New IFR Currency requirements...!

On 02/25/07 11:18, Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:49:03 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:

I suppose 50 miles is somewhat arbitrary, but it seems to me that the whole
point here is to get people away from their familiar home environment. If
taking two 50 mile flights twice a year is a hardship, I don't understand
what people are doing with their ratings.

You'd think actually using the rating would at least meet the minimum
currency requirements.

The currency requires actual or simulated IMC. Actual IMC may be hard to
come by in some areas, so you're left with simulated (and the safety
pilot which that requires).

You could fly IFR every day, yet still need to get a safety pilot and
do the currency every six months.


I'm not so sure I'd want to fly with someone who continually was
worried about flying just enough to stay legally current.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:55:27 -0800, Mark Hansen
wrote:


The currency requires actual or simulated IMC. Actual IMC may be hard to
come by in some areas, so you're left with simulated (and the safety
pilot which that requires).

I know.

Have you ever been to an FBO that isn't full of pilots looking to
build hours (often working for peanuts as line people) willing to log
safety pilot time? I haven't, the flyers are all over the board.

Now if you're talking multi, or stuff that needs a type rating, that's
one thing, but most safety pilots simply need to be a private pilot,
possibly with a complex endorsement. The multi's and type rated stuff
probably sees enough actual that currency comes easily.

Guillermo wrote:
(D) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic
navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate
to the landing point.

I'm having trouble understanding why this part is in the regulation. Is
it merely stating the obvious, or is there some other way of navigating
that isn't covered by this?

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

In article ,
Alan Gerber wrote:

Guillermo wrote:
(D) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic
navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems to navigate
to the landing point.

I'm having trouble understanding why this part is in the regulation. Is
it merely stating the obvious, or is there some other way of navigating
that isn't covered by this?

... Alan

Vectors.

Also, a strict reading of the regulation would say that if you just take
off in a random direction, wander around totally lost for an hour, happen
to find an airport by pure luck and land, it shouldn't count as X/C time.

I suppose if you're flying formation, only the lead would get to log X/C
time.

On 24 Feb 2007 22:14:22 -0800, "Dan" wrote:

So what does everyone think about the proposed new IFR currency
requirements? The major changes seem to be that 1 hour of cross-
country time will be required, along with six approaches, consisting
of BOTH precision and non-precision, and two types of holds.

Some of this can be completed in a PCATD, but an instructor must be
present. (I wonder if a remote MSFS console via the Internet counts..)

I make no guarantee for the accuracy of my interpretation of what I
think they said or what they meant.

It would still need to be approved and as MS emphatically states MSFS
is a game I seriously doubt it'd be accepted.:-))

OTOH it's supposed to represent the plane, or class of plane the pilot
flies. I think there is going to be a fair amount of rewording
between now and the final document.

We are not going to be doing unusual attitude recoveries at Vne in my
plane VFR or IFR! There is a very fine line between staying safe and
breaking something when moving at Vne. I'm pretty sure what they meant
and I don't think it's quite what they said.



Most of it sounds OK to me, however I think the 1 hour of cross-
country time is pointless. What would be considered cross-country? It
is a little vague...

The way it is phrased I read it as just flying between to points that
are far enough apart require using departure and approach at each
airport and fit in the tracking and interception part for a total of
one hour. IOW it's a pretty short cross county:-)) As it requires
flying a missed a lot of the requirements could be combined. They
probably intend it to be "more than" 50 miles between airports, but
who knows.

To me, that amounts to nothing more than following a course, airway,
radials, or vectors and I don't think it'd add much of anything to
experience. If a pilot can do the approaches and holds they certainly
can fly from point A to point B. About the only thing the cross
country would do that's not in an approach the way it's phrased
*might* include being handed off to a center some where. Otherwise you
get the same thing flying approaches.


Here is the link:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...df/E7-1467.pdf

The interesting bit starts on page 31 of the PDF.

Other than the PCATD it sounds much like it was before then went to
the current requirements. That and changing the definitions from "at
least" to "More than" which seems kinda needless and could cause some
problems in some cases.

--Dan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:48:24 -0500, Roger
wrote:

On 24 Feb 2007 22:14:22 -0800, "Dan" wrote:

So what does everyone think about the proposed new IFR currency
requirements? The major changes seem to be that 1 hour of cross-
country time will be required, along with six approaches, consisting
of BOTH precision and non-precision, and two types of holds.

Some of this can be completed in a PCATD, but an instructor must be
present. (I wonder if a remote MSFS console via the Internet counts..)

I make no guarantee for the accuracy of my interpretation of what I
think they said or what they meant.

It would still need to be approved and as MS emphatically states MSFS
is a game I seriously doubt it'd be accepted.:-))

OTOH it's supposed to represent the plane, or class of plane the pilot
flies. I think there is going to be a fair amount of rewording
between now and the final document.

We are not going to be doing unusual attitude recoveries at Vne in my
plane VFR or IFR! There is a very fine line between staying safe and
breaking something when moving at Vne. I'm pretty sure what they meant
and I don't think it's quite what they said.



Most of it sounds OK to me, however I think the 1 hour of cross-
country time is pointless. What would be considered cross-country? It
is a little vague...

The way it is phrased I read it as just flying between to points that
are far enough apart require using departure and approach at each
airport and fit in the tracking and interception part for a total of
one hour. IOW it's a pretty short cross county:-)) As it requires
flying a missed a lot of the requirements could be combined. They
probably intend it to be "more than" 50 miles between airports, but
who knows.

To me, that amounts to nothing more than following a course, airway,
radials, or vectors and I don't think it'd add much of anything to
experience. If a pilot can do the approaches and holds they certainly
can fly from point A to point B. About the only thing the cross
country would do that's not in an approach the way it's phrased
*might* include being handed off to a center some where. Otherwise you
get the same thing flying approaches.


Here is the link:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...df/E7-1467.pdf

The interesting bit starts on page 31 of the PDF.

Other than the PCATD it sounds much like it was before then went to
the current requirements. That and changing the definitions from "at
least" to "More than" which seems kinda needless and could cause some
problems in some cases.

--Dan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Nowhere in the proposal is unusual attitudes mentioned where it is
required they be done in an aircraft.

Travis Marlatte wrote:

This is for currency. If one doesn't fly any real IFR over a six-month
period, then requiring a little enroute flying with the appropriate
transitions at the ends seems reasonable. It is the wording that bothers me.
It seems to imply that currency would include a single flight that entails
all the transitions and enroute time. What if I had an hour of real IFR and
an approach or two and just needed to fill in the gaps?


Those of us who make a living flying (past tense for me ;-) get a whole
lot of actual IFR. Yet, we find ourselves in the sim doing the whole
drill once or twice a year.

I think it is not unreasonable to have a non-commercial pilot show he
can do the full drill on a periodic basis, even though he has a fair
amount of actual IMC time logged recently.

After I retired I did a few ICCs in an approved training device rather
than in an airplane. Those ATD ICCs were done by a couple of very good
CFI-Is. We did the full drill, departure, short en route (tower to
tower Los Angeles Basin routes), hold, arrival, transitions; all of it.

Based on my experience as a commercial pilot and former CFI-I I feel the
benefit to both me and the CFI-I's evaluation of me, was done far bettr
in the ATD.

The real point, though, is successful accomplishment of the full, but
short, "X-Country."

The real point, though, is successful accomplishment of the full, but short, "X-Country."

But what's the point of that, if it can be shown through other means
that it is likely that one could accomplish a full cross country?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
The real point, though, is successful accomplishment of the full, but
short, "X-Country."


But what's the point of that, if it can be shown through other means
that it is likely that one could accomplish a full cross country?

Jose

There is no means quite as good as having a CFI-I work through the
flight with the pilot.

There is no means quite as good as having a CFI-I work through the flight with the pilot.

Well, then why not have the CFI-I work through every flight? After all,
even after demonstrating takeoff, holds, cruise, and an ILS approach to
minimums at night in a driving rainstorm ending in a successful landing
with an obligatory full stop before taking off again does not prove that
the pilot is capable of doing an NDB during the day in calm winds, or
landing on a short runway after a VOR approach, or successfully
executing a go-around if a spotted deer is spotted on the runway after
an otherwise uneventful GPS approach (which has not been demonstrated
either).

There are reasonable limits as to what we have to prove all the time,
and there are cost/benefit judgements to be made.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.