Limited IFR cert

ircphoenix

ircphoenix

En-Route
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
2,531
Location
Redondo Beach, CA
Display Name
Display name:
ircphoenix
We have recreational pilots. We have sport pilots. We have private pilots.

But only one IFR cert. I want a marine layer only IFR cert because I can't afford my full ticket.

I realize trying to hash something like that out in an enforceable and quantifiable way would be very difficult, so this post is more about me complaining about the stupid marine layer than it is a serious demand for levels of IFR certification.
 
Europe has that. It's called an EIR, or Enroute Instrument Rating. It's an IFR Light cert. It's about 15-20hrs of instruction and it allows you to launch into IMC, fly in IMC, but does not allow you to do land on an instrument approach, has to be VFR or SVFR.

Not sure how useful it would be. Without the approach part it's kinda pointless, although I could see it being useful here in CA where there's often a marine layer, but otherwise fine weather most of the time.
 
ircphoenix said:
We have recreational pilots. We have sport pilots. We have private pilots.

But only one IFR cert. I want a marine layer only IFR cert because I can't afford my full ticket.

I realize trying to hash something like that out in an enforceable and quantifiable way would be very difficult, so this post is more about me complaining about the stupid marine layer than it is a serious demand for levels of IFR certification.
Click to expand...
A marine layer only certificate would require you to be trained to fly instrument approaches, so you would still have to learn the most challenging part of the IFR curriculum. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of a part of the IFR training that could be left out for the privileges you need.
 
stratobee said:
Europe has that. It's called an EIR, or Enroute Instrument Rating. It's an IFR Light cert. It's about 15-20hrs of instruction and it allows you to launch into IMC, fly in IMC, but does not allow you to do land on an instrument approach, has to be VFR or SVFR.

Not sure how useful it would be. Without the approach part it's kinda pointless, although I could see it being useful here in CA where there's often a marine layer, but otherwise fine weather most of the time.
Click to expand...
I don't see how the European EIR would help him with the marine layer, since you usually need to fly an approach to get through it.
 
Yeah. For the coastal flying I do, it's a matter of punching through, then coming back down through it. So without the approaches, it's pretty useless. Again, I have no idea how it'd be a thing that you could do. I just am annoyed by the stupid 100 feet of clouds between launching and landing with nothing in between. Stoooooooopid.

It is rather interesting that there is a limited version of that in Europe though.
 
It would be interesting to hear how the European version works out in practice, if anybody here has experience with it.
 
ircphoenix said:
Yeah. For the coastal flying I do, it's a matter of punching through, then coming back down through it. So without the approaches, it's pretty useless. Again, I have no idea how it'd be a thing that you could do. I just am annoyed by the stupid 100 feet of clouds between launching and landing with nothing in between. Stoooooooopid.

It is rather interesting that there is a limited version of that in Europe though.
Click to expand...

Can you see through that layer? Is the visibility and cloud clearances good for the airspace that you would be operating in?

I am not all that familiar with a marine layer, but the little I have seen it was too thick to see through, and too low to go under.
 
Zeldman said:
Can you see through that layer? Is the visibility and cloud clearances good for the airspace that you would be operating in?

I am not all that familiar with a marine layer, but the little I have seen it was too thick to see through, and too low to go under.
Click to expand...

No and no.

Marine layer is just low solid stratiform cloud cover. Down where I am it usually hangs out around 1200-1400 AGL. Typically burns off around noon and returns around 10-11pm. But when I fly up north, the cooler weather up there tends to see the marine layer burn off around 2-3pm and come back in around 6-7pm at about 800 AGL. So even if I were to take off from my home airfield, I couldn't even make it to TPA and be legal.
 
Private IFR in Australia has components. Enroute first and add-ons available
 
stratobee said:
Europe has that. It's called an EIR, or Enroute Instrument Rating. It's an IFR Light cert. It's about 15-20hrs of instruction and it allows you to launch into IMC, fly in IMC, but does not allow you to do land on an instrument approach, has to be VFR or SVFR.

Not sure how useful it would be. Without the approach part it's kinda pointless, although I could see it being useful here in CA where there's often a marine layer, but otherwise fine weather most of the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Launching into and flying enroute IMC but not being able to get back down and shoot an approach is putting a lot of faith in the weather forecasts. "Well, here I am in the clouds, sure hope I get back out of them soon and find a VFR airport." But it would fit perfectly for Californias "June Gloom." So perfectly that there are more than a few VFR pilots who just do it anyway. Or so I've heard.
 
Last edited:
that.

A IFR ticket is already a license to learn, no need to dumb it down, else we have folks lawn darting
 
ircphoenix said:
I want a marine layer only IFR cert because I can't afford my full ticket.
Click to expand...

What do you propose removing from the instrument rating? If you can't afford an instrument rating, how can you afford to maintain the proficiency to fly through solid IMC without killing your passengers or people on the ground?
 
I wish they had some sort of "approach certification" I'm not sure if i''m an outlier or what but in my training for IR I feel like even a student pilot could do 80% of approaches out there. Maybe some sort of GPS/ILS only approval limit for an "approach cert"

I'm annoyed at the IR rating stuff cause the 40 hours of hood time is killing me. I did 10 with instructor so all I need is 1 XC and I'm good to go. However finding people to fly this 25 hours or so is agonizingly slow. I've managed like 3 hours a week for the last month when all I want to do is fly 5 hours a day for a few days and be done with it.

Anyways if the option to be approach certified was available then that would take care of 95% of any personal flying I'd do.
 
falconkidding said:
I'm annoyed at the IR rating stuff cause the 40 hours of hood time is killing me. I did 10 with instructor so all I need is 1 XC and I'm good to go. However finding people to fly this 25 hours or so is agonizingly slow. I've managed like 3 hours a week for the last month when all I want to do is fly 5 hours a day for a few days and be done with it.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you would be a perfect candidate for one of the accelerated "finish-up" courses like PIC. Have you done the written yet?
 
Brad Z said:
What do you propose removing from the instrument rating? If you can't afford an instrument rating, how can you afford to maintain the proficiency to fly through solid IMC without killing your passengers or people on the ground?
Click to expand...

Sheesh. Didn't I say I was just complaining more than anything else? Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Brad Z said:
How about an autpilot-only instrument rating while we're at it?
Click to expand...
I thought that's what an ATP was. :D
 
ircphoenix said:
Sheesh. Didn't I say I was just complaining more than anything else? Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Click to expand...

I know, but you're not the first one to bring the idea up...and your predecessors couldn't answer the question either.
 
ircphoenix said:
Sheesh. Didn't I say I was just complaining more than anything else? Methinks thou doth protest too much.


I thought that's what an ATP was. :D
Click to expand...
I think you're joking... But if not you have absolutely no clue.
 
The absolute most dangerous part of IFR flying is the last part of an approach. Marine layer is smooth and the visibility under the deck is usually very good. But the deck can be VERY low. It's not unusual to have to pick your approach carefully 'cause the deck is at 300 AGL (it doesn't happen much around the Bay, but it sure does elsewhere).

It's never 100 feet thick unless it's going to be gone in 5 minutes. Usually at least 1000 feet; 1500 is more common. Yesterday morning, it was over 2000 at Oakland and never burned off north of the field.

Autopilots are not close to perfect. They glitch once in a while, and the instant response is to hit the red button and hand fly. Dumbing that down will kill you. There is much less margin for error than for VFR flight. Instruments fail as well, even in marine layer. BTDT. And an "automation surprise" can kill as well, particularly if it causes you to get behind the airplane on approach.

Yes, I've been stuck under a persistent marine layer. I understand. But it demands your respect. It periodically kills, and the resulting accidents are very nasty, generally involving high speed impacts with terrain.

The question is not like sport pilot. It's like asking if you can learn to fly without landing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top