Question to the IFR Pilots Out There

In article ,
wrote:

there is a lot of
difference between being minimally competent (basically a freshly minted
instrument pilot) and being a confident, proficient, expert instrument
pilot.

sure. but if the freshly minted instrument pilot isn't good enough
for IMC, then the minimum test standards aren't good enough.

--
Bob Noel

I was fortunate to have actual for essentially the whole of my first dual
cross country. We were in the soup from about 2 minutes after takeoff until
we broke out at 50 ft. above minimums. It was also an LDA circle-to-land
approach. All I can say is that I'm glad I didn't experience those three
things for the first time on my own!

Right now, I'm at 4.5 actual, 12.7 hood, 7 simulator, ~135 total time.

Jeremy

"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

Tim wrote:
"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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

I agree, but no amount of training or test rigor will ever make a new
driver as capably as one with many years of experience.


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?

There are many levels of "using" of an instrument rating. The
regulations have to cover all pilots of all levels of experience.
Suggesting that a rookie instrument pilot not exercise the full range of
the privileges of his/her license is very prudent.

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?

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.

That simply isn't practical. I'm an engineer by training, but my four
years in school hardly prepared me for EVERYTHING I'd encounter as an
engineer. Same is true for flying. Training and certification testing
is only intended to get one to a point where they are competent to
function at a minimum standard and able to progress from there.

I'm a licensed professional engineer. I specialized in communications
and digital systems. I can legally stamp plans for a power system. I
would be crazy to do so given that I have had little education in power
systems and no experience designing them. What is legal and what is
smart/prudent, are two different things.


Matt

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
wrote:


there is a lot of
difference between being minimally competent (basically a freshly minted
instrument pilot) and being a confident, proficient, expert instrument
pilot.


sure. but if the freshly minted instrument pilot isn't good enough
for IMC, then the minimum test standards aren't good enough.


Define what "IMC" is? And how do you test for all aspects of IMC in a
test that lasts less than a month?


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
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.

I don't quite understand the theory behind this advice. I do agree that IMC
is harder than hood flying, because the latter provides peripheral cues as
to changes in attitude. For that reason, I made sure to have adequate dual
practice in IMC before trying it on my own.

On the other hand, once basic attitude flying in IMC becomes comfortable, it
doesn't strike me that flying an approach to minimums in IMC is then any
harder than doing it under the hood. And since doing it reliably under the
hood is a required part of instrument training, I don't really see why
pilots shouldn't fly single-pilot IMC to minimums soon after flying
single-pilot IMC at all.

But I readily admit there could be good reasons that don't occur to me. If
so, I'd like to hear them.

--Gary

Matt

Isn't the Bay area supposed to be great for "harmless" IMC, good for
flying actual approaches?

You're right. When I was working on my basic ticket it would be all over
the place, now that I want some of it to be there (for my instrument
training) it is nowhere to be found. Today would have been great for some
real IMC, unfortunately I'm getting over a cold and besides my instructor
doesn't work weekends.

--
--
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

Cecil E. Chapman wrote:

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

I am based in the Northeast US and worked towards my instrument rating
last winter. We are located downwind of Lake Ontario, so lake effect
snow made up a lot of my IMC while training. I had 18 hours of actual
IMC of about 50 hours towards the rating.

Interesting sidebar: A new instructor joined our flight school after
recently moving into the area from the southwest US. I was told that
this instructor has 0 hours of actual IMC. Not sure how someone can
teach when they have no experience in it.

--
Peter

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:

1. Their training was insufficient
2. The examiner did not do their job

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)


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.

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?


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

I agree, but no amount of training or test rigor will ever make a new
driver as capably as one with many years of experience.



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.


There are many levels of "using" of an instrument rating. The
regulations have to cover all pilots of all levels of experience.
Suggesting that a rookie instrument pilot not exercise the full range of
the privileges of his/her license is very prudent.

No - it hides the fact that the training and testing could have been
inadequate. I understand some people don't want to fly to minimums all the
time or only want to break through ceilings on their way up and down, but
the the bottom line is that the rating says you should be able to fly IMC
and do approaches. Not just some of them or part of the flight in IMC, but
the whole deal.


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.



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.

That simply isn't practical. I'm an engineer by training, but my four
years in school hardly prepared me for EVERYTHING I'd encounter as an
engineer. Same is true for flying. Training and certification testing
is only intended to get one to a point where they are competent to
function at a minimum standard and able to progress from there.


Yes - and to me that means that you should be able to launch into IMC and do
approaches with no problem.

What isn't practical? Making a student fly an approach to minimums during
the test and expecting them to do it correcty? The training certainly
should have allowed and ensured that the student flew in IMC or simulated
and did approaches to minimums.


I'm a licensed professional engineer. I specialized in communications
and digital systems. I can legally stamp plans for a power system. I
would be crazy to do so given that I have had little education in power
systems and no experience designing them. What is legal and what is
smart/prudent, are two different things.


I don't see what this has to do with flying IFR. I expect that if I get a
rating that I am competent enough to use it.



Matt

"Peter R." wrote in message
Interesting sidebar: A new instructor joined our flight school after
recently moving into the area from the southwest US. I was told that
this instructor has 0 hours of actual IMC. Not sure how someone can
teach when they have no experience in it.

I'm not surprised at all. I remember reading an AOPA magazine article
mentioning the very same thing. While a few replies to my original thread
didn't seem to think it was an issue that one only had hood time - my
limited experience with real IMC begs me to differ. As you said, with the
hood or foggles on you are still aware of a peripheral 'outside', however
when you are in real IMC the experience is quite different, especially
seeing the quick movement of the cloud texture past your side windows in
your peripheral view.

Don't laugh, but on my first IMC experience as I was approaching the clouds
at my altitude with my CFII on the right; I had this nagging feeling that we
would 'hit' the cloud as if it was a solid object.. Of course, one
logically knows this is not so, but I do remember experiencing the
irrational 'concern' as we were approaching the cloud bank on my first time.

My fondest hope is to get as much real IMC as I can on the road to my
instrument ticket.

--
--
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

I had 2 hours of actual before I got my ticket, reason was my instructor had me
stay in the clouds for the entire flight one time, when we got out of the
clouds, he would tell me to ask for a different altitude so we could get back in
them.

Now that I have my ticket, I file IFR all the time, but the amount of time being
only on instruments is next to none and the only time you can log as actual is
that time when your navigating on instruments only. For the most part, its hard
to stay in the clouds, the only time I am in actual is when taking off or
landing so its only a few minutes. once your above the clouds your not in
instruments anymore.

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote:

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