Ok, say it was an unwritten rule to go into IMC before the checkride. Basically you're CFII says "I take all my students into the clouds and do some maneuvers and unusual attitude recoverys before the checkride." Would anyone have a problem with it and look for another CFII? You need 40hrs of Instruments and 50hrs cross country pic and you do a XC in instrument training so there is a good chance a XC to an area with IMC would not cause a person any additional costs.
Should Actual IMC be a requirement? (II)
- Thread starter Captain
- Start date
petrolero
Pattern Altitude
Same answer as the previous thread. Although getting some actual IMC time is a good idea and should be sought by IR students, that is FAR different than writing it into the regs. And there are *many* other things that are good ideas and arguments could be made for writing any of them into the regs. Weak arguments.
Colorado isn't.
I can't imagine why one would. I don't think there was anyone - not even one person - in either this thread or the other who even remotely suggested that one should intentionally avoid flight in actual during instrument training.
Sounds like you are unaware of what a large country this is and how many climate zones it contains.
Looking at your other post, you really think the instrument rating is only about flying in the clouds? Interesting view.
I wouldn't avoid an instructor over that, since safe IMC is easy to find here. As for what it adds to the cost, a lot depends on the location, and the farther you have to go to find safe instrument flight conditions, the more complicated the logistics and possible weather issues become.
I'm also still waiting for someone to present data on the number of accidents this issue is supposedly causing.
petrolero
Pattern Altitude
This is how unintended consequences happen. If you made this a requirement then it would become "that hard". You'd have an influx of instrument students on IFR flight plans on the very days when spacing and traffic become critical - IMC days. The approaches would become
You'd also create a perverse incentive for pilots to "push it" on excessively low or cold IMC days - or even people doing more single engine night IFR.
And you'd put the likes of PIC out of business (or at least you'd make their 10-day target moot). No way you can guarantee flyable IFR in the 10 days they try to get the IR done.
And besides all this, there's no proof that requiring IMC, as opposed to getting it on your own as conditions become available, improves safety. The argument is not "IMC vs no IMC" it's "IMC required during training vs IMC at pilot's discretion".
Last edited:
petrolero
Pattern Altitude
Ditto UT, MT, WY, ID, ND, SD, KS, NM, West TX, etc.
You are making the mistake of asking those with a belief to show evidence to support it. Doesn't happen.
Perhaps, but it makes ME feel better! :wink2:
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Seaplane ratings shouldn't actually involve landing or taking off from water either. I mean, what are the people in UT, NV, CO, WY, etc supposed to do? You know how hard it is to find seaplane bases to do training there? We can just simulate landing and taking off from water, and not do any ACTUAL. Same thing, right? Simulated water TO/landings are just as good as actual.
Good enough for instrument rating, good enough for seaplane rating.
Good enough for instrument rating, good enough for seaplane rating.
Last edited:
Waitaminit! Shouldn't those be the requirements (except maybe the cold part)? After all, I did the rest of those during MY instrument training!
Do you really think the accident rate of new seaplane pilots with no water landing experience would be comparable to the current accident rate of new instrument pilots with no actual instrument flight conditions experience?
And how do you simulate water landings?
Are you suggesting that our country is so large that a person would not be able to find IMC in the 40 required hours? Until you pass that mark no extra cost are incurred, some may even find it beneficial the 50 cross country hrs would run concurrent because you still log PIC this could actually SAVE money.
Yes I do believe IFR is only about flying in clouds to get in and out of airports as well as inroute. I'm a fairly new low time pilot so if there is something I'm ignorant to please let me know.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Yes. I honestly think the seaplane rating could be an endorsement.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
The only thing the IR is good for if you are never, ever going to fly IMC is class A, SFRA and getting into ORD - because C90 won't talk to you otherwise. If you're filed, they are stuck with you.
If you say so.
That doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether actual water operations should be required.
Last edited:
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Can you simulate water landings and taxiing?
The issue is not merely finding actual instrument flight conditions. One must find instrument flight conditions that are safe to fly in. One must avoid icing, excessive wind, excessive turbulence, thunderstorms, mountain wave, widespread below-minimums weather, etc., etc. The farther you have to go, the greater the chance of encountering unsafe conditions either along the way, or at the destination. And there is also the very real possibility that the IMC you are chasing may evaporate before you get there. I can't count the number of times I have taken off looking to renew my instrument currency in IMC in the Monterey Bay area, for example, only to have the weather improve enough to defeat my plans, and that's only 50 miles away.
Furthermore, the farther you go, the greater the chances that you will have to pay for overnight accommodations for yourself and your instructor, and there's no guarantee that the weather will be safe to fly home in the next day. Meanwhile, you're having to pay your instructor not only for your lesson time, but also enough to compensate for his or her lost revenue from not being able to schedule lessons with other students while away from home.
It's just not as simple as some are making it out to be.
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
Meh - I live in Colorado. Plenty of IMC (look up right now).
The problem is that there's an awful lot of ice in those clouds. The other problem is that the MEA is insane throughout a lot of areas here.
No need for IMC to get your cert. Just get some foggles.
It's not a serious proposal.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
If not required for instrument, why should it be required for Seaplane? If faking it is good enough for the IR, faking it should be good enough for ASES/AMES, right? Especially since it's harder to find seaplane bases than it is IMC.
There are so many, many things one learns in instrument training. Systems knowledge, aircraft control, operation within a system in which your actions have the capacity to affect others in a way VFR flight doesn't, the ability to deal with busy airspace without worrying about Class B clearances. Read the threads in this section of the forum and others and see ho many questions deal with the multitude of IFR issues and how few deal with flight in the clouds. Indeed, if we did a poll on what percentage of instrument flight takes place in the clouds, you might be surprised how small it is.
The rating provides to much benefit that that some insurance policies will give premium discounts for the rating, whether one ever uses it or not and even if it is not kept current. I've know flying clubs and FBOS that will only rent certain complex aircraft to instrument rated pilots, even if all they do is fly VFR, precisely because they have learned more about flight and flying.
When/if you move to the rating you'll find that only 20% or less (and I'm being conservative) is about flying (with or without clouds). The rest is systems, procedures, enhanced weather knowledge, decision making in more difficult go-no-go situations than VFR pilots have and a whole lot of other things that make one a better and safer pilot.
You may be perfectly fine with providing a disincentive to pilots who want to pursue the rating for the benefits it provides, even in severe clear climates. But I think it is a disservice to do that.
Last edited:
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
If flyable IMC was readily available I'd say you should look for a CFII that does take students into IMC but there are plenty of areas where that just won't work. Many (perhaps even most) pilots wouldn't consider flying a trainer in the mountains in IMC and there are portions of the SW that just don't get IMC often enough to make this practical.
And what does the 50 hr PIC / xc requirement have to do with anything? I spent most of those 50 hours trying to avoid IMC, not fly in it.
I started training for IFR before I had the 50pic x/c requirement met as do many students. Therefore if you had to take a 5hr x/c to get IMC you would end up with 10hrs PIC X/c and 10hrs instrument. Zero extra expenses incurred.
Wow sounds like an invaluable learning experience!!! Where do I sign up and who do I give the cash too!!
How would you simulate taking off, landing, and taxiing on water?
If training using a hood is "faking it," what is the accident rate for new instrument-rated pilots who got no actual during training?
I agree and these are the main reasons I started training IFR right away.
You can hire a CFII to do that right now. There's no need to force everyone else to engage in an expensive, lengthy, and unnecessary quest for instrument flight conditions.
Hold on, I never said anything about making it a requirement or forcing anyone to do it.
How is it expensive and lengthy? 40hrs is 40hrs
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
If the only flying you're doing is training then that might work although I suspect an IFR student might be a bit frazzled by the end of that trip. Worse yet, given the significant unpredictability of the weather you might find mid level ceilings and good visibility at the end of your 5 hr journey. And if you live in the Rockies, there's a good chance you wouldn't be making it back home without the risk of night mountain flying or worse yet IMC among the granite in a light single.
But for many pilots, that 50 hrs is better used flying VFR trips that have a non-training purpose like visiting relatives or a vacation destination when the weather's good.
Field Morey has offered something for many years along the lines of what you suggested. To keep the costs "reasonable" he usually takes multiple students on the same trip but even then it costs quite a bit more than the same number of hours from a local training center.
40 hours does not guarantee that you can pass the checkride. You have to train to proficiency in order to pass, and for many parts of the country, the process of hunting for safe instrument flight conditions would introduce so much inefficiency into your training that it could end up taking far more than the 40-hour minimum to complete the process. You would also likely end up paying for quite a few hotel stays, and unless you found an independently wealthy instructor who was in a generous mood, you would likely end up paying for a lot of his or her time that was not spent flying or instructing.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
I've said it before and I'll say it again... Some think "actual" means bouncing in and out of a few clouds. That does very little for the learning experience. If you want to truly experience "actual IFR", you need to do an approach to ceiling zero and 1800 rvr. Obviously that is not practical.
But hey, what do I know?
But hey, what do I know?
And that is why the plan sucks hahaha. It was a really good idea up to that point though
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
It's required for any commercial ops landing at a different airport from the starting point. It's a prerequisite for CFI. It lowers insurance. It gets you into Class A. It's required for some 135 ops and all 121 ops.
I don't truly need any ratings either, but that doesn't mean others don't.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Not sure your first point is accurate, but in principal I agree with you.
In addition, some just like to fly "in the IFR system".
rachelk.tailwinds
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 345
- Display Name
Display name:
Rachel
Yes, there are more IFR days during that time of year but early summer is when we get thunderstorms out here on the plains. Not great for little trainers.
rachelk.tailwinds
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 345
- Display Name
Display name:
Rachel
That's a silly question. I certainly don't plan on staying within Colorado bounds. All I'm saying is, requiring student pilots across the board to have actual time would mean making those living in dry climates have to wait an excruciatingly long time for the conditions to be right with weather and with CFII time.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Are there any instructors that wouldn't do that?
I ran into flyable IMC days several times during my training, and it didn't stop us at all. The only difference was we had to file for real, rather than simulated, and hold for IFR release. We even did it once at night.
rachelk.tailwinds
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 345
- Display Name
Display name:
Rachel
Would be nice to be able to afford the fuel and more importantly, time, to get out there but speaking for myself as an IFR student, a full-time job and a family simply don't allow for flights like that. And what about the students in Colorado? It's a little more that 2-3 hours to get to any coast from here.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
You're right. A neighboring airport in daytime is fine. A commercial operation requires an instrument rating to go beyond 50 miles OR to fly at night. 14 CFR 61.133(b)(1).