Get-Home-Itis, Arrogance, or What?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Wouldn't a requirement for IMC operation for a Private certificate
make it impossible for a CFI to recommend a student for examination?
If such a requirement were in effect, a CFII could be necessary.

I don't think you have to be a CIF to instruct a student in IMC. And in any
case, if the FAA were to change the rags to create a PP IMC requirement,
they could just make any necessary change to the CFI rules too.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
I don't think you have to be a CIF

Oops, overactive spell-checker. That was originally 'CFII'.

--Gary

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:07:47 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
Wouldn't a requirement for IMC operation for a Private certificate
make it impossible for a CFI to recommend a student for examination?
If such a requirement were in effect, a CFII could be necessary.

I don't think you have to be a CIF to instruct a student in IMC.

What is a CIF?

And in any case, if the FAA were to change the rags to create a PP IMC requirement,
they could just make any necessary change to the CFI rules too.

If CFI's were authorized to instruct students in IMC, there would be
no need for CFIIs. Or am I overlooking something here?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
If CFI's were authorized to instruct students in IMC, there would be
no need for CFIIs. Or am I overlooking something here?

Yes. The training doesn't count toward an instrument rating unless it's
given by a CFII. But (as far as I know) CFIs can provide IMC training for
purposes of PP emergency-IMC preparedness.

--Gary

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:24:52 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
If CFI's were authorized to instruct students in IMC, there would be
no need for CFIIs. Or am I overlooking something here?

Yes. The training doesn't count toward an instrument rating unless it's
given by a CFII. But (as far as I know) CFIs can provide IMC training for
purposes of PP emergency-IMC preparedness.


In that case, the CFI would be the sole PIC, and the CFI would have to
hold an instrument rating, but would be only demonstrating IMC
operations, not actually instructing in them?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:24:52 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..
If CFI's were authorized to instruct students in IMC, there would be
no need for CFIIs. Or am I overlooking something here?

Yes. The training doesn't count toward an instrument rating unless it's
given by a CFII. But (as far as I know) CFIs can provide IMC training for
purposes of PP emergency-IMC preparedness.

In that case, the CFI would be the sole PIC, and the CFI would have to
hold an instrument rating, but would be only demonstrating IMC
operations, not actually instructing in them?

There is always a sole PIC. A CFI is always the PIC with a pre-PP student.
CFIs always need an instrument rating. As far as I know, there is no reason
that a CFI can't let a student manipulate the controls in IMC; the time is
logged as dual, but not for purposes of an instrument rating.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote:
There is always a sole PIC. A CFI is always the PIC with a pre-PP student.
CFIs always need an instrument rating. As far as I know, there is no reason
that a CFI can't let a student manipulate the controls in IMC; the time is
logged as dual, but not for purposes of an instrument rating.

I did plenty of that as a student pilot. I knew I wanted to start on my
instrument rating right away and my instructor was happy to fly in IMC. At
the point where I was almost done with my private, we agreed that if the
weather were ever IFR on a day we had a flight secheduled, rather than
canceling, we would just go out and play in the clouds.

"ktbr" == ktbr writes:

ktbr Viperdoc wrote:
Besides, being carbureted, a 150 will quit after only a few
seconds inverted. The NTSB should also look at the quality and
quantity of the simulated IMC time during his training.

ktbr The basic instrument flight instruction part of PP training
ktbr is really not sufficient, nor is it intended to be for
ktbr sustained flight into IMC.

Quite so. As those who have flown solo in IMC know, there is a huge
psychological difference between flying with a hood in sunshine and an
instructor and knowing what you are about to do, and blundering into
IMC with no warning and only yourself to get out of it. The hood
training for the PP can never really prepare one for the case of
blundering into IMC. Which is why on occasion I may chase a cloud and
wander a bit too close. Not every VFR pilot needs the IFR rating, but
every pilot does need some exposure to real IMC. Do it with an
instructor and learn to live another day.

--
Look, if you don't like my parties, you can leave in a huff. If that's
too soon, leave in a minute and a huff. If you can't find that, you
can leave in a taxi.
Groucho Marx

"TP" == T o d d P a t t i s t T writes:

TP ktbr wrote:
Finding yourself in the dead middle of hard IMC with only 3
hours of training can be disasterous as this sad event
illustrates. If you think these 3 hours will save your life if
you get into a situation like that you are whistling past a
graveyard.

TP If you think it's useless, what is the point of the training
TP then?

Not entirely useless, but not entirely use-full either. What's the
point? Some hypocrisy in life is necessary for society to
continue. It's a convenient fiction that the 3 hours will bail all VFR
pilots out of a jam, just like the fiction that confiscating nail
clippers and shampoo will make airline flights safer.
--
"Hacking is like sex. You get in, you get out, and hope that you
didn't leave something that can be traced back to you."

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:06:27 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:24:52 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
If CFI's were authorized to instruct students in IMC, there would be
no need for CFIIs. Or am I overlooking something here?

Yes. The training doesn't count toward an instrument rating unless it's
given by a CFII. But (as far as I know) CFIs can provide IMC training for
purposes of PP emergency-IMC preparedness.

In that case, the CFI would be the sole PIC, and the CFI would have to
hold an instrument rating, but would be only demonstrating IMC
operations, not actually instructing in them?

There is always a sole PIC.

That's true.

A CFI is always the PIC with a pre-PP student.

But in this case, would the "student" be able to log PIC time as is
normally authorized?

CFIs always need an instrument rating.

That's not the way I read the regulations:


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text.... 1.1.2.8.1.2
§ 61.183 Eligibility requirements.
To be eligible for a flight instructor certificate or rating a
person must:

(c) Hold either a commercial pilot certificate or airline
transport pilot certificate with:

(1) An aircraft category and class rating that is appropriate to
the flight instructor rating sought; and

(2) An instrument rating, _or_ privileges on that person's pilot
certificate that are appropriate to the flight instructor rating
sought, if applying for—

i) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and
single-engine class rating;

(ii) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and
multiengine class rating;

(iii) A flight instructor certificate with a powered-lift rating;
or

(iv) A flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating.


Doesn't that '_or_' in '(2)' above mean there is an alternate way to
comply with instructor requirements sans an instrument rating?

As far as I know, there is no reason that a CFI can't let a student
manipulate the controls in IMC; the time is logged as dual, but not
for purposes of an instrument rating.