Should Actual IMC be a requirement? (II)

Should Actual Be Required to take the IR Test?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 39.4%

  • No

    Votes: 43 60.6%
  • Total voters
    71
rachelk.tailwinds said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you are willing to travel to places with IMC just not with a CFII?
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
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.
Click to expand...

You need hood time too. Wear the hood on the way and take the hood off when doing the approach in actual. The point of the exercise is to see that flying an approach in actual is a bit different than under the hood.

Again, I don't think it is a realistic mandatory requirement, but it is something that most good instructors try to do for their students.
 
Kritchlow said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that may be a little extreme. What helps is experiencing the initial transition to IMC on takeoff in LIFR and breaking out when vis is low and you are trying to fly the approach on instruments while looking for the runway environment. Those are two key phases that cannot be duplicated with a hood. A good sim can help though, at least for the approach transition.
 
petrolero said:
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 clogged relatively more crowded with trainees trying to get their required hours in.

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".
Click to expand...

Again, if you read all of my comments on the other thread, I am not really in favor of making it mandatory. I don't think it is possible to do for everyone in every situation. But I believe that most good CFIIs owe it to their students to at least try and get that experience, and I simply point out that it is a little more achievable than some seem to think.
 
There doesn't have to be an accident. Where's that audio clip of the guy screaming into the radio "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY, I'M IMC!" over and over. I bet he never had any actual in his training.
 
MotoFlier said:
So you are willing to travel to places with IMC just not with a CFII?
Click to expand...

Haha... No. It is simply not practical to force every single IFR student to have actual time. You can't wake up one day and say, "I think I'll get some actual time today." Actual instrument conditions do not come around often enough to set a required number of hours. Spend some time in a dry climate, read back over everything I've said when your testosterone dies down, then maybe you'll understand.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You need hood time too. Wear the hood on the way and take the hood off when doing the approach in actual. The point of the exercise is to see that flying an approach in actual is a bit different than under the hood.

Again, I don't think it is a realistic mandatory requirement, but it is something that most good instructors try to do for their students.
Click to expand...

Right, that's what the hood was made for. So why is that not good enough? Why is there an argument to require actual instrument conditions when that device is perfectly sufficient?
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
Right, that's what the hood was made for. So why is that not good enough? Why is there an argument to require actual instrument conditions when that device is perfectly sufficient?
Click to expand...

Honest question: have you ever flown an approach or taken off in LIFR, say 500' ceiling and less than 3 miles vis?

It is a different experience from the hood and has some associated pitfalls. It can be accomplished in the right sim, though.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
So why is that not good enough?
Click to expand...

Because you still unknowingly get visual queues from your peripheral. On top of that in actual you also get queue from your peripheral which really help to disorient you.

In short flying in actual is different than training with a hood... however it shouldn't be added to the requirements, nor should flying in real icing, or real engine fires or any other situation you train for.
 
Night with foggles in the middle of nowhere is pretty similar to flying in marine layer. If it's late enough, you can even delay the PCL until close to minimums, or go missed without turning the lights on.

Yes, the right seat can still see stuff if the cabin lights are set correctly -- as low as possible while still being useful -- even on a dark moonless night. The number of people that let iPads or 430s blind them is amazing.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. You do the flights in the morning while the air is still stable and get back well before the PM heating starts creating the instability that leads to the later afternoon convection.

Just in case - I'm not arguing for the requirement. Quite the opposite - pointing out for those unfamiliar how limited flyable actual is out there.
 
Last edited:
OkieAviator said:
In short flying in actual is different than training with a hood... however it shouldn't be added to the requirements, nor should flying in real icing, or real engine fires or any other situation you train for.
Click to expand...

Well, just like it's not reasonable to compare one's desire to add a ASES rating while never landing on water with actual weather the instrument rating, it's also unreasonable (even more so) to compare a completely normal procedure used by instrument pilots every single day with those emergency or high risk events.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yes, I know. You do the flights in the morning while the air is still stable and get back well before the PM heating starts creating the instability that leads to the later afternoon convection.

Just in case - I'm not arguing for the requirement. Quite the opposite - pointing out for those unfamiliar how limited flyable actual is out there.
Click to expand...

If you can find an early some day with clouds in the morning, great! I'm just saying, I've seldom seen one and I've lived here for 15 years. Those days are characterized by perfectly clear mornings, not a cloud in the sky, then around 3/4pm, the storms quickly roll in. It's the same thing every day during that time of year.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Well, just like it's not reasonable to compare one's desire to add a ASES rating while never landing on water with actual weather the instrument rating, it's also unreasonable (even more so) to compare a completely normal procedure used by instrument pilots every single day with those emergency or high risk events.
Click to expand...

It's not reasonable because it hurts your stance? :rofl:
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
Haha... No. It is simply not practical to force every single IFR student to have actual time. You can't wake up one day and say, "I think I'll get some actual time today." Actual instrument conditions do not come around often enough to set a required number of hours. Spend some time in a dry climate, read back over everything I've said when your testosterone dies down, then maybe you'll understand.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you came at me with the testosterone comment? I'm just having a discussion no chest pounding required. My argument is coming from being told by my CFII that things are way different in actual. I was messing with the GPS in one lesson when he told me to watch my heading, when I turned to the HSI I got what I could only imagine as SD. I made a comment and he said just wait till we get in actual and you see how easy that happens.
So we know from what we have been told by everyone that flying actual is quite different than simulated. Is it different enough to bring you down? There doesn't seem to be anything indicating it is.

Let me ask you this. You get your instrument rating in simulated conditions. The next trip you are planning is going to bring you into some actual conditions. Are you perfectly comfortable with the idea of heading into it? How about bringing the BF along?
 
Everskyward said:
You can get a full type rating in a jet without ever having laid eyes on one.
Click to expand...

Can you get that rating and jump in the left seat and takeoff with a load of pax? Or is that rating just permission to start training?
 
MotoFlier said:
Can you get that rating and jump in the left seat and takeoff with a load of pax?
Click to expand...
There are some conditions relating to previous jet and turbine experience but in general, yes. I could have, as PIC.
 
Ok here are the restrictions. From 61.64

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, if an airplane is not used during the practical test for a type rating for a turbojet airplane (except for preflight inspection), an applicant must accomplish the entire practical test in a Level C or higher flight simulator and the applicant must—
(1) Hold a type rating in a turbojet airplane of the same class of airplane for which the type rating is sought, and that type rating may not contain a supervised operating experience limitation;
(2) Have 1,000 hours of flight time in two different turbojet airplanes of the same class of airplane for which the type rating is sought;
(3) Have been appointed by the U.S. Armed Forces as pilot in command in a turbojet airplane of the same class of airplane for which the type rating is sought;
(4) Have 500 hours of flight time in the same type of airplane for which the type rating is sought; or
(5) Have logged at least 2,000 hours of flight time, of which 500 hours were in turbine-powered airplanes of the same class of airplane for which the type rating is sought.
Click to expand...

I met the requirements of (5) on my first jet type rating by virtue of the fact that I had over 500 hours of King Air time and over 2,000 total hours.
 
Everskyward said:
There are some conditions relating to previous jet and turbine experience but in general, yes. I could have, as PIC.
Click to expand...

Which kind of defeats your earlier point. You cannot get a full PIC type in a jet based on sim alone unless you have done at least an initial jet type before which included landings in the actual aircraft.

IOW, you can get a type in Jet X without ever flying Jet X, but you will have had to fly Jet A first.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Which kind of defeats your earlier point. You cannot get a full PIC type in a jet based on sim alone unless you have done at least an initial jet type before which included landings in the actual aircraft.

IOW, you can get a type in Jet X without ever flying Jet X, but you will have had to fly Jet A first.
Click to expand...
No, look at option 5.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Again, if you read all of my comments on the other thread, I am not really in favor of making it mandatory. I don't think it is possible to do for everyone in every situation. But I believe that most good CFIIs owe it to their students to at least try and get that experience, and I simply point out that it is a little more achievable than some seem to think.
Click to expand...

I understand.

Every CFII I know of tries to get their students some actual. And every one of them admits that getting some actual time is a good idea. But the game changes when "good idea" changes to "mandate" - that totally alters people's constraints and, thus, their motivations.

But flying 2-3 hours to get to flyable IMC is not as achievable as you think. That is a LOT of flying. If you lingered in the soup for only one hour, that'd make for a 5 to 7-hour day. 8 if you grab lunch. That's an entire day of flying and that's a lot of money to achieve a measly 1 hour of actual IMC.

In my case, I was willing to fly 45 min to an hour to get to IMC, linger and do approaches for 1 hour or so, then head home for an hour. That's 3 hours of flying, which is a lot for any lesson. But it wasn't something I was willing to do very often.
 
Last edited:
rachelk.tailwinds said:
If you can find an early some day with clouds in the morning, great! I'm just saying, I've seldom seen one and I've lived here for 15 years. Those days are characterized by perfectly clear mornings, not a cloud in the sky, then around 3/4pm, the storms quickly roll in. It's the same thing every day during that time of year.
Click to expand...
There's nothing for us to argue about. I lived in Denver for 20 years and was a CFI/CFII there. I've been up on those few days, even managed to get a whole 0.7 actual once. But most of it 0.1 or 0.3 here and there and, as I recall, only a few times did I get enough to do a loggable approach (once with an instrument student, Hallelujah!).

Here's a typical entry from my logbook on one fo those days:
Flyable clouds today and took advantage. Flew the FTG ILS 35 and then the APA ILS 35. Only the FTG ILS was countable. ITNC
​
You should see the rush to do the IFR dual cross country (to Goodland ) on those mornings, hoping to get even a taste for a minute or two given how everyone knew how quickly it would disappear.
 
EdFred said:
There doesn't have to be an accident. Where's that audio clip of the guy screaming into the radio "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY, I'M IMC!" over and over. I bet he never had any actual in his training.
Click to expand...

Is one guy screaming mayday enough data to justify enacting a requirement that would likely discourage many others from going for an instrument rating?
 
Last edited:
MotoFlier said:
Let me ask you this. You get your instrument rating in simulated conditions. The next trip you are planning is going to bring you into some actual conditions. Are you perfectly comfortable with the idea of heading into it? How about bringing the BF along?
Click to expand...

I think having actual instrument time is excellent. My argument is against the original question only. Mandating actual time is unfair for people without flexible schedules when they live in 300 days of sunshine.

My personal goal in earning an instrument rating is become a sharper pilot, be able to control the aircraft in unexpected clouds cross my path, and to lower my insurance rates. All I have for deicing equipment is pitot heat so at this point, actual time or not, I would not feel comfortable in IMC. I know plenty of guys who have their IR and are still fair weather fliers, there is no shame in that.

Back to the OP, actual time SHOULD NOT be made a requirement. It's up to the student and the instructor to determine what level they want their ultimate preparedness to be at. The aviation community (just like any other society) would find a way to self-correct if need be.



Out of curiosity, when was the last incident caused by this scenario of not having enough actual time?
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
Out of curiosity, when was the last incident caused by this scenario of not having enough actual time?
Click to expand...

If I'm remembering correctly from the other thread it was actually found that the most accidents were Experienced IFR pilots. Figure that one out LOL
 
Looks like the poll results have reversed from the previous thread. We don't know if it's the same people voting, but probably enough to suggest that the debate made some difference. Interesting. Somewhat surprising even.
 
MotoFlier said:
If I'm remembering correctly from the other thread it was actually found that the most accidents were Experienced IFR pilots. Figure that one out LOL
Click to expand...
I think it figures even without statistics. The real problem with the pro-regulation view is not only that it is a "solution searching for a problem" but an underlying lack of trust - the assumption that the instrument-rated pilot who has never encountered actual during training somehow thinks he is totally prepared to jump into actual and fly an approach to minimums. And everyone needs to be momied by the government as a result.

Sure, there are idiots out there. But I suspect by far most folks are a wee bit more cautions than that, and I would expect the data to show most accidents by instrument rated pilots on an IFR flight plan to involve pilots who have prior experience with instrument conditions, with the more "experienced" having lower personal minimums and accepting higher levels of risk and people do in other endeavors, both in aviation and out.
 
There has been quite a reversal between the first poll and the second. The first poll showed that about 60% were in favor of the requirement and the second poll shows about 35% in favor.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
No!! I live in Colorado and we get very, very few IFR days. If/when there are clouds, they're at 14,000' MSL. Me and my little Cessna simply aren't equipped for that altitude.

If there are lower clouds, there is a good chance they won't last for long. I think it would take over a year for a Colorado-based pilot to be able to predict and coordinate CFII time to get even 5 hours in actual conditions.
Click to expand...

midlifeflyer said:
It can usually be done once a year over about 3 weeks that appear in the May-July timeframe. But you have to catch it just right to get more than a tenth or two. A lot of Front Range CFIIs look forward to it and try to schedule the dual cross country then. But even on the days it's there, it doesn't last long since "the skies are not cloudy all day."
Click to expand...

There is also a DPE in the area who keeps a list of IFR candidates who passed with them, who will call down the list on a "good IFR day" if he has nothing else to do, and will offer instruction or a trip somewhere in the candidate's airplane of choice... he knows it's hard to get actual around here and considers it a service to the area pilot community.

He will also fly with folks to places further away if they want to go purposefully find some actual.

Usually don't have to go too far... Kansas, Nebraska, and at times New Mexico and Texas... all get widespread "flyable" IMC when we're bone-dry here... and we do have these things called "airplanes" that can go to these places... heh...
 
denverpilot said:
There is also a DPE in the area who keeps a list of IFR candidates who passed with them, who will call down the list on a "good IFR day" if he has nothing else to do, and will offer instruction or a trip somewhere in the candidate's airplane of choice... he knows it's hard to get actual around here and considers it a service to the area pilot community.

He will also fly with folks to places further away if they want to go purposefully find some actual.

Usually don't have to go too far... Kansas, Nebraska, and at times New Mexico and Texas... all get widespread "flyable" IMC when we're bone-dry here... and we do have these things called "airplanes" that can go to these places... heh...
Click to expand...

Didn't know that when training you can never go further from your home airport than the distances required for certification in part 61? "Oh, I need to go not less than 100 miles, here's an airport that's 101 away!"

Just keep on scraping by!

:rofl:
 
EdFred said:
Didn't know that when training you can never go further from your home airport than the distances required for certification in part 61? "Oh, I need to go not less than 100 miles, here's an airport that's 101 away!"

Just keep on scraping by!

:rofl:
Click to expand...

I think we all agree that training in actual is beneficial, but I'm still concerned that making it a requirement would kill more people that it would save, by reducing the number of pilots who get training for the instrument rating.
 
EdFred said:
Didn't know that when training you can never go further from your home airport than the distances required for certification in part 61? "Oh, I need to go not less than 100 miles, here's an airport that's 101 away!"

Just keep on scraping by!

:rofl:
Click to expand...

That's what a lot of folks do, yes.

Might as well go somewhere while you're sitting in an airplane for hours, eh? :)
 
petrolero said:
Every CFII I know of tries to get their students some actual. And every one of them admits that getting some actual time is a good idea.
Click to expand...
I don't know where these guys were when I got my instrument training. I had 10 CFII's and not a one even suggested going into actual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top