IMC requirement for CFII

[azure]

The northeast is almost ideal for flying actual. I did my instrument training in New England, got a decent amount of actual, including two real missed approaches, one to an ILS.

Coastal New England maybe, but I found it much easier to stay current by shooting approaches in actual when I lived in Michigan than now, living in central Vermont. Home base these days is a good IFR field with an ILS and an LPV, located on a broad hilltop in a valley. But when conditions are IFR, they're usually either icy or way below minimums. Those ideal 500-foot ceiling days I used to enjoy back in MI -- even sometimes in winter -- are as rare as a two-headed zebra here.

That said, the coast isn't really THAT far away, so as long as conditions aren't too widespread it's still possible IF you have the time for a bit of a cross country. And even close to home, there were a couple of strings of days in early fall last year that I would have been out playing in the clouds, if I hadn't been grounded...

 

[mscard88]

, if I hadn't been grounded...

Azure from reading your posts it seems you've been grounded quite awhile. Are you still out or anticipate being back in soon?

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Where do you come up with this stuff? In 10+ years in GA and 4 years of instructing, I haven't met a CFII who would refrain from flying in IMC given the right conditions. The problem is that the right conditions for a piston single with no icing protection, stormscope, or onboard weather radar seldom make an appearance.

I'm glad to hear you haven't had the pleasure of meeting any instructors like James referenced. Unfortunately I have met plenty of instructors over the last twenty years that corroborate his observations

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm glad to hear you haven't had the pleasure of meeting any instructors like James referenced. Unfortunately I have met plenty of instructors over the last twenty years that corroborate his observations

They unfortunately exist.OTOH, I mentioned earlier about the short IFR season in Colorado. Even in that environment wher actual IFR experience was limited, CFIIs would jump at the opportunity to get some actual with their students.

 

[Everskyward]

Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean it should become regulation. Are we going to mandate high wind checkouts, high density altitude checkouts, etc?

My instructor took me in IMC when I was getting my private, but I was doing it in the San Francisco Bay Area. I got some in Missouri when I was doing my IFR. But once I moved to Colorado I rarely got any IMC, unless it was just punching through a cloud or two, until I flew an airplane that was FIKI.

 

[azure]

Azure from reading your posts it seems you've been grounded quite awhile. Are you still out or anticipate being back in soon?

Still out. I hesitate to mention a target date for fear of jinxing myself but... the plan is early May. Yes, that means what it sounds like. I could probably get a 3rd class but if OKC decides to make me go through a head-to-toe battery of tests "just because we can", I could end up broke or unable to afford to fly, even if I do get the 3rd class. And if they deny me, grounding becomes permanent. So I think I won't fight that battle. There is very little that I really want to do that I could do with a 3rd class, that I couldn't do under BasicMed.

 

[denverpilot]

They unfortunately exist.OTOH, I mentioned earlier about the short IFR season in Colorado. Even in that environment wher actual IFR experience was limited, CFIIs would jump at the opportunity to get some actual with their students.

Heck, even without a student, most go up, as do the non-CFIIs. I counted four aircraft doing approach "laps" at APA during our last stint of "quality" flyable IMC. Heh. DEN TRACON must know we're all coming, they always accommodate nicely.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Heck, even without a student, most go up, as do the non-CFIIs. I counted four aircraft doing approach "laps" at APA during our last stint of "quality" flyable IMC. Heh. DEN TRACON must know we're all coming, they always accommodate nicely.

True. But since the thread is about CFIIs...

 

[mscard88]

Still out. I hesitate to mention a target date for fear of jinxing myself but... the plan is early May. Yes, that means what it sounds like. I could probably get a 3rd class but if OKC decides to make me go through a head-to-toe battery of tests "just because we can", I could end up broke or unable to afford to fly, even if I do get the 3rd class. And if they deny me, grounding becomes permanent. So I think I won't fight that battle. There is very little that I really want to do that I could do with a 3rd class, that I couldn't do under BasicMed.

I hope it works out for you. Terrible that it takes so long for them to make a decision.

 

[azure]

I hope it works out for you. Terrible that it takes so long for them to make a decision.

Thanks, but I guess I wasn't clear. I haven't applied for a 3rd class, and I don't plan to at this point. I was getting my ducks in a row around the time the AC came out, and since then, after a bit of discussion with the pilot who owns the local FBO, I've pretty much decided it isn't worth the risk unless someone can GUARANTEE that I'll be issued eventually and without too much additional expense... and no one can, not even Dr. Bruce.

 

[LDJones]

I don't disagree with the premise, but attaining 50 hours actual in the Northeast (outside of flying part 121) would take quite a while. I go whenever I can and I've gotten about 12 over the past 1.5 years.

This. It's even tougher if you're learning in the desert southwest where IMC is a rare event. It would be great if everyone could have some. I try to make sure my students have at least 3-5 hours of real IMC before they're set loose, but it's sometimes tough. When conditions are ripe I'll have my students fly a Twin Cities round-robin flight with a variety of approaches to KLVN, KSTP, KANE, KMIC and then back to KFCM.

 

[James331]

Again, is it asking that much for a guy building his 250hrs to take the AIRCRAFT (a machine built to travel) and go somewhere they can get some cloud time? I mean you're working at becoming a professional pilot, you got to build the hours no matter what, go fly SOMEWHERE and get some IMC, really isn't asking that much, and I think it should be expected of someone who wishes to become a professional pilot.

 

[jordane93]

Looking back at my logbook, it took me 4 years to get 50 hours of actual. Not really a realistic goal if someone wants to become a CFII.

 

[mscard88]

Again, is it asking that much for a guy building his 250hrs to take the AIRCRAFT (a machine built to travel) and go somewhere they can get some cloud time? I mean you're working at becoming a professional pilot, you got to build the hours no matter what, go fly SOMEWHERE and get some IMC, really isn't asking that much, and I think it should be expected of someone who wishes to become a professional pilot.

Yes it is asking too much James. Flying is expensive, and someone training most likely won't have the money to do something like that. It's been this way for decades, it is not broken, and we certainly don't need requirements and/or regulations that some pilots would have difficulty acquiring, like those in the SW. Thought you hated "guvmint regulations"?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yes it is asking too much James. Flying is expensive, and someone training most likely won't have the money to do something like that. It's been this way for decades, it is not broken, and we certainly don't need requirements and/or regulations that some pilots would have difficulty acquiring, like those in the SW. Thought you hated "guvmint regulations"?

What do you mean expensive? The proposal was for only 50 hours. And remember, that's 50 hours of actual IMC. No popping through a layer into clear skies above or this in-and-out baby stuff. That cloud layer has to be thick, solid and continuous in order to count. How much could that possible cost a CFI living on Ramen?

And don't forget the details. The regulation would have to require a certain number of approaches. After all, that's the highest risk stuff, isn't it? Maybe even specify how low the clouds have to be. No, we'll need a whole bunch of regs for this one. Probably have to get the Chief Counsel involved to help interpret it too.

And don't' forget, flight in actual is a skill that diminishes with non-use. So that CFII is going to need recurrent training. We'll need to amend the currency requirements too. Maybe have that CFII take a nice inexpensive vacation every few years.

Besides, how else are you going to protect the instrument pilot from not realizing he or she has little or no experience in actual and seeking out a CFII on a good IFR day. You can't trust them to do that on their own after all.

Hate guvmint regulations? Bupkiss. Lots say it. Few put it into practice. Everyone has that "great idea" to control other people's conduct so long as it si someone else's conduct and someone else's expense. This solution in search of a problem is a perfect example.

 

[ejensen]

Heck, even without a student, most go up, as do the non-CFIIs. I counted four aircraft doing approach "laps" at APA during our last stint of "quality" flyable IMC. Heh. DEN TRACON must know we're all coming, they always accommodate nicely.

True,trying to get out on one of those days a friend at Longmont wait over an hour before ATC could work him in with all the folks doing multiple approaches.

 

[S Joslin]

135.243 actually doesn't require 50 hours of actual instrument time. The way it's worded, you need 75 hours of instrument time of which 50 have to be in "actual flight" meaning not in a SIM...hood time counts towards the requirment though since it's in an aircraft moving through the air. I once gave IOE to a new guy at a 135 freight operator who had never seen the inside of a cloud until one of our IOE flights.

Oh, okay. I interpreted that as actual IMC, not actual flight. Interesting...

 

[midlifeflyer]

Oh, okay. I interpreted that as actual IMC, not actual flight. Interesting...

It says "in actual flight." Not "in actual instrument flight conditions" or similar phrases the FAR has no trouble using when that is what it means.

 

[James331]

Yes it is asking too much James. Flying is expensive, and someone training most likely won't have the money to do something like that. It's been this way for decades, it is not broken, and we certainly don't need requirements and/or regulations that some pilots would have difficulty acquiring, like those in the SW. Thought you hated "guvmint regulations"?

I'm confused,

you need 250hrs to get your CPL, flying X of the hours on a REAL XC where you'll likley get some IMC time costs exactly the same as flying X hours in the "practice area" burning holes in the same sky you've been burning holes in.

 

[mscard88]

I'm confused,

you need 250hrs to get your CPL, flying X of the hours on a REAL XC where you'll likley get some IMC time costs exactly the same as flying X hours in the "practice area" burning holes in the same sky you've been burning holes in.

I meant the flying expense to another part of the country to get real IMC experience.

 

[hotprops]

I don't disagree with the premise, but attaining 50 hours actual in the Northeast (outside of flying part 121) would take quite a while. I go whenever I can and I've gotten about 12 over the past 1.5 years.

Scott

well scott the northeast is the easiest to get real no bs ifr.just find some water in the summer you will find a low deck that makes for interesting takeoffs and approaches to min.also in the other months you have thunderstorm's,hail, ice ,snow,what more could you ask for ! i had more than 100 hours real ifr before before i took my initial ifr ride.
and i will always remember the first time i was solo in the clag not seeing the wing tip can be eye opener without your helper.it has caused many to come to grief or change there margins.also you cant die or kill others in a sim. i was lucky that in the era i started, it was not unusual for your cfii to have logged thousands of actual before instructing . the above eye opener and just a few more made me change my go no go on weather i might need at least a wing leveler for that trip. so to summarize real clouds, bumpy rain ,other precip ,can and does scare the hell out alot of virgins and pros ,as it should. that being said, cfii s should have a lot of real imc before teaching imho. yes i am a old ,pilot,bold not so much

 

[hotprops]

some of the above posts talk to the idea of getting real imc being cost prohibitive ! whats your life and that of others worth? a parallel being a doctor spends alot to get through med school and you expect he wont kill you.how many soles does a rj carry? a dr usually only kills one at a time!

 

[James331]

I meant the flying expense to another part of the country to get real IMC experience.

But ya got to knock out 250hrs anyways, I don't get why people don't fly to other parts of the country or even out of the country, gotta pay for the hours ether way

Flying to XYZ to get 20hrs IMC time costs the exact same as burning those 20hrs flying around the home drome.

 

[mscard88]

But ya got to knock out 250hrs anyways, I don't get why people don't fly to other parts of the country or even out of the country, gotta pay for the hours ether way

.

Everyone isn't as wealthy as you James.

 

[Caramon13]

But ya got to knock out 250hrs anyways, I don't get why people don't fly to other parts of the country or even out of the country, gotta pay for the hours ether way

Flying to XYZ to get 20hrs IMC time costs the exact same as burning those 20hrs flying around the home drome.

Not always feasible. Longer distances also put you farther away from where you probably need to be to earn a living. It's easier to snag a rental car if you have 50 miles to drive and can get back in time to go to work next day. Get stranded 150 miles away and now you have to explain to your boss why you need the day off. Plus those of us that have families that we need to get back to the same day.

My CPL long distance CC was to Savannah from Sarasota. But, before doing that I also flew to North Carolina after getting my instrument rating. I personally love it, but only when I have tons of time to waste/spend.

If you're doing training for time, you don't need distance, you only need time . Like the 4+ hour trip I took in a Cessna 150 that was a total of 120 miles. Gotta love headwinds...actually no you don't .

 

[James331]

Everyone isn't as wealthy as you James.

When I was building up hours I was shotgunning hours with friends, working full time, and still found time to traverse coast to coast and cross a boarder or two, brought a tent, slept in a few FBOs, found crew cars, if you're trying to make a living out of aviation don't know how you can afford to NOT build up some real hours and make those connections.

It really didn't cost me any significant amount more, and that was as a working 20 something.

 

[Brad Z]

When I was building up hours I was shotgunning hours with friends, working full time, and still found time to traverse coast to coast and cross a boarder or two, brought a tent, slept in a few FBOs, found crew cars, if you're trying to make a living out of aviation don't know how you can afford to NOT build up some real hours and make those connections.

It really didn't cost me any significant amount more, and that was as a working 20 something.

So let's say you petitioned the FAA to require 50 hours of actual instrument time and the FAA agrees with you. So initiate and prioritize a rulemaking effort to amend §61.183(j) to require applicants for a flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating to log at least 50 hours as instrument flight time in instrument meteorological conditions. Assuming the current administration will let them enact a new regulation, the FAA has to demonstrate that the new rule is not unnecessarily burdensome. How will they make that argument? Should they use your anecdote about sleeping in tents and FBOs? They also have to prove that the cost of the rule is net positive, i.e. for all of the additional money that will be spent (such as someone from Guam traveling to Oregon to find IMC) will be exceeded by the quantified benefit to society (i.e. saving one life is worth about $9m). How many LOC accidents can you attribute to an instrument rated pilot on his or her first few hours in IMC? Probably not many.

Assuming you do all that, and the rule goes out for comment, how do you think AOPA, flight schools, etc. will respond to the rule? If the new requirement makes it harder to find a CFII, and fewer people get instrument ratings, have you really improved safety?

 

[mscard88]

As I said, it's not broke and has worked fine for many many years. Why change it.

 

[James331]

So let's say you petitioned the FAA to require 50 hours of actual instrument time and the FAA agrees with you. So initiate and prioritize a rulemaking effort to amend §61.183(j) to require applicants for a flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating to log at least 50 hours as instrument flight time in instrument meteorological conditions. Assuming the current administration will let them enact a new regulation, the FAA has to demonstrate that the new rule is not unnecessarily burdensome. How will they make that argument? Should they use your anecdote about sleeping in tents and FBOs? They also have to prove that the cost of the rule is net positive, i.e. for all of the additional money that will be spent (such as someone from Guam traveling to Oregon to find IMC) will be exceeded by the quantified benefit to society (i.e. saving one life is worth about $9m). How many LOC accidents can you attribute to an instrument rated pilot on his or her first few hours in IMC? Probably not many.

Assuming you do all that, and the rule goes out for comment, how do you think AOPA, flight schools, etc. will respond to the rule? If the new requirement makes it harder to find a CFII, and fewer people get instrument ratings, have you really improved safety?

Oh, F' the FAA

My thoughts are towards a private sector free market fix , demand your CFI has, say 20hrs, IMC, let the market handle the rest.

Schools will start to require XX IMC time for their CFIIs

CPLs hoping to become CFIIs will seek IMC time based on the above

Problem solved.

 

[Brad Z]

Oh, F' the FAA

My thoughts are towards a private sector free market fix , demand your CFI has, say 20hrs, IMC, let the market handle the rest.

Schools will start to require XX IMC time for their CFIIs

CPLs hoping to become CFIIs will seek IMC time based on the above

Problem solved.

That's not what you suggested in your original post:

I'm not one for more regulation, but is it just me or should a CFII have to have 50 or so IMC to be able to teach it, I mean we have CFIIs who are scared of clouds teaching the next group of pilots how to fly IFR, seems like one of those self licking icecream cones.

Reads like you suggested a new requirement...or have you changed your tune?

 

[SbestCFII]

I'm not one for more regulation, but is it just me or should a CFII have to have 50 or so IMC to be able to teach it, I mean we have CFIIs who are scared of clouds teaching the next group of pilots how to fly IFR, seems like one of those self licking icecream cones.

A lot of CFIIs aren't current or experienced in flying actual and overwhelmingly focus on primary instruction. Since they don't fly it or teach it often, they are naturally apprehensive. You may know how to swim, but if you're not a good swimmer, best avoid the ocean.

 

[SbestCFII]

You would think there would be some, but you can train, get your rating and even become a CFII without any actual. I like instrument flying personally, and enjoy teaching it in actual. I've had students leave my program with more actual IMC that some CFIIs I know.

 

[Clip4]

In today's training world of glass cockpits and autopilots, why burn all that gas for data entry?

 

[denverpilot]

In today's training world of glass cockpits and autopilots, why burn all that gas for data entry?

???

In every TAA aircraft I've flown there's significant time spent messing with the glass on the ground, especially if there's no wifi transfer system to move flight plan from portable device to panel. Not to mention additional checks to be done during pre-flight and taxi/runup. Stuff you probably shouldn't do while rolling to the runup area or runway.

I can definitely have a steam panel up and cranking referencing an iPad for the frequencies and departure procedure WAY faster than I can have a glass aircraft properly configured and off the ground.

Some of that is familiarity and flow, but there's flat out more "stuff" to do for an IMC departure in a glass aircraft. The glass may make it easier once aloft (or not, depends), but it's not faster on the ground in my experience. The more gadgets, the more stuff to configure in a proper checklisted list and flow.

Heck if nothing else, many of them have additional backup battery checks that in the gyro only cockpit is "did it erect?" and "is it indicating normally during taxi?" and "vacuum in the green?" stuff that can be done without significant distraction while moving.

You get faster at it with experience, but there's "more" no matter how you slice it. Cranking a steam panel for a quick turn is four frequencies (two of which, maybe three are already there from the landing -- tower, ground, ATIS), two OBS, tweak the DG, and make sure the altimeter is in spec. Brief the departure, get a clearance, and you're outta there.

Glass, there is a need to set up at least a significant number of the waypoints on the departure and/or find the departure and activate it, fiddle with whatever backup systems it has, it probably has an autopilot so testing the thing properly works and disconnects, flip screens around so the taxi diagram is up, then the departure, make sure it's in the right mode(s) yadda yadda yadda.

More toys, more stuff to do.