Kudos to the FAA

[MauleSkinner]

He wouldn't. When planning the flight, the expectation would be that he could return to VMC at a navigation point near the destination and complete the trip under VFR. Going elsewhere is a contingency, just like we all have alternates on any flight in case a weather forecast is bogus or we're otherwise unable to reach the intended destination.

I can think of a few reasons enroute IFR would be useful, but none of them would be a CFIT preventative. I can’t remember a VFR trip I’ve done where weather enroute was crappy enough to be a CFIT risk, but departure and destination were good enough to fly VFR.

Given the number of CFIT accidents involving instrument-rated pilots, and the number of times it’s been suggested to me that I fly in icing and/or embedded thunderstorms with ill-equipped airplanes, the >0 likelihood of saving a life would have a >0 likelihood of being offset by increases in IMC LOC accidents.

 

[Sundancer]

In your time as a pilot, how many interactions have you had directly with the FAA?

I usually file IFR now, and I was formerly based in the DC FRZ, so I guess ATC interactions are almost every flight? Probably the same with the NOTAM "system". ATC gets an "A". NOATMS get a "F". I've heard some guys have never had a ramp check - those were not uncommon in the DC area. I had just two in 14 years, pointless but not overbearing - "C".

Two of three FRZ GA airports I used insisted on retaining my PII, including SSN, in unlocked and freely accessible file cabinets. Kudos to CGS who secured that data. Each insisted the FAA required them to retain it. Getting a "pin" number for the FRZ back then required a drive to DCA to a DHS/TSA office in the airport; they were just as cavalier about my docs, and they sat in a waiting room "in box" for a couple hours. Next step was a drive to BWI and an exchange with an FAA employee. Pleasant enough guy, but the FAA and DHS were not on the same page and I got to rinse and repeat the round trip again. "D".

Oklahoma City - FAA medical: next place to search for Jimmy Hoffa's remains. They can lose anything. Twice. Weirdly, phone interactions were amicable. The sleep apnea nonsense probably helped drive the stampede to BasicMed, so I guess that was a positive unintended outcome? "D".

I got to witness the intercept of the twin carry a governor to DC - I think he was from KY? Two F-16s following him down Georgia avenue in suburban MD; seems the aircraft's transponder had failed. The pilot and ATC had worked it out, but the FAA "forgot" to notify the other agencies involved. "D". ("F" if they'd shot hm down, of course.)

 

[Doc Holliday]

I usually file IFR now, and I was formerly based in the DC FRZ, so I guess ATC interactions are almost every flight? Probably the same with the NOTAM "system". ATC gets an "A". NOATMS get a "F". I've heard some guys have never had a ramp check - those were not uncommon in the DC area. I had just two in 14 years, pointless but not overbearing - "C".

Two of three FRZ GA airports I used insisted on retaining my PII, including SSN, in unlocked and freely accessible file cabinets. Kudos to CGS who secured that data. Each insisted the FAA required them to retain it. Getting a "pin" number for the FRZ back then required a drive to DCA to a DHS/TSA office in the airport; they were just as cavalier about my docs, and they sat in a waiting room "in box" for a couple hours. Next step was a drive to BWI and an exchange with an FAA employee. Pleasant enough guy, but the FAA and DHS were not on the same page and I got to rinse and repeat the round trip again. "D".

Oklahoma City - FAA medical: next place to search for Jimmy Hoffa's remains. They can lose anything. Twice. Weirdly, phone interactions were amicable. The sleep apnea nonsense probably helped drive the stampede to BasicMed, so I guess that was a positive unintended outcome? "D".

I got to witness the intercept of the twin carry a governor to DC - I think he was from KY? Two F-16s following him down Georgia avenue in suburban MD; seems the aircraft's transponder had failed. The pilot and ATC had worked it out, but the FAA "forgot" to notify the other agencies involved. "D". ("F" if they'd shot hm down, of course.)

So other than the rambling nonsense with ATC and something you “witnessed”, you have only interacted with the FAA once during a medical review?

 

[schmookeeg]

Enroute-only IFR rating sounds hideous. It's a rating that lets you fly up into a cloud without giving you the tools to land from within that cloud? So you're THAT good at forecasting IMC weather at both ends (as a VFR pilot, mind), but don't want to learn to shoot approaches? Yeah, nah.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Enroute-only IFR rating sounds hideous. It's a rating that lets you fly up into a cloud without giving you the tools to land from within that cloud? So you're THAT good at forecasting IMC weather at both ends (as a VFR pilot, mind), but don't want to learn to shoot approaches? Yeah, nah.

And realistically, what would be trained that isn’t already part of the Private Pilot curriculum?

 

[schmookeeg]

And realistically, what would be trained that isn’t already part of the Private Pilot curriculum?

If anything I could see the reverse rating/training/endorsement -- learn approaches, maybe learn the rules of ATC under IFR, but only to be used in case of emergency? "don't get into the cloud, but if you do, here are the tools you need to extricate yourself in a controlled and calm fashion, and without needing 7700 and heroics from ATC"

The "it's only 15 hours" boon is strange too, since current IR is only 15 hours dual required, and the rest can be safety pilot work

 

[X3 Skier]

Love to get a IFR rating but since I don’t want to roll the dice on a SI after bypass surgery (and probably expending megabucks in trying) and it is prohibited without Basic Med/Class III, I’m SOL. At least that’s what AOPA told me when I asked if a private pilot without Basic Med and who has an expired Class Iii could get the rating. They admitted they couldn’t really point to a specific reg prohibiting it and I’m not about to ask the FAA.

I do periodically take IFR Ground School free at a local Community College and fly once in a while with a hood and a CFI/Safety Pilot just in case.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Enroute-only IFR rating sounds hideous. It's a rating that lets you fly up into a cloud without giving you the tools to land from within that cloud? So you're THAT good at forecasting IMC weather at both ends (as a VFR pilot, mind), but don't want to learn to shoot approaches? Yeah, nah.

May want to understand why the en-route IR is "a thing" in Europe to begin with. There may be some weather/localized issues that make the supplementary IR a benefit to people flying over there.

 

[MauleSkinner]

May want to understand why the en-route IR is "a thing" in Europe to begin with. There may be some weather/localized issues that make the supplementary IR a benefit to people flying over there.

My understanding is that, often as not, those localized issues may be fairly low altitudes (say, 5000 feet, for example) above which is Class A airspace or the equivalent that requires an instrument rating.

 

[SoonerAviator]

My understanding is that, often as not, those localized issues may be fairly low altitudes (say, 5000 feet, for example) above which is Class A airspace or the equivalent that requires an instrument rating.

That's what I figured it was. Something about how their airspace is laid out that makes it a chore to navigate unless you have an instrument rating, but you only really need it to get you into the cruising altitudes but don't intend on really needing the "loss of visual cues/sole reliance on instruments" portion of the instrument training. Or some sort of weather anomaly (like the daily fog in coastal areas) that makes it difficult to transit between areas without a way to "punch through" a frequent cloud deck.

 

[Half Fast]

Or some sort of weather anomaly (like the daily fog in coastal areas) that makes it difficult to transit between areas without a way to "punch through" a frequent cloud deck.

Not an uncommon situation here in Florida. Frequently have low ceilings that keep VFR flights below 3000', often 2000'. VFR is doable, but it would be nice to punch through and get above the deck.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Not an uncommon situation here in Florida. Frequently have low ceilings that keep VFR flights below 3000', often 2000'. VFR is doable, but it would be nice to punch through and get above the deck.

Why not just get the instrument rating?

 

[guest user]

Why not just get the instrument rating?

What would the IR bring in this situation that the Enroute IR wouldnt?

 

[nauga]

What would the IR bring in this situation that the Enroute IR wouldnt?

The ability to obtain it today.

Nauga,
currently

 

[Salty]

What would the IR bring in this situation that the Enroute IR wouldnt?

The ability to land safely if the weather is worse than the forecast.

 

[Doc Holliday]

What would the IR bring in this situation that the Enroute IR wouldnt?

The US doesn't have an EnRoute IFR rating, and no plans to implement one. So if the person wants the ability to go IFR to "pop up and down" through layers, then the only solution is the Instrument rating.

 

[guest user]

The US doesn't have an EnRoute IFR rating, and no plans to implement one. So if the person wants the ability to go IFR to "pop up and down" through layers, then the only solution is the Instrument rating.

Seriously?

Well, um, thanks?

EDIT:

In case you ARE being serious, the current discussion is about the potential benefits that bringing in an Enroute IR type endorsement to the certificates would bring. Nobody has yet suggested that such an endorsement exists for the US.

 

[guest user]

The ability to land safely if the weather is worse than the forecast.

I appreciate the response, but the situation being discussed is where there is either a marine type layer or a cloud deck at say 3k' near the departure airport, but is severe clear (and predicted to stay so for the next 72hrs) at the destination.

In that situation, what would a full IR bring that an Enroute IR wouldnt?

 

[Salty]

I appreciate the response, but the situation being discussed is where there is either a marine type layer or a cloud deck at say 3k' near the departure airport, but is severe clear (and predicted to stay so for the next 72hrs) at the destination.

In that situation, what would a full IR bring that an Enroute IR wouldnt?

The ability to land safely when reality turns your situation into needing to fly an approach in order to land safely.

Marine layers and cloud decks are not 100% predictable. What happens when you find out the layer is unexpectedly down to 600 feet AGL?

Based on your question though, perhaps my answer should be that the full IR would bring you the knowledge of WHY the full IR has value?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Seriously?

Nobody has yet suggested that such an endorsement exists for the US.

Then why even discuss it? It doesn't exist, there are no proposals for it. And as previously stated, the reason Europe has it is because of the structure of their airspace.

 

[Salty]

To me, it's like getting a PPL for cruise, but you don't learn to land.

 

[SoonerAviator]

The ability to land safely when reality turns your situation into needing to fly an approach in order to land safely.

Marine layers and cloud decks are not 100% predictable. What happens when you find out the layer is unexpectedly down to 600 feet AGL?

Based on your question though, perhaps my answer should be that the full IR would bring you the knowledge of WHY the full IR has value?

I think you're fighting a battle nobody waged here . . . the discussion was about the European en-route IR and why that may/may not be a useful to the US/FAA certification system. It doesn't make the IR any more/less important, it's a discussion of if it had any potential benefits or uses here in the US.

 

[SoonerAviator]

To me, it's like getting a PPL for cruise, but you don't learn to land.

Probably a closer comparison would be the recreational/sport licenses vs the Private, or the Canadian night endorsements vs ours. It's a more nuanced approach to training in a specific area, but obviously in this case European airspace may be the major driver of the en-route IR rather than something physical like weather.

 

[Salty]

I think you're fighting a battle nobody waged here . . . the discussion was about the European en-route IR and why that may/may not be a useful to the US/FAA certification system. It doesn't make the IR any more/less important, it's a discussion of if it had any potential benefits or uses here in the US.

I don't think so. The argument given was about marine cloud layers, not about airspace.

 

[guest user]

Then why even discuss it? It doesn't exist, there are no proposals for it. And as previously stated, the reason Europe has it is because of the structure of their airspace.

I must confess to not having a ready defense for why I desire to discuss this topic. Call it a mental exercise.

Nobody claims it exists, nor do they claim there is a proposal for it. I see no argument there. So, I guess you win?

 

[guest user]

To me, it's like getting a PPL for cruise, but you don't learn to land.

Not quite the same thing, is it? Your example would have no way for that PPL to takeoff or land.

The Enroute IR would use the same skills as your basic PPL to takeoff and land.

Nobody is talking about replacing the IR, merely to put this in as a IR-lite or IR-limited kind of thing.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I don't think so. The argument given was about marine cloud layers, not about airspace.

We were discussing reasons why an en-route IR might be useful in the US, and the marine layer or similar transient/temporary weather was posed as a potential use-case. Obviously there are plenty of merits to having the full-IR, but it doesn't mean that a slightly lesser instrument rating with restrictions wouldn't also have some use. Hence the discussion.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Let's petition the FAA to create a "Multi Engine Lite" rating. This rating can be used by someone who doesn't want to maintain proficency, and never plans on having an actual engine failure.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Let's petition the FAA to create a "Multi Engine Lite" rating. This rating can be used by someone who doesn't want to maintain proficency, and never plans on having an actual engine failure.

They did, it's called centerline thrust.

 

[midwestpa24]

Let's petition the FAA to create a "Multi Engine Lite" rating. This rating can be used by someone who doesn't want to maintain proficency, and never plans on having an actual engine failure.

I have always found it ironic that most of the training for a multi-engine certificate is done flying on a single engine.

How about a special crew endorsement that would allow two single engine pilots to fly a twin?

 

[Half Fast]

Marine layers and cloud decks are not 100% predictable. What happens when you find out the layer is unexpectedly down to 600 feet AGL?

The same thing that happens when a VFR Pilot finds his destination has gone IFR, or when an IFR pilot finds weather below minimums.

The pilot goes somewhere else with more favorable conditions.

 

[schmookeeg]

I don't know enough about why Europe does this, and what shape of political boundary or airspace saw the need for it. I suppose it's an interesting idea to allow those climbs to VFR on top. Those really aren't difficult when they're done by the book, and I could see a VFR pilot managing it fine. Like a super-double-special-vfr clearance.

I just shudder a bit at what happens when things go wrong -- like we're loading ATC up by offering yet another quasi-IFR departure, at a time when they may already have high workload because there's weather in the area, and if things go wrong, they then also get to manage a VFR pilot in a cloud as a 7700. It seems very mismatched to today's ATC staffing challenges and needs. To save a few hours' training to get the full-fat IFR rating. Juice seems very not worth the squeeze here to me.

Just like the firearm thread, I think the pilot community currently deals with this in a dont-ask-dont-tell fashion. If you're a VFR pilot and a climb to VFR on top is in your skill set, I think dudes just go for it, rating be damned. Done properly, who would be any the wiser? Same with a pop-up clearance to poke through a few clounds enroute. You can learn that phraseology from the book Say Again, Please? and be quite convincing. Get cleared direct far-away-fix and maintain 8000 and you're off and running. Who would know better? until you screw the pooch.

 

[Salty]

The same thing that happens when a VFR Pilot finds his destination has gone IFR, or when an IFR pilot finds weather below minimums.

The pilot goes somewhere else with more favorable conditions.

That's a lot more likely to well if you didn't *have* to punch through a layer. What if the entire valley is covered in a marine layer that settles and you have to go 100 miles, and cross a mountain to find a VMC aiport?

I just think it makes it easier for VFR pilots to get stuck.

I also think all pilots should learn how to fly approaches, even if they don't take an IR check ride.

So, I just have a hard time justifying avoiding the extra training to shoot an approach.

 

[Sundancer]

So other than the rambling nonsense with ATC and something you “witnessed”, you have only interacted with the FAA once during a medical review?

LOL! You go auto-rude in a hurry, don't you? To help you out with reading comprehensions that was two ramp checks, and several dozen interactions with medical on two different "issues" that really weren't. My experience with lost docs, conflicting guidance, and radio silence wasn't unique.

You're correct, I wasn't in the Governors airplane - that doesn't make the cock-up less real. Like a kid putting his hand over his eyes and saying "you can't see me?" I wasn't a sleep apnea victim, either, but it did happen, didn't it?

My point we've strayed from - the FAA may be light-years more responsive then the Canadian and European authorities, granted. But that's a pretty damn low bar; Iike telling your date she doesn't sweat much for a fat girl. The FAA has done some great stuff and had some dumb stuff was pushed on them. They are also occcasionally capable of sluggish inefficiency, poor prioritization, and inconsistency. Hey, I gotta go - need to check NOTAMS. . .

 

[Doc Holliday]

LOL! You go auto-rude in a hurry, don't you?

No, just pointing out those who have the most complaints in dealing with the FAA are typically those (such as yourself) who've had minimal if any actual interaction with them.

Several on here have interacted on regular and routine basis don't share your rambling and hyped up 'experiences". As with any organization, none of them are perfect, but what we have here in the US is far and above what the rest of the world deals with.

 

[Sundancer]

No, just pointing out those who have the most complaints in dealing with the FAA are typically those (such as yourself) who've had minimal if any actual interaction with them.

Several on here have interacted on regular and routine basis don't share your rambling and hyped up 'experiences". As with any organization, none of them are perfect, but what we have here in the US is far and above what the rest of the world deals with.

Maybe the "several" having FAA contact on a regular and routine basis" have professional or working relationships with FAA folks? Ongoing interaction, as part of their work or other projects? If the great mass of us DID have to have that degree of interaction then something would be even more wrong, wouldn't it? Most of us don't have a personal relationship with a FAA contact - we slug through the "process" - processes that make sense, sometimes. Other times, not.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Maybe the "several" having FAA contact on a regular and routine basis" have professional or working relationships with FAA folks? Ongoing interaction, as part of their work or other projects? If the great mass of us DID have to have that degree of interaction then something would be even more wrong, wouldn't it? Most of us don't have a personal relationship with a FAA contact - we slug through the "process" - processes that make sense, sometimes. Other times, not.

You seem to be assuming that interaction with the FAA is necessarily a bad thing. That has more to do with your perspective on those interactions. Even those with a “personal relationship” with the FAA are subject to the “process”. One of the primary differences is that those with higher rates of interaction understand that the “process” exists and must be followed. If the expectation is that my interaction is unique and the process doesn’t or shouldn’t apply, I’m probably going to have a negative impression of the FAA, where someone else with the exact same situation who understands that the “process” still applies will have a better impression.

 

[Sundancer]

You seem to be assuming that interaction with the FAA is necessarily a bad thing. That has more to do with your perspective on those interactions. Even those with a “personal relationship” with the FAA are subject to the “process”. One of the primary differences is that those with higher rates of interaction understand that the “process” exists and must be followed. If the expectation is that my interaction is unique and the process doesn’t or shouldn’t apply, I’m probably going to have a negative impression of the FAA, where someone else with the exact same situation who understands that the “process” still applies will have a better impression.

I hear you, and can't disagree with you that adhering to the process matters. But a process is flawed if the customer must have a deep understanding of the internal machinations of the service provider.

Back in the day you might call your county gov't about a permit. And get directed to another number in Planning, call that number, then be told that sort of permit was handled by Public Works, not Planning, etc. You gotta call them. Get the forms, send them in, maybe hear back in a few weeks that you needed to supply another document, etc. Sure, if you had been through it before, you'd know the ropes. But first time? A two week task becomes two month? Some local gov'ts moved to "311" - when done right you call a central number, and the "process" you need is identified - you don't have to have their org chart burned in your memory, or their phone tree. You get the process defined to you up front - accurately. I'm not condemning the FAA as the most wretched, horrible example of bureaucratic sloth and arrogance - just not exalting them as being a shining example, either. In my subjective opinion they can be opaque and unresponsive. Not always, not universally, but continued push back and griping is warranted if it'll push some change.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I hear you, and can't disagree with you that adhering to the process matters. But a process is flawed if the customer must have a deep understanding of the internal machinations of the service provider.

Back in the day you might call your county gov't about a permit. And get directed to another number in Planning, call that number, then be told that sort of permit was handled by Public Works, not Planning, etc. You gotta call them. Get the forms, send them in, maybe hear back in a few weeks that you needed to supply another document, etc. Sure, if you had been through it before, you'd know the ropes. But first time? A two week task becomes two month? Some local gov'ts moved to "311" - when done right you call a central number, and the "process" you need is identified - you don't have to have their org chart burned in your memory, or their phone tree. You get the process defined to you up front - accurately. I'm not condemning the FAA as the most wretched, horrible example of bureaucratic sloth and arrogance - just not exalting them as being a shining example, either. In my subjective opinion they can be opaque and unresponsive. Not always, not universally, but continued push back and griping is warranted if it'll push some change.

But continued push back and griping needs to be directed to have any positive effect…saying “the FAA” sucks when what you’re really complaining about is a specific process isn’t going to change anything.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

On the IFR “lite” rating. For safety, it would be better to keep the rating requirements the same, but adjust the currency applicability.

Getting my IFR rating made me realize how quickly proficiency is lost, and how easily I’d come to grief. Most of that proficiency loss is in the loggable portion of the approach, and probably in LIFR departures. I’m recently lapsed in my currency, and would never try an approach even if allowed, but believe I’m proficient enough in IMC to maneuver in the enroute environment safely.

It could be a stipulation that if you’re not current, but within X months, you could fly in the system, but not in IMC on either end of a trip (any IFR required airports due to vis & cig would be off limits).

I haven’t thought much about this at all except the last 10 minutes reading this thread, and it’s the internet, so flame on.