft and +/-5 degrees in smooth air
immediately and without much effort. Some people can do that, and
probably would not get a lot out of it. However, I do insist on those
fairly tight tolerances (in smooth air only - in rough air it's just
not practical) before we move on to maneuvers because that level of
control will be required for the maneuvers.

To this I should add that my CFII took an instrument student on an
actual
flight that was not as I described above. He flew from CDW to MMU
(about 5
miles), flew multiple approaches, and then went back to CDW.

That's probably some kind of record, but I have taken a student on an
actual flight from DWH to EYQ (9 nm) where we flew three NDB approaches
and landed. Thing is, that would have been overload for a new student.
With a new student, I would have taken him on a short XC (maybe
EYQ-CLL) terminating with a VOR or LOC approach - and I would have
configured the radios and done the communications for him, so that he
would only have to fly the headings and altitudes I gave him, and at
most track a VOR/LOC needle. I will also admit that the workload of
doing that (for me as the instructor) is substantially higher than the
workload of single pilot IFR in IMC with no autopilot.

I'm
astonished that TRACON accomodated this in IMC, but it does show that

actual flying can be set up to involve little straight and level.

TRACON will generally accomodate such requests if traffic permits,
which it usually does at the little airports in lousy weather. You
would be surprised how little traffic there is at the little airports
in hard IFR conditions. Most instrument rated private pilots won't
launch into hard IFR. The busy times are actually those of MVFR -
that's when everyone is up training.

Michael

Michael wrote:

TRACON will generally accomodate such requests if traffic permits,
which it usually does at the little airports in lousy weather.

Sure, but our neighborhood includes two pretty heavy GA airports: TEB and
MMU. So I'm - pleasantly - surprised. It just goes to show, I think, that
ATC does work to be accomodating.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
snip
: Okay, well, I'll defer to your experience. Most of my non-training IFR
: flights have involved a lot of straight and level, with the occasional
: maneuver mixed in just to keep me awake. For early training, this seems
: like a lot of wasted time. But if you got a lot out of it, then who am I
: to argue?

I should have explained more. In addition to straight and level flying I
also got exposed to the hardest part of IFR flight: preflight decision making.
Anyone can be trained to fly straight and level and fly approaches to the
extent required to pass the practical test. What I learned was the whole
process. Is the weather OK for a limited-capability aircraft? What if
the winds are unfavorable? How far can we go assuming we need an alternate?
Which alternate is the best choice? What is the best routing? Why? Where
are the MOCA low enough to allow for diversions? Do we want to fly a route
that has a MEA at the service ceiling of the A/C? Why not? Etc. (Besides,
I had to get the airplane from VNY to 1B9.) The CFII that I hired was/is
a good friend of mine. He had been flying charter in New England and
Southeastern Canada for a couple years, and was well versed on our
local adverse weather conditions (something I am still weak on).
--
Aaron C.