Should actual IMC be a requirment for IFR training?

[midlifeflyer]

Curious to know the reasoning behind that belief.

Probably that CFIIs have greater leeway in what they can do without unnecessarily increasing risk or being limited by the structure of being on an IFR flight plan.

Of course, the opposit of the comment is also true. In other circumstances (to accomplish certain other tasks), actual is better than simulated.

 

[Palmpilot]

...A low-time guy who has done PP, Inst, and maybe commercial over the last year or so can have a proficeiency level as good or better than a 3,000 hour guy who has been coasting for a while...

I'm a 2500 hour guy, and I can confirm that I am nowhere near as sharp on instruments as I was the day after my instrument checkride. (2500 or 3000 hours is also not really high time, by the way.)

 

[Kritchlow]

I'm a 2500 hour guy, and I can confirm that I am nowhere near as sharp on instruments as I was the day after my instrument checkride. (2500 or 3000 hours is also not really high time, by the way.)

As I'm sure you know, but for others... It's not about total time, but rather the type of time. I know crop dusters with 20,000 hours spent crop dusting. They are some of the best crop dusters in the planet... But,, would you rely on them to do an instrument approach to minimums?

Dammit... Now I'm off topic.

 

[jordane93]

I'm a 2500 hour guy, and I can confirm that I am nowhere near as sharp on instruments as I was the day after my instrument checkride. (2500 or 3000 hours is also not really high time, by the way.)

I recently did my IPC a few months ago and now do a lot of single pilot IFR Part 91 flights. I'm just as, if not more comfortable flying instruments as when I passed my instrument ride. Some people take a really long time to get comfortable on instruments again. I hadn't flown IFR in about a year and when I got back into it I was super comfortable.

 

[Palmpilot]

I recently did my IPC a few months ago and now do a lot of single pilot IFR Part 91 flights. I'm just as, if not more comfortable flying instruments as when I passed my instrument ride. Some people take a really long time to get comfortable on instruments again. I hadn't flown IFR in about a year and when I got back into it I was super comfortable.

I'm not holding myself up as typical - just confirming Sundancer's point that hours don't tell the whole story.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Basically simulation. I have done five type ratings in simulators. Approaches were set at ceiling zero, with whatever appropriate RVR for the occasion. You can't do that on actual (usually),and you can't do that with a hood. A simulator can do that plus do it single engine.

Now, I realize we are talking about a hood/foggles and not a 25 million dollar simulator.
That said, what do you do when you train with 2,000 foot ceilings? Wait until he breaks out then hand him the foggles??

You're also talking about a situation in which I probably wouldn't even be flying, but your point is valid.

To me, foggles work well but there's still peripheral vision. I kind of made my own foggles and they block out nearly everything, but move your head to look at the compass or look over to change the squawk code or whatever, and you see green with peripheral vision even if unintentionally.

I have tried to take the IFR training as seriously as possible because the consequences for not doing so(and cheating) could be severe. That said, I have flown 5 laps around a hold with foggles, and 5 laps around a hold on complete IMC and for me, I know which one was a little bit scary. It's hard to get a little scared when you're foggled with a safety pilot because you know there's pretty much no way you can crash from spatial disorientation nor are you going to CFIT or hit an obstacle in the soup.

Henning has a good point. If you concentrate, you can ignore everything outside. I've flown an approach with no foggles or hood in VFR conditions and I was so focused on the panel that I didn't see anything outside. But that isn't so easy to do all the time.

I can't comment on high ceilings. I know that foggled approaches should be shot to minimums and that's how I practice them but the lowest ceiling I have dealt with is 700' on a GPS approach. I was probably in soup for 15 minutes prior to breaking out and it was a very cool thing.. Albeit much different than if I would have done the same approach with a hood or foggles.

 

[Jaybird180]

I was referring specifically to the typical IR checkride, with a wet-behind-the-ears recent PPL IR student, not a review checkride for an expired CFI. I certainly agree that in a flight review, esp. when taken in the applicant's own aircraft, the DPE is less likely to be more experienced or qualified in emergencies.
For comparison, when I took my RW add-on checkride a few years ago, my DPE specifically addressed the PIC issue in case of a real emergency, and said to let him have the controls if he requests them, but he would try his best to hold off until absolutely necessary.

And this is a case in point that steers me clear of being a CFI or above.

I think it's irresponsible and disrespectful of the PIC authority for anyone other than the PIC to initiate a change of control discussion (on the ground). That goes with the territory of being IN COMMAND. If the commander is immature, then there's a sign that perhaps he needs a nudge in the direction to consider things like that and THEN have the discussion, but let him LEAD the discussion.

When you're not in command, there is a tacit agreement that you accept the inherent risks associated and if in command you accept the responsibility that accompanies. It's a give and take arrangement. Humility is required which may be in short supply in the pilot community .

If we're in my airplane and the DPE says to me that I shall yield control to him (in such and such conditions), then I'll probably find another DPE. If we're in flight and you ask for the controls, I'll consider it a request and respond appropriately, given the circumstances.

IN AN EMERGENCY, the appropriate thing to do is to exercise CRM. Again, with the PIC leading from the front. If the PIC fails to perform his duty, the person in the right seat may call for relieving him of that duty in effort to save both lives.

That's the proper protocol and it eliminates confusion.

 

[Henning]

Jaybird, one of the big issues involved is liability, especially for the DPE. Tort law does not follow the same rules as administrative law, and there s a jury involved as a wildcard. While the FAA respects their rules of establishing command with regards to administrative law, that does not shield one from professional responsibility and liability in civil court. A DPE or CFI will still be assigned the majority liability in the event of an accident for two reasons, they are the professional and are being paid, and they have higher levels of ratings and experience and are held to a higher standard.

At least the USCG has their rules lined up with what civil court will do, although sometimes it can cause a problem. As far as the USCG is concerned, who ever has the biggest license on the boat that isn't a paying passenger, is the person they are calling to the carpet first regardless who the company is listing as captain. In the event of equal license grade, default goes to the earliest issue date. I've never heard of them using it stupidly, and I got called to the carpet on a small ferry accident that I was a non rev pax on and in the wheelhouse where they indeed called me in first because I had the biggest ticket onboard. However it was all a non issue since the accident was the other boat being an idiot and the person driving the ferry did everything right, just wasn't enough room to miss.

The risks are manageable and Fed's aren't out to get anyone. As far as polite and bruised egos, this is aviation, there is little room for egos.

 

[Jaybird180]

Jaybird, one of the big issues involved is liability, especially for the DPE. Tort law does not follow the same rules as administrative law, and there s a jury involved as a wildcard. While the FAA respects their rules of establishing command with regards to administrative law, that does not shield one from professional responsibility and liability in civil court. A DPE or CFI will still be assigned the majority liability in the event of an accident for two reasons, they are the professional and are being paid, and they have higher levels of ratings and experience and are held to a higher standard.

At least the USCG has their rules lined up with what civil court will do, although sometimes it can cause a problem. As far as the USCG is concerned, who ever has the biggest license on the boat that isn't a paying passenger, is the person they are calling to the carpet first regardless who the company is listing as captain. In the event of equal license grade, default goes to the earliest issue date. I've never heard of them using it stupidly, and I got called to the carpet on a small ferry accident that I was a non rev pax on and in the wheelhouse where they indeed called me in first because I had the biggest ticket onboard. However it was all a non issue since the accident was the other boat being an idiot and the person driving the ferry did everything right, just wasn't enough room to miss.

The risks are manageable and Fed's aren't out to get anyone. As far as polite and bruised egos, this is aviation, there is little room for egos.

Of course, if the DPE sits there like a bump on a log and says, "well, it was HIS airplane and I let him crash it because he didn't ask for my help" then he's an idiot to boot. Part of being a Pilot (even as a student) is the exercise of good judgment. Nuff said on that.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I agree with Jaybird on this...

First, the applicant is fully qualified to operate the airplane in normal, abnormal, and emergency situations, aside from in the clouds or on an instrument flight plan....a DPE making the statement that he may take control of the airplane in an emergency is an assumption of applicant incompetence.

Second, having the more experienced pilot keeping an eye on the big picture rather than expending brain cells on basic aircraft control is probably a better answer from a CRM standpoint as well...that's one of the basic conclusions noted in the 1979 NASA study that is largely the basis for CRM as we know it today.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

To address the original question, I'd like to vote yes because simulated instrument really isn't the same as the real thing - easier in some ways, harder in others. But as others have noted, that's not practical in a lot of places. Some parts of the country don't get much IFR. Other places, such as when I am, have icing conditions a good portion of the year and thunderstorms the rest.

I will take students into the clouds whenever it's safe to do so and I think any CFII who doesn't is doing their students a disservice. However, it's simply not a safe option for a good chunk of the year around here. I was up the other day doing a XC with a student. We were going out of our way to stay out of the clouds since conditions were perfect for ice. Out of curiosity I grabbed a block altitude and had my student drop down into the clouds knowing that we had an easy out of climbing back up. Within seconds of entering the clouds the wings were picking up ice, so we were out of there with about 0.003 actual. Hopefully that 0.003 taught a good lesson about how fast ice can build up and ruin your day but it wouldn't go anywhere towards a requirement for flight in actual IMC.

So if you're mandating actual IMC for the rating, do you want to rule out IFR training for a significant part of the year up here or do you want people to risk flying into unsafe conditions?

 

[Captain]

Maybe we should also require ATP check rides be given in a turbine aircraft over 20K lbs. those Seminoles are basically sims for transport category aircraft come to think of it.

 

[Bob Noel]

correct. Simulated isn't real.

but where is the evidence that newly minted instrument rated pilots without any actual IMC have accidents at a higher rate than pilots with actual IMC hours?

 

[Captain]

correct. Simulated isn't real.

but where is the evidence that newly minted instrument rated pilots without any actual IMC have accidents at a higher rate than pilots with actual IMC hours?

That's the $8,000 question I'm waiting to hear an answer for. If that's not the issue then it's just 'well, I flew actual so everyone else should too'.

And that boils down to telling students in Arizona / New Mexico FYIGM

 

[MauleSkinner]

Maybe we should also require ATP check rides be given in a turbine aircraft over 20K lbs. those Seminoles are basically sims for transport category aircraft come to think of it.

Why lower the checkride weight from the 40,000-lb requirement for simulator training prior to taking the written?

For that matter, all the ops I've done that require an ATP, have been in less-than-30,000 lb airplane's. Maybe they should eliminate the requirement to have an ATP for operations under 40,000 lbs.

 

[Kritchlow]

Maybe we should also require ATP check rides be given in a turbine aircraft over 20K lbs. those Seminoles are basically sims for transport category aircraft come to think of it.

As you know, they pretty much do seeing as though PIC time in such airplanes require a type rating. In not sure of the exact differences in rides, but essentially it's the same ride with same standards.

 

[MauleSkinner]

As you know, they pretty much do seeing as though PIC time in such airplanes require a type rating. In not sure of the exact differences in rides, but essentially it's the same ride with same standards.

The exact difference in the ride is you can't do group orals for ATP applicants. The next difference is the paperwork at the end.

 

[Fearless Tower]

It might be a big problem for some people out west.

Yes and no. I never had a problem finding actual to stay current when I was living in the southwest. Actually found it easier there than in New England where you had to worry about ice much of the year.

I think the biggest challenge would be for the schools trying to do the IR rating in a set period of time regardless of location. You might show up for a 5 or 10 day IR course that you scheduled in advance and never have a cloud within short flying distance during that time.

 

[Jaybird180]

Wouldn't it be easier to require a set number of IMC hours solo and set number of approach to mins solo before being able to carry pax in IMC conditions?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Wouldn't it be easier to require a set number of IMC hours solo and set number of approach to mins solo before being able to carry pax in IMC conditions?

Yup...those would be a LOT easier to pencil-whip.

 

[Bob Noel]

Wouldn't it be easier to require a set number of IMC hours solo and set number of approach to mins solo before being able to carry pax in IMC conditions?

And what would that solve?

(nevermind how one can find IMC to minimums)

 

[mcmanigle]

I think actual IMC should be required in primary training...much less IFR training.

My instructor got me into actual IMC during my private training. It was invaluable.

Agreed (at least in terms of ideal, not necessarily requirement). My private instructor did one of the dual night cross-countries with me in MVFR, with an overall message of "your license technically allows you to do this, but you probably wouldn't want to. Take some night flights and low-vis flights with somebody who knows the drill before you try to do it yourself. And don't trust the weather to be as forecast." He also went through the approach plates with me in pre-flight planning, as an "we're only taking this flight because if the weather is a hair less than forecast, we can fall back on these" moment. It was a useful flight.

 

[tree96]

As someone who got their first tast of actual today, hells yea it should be required. The sensation was nothing like being under the hood.

 

[fiveoboy01]

As someone who got their first tast of actual today, hells yea it should be required. The sensation was nothing like being under the hood.

That is why I made the thread. It's clear the two aren't the same.

BUT, a good point was raised - are newly minted IFR pilots going into the soup and immediately crashing due to spatial disorientation? It doesn't seem so. Most flights into IMC resulting in accidents seem to be the result of VFR pilots whom don't have the rating.

So, from that standpoint, I don't really know what I think about requiring it. Mainly due to a weather standpoint. Here in the midwest, it's not so hard to get IMC, and in other places it might be difficult.

 

[Jaybird180]

That is why I made the thread. It's clear the two aren't the same.

BUT, a good point was raised - are newly minted IFR pilots going into the soup and immediately crashing due to spatial disorientation? It doesn't seem so. Most flights into IMC resulting in accidents seem to be the result of VFR pilots whom don't have the rating.

So, from that standpoint, I don't really know what I think about requiring it. Mainly due to a weather standpoint. Here in the midwest, it's not so hard to get IMC, and in other places it might be difficult.

You might want to look at some actual data instead of just what you were told. IFR rated pilots make up a sizable chunk of the spatial disorientation kills.

 

[Captain]

You might want to look at some actual data instead of just what you were told. IFR rated pilots make up a sizable chunk of the spatial disorientation kills.

What's germane to this thread is IFR pilots with actual at checkride vs. IFR pilots without actual at checkride. Nothing else matters really.

And I don't have that data. The feds do and I assume it's not an issue based on the simple fact that if it were there'd be a requirement for actual. Believe it or not the FAA really really does not like it when planes crash. Crashing planes make the public call congress and that makes congress start asking questions.

 

[fiveoboy01]

I'd like to see the data if it exists and also how many instrument rated pilots died as a result of actual disorientation vs. poor procedures such as flying too low or off course and hitting an obstacle/terrain.

I tend to agree with Captain. If it was an issue some sort of action would be taken by the FAA on it.

 

[Jaybird180]

I'd like to see the data if it exists and also how many instrument rated pilots died as a result of actual disorientation vs. poor procedures such as flying too low or off course and hitting an obstacle/terrain.

I tend to agree with Captain. If it was an issue some sort of action would be taken by the FAA on it.

Copy/ paste from internet:

This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have.

 

[Jaybird180]

I'd like to see the data if it exists and also how many instrument rated pilots died as a result of actual disorientation vs. poor procedures such as flying too low or off course and hitting an obstacle/terrain.

I tend to agree with Captain. If it was an issue some sort of action would be taken by the FAA on it.

Start with the Nall Report and then work from there.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Copy/ paste from internet:

This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have.

Good rebuttal

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'd like to see the data if it exists and also how many instrument rated pilots died as a result of actual disorientation vs. poor procedures such as flying too low or off course and hitting an obstacle/terrain.

I haven't seen the data massaged for this but I do recall viewing reports that indicate that VFR-into-IMC accidents are not limited to VFR-only pilots. But that dealt with IFR-rated pilots who are flying under VFR and encounter instrument weather, not IFR pilots on an IFR flight plan.

 

[midlifeflyer]

As someone who got their first tast of actual today, hells yea it should be required. The sensation was nothing like being under the hood.

Two questions:

1. How much IMC are you requiring in your special FAR? How many hours, how many approaches? How do the ceilings have to be?

2. Are you willing to pay for their travel and lodging to get to an area where they can meet your requirement? I know a good number of pilots who would be quite happy with that. Or are you just making up rules that other people have to pay for? And if so, what is your data other than, "I think it's right so others should have to pay"?

 

[jordane93]

Two questions:

1. How much IMC are you requiring in your special FAR? How many hours, how many approaches? How do the ceilings have to be?

2. Are you willing to pay for their travel and lodging to get to an area where they can meet your requirement? I know a good number of pilots who would be quite happy with that. Or are you just making up rules that other people have to pay for? And if so, what is your data other than, "I think it's right so others should have to pay"?

 

[EdFred]

Two questions:

1. How much IMC are you requiring in your special FAR? How many hours, how many approaches? How do the ceilings have to be?

2. Are you willing to pay for their travel and lodging to get to an area where they can meet your requirement? I know a good number of pilots who would be quite happy with that. Or are you just making up rules that other people have to pay for? And if so, what is your data other than, "I think it's right so others should have to pay"?

Sounds like the ACA - and that got put into law.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Two questions:

1. How much IMC are you requiring in your special FAR? How many hours, how many approaches? How do the ceilings have to be?

2. Are you willing to pay for their travel and lodging to get to an area where they can meet your requirement? I know a good number of pilots who would be quite happy with that. Or are you just making up rules that other people have to pay for? And if so, what is your data other than, "I think it's right so others should have to pay"?

Here are two good reasons why my idea can't be practically implemented. #1 could be figured out, after all there are minimums for everything else in training as well as currency... #2 on the other hand... yeah not likely.

It was the thought that counted though

 

[MauleSkinner]

Here are two good reasons why my idea can't be practically implemented. #1 could be figured out, after all there are minimums for everything else in training as well as currency... #2 on the other hand... yeah not likely.

It was the thought that counted though

I think #1 would result in an increased accidents rate for training ops...instructors and students pushing weather so everybody gets the required actual time/operations within the limited weather window available.

 

[fiveoboy01]

A definite possibility.

 

[Jaybird180]

I think #1 would result in an increased accidents rate for training ops...instructors and students pushing weather so everybody gets the required actual time/operations within the limited weather window available.

If you don't get the "required" minimum by 6-months then you get a pass. Sort of like a provisional license. You either get experience or you get time in the pilot's seat.

 

[Bob Noel]

If you don't get the "required" minimum by 6-months then you get a pass. Sort of like a provisional license. You either get experience or you get time in the pilot's seat.

In which case, no one would bother.

 

[Mike Strader]

Area weather patterns are not the issue. Being in real weather is. Real weather has distractions that a sterile environment can not replicate.