Tips on Getting Your Instrument Rating Sooner and at Lower Cost

I'm not sure I buy that argument. Of course the regulation doesn't help
because it is not precise. The logging of instrument time make the distinction very
clear for "acting" PIC and "logging" PIC. FAR 61.65d1 says:

(d) Aeronautical experience. A person who applies for an instrument rating must have
logged the following:
(1) At least 50 hours of cross-country flight time as pilot in command, of which at
least 10 hours must be in airplanes for an instrumentairplane rating; and

There is no separate column in my logbook for time I acted as PIC (assumed to
be the same as your definition of "being PIC", "top-dog", "head-honcho", "the-big
fazootti", etc), vs. time that I logged PIC. In other words, the act of acting PIC
isn't logged... I'm sure this can be argued ad-nauseum both ways, but it just ****es
me off that the regulation-perverse FAA is so flippin' vaugue about the important
stuff.

I say if you're driving the plane that you're rated for (and can thus log PIC
time), it counts. Even in the spirit of the notion of logging time.... if it's
acceptable to log PIC time under the hood in VMC solely because you're driving, you're
still driving if it's clouds out.

Here we go.....

-Cory

Teacherjh
wrote:
:
: This means that an instrument training XC trip, which is NOT on an
: instrument flight plan (you don't have an instrument rating yet so you can't
: file IFR as PIC) but is under the hood with an instructor as safety pilot,
: can be logged as PIC XC.......so you can make the same time do double duty.
:

: Well, sort of. You need to make this arrangement beforehand, because LOGGING
: PIC time and BEING PIC are two different animals, kind of like dolphin (the
: kind you eat) and dolphin (as in Flipper) are two different animals.

: You can =log= PIC time as a non-instrument-rated private pilot, even under an
: IFR flight plan that your instructor files, even though the instructor must
: =be= PIC(*). However, you can =not= use this time as the time required under
: 61.65(d)(1). Though it's in your logbook as PIC (sole manipulator, or "Hands On
: Time"), you were not PIC (Top Dog) on that flight. I know you didn't claim
: this to be true; I state it for completeness.

: You can also log PIC time if you are flying under VFR, under the hood, with the
: instructor also acting as safety pilot, irrespective of who =is= PIC. This is
: the case I believe you were referring to, and yes, if you and your instructor
: agree that =you= (the student) are to be Top Dog on that flight, then the time
: counts towards the time required under 61.65(d)(1). It might be the case that
: you need to do this (for example, if the instructor's medical has lapsed, I
: believe she can still give you required instruction, she just can't be Top Dog,
: though this would require another current pilot in the back to act as safety
: pilot, which is a required crewmember under the circumstances, which brings us
: back to the pathological case referred to earlier). On the other hand, it is
: also possible that the (current) instructor elects to act as Top Dog (and =be=
: PIC), in which case though you could log HOT time (PIC time) you could not use
: it as the time required under 61.65(d)(1). It might even be necessary (for
: example, if your own medical has lapsed, though I think that in that case you
: might not be able to log the time at all; 61.23 does not list "receiving flight
: instruction" as an exception)

: So, yes, you can make the time do double duty, but you need to read the regs
: carefully. Remember, HOT time doesn't make you Top Dog, and being Top Dog
: doesn't make you HOT.

: Jose
: ==
: (*) OK, there are pathological cases where a third person sitting in the back
: could BE PIC, for now let's not go there.. oh, never mind, we already did.

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

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote in message
...
I'm not sure I buy that argument. Of course the regulation doesn't
help
because it is not precise. The logging of instrument time make the
distinction very
clear for "acting" PIC and "logging" PIC. FAR 61.65d1 says:

(d) Aeronautical experience. A person who applies for an instrument rating
must have
logged the following:
(1) At least 50 hours of cross-country flight time as pilot in command, of
which at
least 10 hours must be in airplanes for an instrumentairplane rating; and

There is no separate column in my logbook for time I acted as PIC
(assumed to
be the same as your definition of "being PIC", "top-dog", "head-honcho",
"the-big
fazootti", etc), vs. time that I logged PIC. In other words, the act of
acting PIC
isn't logged... I'm sure this can be argued ad-nauseum both ways, but it
just ****es
me off that the regulation-perverse FAA is so flippin' vaugue about the
important
stuff.

In my logbook, there are columns for Captain, logbook holders operating
capacity and for PIC time.

Head honcho instructor goes down as captain, me goes in operating capacity
as P1/s ie supervised PIC and the time goes in PIC. It is an English logbook
and neatly sets out the various responsibilities.

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
You can =log= PIC time as a non-instrument-rated private pilot, even under
an
IFR flight plan that your instructor files, even though the instructor
must
=be= PIC(*). However, you can =not= use this time as the time required
under
61.65(d)(1). Though it's in your logbook as PIC (sole manipulator, or
"Hands On
Time"), you were not PIC (Top Dog) on that flight.

But you don't have to have been PIC on the flight in order to use your
properly logged PIC time to meet the flight-experience requirements for a
certificate or rating (such as the PIC-time requirement set form in
61.65d1). As the sole-manipulator rated for the aircraft, a private pilot
who is not PIC can log IFR/IMC flight time as PIC time, according to
61.51e1i. And then, according to 61.51c1, the time so logged can be used to
meet the requirements to apply for a certificate or rating. (If 61.51c
didn't let you count the logged PIC time when the regs call for PIC time,
then what would be the point of being able to log it as such?)

--Gary

But you don't have to have been PIC on the flight [...]
As the sole-manipulator [...] a private pilot [...] can log IFR/IMC flight time
as PIC time, [...]. And then, according to 61.51c1, the time so logged
can be used to meet the requirements


Hmmm... looking further back, 61.65(d) starts out "must have logged the
following: (1) at least 50 hours...

So, maybe you're right. In fact, I now think you are right. I learn something
new every day. I guess I'm done for today.

(a different post)
I'm sure this can be argued ad-nauseum both ways, but it just ****es
me off that the regulation-perverse FAA is so flippin' vaugue about the
important
stuff.


I'm with you there!

Jose

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

Teacherjh,

However, you can =not= use this time as the time required under
61.65(d)(1).


Huh? That's contrary to any other comment on this I have ever heard.
Logged PIC time is exactly what 61.65(d) (1) requires.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Logged PIC time is exactly what 61.65(d) (1) requires.

Yup, you're right. I was reading the regs with half a brain. It usually
works, but this time.I used the wrong half.

Jose

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

"Fred" wrote in message
ink.net...
Have you ever carefully studied what the regulations actually REQUIRE
regarding the
various experience requirements for an instrument rating?

The XC requirement in particular, is one that oftentimes unnecessarily
adds
to the cost
of an instrument rating and delays getting it.

According to the FAA, a pilot who already has a private pilot certificate
and is
RATED in the airplane, can log PIC time, even while receiving dual
instruction.

This means that an instrument training XC trip, which is NOT on an
instrument flight plan (you don't have an instrument rating yet so you
can't
file IFR as PIC) but is under the hood with an instructor as safety pilot,
can be logged as PIC XC.......so you can make the same time do double
duty.

Much instrument training is done this way, with the instructor acting as
ATC.
Most of your instrument training will be hood time. Do it on a XC using
instrument
navigation procedures and you can save as much as 20-30 hours or more of
the
additional cost of having to do it over twice. (The rules do not say
SOLO
XC
the rules say PIC XC )



How do you come up with 20 to 30 hours?

Doing cross countries is no place to start learning IFR procedures. You
should spend time in a sim beforehand, then make your way to a plane. Your
proposal I think is something that most people are aware of. Thanks for the
"help."




This means that most of your instrument time training can also be XC PIC
IF
you
arrange your flights carefully in regard to what the regulations require
and
make
your training part of an XC trip.

(As a side note, this is a good way to get your training because you get
to
plan all aspects of the flight from the standpoint of FLYING an instrument
trip. Take-off, climb, enroute, approach and landing are all included.
Just do them to instrument standards under the hood and for all practical
purposes you are conducting an instrument flight.....and getting
double duty out of your flight dollar.).

There are a number of other rules that require certain amounts of flight
time
under varying conditions that usually are done one at a time, rather than
meeting several requirements on one flight.

If you look at your logbook, and study the regulations, you will see many
instances
of this.

If you are just getting started flying, this might be a good time to
CAREFULLY
STUDY the rules and ask your flight instructor about how to combine as
many
requirements on a flight as possible to make your learning experience more
cost effective.

If you are like most pilots, flying is expensive. Getting the most for
your dolllar
is important. KNOWING what the regulations REALLY require can save
you a lot of money and get you on your way faster, without shortchanging
your
knowledge.

Being organized and having knowledge of what the rules really say can save
you a lot of money.

Remember. If you have questions about the way the regulations are
interpreted
you can call your local FAA Flight Standards District Office and ask an
Inspector.

They are there to help you.

P.S. You might like to read
HOW TO TRAIN YOUR FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR
http://webplus.locators.estates.co.uk/hint6.html#train

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
et...

"Fred" wrote in message
ink.net...
Have you ever carefully studied what the regulations actually REQUIRE
regarding the
various experience requirements for an instrument rating?

The XC requirement in particular, is one that oftentimes unnecessarily
adds
to the cost
of an instrument rating and delays getting it.

According to the FAA, a pilot who already has a private pilot
certificate
and is
RATED in the airplane, can log PIC time, even while receiving dual
instruction.

This means that an instrument training XC trip, which is NOT on an
instrument flight plan (you don't have an instrument rating yet so you
can't
file IFR as PIC) but is under the hood with an instructor as safety
pilot,
can be logged as PIC XC.......so you can make the same time do double
duty.

Much instrument training is done this way, with the instructor acting as
ATC.
Most of your instrument training will be hood time. Do it on a XC
using
instrument
navigation procedures and you can save as much as 20-30 hours or more of
the
additional cost of having to do it over twice. (The rules do not say
SOLO
XC
the rules say PIC XC )



How do you come up with 20 to 30 hours?

The rules require 10 hours with an instructor. The rest can be PIC with
an instructor as safety pilot. 40-10 = 30. That adds up to 40 hours.


Doing cross countries is no place to start learning IFR procedures. You
should spend time in a sim beforehand, then make your way to a plane.
Your
proposal I think is something that most people are aware of. Thanks for
the
"help."

Actually, I find a lot of pilots under the mis-impression that they have to
have
the 50 hours BEFORE they start the IFR or that the 50 hours has to be
separate
from the IFR training or in addition to it.

I would respectfully disagree that doing cross countries is no place to
start
learning IFR procedures.

I would suggest that cross countries are a very good place to start
learning them, to practice them, and to master them because this is what IFR
flying is all about, namely
using the plane for XC under acceptable weather conditions that are not VFR.

Flying IFR is not much different from flying VFR except that you are using
the gauges
instead of getting confused by looking at all the clutter on the maps and
looking
outside all the time.

IFR charts are easier to read, easier to interpret, and easier to navigate
with.

You learned how to navigate by pilotage for your private and you learned how
to
dead reckon, deal with lost procedures etc so you already know how to do
this.

The next step is to learn to control the plane more precisely and doing it
with the slight
additional workload of keeping up with your times, etas, etc is not much
more, IF you
have learned to PLAN properly in the first place.......

There is nothing wrong with practicing VFR XC when you feel like it, but if
you are interested in getting on with getting your skills up to the highest
level, as soon as possible, the sooner you learn the IFR procedures the
sooner you can use them and, within limits,
I would assert that you will be a safer pilot because of it.

An Instrument rating certainly brings your skills to a much higher precision
level
and the training makes you much more aware of weather, the limitations it
imposes,
and gives you more latitude in dealing with the problems that weather
presents
and certainly makes you a more precise pilot.

As you gain experience, hopefully your judgment gets better and better.

The reason that I like to teach IFR things on an XC is that

1. You have to plan the trip, in advance, very well. This means that you
have to
think about the trip more, BEFORE you leave the ground, so you can have a
low
stress, enjoyable flight. This is what you should be doing VFR, but the
IFR
routine enforces it more.

You have to consider the weather, terrain, winds, altitudes, etc a lot more,
which
you should on a VFR XC also.......but doing it IFR (or IFR under the hood in
training) gives you more practice, sooner, rather than later, so you learn
these
important skills earlier in the game.

That translates into thinking about setting up your frequencies ahead of
time, setting up your radios ahead of time, and setting up your COURSES
ahead of time, so mostly what you have to deal with is waiting for things to
happen. i.e. to get to an intersection and change the direction, fly your
new heading while maintaining your altitude and wait for the next heading or
altitude change.

Otherwise, all you have to do is keep the plane right side up, on heading
and on
altitude, and talk with ATC or your instructor and adhere to your
"clearance".

2. The basics of navigation remain the same, except that it is a lot easier
to navigate
with radios than it is to navigate by DR and pilotage, especially at night,
as well as,
being generally safer, because, you can get a positive fix from your radios,
whereas you
often cannot when flying VFR at every second of the flight.

When you learn this way, you reduce the overall problem to one of aircraft
systems
management and because you take things in the order that they happen and
learn to
expect them, you reduce a complex problem to something that comes in natural
stages
with a purpose.

This all reduces the problem to controlling the airplane within IFR
tolerances
+/- 100 feet and +/- 10 degrees of heading and you have almost the entire
flight
to practice this skill, so you get a lot of practice tracking the VOR,
intercepting
courses, and when you get to the other end, you get to make an approach,
which
for the most part, is just flying headings and maintaining altitude.

You need practice to get your skill level to stay within the altitude and
heading
tolerances. This is a good place to do it, because you don't have a lot of
distractions
and it has a purpose....ie.to get you to your destination.

Mastering the ability to stay ahead of the airplane means PLANNING.....which
means setting up your radios so you stay ahead of the airplane and wait for
them
to indicate you have reached a checkpoint, so you can do the next thing
required.

PLANNING is the essence of a stress free IFR flight and I have found that it
is most easily learned by doing......which is what IFR flying is all about.

When I was working on my instrument rating, I found that instructors usually
would
go out to teach a subject, such as intercepting a course, maintaining an
altitude,
flying an ADF course, or just holding heading and altitude, without having
another
purpose

Sure, I knew we were "going to practice IFR under the hood", but it didn't
have
the same purpose of actually going somewhere and it made it much more
difficult
for me to understand why each thing was important...so we didn't go through
the
PLANNING stage which is essential to building IFR skills quickly.

When I finally got to the XC stage, I had an additional burden of putting it
all together
and would continually forget to do things that needed to be done, well ahead
of time,
because in the incremental way I was taught, the crucial PLANNING OF THE
FLIGHT was neglected, because we were really not going anywhere......just
out to
the VOR across to the ILS and down for an approach.

This PLANNING is crucial when learning to fly IFR because you have to learn
to
stay ahead of the airplane. Going through the steps on an IFR XC gives
you a
lot more practice, it doesn't hit you so fast, so you have a little more
time to get
your flight stabilized, and is an overall better way to learn.

Also, if you need a break, just tell your instructor and let him fly for a
while.

(Remember. If you are RATED in the plane and you have agreed that you are
PIC in advance, you can still log the time. That's a privilege of being
Captain
and letting your instructor be your co-pilot, even if he is an instructor.
He still can
log the time also because he is an instructor. That is one of his
privileges.)

Another important part of the XC hood work is that you build up some
endurance
on a 2-3 hour flight.

In the beginning, IFR can be tiresome, so you need to build up the
endurance. When
you do it for real, and are really in the soup, you are in it until you
break out. You
can't just take the hood off. So you need to build up your endurance. The
more
practice you get the better you can tolerate it.

Last, this actually builds your overall skills very quickly.

You might like to read how one pilot did it at
http://10day.cjb.net
(When the page comes up, wait a moment for the popup which is the story
of David Sears, a candidate for the US Air Force Academy who wanted
an instrument rating on his resume for his Congressional interview. David
did it in 7 days of flying with 3 days when the weather was too bad to
fly.).

"Fred" wrote in message
link.net...

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
et...

"Fred" wrote in message
ink.net...
Have you ever carefully studied what the regulations actually REQUIRE
regarding the
various experience requirements for an instrument rating?

The XC requirement in particular, is one that oftentimes unnecessarily
adds
to the cost
of an instrument rating and delays getting it.

According to the FAA, a pilot who already has a private pilot
certificate
and is
RATED in the airplane, can log PIC time, even while receiving dual
instruction.

This means that an instrument training XC trip, which is NOT on an
instrument flight plan (you don't have an instrument rating yet so you
can't
file IFR as PIC) but is under the hood with an instructor as safety
pilot,
can be logged as PIC XC.......so you can make the same time do double
duty.

Much instrument training is done this way, with the instructor acting
as
ATC.
Most of your instrument training will be hood time. Do it on a XC
using
instrument
navigation procedures and you can save as much as 20-30 hours or more
of
the
additional cost of having to do it over twice. (The rules do not say
SOLO
XC
the rules say PIC XC )



How do you come up with 20 to 30 hours?

The rules require 10 hours with an instructor. The rest can be PIC with
an instructor as safety pilot. 40-10 = 30. That adds up to 40 hours.

So you are saying that you can teach:

procedures, holds, approaches, procedures, performance instruments, control
instruments, timing, procedures, VOR tracking and interception, procedures,
unusual attitudes, partial panel, ILS approaches, procedures, etc all while
doing the cross countries?

How many students have you taught and how many have taken their checkrides?

You find that a small airplane cockpit is an appropriate classroom for
teaching IFR flying and procedures (while at the same time the student has
to fly and navigate)? I would respectfully suggest that a VFR pilot who is
flying cross country and learning how to fly by instruments is a little busy
and has little extra processing power to add the additional tasks of
learning what IFR flying is about.

I certainly agree that the pilot can do cross countries while training, but
it is not a good way to introcude concepts and learn.




Doing cross countries is no place to start learning IFR procedures. You
should spend time in a sim beforehand, then make your way to a plane.
Your
proposal I think is something that most people are aware of. Thanks for
the
"help."

Actually, I find a lot of pilots under the mis-impression that they have
to
have
the 50 hours BEFORE they start the IFR or that the 50 hours has to be
separate
from the IFR training or in addition to it.

I would respectfully disagree that doing cross countries is no place to
start
learning IFR procedures.

I would suggest that cross countries are a very good place to start
learning them, to practice them, and to master them because this is what
IFR
flying is all about, namely
using the plane for XC under acceptable weather conditions that are not
VFR.

Flying IFR is not much different from flying VFR except that you are using
the gauges
instead of getting confused by looking at all the clutter on the maps and
looking
outside all the time.

IFR charts are easier to read, easier to interpret, and easier to navigate
with.

You learned how to navigate by pilotage for your private and you learned
how
to
dead reckon, deal with lost procedures etc so you already know how to do
this.

The next step is to learn to control the plane more precisely and doing it
with the slight
additional workload of keeping up with your times, etas, etc is not much
more, IF you
have learned to PLAN properly in the first place.......

There is nothing wrong with practicing VFR XC when you feel like it, but
if
you are interested in getting on with getting your skills up to the
highest
level, as soon as possible, the sooner you learn the IFR procedures the
sooner you can use them and, within limits,
I would assert that you will be a safer pilot because of it.

An Instrument rating certainly brings your skills to a much higher
precision
level
and the training makes you much more aware of weather, the limitations it
imposes,
and gives you more latitude in dealing with the problems that weather
presents
and certainly makes you a more precise pilot.

As you gain experience, hopefully your judgment gets better and better.

The reason that I like to teach IFR things on an XC is that

1. You have to plan the trip, in advance, very well. This means that you
have to
think about the trip more, BEFORE you leave the ground, so you can have a
low
stress, enjoyable flight. This is what you should be doing VFR, but the
IFR
routine enforces it more.

You have to consider the weather, terrain, winds, altitudes, etc a lot
more,
which
you should on a VFR XC also.......but doing it IFR (or IFR under the hood
in
training) gives you more practice, sooner, rather than later, so you learn
these
important skills earlier in the game.

That translates into thinking about setting up your frequencies ahead of
time, setting up your radios ahead of time, and setting up your COURSES
ahead of time, so mostly what you have to deal with is waiting for things
to
happen. i.e. to get to an intersection and change the direction, fly your
new heading while maintaining your altitude and wait for the next heading
or
altitude change.

Otherwise, all you have to do is keep the plane right side up, on heading
and on
altitude, and talk with ATC or your instructor and adhere to your
"clearance".

2. The basics of navigation remain the same, except that it is a lot
easier
to navigate
with radios than it is to navigate by DR and pilotage, especially at
night,
as well as,
being generally safer, because, you can get a positive fix from your
radios,
whereas you
often cannot when flying VFR at every second of the flight.

When you learn this way, you reduce the overall problem to one of aircraft
systems
management and because you take things in the order that they happen and
learn to
expect them, you reduce a complex problem to something that comes in
natural
stages
with a purpose.

This all reduces the problem to controlling the airplane within IFR
tolerances
+/- 100 feet and +/- 10 degrees of heading and you have almost the entire
flight
to practice this skill, so you get a lot of practice tracking the VOR,
intercepting
courses, and when you get to the other end, you get to make an approach,
which
for the most part, is just flying headings and maintaining altitude.

You need practice to get your skill level to stay within the altitude and
heading
tolerances. This is a good place to do it, because you don't have a lot
of
distractions
and it has a purpose....ie.to get you to your destination.

Mastering the ability to stay ahead of the airplane means
PLANNING.....which
means setting up your radios so you stay ahead of the airplane and wait
for
them
to indicate you have reached a checkpoint, so you can do the next thing
required.

PLANNING is the essence of a stress free IFR flight and I have found that
it
is most easily learned by doing......which is what IFR flying is all
about.

When I was working on my instrument rating, I found that instructors
usually
would
go out to teach a subject, such as intercepting a course, maintaining an
altitude,
flying an ADF course, or just holding heading and altitude, without having
another
purpose

Sure, I knew we were "going to practice IFR under the hood", but it didn't
have
the same purpose of actually going somewhere and it made it much more
difficult
for me to understand why each thing was important...so we didn't go
through
the
PLANNING stage which is essential to building IFR skills quickly.

When I finally got to the XC stage, I had an additional burden of putting
it
all together
and would continually forget to do things that needed to be done, well
ahead
of time,
because in the incremental way I was taught, the crucial PLANNING OF THE
FLIGHT was neglected, because we were really not going anywhere......just
out to
the VOR across to the ILS and down for an approach.

This PLANNING is crucial when learning to fly IFR because you have to
learn
to
stay ahead of the airplane. Going through the steps on an IFR XC gives
you a
lot more practice, it doesn't hit you so fast, so you have a little more
time to get
your flight stabilized, and is an overall better way to learn.

Also, if you need a break, just tell your instructor and let him fly for a
while.

(Remember. If you are RATED in the plane and you have agreed that you
are
PIC in advance, you can still log the time. That's a privilege of being
Captain
and letting your instructor be your co-pilot, even if he is an instructor.
He still can
log the time also because he is an instructor. That is one of his
privileges.)

Another important part of the XC hood work is that you build up some
endurance
on a 2-3 hour flight.

In the beginning, IFR can be tiresome, so you need to build up the
endurance. When
you do it for real, and are really in the soup, you are in it until you
break out. You
can't just take the hood off. So you need to build up your endurance.
The
more
practice you get the better you can tolerate it.

Last, this actually builds your overall skills very quickly.

You might like to read how one pilot did it at
http://10day.cjb.net
(When the page comes up, wait a moment for the popup which is the story
of David Sears, a candidate for the US Air Force Academy who wanted
an instrument rating on his resume for his Congressional interview.
David
did it in 7 days of flying with 3 days when the weather was too bad to
fly.).

In rec.aviation.ifr Richard Hertz no one@no one.com wrote:
: So you are saying that you can teach:

: procedures, holds, approaches, procedures, performance instruments, control
: instruments, timing, procedures, VOR tracking and interception, procedures,
: unusual attitudes, partial panel, ILS approaches, procedures, etc all while
: doing the cross countries?

Cross-countries are mostly straight-and-level (obviously). Very little
precision airwork is required. Most of the other stuff can be just as relevant for
VFR cross countries if one choses to do so (thorough weather briefings, V-airways, VFR
flight following, etc)

: You find that a small airplane cockpit is an appropriate classroom for
: teaching IFR flying and procedures (while at the same time the student has
: to fly and navigate)? I would respectfully suggest that a VFR pilot who is
: flying cross country and learning how to fly by instruments is a little busy
: and has little extra processing power to add the additional tasks of
: learning what IFR flying is about.

Absolutely. I would say that a fairly minimal amount of time is necessary to
get a VFR pilot's airplane handling up to IFR snuff (~5 hours or so). Just about
everything after that is reducing the 98% CPU utilization to do so down to about 5% so
that you've got some left over to do everything else that might come up. Knowledge
doesn't stick when you're saturated.

: I certainly agree that the pilot can do cross countries while training, but
: it is not a good way to introcude concepts and learn.

Useful to observe, but marginally useful if having them deal with everything
required during said cross-country saturates them.

-Cory


************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************