Need advice on concurrent instrument and private training

[StillLearning]

I have 28 hours on a Cessna 172 and couple weeks off from completing a ground training course for the PPL knowledge test.

I live in Michigan and have been attempting to schedule training every day for the past few weeks with about 20% success. Not getting out as much as I'd like.

An instrument rating is in my plans, especially living in this sort of climate. Originally planned on doing it after the PPL.

It seems like it's frowned upon doing both instrument and standard pilot training at the same time. But at this point it seems like the best option for me to not lose time just sitting and waiting for the weather to get better?

What do you guys think? I feel like I'm getting plenty of time indoors to be able to study the book materials. Would it be better to get started on IFR basics from a book or logging hours with an CFII?

 

[Ghery]

I'm not an instructor, so consider that, but...

In my personal experience, the private pilot was much easier than the instrument. Especially once I got to the check ride. The instrument rating builds on much of what you learn getting your PP cert, and then goes way beyond it.

I understand your frustration with weather, I live and learned to fly in the Pacific Northwe(s)t. Lots of flying time wiped out by weather. Lots of flying time wiped out by weather now that I have my IR, too. Get the PP, then go have some fun while you get ready for the IR. Remember, you need 50 hours of PIC XC time for the IR and you won't even come close to that getting your PP cert.

 

[poadeleted20]

It seems like it's frowned upon doing both instrument and standard pilot training at the same time.

Frowned on by whom? Not the FAA, which recently revised its regulations and PTS's to permit it.

But at this point it seems like the best option for me to not lose time just sitting and waiting for the weather to get better?

It might be, but it takes a lot of flying to get there -- typically 90 flight hours or so in the collegiate programs which are doing it. Note that those programs are integrated a significant amount of sim time into the program. It also takes a well-constructed integrated syllabus, and my observations tells me not many flight schools have an good integrated PP/IR syllabus.

What do you guys think? I feel like I'm getting plenty of time indoors to be able to study the book materials. Would it be better to get started on IFR basics from a book or logging hours with an CFII?

Sounds like a great idea if your training provider is prepared to do it and has both the syllabus and the equipment to make it work.

 

[poadeleted20]

Remember, you need 50 hours of PIC XC time for the IR and you won't even come close to that getting your PP cert.

Not if you're doing a combined PP/IR program. See 14 CFR 61.65(g):

(g) An applicant for a combined private pilot certificate with an instrument rating may satisfy the cross-country flight time requirements of this section by crediting:

(1) For an instrument-airplane rating or an instrument-powered-lift rating, up to 45 hours of cross-country flight time performing the duties of pilot in command with an authorized instructor; or

(2) For an instrument-helicopter rating, up to 47 hours of cross- country flight time performing the duties of pilot in command with an authorized instructor.

But as I said, that's a lot of dual XC time -- adds up to about 90 hours total time before the PP/IR combined test the way the colleges are doing it.

 

[coloradobluesky]

My advice would be to get your private. Then fly for a while and start on your instrument. Have fun! The only shortcuts I know of would be to sign up for one of those intensive two week courses for your instrument. I would stay local for your private. YMMV.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Ron has given you good advice. If your school/instructor is equipped to provide the training there is no reason not too. If it is something they have never done before I would not recommend being the first customer to try.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

If it is something they have never done before I would not recommend being the first customer to try.

I think this is the problem you are gonna run into. I'd say go for it if you can handle all that information at the same time and you have a good syllabus lined up. If this was available when I started, I would have done it.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

If this was available when I started, I would have done it.

Same here Gucci.

 

[mcmanigle]

Also not an instructor, but:

There's also nothing wrong -- if you feel like you're completely prepared for the private pilot oral and written exams and know that very well -- with reading up on the instrument stuff a bit to get a "head start" on that rating.

And if you're unable to fly because of the weather, have your CFI (doesn't have to be a CFII) take you up on an IFR flight or three, for a combination of seeing what low visibility looks like and getting a bird's eye look at how en route and approaches are done. It would also count towards your 40 required hours of instrument time when you go for the rating (only 15 of those hours need be with a CFII).

You want a good CFII to do your actual instrument training, because there are tricks to the trade, but there's no reason a good, instrument-proficient CFI can't give you an introduction to the low-visibility environment, attitude flying, etc.

The big problem you're likely to run into this time of year is that clouds might have icing hiding inside, which means even an IFR flight plan won't be able to get you into them safely. Then again, if it's well below freezing from the ground on up, that might not be a problem.


I'm also skeptical of waiting 90 hours to get your PPL just to be able to do the combined PPL/IR. It makes sense (in my opinion) for people trying to rush through to get to the airlines on an accelerated course, but IR training isn't quite as enjoyable as PPL training, and I was very glad that in the midst of my IR training I could take friends for a flight on a sunny weekend.

The one exception I could think of (though I realize this is a pretty unlikely scenario, it would be a way to go if the equipment fit) would be to get a sport pilot license in your current plane, and then do the combined PPL/IR curriculum. So you have some freedom to have fun and take passengers without the metaphorical tether to your CFI, but can still take the PPL/IR checkride if that's something you want to do.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Also just thought of this. Not sure if you are planning on a career pilot route, but if you did the private first, then the instrument rating, all the instruction time for the instrument rating(assuming you are in a plane you are rated for) could be logged as PIC, whether you are in simulated or actual instrument conditions. And those 50 hours of PIC cross country time. Doesn't seem to be the case with the combined private/instrument. May not be a lot of difference for PIC hours, but just a thought. If you are just looking at getting the ratings fast, I'd do the combined.

 

[Henning]

I have 28 hours on a Cessna 172 and couple weeks off from completing a ground training course for the PPL knowledge test.

I live in Michigan and have been attempting to schedule training every day for the past few weeks with about 20% success. Not getting out as much as I'd like.

An instrument rating is in my plans, especially living in this sort of climate. Originally planned on doing it after the PPL.

It seems like it's frowned upon doing both instrument and standard pilot training at the same time. But at this point it seems like the best option for me to not lose time just sitting and waiting for the weather to get better?

What do you guys think? I feel like I'm getting plenty of time indoors to be able to study the book materials. Would it be better to get started on IFR basics from a book or logging hours with an CFII?

Personally I have always thought it a good idea, and the FAA is also wandering down that road and looking around.

There is a down side to combining them though and that is that VFR and IFR are completely different disciplines, different activities, that both happen to take place in aircraft. Mentally, they are completely different games that you have to switch between, because when you combine them, typically you die.

If you have down time you can't fly, yeah, I would say start working on it, in the end you will have to learn all of it anyway. I wouldn't work on the flying parts of it too hard until you are really comfortable with basic control and have figured out the trim & throttle relationship of trimming for airspeed and adjusting throttle for altitude control.

There are times I wonder if it wouldn't be more effective to teach the IR first, then teach the PP.

 

[poadeleted20]

Also just thought of this. Not sure if you are planning on a career pilot route, but if you did the private first, then the instrument rating, all the instruction time for the instrument rating(assuming you are in a plane you are rated for) could be logged as PIC, whether you are in simulated or actual instrument conditions. And those 50 hours of PIC cross country time. Doesn't seem to be the case with the combined private/instrument. May not be a lot of difference for PIC hours, but just a thought. If you are just looking at getting the ratings fast, I'd do the combined.

That might make a difference in some situations, but since you now need at least 1000 hours to qualify for a Part 121 job coming out of civilian pilot training, the odds of a 45 hours of PIC time one way or another making a difference are pretty slim. Further, those 45 hours you can log towards the 50 hour XC PIC requirement with an instructor aboard don't have to be with an instructor aboard -- solo XC time counts just fine towards the 50, and a Student Pilot can certainly log solo XC time as XC PIC time.

 

[poadeleted20]

There is a down side to combining them though and that is that VFR and IFR are completely different disciplines, different activities, that both happen to take place in aircraft. Mentally, they are completely different games that you have to switch between, because when you combine them, typically you die.

I'm going to differ with Henning. It's that sort of thinking which interferes with primary flight training and creates barriers in the IR training program. Instructors can teach and the Student can apply the basic concepts of attitude flying including control and performance from the very first fam flight. Remember -- you can do attitude flying with the big blue/green AI outside the airplane just as effectively as the little gray/black (or whatever color yours is) AI inside the plane. If instructors would teach the basic concepts of attitude flying at the primary level, their students would progress to PP faster and be better prepared for IR training, not to mention being better pilots at any level.

 

[Henning]

I agree that the flying skills can be taught concurrently, flying skills are the least important part of aviation though. Thinking skills are what are most vital, and the most common point of failure. VFR into IMC is still one of the big 3 causes of accidents, and the majority of pilots who die in those accidents hold an instrument rating. The fatal error they all commit is to use instrument skills under VFR rules. This is my point, you have to switch your thinking and your operations completely from one system to the other, you can't combine them.

This is the point of distinction that needs to be made very clear when doing combined training; especially important is recognizing that the transition should be made, and how to make it.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

the odds of a 45 hours of PIC time one way or another making a difference are pretty slim.

Which is why I said...

May not be a lot of difference for PIC hours, but just a thought.

Further, those 45 hours you can log towards the 50 hour XC PIC requirement with an instructor aboard don't have to be with an instructor aboard -- solo XC time counts just fine towards the 50, and a Student Pilot can certainly log solo XC time as XC PIC time.

Very true, didn't think of that. Hope he has a lot of endorsement space in his logbook!

 

[jnmeade]

I acknowledge right up front that it depends on the student and the circumstances, but I'd like to toss out the idea that it might give useful perspective to take the student on a cross country IFR flight into a Class C or even B airport, a flight of sufficient length in time that the student can see many of the complexities that can arise but is not overwhelmed with them all at once so he can appreciate the big picture.
Necessary, of course not. Few of us learn that way. We start out straight and level under the hood, etc. But the more I fly the more I feel it is useful, if it is not too much of a luxury, to give some big picture views from time to time so that the student always has a good understanding of where his skill development is in the big scheme of things.
Having said all that, I'll say in short order that I don't see any problem with integrating IFR and PP training. I think I'd feel most comfortable if it was done by a seasoned CFII who understood the student's objectives and was able to provide the continuity of instruction that would make this most efficient. I don't think I'd feel quite as good about team teaching and changing CFIIs all the time.
But, hey! I'm the CFII who thinks it is good training to take an IFR student up for a 40-50 mile trip to another airport and do all kinds of training enroute as opposed to flying 6 ILS approaches at home and calling it a day.

 

[RyanB]

Good advice given so far. Personally I would continue and finish your PPL, and then after you get your license fly for a little while to just have fun with it, then after that start on your Instrument. This is only my advice, take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Henning]

Also just thought of this. Not sure if you are planning on a career pilot route, but if you did the private first, then the instrument rating, all the instruction time for the instrument rating(assuming you are in a plane you are rated for) could be logged as PIC, whether you are in simulated or actual instrument conditions. And those 50 hours of PIC cross country time. Doesn't seem to be the case with the combined private/instrument. May not be a lot of difference for PIC hours, but just a thought. If you are just looking at getting the ratings fast, I'd do the combined.

I'm not sure it can really be done much faster, but I think it can be done more effectively combined, which may shave off a few hours, but more importantly will yield a better result.

Primacy is one of the key issues involved. If you introduce the hood and attitude flying on hour 2 you create 2 effects, one you will help their ability to fly a stable approach, and second you introduce instrument flying at the same level of primacy as visual flying. What you are trying to set up with this is for the primal reaction to stress will not automatically fall to VFR technique because you have been flying IFR rules and technique as long as VFR. The hope is that when in IMC one reverts directly to IFR with no hesitation.

 

[MBDiagMan]

I'm no CFI or CFII either, but I will offer comment.

I expect that there are a number of young pilots that are naturals at flying. For such people, WITH THE RIGHT INSTRUCTOR and the right mindset, they can probably blow right through everything needed to come out the other side with PPL/IR in one fell swoop. For those who have the natural talent and the resources, that's great.

For others, however, I think getting the PPL, then doing some cross country flying, while putting conscious practice into the fundamentals, if nothing more than holding accurate heading and altitude will pay dividends after the 50 hours of XC time and entering into the IR training. During that 50 hours would be an excellent time to knock out the IR written. With the written out of the way, and again the right instructor, one could blow through the IR in a short amount of time at that point.

Somehow, I have a bit of concern for the average student being in a big rush to get all these ratings behind them. For some it might be the best approach in the world, but I don't think that this is a one size fits all scenario.

 

[PPC1052]

I just don't see the point of trying to combine these two ratings into one check ride. Just finish the first and move on. I don't see it saving you any time at all to try to do them combined.

I can only see doing a combined check ride in the instance where you have had your license revoked, and you are re-applying.

 

[bobmrg]

I'm going to differ with Henning. It's that sort of thinking which interferes with primary flight training and creates barriers in the IR training program. Instructors can teach and the Student can apply the basic concepts of attitude flying including control and performance from the very first fam flight. Remember -- you can do attitude flying with the big blue/green AI outside the airplane just as effectively as the little gray/black (or whatever color yours is) AI inside the plane. If instructors would teach the basic concepts of attitude flying at the primary level, their students would progress to PP faster and be better prepared for IR training, not to mention being better pilots at any level.

IIRC that was FAA policy for awhile...even had a fancy name. E.g., do a maneuver by outside reference, then do it again by instrument reference. Wonder why that went away.

Bob Gardner