Question to the IFR Pilots Out There

Tim wrote:

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:

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 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?


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)

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.


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?

Because doing things in a simulated environment isn't the same as doing
things for real. I've learned this in many aspects of my personal and
professional life. If I'd had the occasion to fly several approaches to
minimums in actual during my training, then I'd have felt differently.
I simply chose to explore the areas incrementally where I'd not had the
chance to explore them "for real" during training.


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.

What capbilities will you be able to use after experience than you could
the day you got your rating? You can't arbitrarily fly to an MDA or DH
lower than what is published, just because you are now a better pilot.


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?


Matt

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.

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.


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.



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.

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.

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

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in
:

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 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?

Judgment. Good judgment comes from exercising bad judgment.
After you fly for awhile, you learn when to go and when not to.
But if you aren't trained to fly an approach to minimums, then
you got cheated in your training.

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.

In other words, judgment.

What capbilities will you be able to use after experience
than you could the day you got your rating? You can't
arbitrarily fly to an MDA or DH lower than what is
published, just because you are now a better pilot.

The published DH or MDA is published at that altitude for a
reason. Brand new pilots have to be able to fly to it safely,
as well as experienced pilots who are fatigued to exhaustion,
along with every other instrument pilot.

I keep seeing pilots who say they won't fly approaches to
minimums, but I've never had that luxury. As soon as I finished
flight school, I was expected to fly approaches to minimums,
with the visibility minimums half of published. I still do that
regularly. If you're just out flying for fun, you can set your
own minimums, but if you're going to do it for a living, you'd
better be ready to take off with barely legal weather both at
the destination and the departure point. If you don't think you
can handle weather that's at minimums, then you shouldn't be
flying in weather at all. If your competence is so low that you
can't fly an approach to minimums, then you're likely to kill
yourself before you get there, even if the weather is better
than minimums. Look at the NTSB reports, & you'll see lots of
barely competent instrument pilots who killed themselves and
their friends and families. Instrument flying isn't for
everyone, but if you want to do it, you'd better be good at it,
and if you aren't good enough, you shouldn't have been passed on
the checkride.

--
Regards,

Stan

Stan Gosnell wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in
:


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 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?


Judgment. Good judgment comes from exercising bad judgment.
After you fly for awhile, you learn when to go and when not to.
But if you aren't trained to fly an approach to minimums, then
you got cheated in your training.

I consider going out on your first solo IFR flight in IMC and flying an
approach to minimums to be a sign of poor judgement. :-)


Matt

Stan,

As soon as I finished flight school, I was expected to fly approaches to
minimums, with the visibility minimums half of published. I still do that
regularly.

Was this done alone or with a copilot? Where you the copilot? Who
"expected" you to do this? That sounds like the external pressure scenario
that we were warned about and the "half of published" visibility sounds
illegal. Asking, not telling.

Kobra


"Stan Gosnell" me@work wrote in message
...
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in
:

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 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?

Judgment. Good judgment comes from exercising bad judgment.
After you fly for awhile, you learn when to go and when not to.
But if you aren't trained to fly an approach to minimums, then
you got cheated in your training.

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.

In other words, judgment.

What capbilities will you be able to use after experience
than you could the day you got your rating? You can't
arbitrarily fly to an MDA or DH lower than what is
published, just because you are now a better pilot.

The published DH or MDA is published at that altitude for a
reason. Brand new pilots have to be able to fly to it safely,
as well as experienced pilots who are fatigued to exhaustion,
along with every other instrument pilot.

I keep seeing pilots who say they won't fly approaches to
minimums, but I've never had that luxury. As soon as I finished
flight school, I was expected to fly approaches to minimums,
with the visibility minimums half of published. I still do that
regularly. If you're just out flying for fun, you can set your
own minimums, but if you're going to do it for a living, you'd
better be ready to take off with barely legal weather both at
the destination and the departure point. If you don't think you
can handle weather that's at minimums, then you shouldn't be
flying in weather at all. If your competence is so low that you
can't fly an approach to minimums, then you're likely to kill
yourself before you get there, even if the weather is better
than minimums. Look at the NTSB reports, & you'll see lots of
barely competent instrument pilots who killed themselves and
their friends and families. Instrument flying isn't for
everyone, but if you want to do it, you'd better be good at it,
and if you aren't good enough, you shouldn't have been passed on
the checkride.

--
Regards,

Stan

"Kobra" wrote in
:

Stan,

As soon as I finished flight school, I was expected to fly
approaches to
minimums, with the visibility minimums half of published.
I still do that regularly.

Was this done alone or with a copilot? Where you the
copilot? Who "expected" you to do this? That sounds like
the external pressure scenario that we were warned about
and the "half of published" visibility sounds illegal.
Asking, not telling.

Usually with a copilot, but not necessarily. The U.S. Army was
who was expecting me to do it. Now it's my employer.
Helicopters can usually cut the published visibility in half,
and it's completely legal. My ops specs permit reducing the
published visibility by half, but never below 1/4 mile. Same
thing for the military, IIRC, although it's been a long time
since I wore a green uniform. In a pinch, we did GCA's to very
little visibility.

--
Regards,

Stan

Usually with a copilot, but not necessarily. The U.S. Army was
who was expecting me to do it.

Ok, this makes more sense. I couldn't imagine a civilian aviation company
to expect this with paying passengers in an airplane.


Now it's my employer.
Helicopters can usually cut the published visibility in half,
and it's completely legal.

Thanks for the info. I didn't know this about rotary wing aircraft. Seems
to make sense though.

Kobra

What capbilities will you be able to use after experience than you could
the day you got your rating? You can't arbitrarily fly to an MDA or DH
lower than what is published, just because you are now a better pilot.


You'll be able to fly them in worse (i.e. bumpier) conditions.
You'll be able to decide better whether or not to fly them at all.
You'll be able to fly them after more fatigue.
You'll be able to deal with more "unscheduled events" as you fly them.
You'll be less likely to make an error as you fly t hem, as you become more
practiced.

Many other things, you get the point.

But whatever level of flying is deemed "adequate", that is the minimum
standard. If you meet that standard, then you should be able to do those
things it embodies.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)