IFR training questions

[Ted]

When I fly with a safety pilot their responsibility is to solely be looking out the window and to not assist me with anything. I get to practice as if they aren't there which is the whole point for me.

It is nifty having that person to look out the window, though. Before I'd started working on my instrument rating I spent some time with a friend who was working on his as a safety pilot. He went and shot a VOR approach into an airport. I didn't know how low he was supposed to be, but the trees seemed awful close. Turned out he misread the altimeter by 1000 ft.

Fortunately, that hasn't happened to him in real IFR flight, just practice.

 

[Exocetid]

That is true, except, you don't need an instrument rated super IMC current pilot to be your safety pilot. I am comfortable using any private pilot or above that I trust to actually look out the window.

When I fly with a safety pilot their responsibility is to solely be looking out the window and to not assist me with anything. I get to practice as if they aren't there which is the whole point for me.

As the OP, let me state that all my original questions were answered (thanks to all who did!).

Jesse, you make an excellent point. The ideal safety pilot is an FAA Examiner or maybe Sully, no? Then you basically go down from there through CFII, IFR rated and finally your VFR rated buddy. The amount of "assistance" is going to be predicated on what you are up to. If you are just doing homework, or practicing scans and cross-checks, getting comfortable under the hood without the pressure of a teacher on board, then having your drinking or church choir buddy in the right seat is great. The simple fact is that you simply cannot get enough practice. Frankly, every flight I make is practice and if I can enhance it in any way, I want to do it.

 

[poadeleted20]

You cannot do simulated IFR in IMC--that's absurd.

There's no such thing as "simulated IFR" -- you're operating under either the instrument or the visual flight rules, but I'm sure you meant simulated instrument conditions, not rules. In that case, you certainly can do simulated instrument flying in IMC, and in many cases, it's necessary to allow the pilot flying to log instrument time. Merely being in IMC (which requires that you operate under IFR) isn't sufficient to log instrument time. For example, if you're operating in clear air 500 feet above the tops, you're in IMC, but can't log instrument time because you're not in actual instrument conditions (conditions which require reference to the instruments to pilot the aircraft). Ditto going in and out of the clouds of a scattered layer (at least, while you're between the clouds). In those situations, for the time to count as instrument time, a hood is required and the time is logged as simulated, not actual, instrument time, and that means a safety pilot is required.

BTW, the meanings of the terms IFR, IMC, and actual instrument conditions are often confused and because of that, they are often misused, which creates further confusion. IFR means the rules under which you are operating, IMC means conditions not allowing VFR flight per 91.155, and actual instrument conditions means conditions which require the use of the instruments to pilot the aircraft. You can be in IMC without being in actual instrument conditions (see above), and you can also be in actual instrument conditions without being in IMC (imagine a dark, moonless, starless night over the Atlantic Ocean). Keeping these straight is important to understanding the application of the regs on which rules you may/must use (IFR/VFR), what you may log, and what is smart/safe.

 

[Exocetid]

There's no such thing as "simulated IFR"
<snip>
ood is required and the time is logged as simulated, not actual, instrument time, and that means a safety pilot is required.

BTW, the meanings of the terms IFR, IMC, and actual instrument conditions are often confused and because of that, they are often misused, which
<snip>
nderstanding the application of the regs on which rules you may/must use (IFR/VFR), what you may log, and what is smart/safe.

Somehow, I really think you understood what I meant.

 

[Lance F]

I know I should totally not post in this thread, but....
Although those that know me would not categorize me as a reckless pilot (up until now anyway), I have been called totally stupid in some of the above posts, so here's my real world experience.
I have flown with my 27 year old 150 hour PP (but not IR) son on a number of occasions in hard IMC, including rain and turbulence, where he has been sole manipulator of the controls from the right seat of my Mooney. This has only been in the enroute phases, but includes climbs, descents, turns to headings, etc. Hand flying he has held heading and altitude well within PTS for instrument rating even with the parallax. Obviously I monitored things very closely. I am guessing he has logged about 15 hours in this mode.
This thread will not make me change my foolhardy ways. I am sorry I am a totally stupid guy.

 

[poadeleted20]

While I'm sure Lance's son can do what he says, I don't he would confuse his son's ability to fly the plane from the right seat with the ability of the average PP-ASEL-IA to sit in the right seat while someone else flies the plane in actual instrument conditions and be able to evaluate the other pilot's performance, determine when intervention is necessary, and take control and recover from a critical flight situation once intervention does become necessary. If you can't do all that, you're taking a big chance acting as PIC/safety pilot in the right seat for a non-IR pilot in the left seat in actual instrument conditions, and personally, I doubt many non-CFI PP's have all those skills.

 

[Lance F]

to sit in the right seat while someone else flies the plane in actual instrument conditions and be able to evaluate the other pilot's performance, determine when intervention is necessary, and take control and recover from a critical flight situation once intervention does become necessary.

Since the FAA in its infinite wisdom does not require CFII candidates to have 1 second of actual time, I would guess this statement could be made for more than a few CFIIs.
My point is that statements that this or that is dangerous, stupid, whatever have been made in this thread (and many others) as blanket pronouncements. Since I happened to fall into the guilty pool in this case, I just had to fess up.

 

[poadeleted20]

Since the FAA in its infinite wisdom does not require CFII candidates to have 1 second of actual time, I would guess this statement could be made for more than a few CFIIs.

Well, they have at least been trained, tested, and certified with the hood on, and in many ways, that's harder than flying in the goo.

My point is that statements that this or that is dangerous, stupid, whatever have been made in this thread (and many others) as blanket pronouncements.

I don't think I ever said that no non-CFI-I can do it, just that most probably can't, and there have been fatal accidents involving the attempt. YMMV, but choose wisely.

 

[Exocetid]

I am sorry I am a totally stupid guy.

Well Lance, that's an oxymoron if I ever heard one: stupid Mooney owner. Inconceivable!

N5976Q, M20E Super 21

 

[Exocetid]

Well, they have at least been trained, tested, and certified with the hood on, and in many ways, that's harder than flying in the goo.

I have some issue with your statement. When under the hood, you always have the option of pulling it off. You cannot pull the goo off, you have to fly out of it and that might be further than you are able to do.

 

[jesse]

I have some issue with your statement. When under the hood, you always have the option of pulling it off. You cannot pull the goo off, you have to fly out of it and that might be further than you are able to do.

Plus there is ice in the goo and there are thunderstorms hiding in the goo that you can't see. Both of those are very difficult to learn under a hood.

 

[dmccormack]

I have some issue with your statement. When under the hood, you always have the option of pulling it off. You cannot pull the goo off, you have to fly out of it and that might be further than you are able to do.

I think the point Ron's making is that the test environment with a hood on should (and often does) provide more challenges in a short space of time than would usually happen in dozens of hours of IMC work.

For example -- I've yet to recover from an unusual attitude in IMC, have not yet had to fly a no-gyro approach, and don't routinely fly four different approaches in a :30 minute span.

All those happen during CFII PTS exam.

 

[poadeleted20]

I have some issue with your statement. When under the hood, you always have the option of pulling it off.

Not while you are being trained, tested, and certified, unless you want to try it again at a later date. But that reinforces my point regarding the inadvisability of someone who hasn't been so trained, tested, and certified acting as PIC/safety pilot in the goo.

 

[Exocetid]

Not while you are being trained, tested, and certified, unless you want to try it again at a later date. But that reinforces my point regarding the inadvisability of someone who hasn't been so trained, tested, and certified acting as PIC/safety pilot in the goo.

Maybe you are now understanding. There is no "if" in the goo, there is no "I've had enough, I quit". There was an excellent article a few months back in AOPA about doing hard IFR vs no-goo. The real thing is often the best teacher, but the price for a mistake is fairly steep.

I do agree with you that you don't want to be practicing in the soup without a CFII. I don't believe that is where this was going though.

When did the soup start getting called the goo, anyway?

 

[poadeleted20]

Maybe you are now understanding. There is no "if" in the goo, there is no "I've had enough, I quit". There was an excellent article a few months back in AOPA about doing hard IFR vs no-goo. The real thing is often the best teacher, but the price for a mistake is fairly steep.

I think we're looking at the answers to different questions. One point is the importance of having someone fully qualified to perform all necessary command and override functions from the right seat when acting as PIC/safety pilot in the goo, and there we clearly agree. The other was how one becomes so qualified, and in that case, hoodwork without experience in actual instrument conditions is generally deemed sufficient (although not desirable), and it was that issue to which I was responding above.

 

[Lance F]

hoodwork without experience in actual instrument conditions is generally deemed sufficient (although not desirable), and it was that issue to which I was responding above.

Not by me.

Edit: Let me expand. To those of you starting or contemplating the IR, find an instructor that has lots of time flying actual. Find an instructor that looks for real IMC days to instruct in. Find an instructor that encourages this type of training (after some initial introductions). If the instructor you have in mind doesn't meet these criteria, find someone else.
Don't forget, the day you get your rating you are perfectly legal to launch in 0 - 0, dodge thunderstorms enroute and shoot an ILS to 200 - 1/2. Do you really want to train with someone that only has "hoodwork without experience in actual instrument conditions"?
To me it is entirely ironic that Ron, who totally can do what I suggest, would sanction this "sufficiently" certified level of instruction.

 

[Exocetid]

Not by me.

Edit: Let me expand. To those of you starting or contemplating the IR, find an instructor that has lots of time flying actual. Find an instructor that looks for real IMC days to instruct in. Find an instructor that encourages this type of training (after some initial introductions). If the instructor you have in mind doesn't meet these criteria, find someone else.
Don't forget, the day you get your rating you are perfectly legal to launch in 0 - 0, dodge thunderstorms enroute and shoot an ILS to 200 - 1/2. Do you really want to train with someone that only has "hoodwork without experience in actual instrument conditions"?
To me it is entirely ironic that Ron, who totally can do what I suggest, would sanction this "sufficiently" certified level of instruction.

Wise words Lance. I spoke with a CFII the other day at a local FBO, he was a twenty-something younger than my daughter. I asked about using the simulator, which I thought they had at the site--he said all their flying was simulated. When I told him that I meant a device, he admitted that they didn't have a simulator. He also seemed concerned about actually training in IMC. When I am ready to do my "final approach" dual I do not want to do it under a hood--I want to be in the soup. If the CFII doesn't have the balls to do it based on the confidence of his instruction, then I will find another. The hood is fine to learn the skills, but you need the soup to start the meal.

 

[gismo]

Not by me.

Edit: Let me expand. To those of you starting or contemplating the IR, find an instructor that has lots of time flying actual. Find an instructor that looks for real IMC days to instruct in. Find an instructor that encourages this type of training (after some initial introductions). If the instructor you have in mind doesn't meet these criteria, find someone else.
Don't forget, the day you get your rating you are perfectly legal to launch in 0 - 0, dodge thunderstorms enroute and shoot an ILS to 200 - 1/2. Do you really want to train with someone that only has "hoodwork without experience in actual instrument conditions"?
To me it is entirely ironic that Ron, who totally can do what I suggest, would sanction this "sufficiently" certified level of instruction.

I'm going to crawl out on a limb here and suggest that Ron's point was that someone who's made it through CFII training and certification is likely better qualified to act as a safety pilot for an IR trainee in IMC than the "average" IR PP, even if the PP has some actual IMC experience and the CFII doesn't. And I believe that (at least on the average) that's true. I also believe (like the other Lance here) that a CFII with significant real IMC experience can impart a lot of useful information on an IR student that would probably be missing if the CFII never actually flew a trip in IMC. For the most part this is stuff you don't need to pass the IR practical but none the less it's good stuff to learn if you intend to use your legal ability to fly in the clouds.

 

[dmccormack]

Wise words Lance. I spoke with a CFII the other day at a local FBO, he was a twenty-something younger than my daughter. I asked about using the simulator, which I thought they had at the site--he said all their flying was simulated. When I told him that I meant a device, he admitted that they didn't have a simulator. He also seemed concerned about actually training in IMC. When I am ready to do my "final approach" dual I do not want to do it under a hood--I want to be in the soup. If the CFII doesn't have the balls to do it based on the confidence of his instruction, then I will find another. The hood is fine to learn the skills, but you need the soup to start the meal.

There is some IR training that should only be done with the hood -- specifically unusual attitude recovery.

The majority of my IR dual was on IMC days, because I live in a cloudy, all-too-often rainy area. We also scheduled on bad days -- since no one else was flying and the airplane was available.

BUT if I waited until the ILS was at mins before wrapping up my IR training, I would have waited a while.

200-1/2 is rare here -- it's usually down to 500 or so, but days with 1/2 mile vis are as likley to be foggy 0/0.

 

[poadeleted20]

Edit: Let me expand. To those of you starting or contemplating the IR, find an instructor that has lots of time flying actual. Find an instructor that looks for real IMC days to instruct in. Find an instructor that encourages this type of training (after some initial introductions). If the instructor you have in mind doesn't meet these criteria, find someone else.

Please note that I said "it is generally deemed," not that I think it's best. I agree with Lance that one should do one's best to obtain training in actual instrument conditions for both IR and CFI-IA ratings, but it is not always possible, and the FAA says that hood training is sufficient.

Don't forget, the day you get your rating you are perfectly legal to launch in 0 - 0, dodge thunderstorms enroute and shoot an ILS to 200 - 1/2. Do you really want to train with someone that only has "hoodwork without experience in actual instrument conditions"?

Both the FAA and I discourage someone who's flown instruments only under the hood from launching into that sort of weather the day after the IR practical test, and that's why the concept of personal minimums and appropriate steps towards actual weather flying are covered both in IR training and on the oral portion of the IR practical test. The new Judgment Assessment Matrix in the latest IR PTS reinforces the importance in instrument flying of making good decisions as well as having good skills.

 

[poadeleted20]

There is some IR training that should only be done with the hood -- specifically unusual attitude recovery.

I've given unusual attitude training in actual conditions, and for a qualified instructor in appropriately blocked airspace with no excessively unusual attitudes, it can be done safely.

But it's not for a 300-hour certificate mill rookie.

 

[DutchessFlier]

I've given unusual attitude training in actual conditions, and for a qualified instructor in appropriately blocked airspace with no excessively unusual attitudes, it can be done safely.

But it's not for a 300-hour certificate mill rookie.

Ron: Out of curiosity, What defines a 'certificate mill'?

 

[dmccormack]

I've given unusual attitude training in actual conditions, and for a qualified instructor in appropriately blocked airspace with no excessively unusual attitudes, it can be done safely.

But it's not for a 300-hour certificate mill rookie.

And what did you tell ATC?

"We're IMC and will be doing all sorts of stupid stuff...."

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And what did you tell ATC?

"We're IMC and will be doing all sorts of stupid stuff...."

I've been on the receiving end of a sadistic CFII's (who I still use, for good reason!) unusual attitudes in actual... We just kept it within 100 feet, so not TOO unusual, but enough. I guess he trusted me to keep it within 100 feet after he gave it back and not veer off course, since it was his name on the flight plan.

 

[gismo]

And what did you tell ATC?

"We're IMC and will be doing all sorts of stupid stuff...."

I think you'd want a block at least a couple thousand feet high bottoming out at least 3000 agl along with a "box" defined by radials and distance from a VOR. The request would involve "maneuvering" inside that space.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think you'd want a block at least a couple thousand feet high bottoming out at least 3000 agl along with a "box" defined by radials and distance from a VOR. The request would involve "maneuvering" inside that space.

That's pretty much it, although it can be done within a 1000-foot block if you're judicious about how you do it.

 

[gismo]

That's pretty much it, although it can be done within a 1000-foot block if you're judicious about how you do it.

Perhaps but I would think you'd want at least +300/-400 ft for a recovery from a nose high attitude and +100/-800 for a nose low situation, especially in a slippery retractable. A measly thousand foot block would mean transferring control to the student in a pretty narrow range of altitudes. And it wouldn't take much of a mistake on the part of the student to require more than 1000 ft to recover if you let them build up much speed in a descending recovery. Obviously the consequences of busting the floor of the block with a high speed dive would be potentially severe both safety and certificate wise.

 

[bslpil]

I am a Hawthorne CA based IFR student finished with more than the 15-hour IFR dual training. And I want to build up the 40-hour simulated IFR hours along with the PIC XC time required which will be 35 hours. So I am considering to do a cross continent flight and back with a same kind of a guy who is interested. Any suggestion or advice?