Talk About A Rude Company,

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.