Question to the IFR Pilots Out There

3.2 hrs actual
47 hrs total

Trained in the San Francisco Bay area out of Livermore, CA.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/snaray...ation/ifr.html

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote in message
.. .
For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of
ACTUAL
IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get
my
instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at
the
latest.

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com

My DE said don't even think of going out
alone until you have about 15 or 20. I think that's sound advise for
"hard"
IMC.

Any particular reason for that advice?


Snowbird,

Not sure how he came up with that number, but let's face it, one should have
*some* hours in actual conditions before venturing out alone in the clouds
and soup. I'm sure it varies person to person, but I think we all can
agree that 0 hours in actual IMC is not a good time to start out solo. How
about one...two...three...? Who knows? But someone, somewhere even if it's
yourself has to set a minimum number as a reference and it should be based
on experience and history.

In my examiner's opinion and experience he feels that 10 hours is the
minimum needed experience in actual IMC for an average pilot to become
familiar and comfortable enough with instrument conditions to venture out
alone.

I think it depends on the weather conditions as we both talked about. 1000
to 1500' ceilings with 4 or 5 miles visibility is a comfortable starting
point with minimal experience.

I've found some within this group with something we were all trained in
during our private, instrument and commercial training that is dangerous.
And that is the *Macho* personality trait. The "..who needs actual IMC
time? I was prudently trained and confident and if you were too you'd be
out there flying in the soup like me!" or the "...I don't need no stinking
GPS or Autopilot! That sissy-ass $hit is for wimps and losers and if you
were a real pilot like me you'd pull those @#$%ing things right out."

I hope we are all conservative when it comes to flying in IMC and we start
out slow and build our experience, skill and confidence patiently and
safely.

Kobra

Ditto here. 60hrs initial instrument experience, only about 2 in actual,
but about 40 night hrs
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
I thought the same in the northeast, but most of my instrument
instruction took place in the winter. Got lots of night flying time,
but little time in the clouds as they mostly contain icing conditions in
the winter around here.


Matt

Kobra wrote:
My DE said don't even think of going out
alone until you have about 15 or 20. I think that's sound advise for

"hard"

IMC.

Any particular reason for that advice?



Snowbird,

Not sure how he came up with that number, but let's face it, one should have
*some* hours in actual conditions before venturing out alone in the clouds
and soup. I'm sure it varies person to person, but I think we all can
agree that 0 hours in actual IMC is not a good time to start out solo. How
about one...two...three...? Who knows? But someone, somewhere even if it's
yourself has to set a minimum number as a reference and it should be based
on experience and history.

In my examiner's opinion and experience he feels that 10 hours is the
minimum needed experience in actual IMC for an average pilot to become
familiar and comfortable enough with instrument conditions to venture out
alone.

I think it depends on the weather conditions as we both talked about. 1000
to 1500' ceilings with 4 or 5 miles visibility is a comfortable starting
point with minimal experience.

I've found some within this group with something we were all trained in
during our private, instrument and commercial training that is dangerous.
And that is the *Macho* personality trait. The "..who needs actual IMC
time? I was prudently trained and confident and if you were too you'd be
out there flying in the soup like me!" or the "...I don't need no stinking
GPS or Autopilot! That sissy-ass $hit is for wimps and losers and if you
were a real pilot like me you'd pull those @#$%ing things right out."

I hope we are all conservative when it comes to flying in IMC and we start
out slow and build our experience, skill and confidence patiently and
safely.

I don't think having some arbitrary number of hours makes much
difference. I think the more important issue is how you begin to use
your new ticket. I've seen a number of authors of IFR books provide
something like this:

1. Start by taking off from an airport with VMC conditions, climb
through a fairly thin cloud layer to VMC conditions on top and then land
at an airport with VMC.

2. Take off in VMC, fly enroute in a thin layer, land in VMC.

3. Take off in IMC, fly enroute in IMC, but land in VMC.

4. Take off in ICM, fly enroute in IMC, land in "easy" IMC.

5. Repeat 4 gradually working closer to an approach in minimums and
adding in worse weather enroute.


Matt

I've seen a number of authors of IFR books provide
something like this:

1. Start by taking off from an airport with VMC conditions, climb
through a fairly thin cloud layer to VMC conditions on top and then land
at an airport with VMC.

2. Take off in VMC, fly enroute in a thin layer, land in VMC.

3. Take off in IMC, fly enroute in IMC, but land in VMC.

4. Take off in ICM, fly enroute in IMC, land in "easy" IMC.

5. Repeat 4 gradually working closer to an approach in minimums and
adding in worse weather enroute.

Couldn't agree more Matt.

Kobra

If the DE thinks you can't fly IMC, then why the hell would he/she give you
a rating? The practical test is supposed to check to see if you can go fly
it. The personal minima stuff is scary to me. If you can't go out and fly
to minimums, then something is wrong.

I know that is not a popular way of thinking and supposedly "unsafe" or
whatever is the politically correct term, but if you can't fly to the
standards expected, why get the rating?

The DE can't put on the certificate that the holder is only allowed to do
vector approaches or 1000' ceilings...

I just don't get it.




"Kobra" wrote in message
...

My DE said don't even think of going out
alone until you have about 15 or 20. I think that's sound advise for
"hard"
IMC.

Any particular reason for that advice?


Snowbird,

Not sure how he came up with that number, but let's face it, one should
have
*some* hours in actual conditions before venturing out alone in the clouds
and soup. I'm sure it varies person to person, but I think we all can
agree that 0 hours in actual IMC is not a good time to start out solo.
How
about one...two...three...? Who knows? But someone, somewhere even if
it's
yourself has to set a minimum number as a reference and it should be based
on experience and history.

In my examiner's opinion and experience he feels that 10 hours is the
minimum needed experience in actual IMC for an average pilot to become
familiar and comfortable enough with instrument conditions to venture out
alone.

I think it depends on the weather conditions as we both talked about.
1000
to 1500' ceilings with 4 or 5 miles visibility is a comfortable starting
point with minimal experience.

I've found some within this group with something we were all trained in
during our private, instrument and commercial training that is dangerous.
And that is the *Macho* personality trait. The "..who needs actual IMC
time? I was prudently trained and confident and if you were too you'd be
out there flying in the soup like me!" or the "...I don't need no
stinking
GPS or Autopilot! That sissy-ass $hit is for wimps and losers and if you
were a real pilot like me you'd pull those @#$%ing things right out."

I hope we are all conservative when it comes to flying in IMC and we start
out slow and build our experience, skill and confidence patiently and
safely.

Kobra

I don't think it is so much an issue of having your instructor along as
it is having a second person in the cockpit with you to assist you with
the chores when conditions get bad. Having someone do simple things
such as pull out the necessary approach plates, tune the radios, and
copy clearances and weather help immensely. Single pilot IFR in hard
weather is tough, even with an autopilot.

For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours
of actual IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

"Zero"...same as all the other Naval Aviators designated that
summer in Kingsville, TX.

Bob, did you get a "White Card" when you got your wings?

Back in 1951, we didn't get one till we had accumulated some actual
imc time. I don't recall how much, but I had been in a squadron at
Cherry Point for awhile before I got one.

vince norris

Tim J wrote:
If the DE thinks you can't fly IMC, then why the hell would he/she give you
a rating? The practical test is supposed to check to see if you can go fly
it. The personal minima stuff is scary to me. If you can't go out and fly
to minimums, then something is wrong.

Sorry, but no test can cover every eventuality. And there is a lot of
difference between being minimally competent (basically a freshly minted
instrument pilot) and being a confident, proficient, expert instrument
pilot. I didn't kill myself on my first real instrument flight alone,
but I was very nervous, wandered off course and altitude several times
during the first 30 minutes of the flight (mainly while trying to copy a
full route amendment and get the GPS reprogrammed - thanks NY Center!).
I never felt in danger of losing control, but I sure wasn't smooth,
calm and confident. A year later, I could simultaneously maintain
altitude within 20', talk with ATC, reprogram the GPS and carry on a
conversation with a passenger - and this was in a non A/P Skylane. It
really isn't any different than the difference between a 16 year-old
with a brand new driver's license and a person who has driven for 20
years. You simply get better and more capable with practice and after
having experienced many hours or years of various adverse situations.


I know that is not a popular way of thinking and supposedly "unsafe" or
whatever is the politically correct term, but if you can't fly to the
standards expected, why get the rating?

The standards are minimums. Look at them again ... they allow amazingly
wide tolerances on altitudes, headings, ILS needle deflection, etc. A
proficient instrument pilot will fly much tighter than the PTS standard
requires.


The DE can't put on the certificate that the holder is only allowed to do
vector approaches or 1000' ceilings...

I just don't get it.

That's unfortunate ... that you don't get it, I mean.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Tim J wrote:
If the DE thinks you can't fly IMC, then why the hell would he/she give
you
a rating? The practical test is supposed to check to see if you can go
fly
it. The personal minima stuff is scary to me. If you can't go out and
fly
to minimums, then something is wrong.

Sorry, but no test can cover every eventuality. And there is a lot of
difference between being minimally competent (basically a freshly minted
instrument pilot) and being a confident, proficient, expert instrument
pilot.

Then the training was lacking. Two acquaintances just took their
checkrides. The DE did all the communicating, spent about 5 minutes on the
oral, partial panel was a few turns at standard rate (not even timed). The
exam was a joke. (apparently the DE is so booked he has to rush through
them all to collect all the checks) No wonder some DEs tell "freshly
minted" instrument rated pilots not to go out and fly in IMC.

I didn't kill myself on my first real instrument flight alone,
but I was very nervous, wandered off course and altitude several times
during the first 30 minutes of the flight (mainly while trying to copy a
full route amendment and get the GPS reprogrammed - thanks NY Center!).
I never felt in danger of losing control, but I sure wasn't smooth,
calm and confident. A year later, I could simultaneously maintain
altitude within 20', talk with ATC, reprogram the GPS and carry on a
conversation with a passenger - and this was in a non A/P Skylane. It
really isn't any different than the difference between a 16 year-old
with a brand new driver's license and a person who has driven for 20
years.

I also contend that the driving tests are a bit too relaxed and many people
who have driving licenses should not have them.

You simply get better and more capable with practice and after
having experienced many hours or years of various adverse situations.


Agreed - and perhaps more should be done in TRAINING, not after you get a
rating that the examiner said you shouldn't use. Why should I not be able
to fly an approach to minimums from the very first day I get my rating?


I know that is not a popular way of thinking and supposedly "unsafe" or
whatever is the politically correct term, but if you can't fly to the
standards expected, why get the rating?

The standards are minimums. Look at them again ...

I know what the standards are and I don't need to look at them again. If
you can't safely fly an IFR flight and an ILS approach to minimums (or any
other approach) then you shouldn't have gotten the rating. Period.

No one here was talking about being exactly on altitude and reprogramming a
GPS and talking to a passenger and copying a clearance - the issue I think
was that a DE said he shouldn't go out and exercise the priveleges that he
just gave. My point is that the DE should not have given the rating then.
What kind of message does that send?

they allow amazingly
wide tolerances on altitudes, headings, ILS needle deflection, etc. A
proficient instrument pilot will fly much tighter than the PTS standard
requires.


The DE can't put on the certificate that the holder is only allowed to
do
vector approaches or 1000' ceilings...

I just don't get it.

That's unfortunate ... that you don't get it, I mean.

I just don't understand how the popular viewpoint can be defended. (Again,
I am not talking about getting better with experience - clearly that is what
will happen, but why is it unsafe to fly like you were trained to fly, and
tested?) The only thing I can think of is that the training wasn't adequate
and the testing wasn't adequate.

I don't understand why an examiner would say that a person shouldn't be
flying actual when he just PASSED him. I understand a DE can't run through
everything, but the training certainly should have.