Should actual IMC be a requirment for IFR training?

Should actual IMC time be required for the IR?

  • Yes, some actual IMC should be required

    Votes: 82 60.7%

  • No, actual IMC should not be required

    Votes: 53 39.3%
  • Total voters
    135
fiveoboy01

fiveoboy01

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,321
Location
Madison, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Dirty B
The thread with the video got me thinking about that.

Should it be a requirement to have x number of hours of actual IFR flight time to obtain the instrument rating?

I've been fortunate to get a fair amount of actual IMC(probably about 5-6 hours) and it's a lot different than foggles. Going missed on purpose, and performing the hold for the MAP and all of it in IMC is certainly more taxing and challenging then doing it with foggles... I hear of stories guys getting into IMC who have trained on foggles only, and they don't fly so great.

I do understand that depending on local weather patterns, it might be pretty tough to do this and of course in the north, mostly impossible due to icing.

What's your opinion? Yes, no? How many hours?
 
It would be a good idea, but I don't know that I'd make it a requirement. It might be a big problem for some people out west.
 
You can fly by exclusive reference to instruments in other ways.

Like, at night in BFE (with foggles if it isn't dark enough).
 
I did much of my IFR training in IMC, which was good because I hate hoods.
So I got to see ice and thunderstorms and clouds of different kinds from the inside, all before being signed off. My check ride was in actual too, in fairly low conditions.
I think this type of training made me safer, but I realize that a lot of it is luck of the draw, and in some parts of the country you are stuck with severe clear for days or weeks on end. Which means it's just not practical to demand it, but I think the more IMC you can manage to get during your training, the safer you'll be when released into the wild.
 
I voted yes. My first flight the day after getting my instrument ticket was my first venture into actual. I was way behind the aircraft, and really didn't feel confident and prepared like I did after getting my private.
 
write-stuff said:
It would be a good idea, but I don't know that I'd make it a requirement. It might be a big problem for some people out west.
Click to expand...

Technically it's also a problem for many parts of the country in the wintertime, as most instrument trainers aren't FIKI-equipped.

I think it's a good thing to have some actual instrument experience, but I think it'd be more important to have the PIC time requirements be ACTING PIC rather than LOGGING PIC, and we know that's not going to happen.:no:
 
I'm not sure what the answer should be, but would like to see included in the hypothetical decision a study of 'accident rates of newly rated pilots', if such info were available.
If they are high, it might contribute to helping a bonafide problem.
If they are not high, requiring actual might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
 
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.
 
If you don't get any actual prior to the test,when you get the ticket,that first flight into actual can come as a real surprise ,especially if you go in low IFR conditions.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I'm not sure what the answer should be, but would like to see included in the hypothetical decision a study of 'accident rates of newly rated pilots', if such info were available.
If they are high, it might contribute to helping a bonafide problem.
If they are not high, requiring actual might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the original reduction from 200 hours total time for the instrument rating was supposed to be an accident reduction thing...be interesting to see statistics on that, too.
 
I agree that actual is a really nice thing to experience during training. But I'm always reluctant to add more restrictions (read: cost) to an industry that's already struggling. I mean, are we having a lot of new instrument pilots crash when they enter IMC for the first time?

Where would we draw the line? How about a certain number of takeoffs and landings at high density altitudes? Takeoffs at max gross? Takeoffs and landings in crosswinds higher than xx knots? Spin training for everyone? All of these requirements would make for a better prepared pilot. But at what cost?
 
I didn't vote as the choices are too restrictive -- mandating IMC experience just isn't practical. However, I'm a firm believer that if the opportunity presents itself, both CFII and student should jump at the chance. I got just over 6 hrs of actual during my training and I'm grateful for those--some of the best training hours I had.
 
write-stuff said:
It would be a good idea, but I don't know that I'd make it a requirement. It might be a big problem for some people out west.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A student who has experienced real IMC is going to be better prepared than one who hasn't, but it could prove to be a very onerous requirement for those training in the southwest.

You'd probably end up with people doing holds in a marine layer just to log the time. 500' higher or lower and they'd be VMC. There's probably marginal value in that exercise.
 
I voted yes, but on second thought, maybe not a requirement for IR, but a DEFINITE requirement for CFII. Can't have the blind leading the blind.
 
I don't know about mandatory but certainly necessary to be at all proficient in IMC conditions. For me, the experience in actual vs foggles was literally night and day and two different sensory experiences. I got a good amount of actual time during my IFR training and just that bit of time was critical to being comfortable in IMC.
 
While it's beneficial, and I had some during my instrument training, I voted no. In areas of the country that don't have reliable access to coastal stratus like we do here, it could be a logistical nightmare to find actual instrument conditions that were both safe and legal to fly in.
 
timwinters said:
Technically that's IMC...no?
Click to expand...

Not really. You can log it as such per some weird decisions, but it's VMC because the VFR minimums are satisfied. Not that you would fly it much like other types of night VFR. VMC does not require a horizon.
 
Absolutely. There is no replacement for actual experience. It can be done without as many examiners refuse (due to regs) but why not get in the clouds with your instructor?
 
MAKG1 said:
Not really. You can log it as such per some weird decisions, but it's VMC because the VFR minimums are satisfied. Not that you would fly it much like other types of night VFR. VMC does not require a horizon.
Click to expand...

My understanding was always that if you must fly with reference to instruments to maintain control, it's IMC and can be logged as such... Even in the absence of clouds or fog.
 
If you can't handle IMC for real you probably should not have the rating. To make it mandatory to go IMC for training in some parts of the west would be a problem. Might just as well go back to the old 200 hour requirement before you can get the IFR rating, it seems a lack of flying skills is the real problem.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I voted yes, but on second thought, maybe not a requirement for IR, but a DEFINITE requirement for CFII. Can't have the blind leading the blind.
Click to expand...

I can get on board with this.

Requiring it for the IR would, as already mentioned be impractical for a lot of the country. However, it would ALSO likely have the unintended consequence of many people therefore not bothering to pursue the IR, and therefore not getting the safety benefits of that training even in VFR flying.

For CFIIs, though, yes, it should be a requirement. Understandably, this will also cause a lot of the same problems, as many CFIIs also train in the same areas. But in my opinion, the 250-hour CFII who has been in training their entire flying career thus far and hasn't even ventured out and done any "real" flying, is NOT a desirable situation - regardless of how common it is.
 
Not practical. As has been said, places like Arizona may get 1 IMC day a year.
 
zwaustin said:
Absolutely. There is no replacement for actual experience. It can be done without as many examiners refuse (due to regs) but why not get in the clouds with your instructor?
Click to expand...

Not many people can rack up significant time in the fours hours' Actual IMC without thunderstorms or ice that places like Arizona or New Mexico experience each year.

Folks from the Northern Rockies to New England can't get any actual for almost half of the year due to icing conditions.

Experience in actual is a good thing, but to require it is impractical. What I found to be amazingly beneficial was to shoot some approaches through a layer (~800 agl) with a ragged bottom. The CFII watched carefully, and I took a few peeks as visibility came and went before it came to stay. Only did two approaches that day, but it taught me to not necessarily trust the view and to keep,an eye on the instruments during transition from gauges to visual for landing. This can be tricky sometimes . . . Better to learn it under supervision.
 
RotorDude said:
I did much of my IFR training in IMC, which was good because I hate hoods.
So I got to see ice and thunderstorms and clouds of different kinds from the inside, all before being signed off. My check ride was in actual too, in fairly low conditions.
I think this type of training made me safer, but I realize that a lot of it is luck of the draw, and in some parts of the country you are stuck with severe clear for days or weeks on end. Which means it's just not practical to demand it, but I think the more IMC you can manage to get during your training, the safer you'll be when released into the wild.
Click to expand...

So who was the PIC? Training in IMC is ok, the instructor files as PIC, but for the ride I thought the examinee needed to be PIC.

I have done 135 check rides in actual, but I was already instrument rated so I could file as PIC.

I'll agree with the CFII should have some actual time in the clouds. I started teaching and had only about .5 actual.
 
Its hard enough now to get through the IFR rating. You'd have a bunch of pilots who had it all done "except for the actual". Not all areas of the country GET very much flyable in small airplanes IMC. It's hard here in Colorado to get IMC. Thunderstorms in the summer and ice in the winter, when cloudy (which isnt often). Different parts of the country have different climates.
 
Relatively, how many places have a good supply of benign IMC suitable for IFR training?
 
Ideally yes, but like everyone else said it's just not practical everywhere.
 
1) does the data suggest that people are dying in IMC for the first time? Nope. Most folks have held their I rating for some time. Usually it's a system failure that gets folks, not a first time experience.

2) it would be a huge hit to the flight training industry. It would be impossible to hold a schedule in some places having to wait for "bad weather", but not too bad. When someone is on a Visa, the state department isn't going to accept "too good weather" as a reason for extending their time in the country.

3) we have the tools now to effectively simulate IMC. View limiting devices, night, and flight training devices (sims) all provide a sufficient substitute for IMC.

4) there's nothing to stop a CFII from insisting on doing training in actual. No reg necessary.

There are a lot of things killing pilots. First time IMC for instrument rated pilots isn't one of them.
 
RotorDude said:
I did much of my IFR training in IMC, which was good because I hate hoods.
So I got to see ice and thunderstorms and clouds of different kinds from the inside, all before being signed off. My check ride was in actual too, in fairly low conditions.
I think this type of training made me safer, but I realize that a lot of it is luck of the draw, and in some parts of the country you are stuck with severe clear for days or weeks on end. Which means it's just not practical to demand it, but I think the more IMC you can manage to get during your training, the safer you'll be when released into the wild.
Click to expand...

Zeldman said:
So who was the PIC? Training in IMC is ok, the instructor files as PIC, but for the ride I thought the examinee needed to be PIC.

I have done 135 check rides in actual, but I was already instrument rated so I could file as PIC.

I'll agree with the CFII should have some actual time in the clouds. I started teaching and had only about .5 actual.
Click to expand...

It's been too long to remember, but I think I was the one who filed (under my name), which would have made me PIC. My understanding is that a PPL check ride is the only time a student may carry a passenger (DPE), but the question of PIC on an IR check ride is murky. Sure, if a real emergency unfolded, you'd expect the DPE to take over, so he is the ultimate PIC there, but maybe it's like on some foreign airlines where there is a PIC-in-training. :)
Of course for the purpose of administering the check ride proper, formalities aside, since the DPE is also a CFII all bases are covered regardless of who is the official PIC.
 
Last edited:
That's what will fix things, more regulation and less latitude with common sense..
 
RotorDude said:
It's been too long to remember, but I think I was the one who filed (under my name), which would have made me PIC. My understanding is that a PPL check ride is the only time a student may carry a passenger (DPE), but the question of PIC on an IR check ride is murky. Sure, if a real emergency unfolded, you'd expect the DPE to take over, so he is the ultimate PIC there, but maybe it's like on some foreign airlines where there is a PIC-in-training. :)
Of course for the purpose of administering the check ride proper, formalities aside, since the DPE is also a CFII all bases are covered regardless of who is the official PIC.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be murky.

Sounds like you busted the regs on a checkride. You can't act as PIC on an instrument flight plan without an instrument rating. The DPE either is, or isn't PIC. You should have had that conversation before hand. FWIW, while they don't prohibit it, the FAA strongly discourages DPEs from acting as PIC on a practical test. The DPE also being a CFII has no bearing on whether he/she is also PIC.
 
My first flying job was flying air-tours from LAS to the Grand Canyon. I knew a couple of ATPs who had never seen the inside of a cloud.

I've got mixed emotions with this - Do I think actual time is necessary? Absolutely and I've never signed off an instrument student without some. Do I think it should be mandatory? Probably not. It would create a lot of problems for guys out in the southwest.
 
And where would you draw the line?? A little poof through a few clouds?? The real challenge is actual to cat 1 mins. Ceiling 0, 1800 rvr. A hood cannot duplicate that. It may duplicate a 200' breakout and clear below, but that's a far, far, far cry from 0 and 1800 rvr.

So, if you want to make it real, every pilot should have an ILS to cat 1 mins.
 
Brad Z said:
It shouldn't be murky.

Sounds like you busted the regs on a checkride. You can't act as PIC on an instrument flight plan without an instrument rating. The DPE either is, or isn't PIC. You should have had that conversation before hand. FWIW, while they don't prohibit it, the FAA strongly discourages DPEs from acting as PIC on a practical test. The DPE also being a CFII has no bearing on whether he/she is also PIC.
Click to expand...

Who's the PIC for the PPL?

It'd be crazy to not go on an instrument check ride because the ceilings are at 500 feet with a stratus layer. Obviously I support a DPE who doesn't want to file for whatever reason, but if the DPE is willing then why not? If I were the examiner I'd welcome a chance to watch the applicant perform in actual conditions.

Btw, to all you folks who voted yes, please explain why? Why would you want MORE obstacles to certification and make it harder to fly? Is it better to have actual? Sure. But to REQUIRE it???
 
Last edited:
I voted yes because like I stated before I personally was way behind the plane on my first instrument flight. Also, while I do not know this to be true, I believe most of the CFII's I worked with to get my rating didn't have any actual either. Thus, they were inexperienced which led to their reluctance to bring me into actual.

As for the actual on an instrument checkride, the DPE I took my ride with advised that he was unofficially prohibited from flying in actual in a single engine. He said it was strongly discouraged as if something happened it would look bad for a DPE to have been the pilot.
 
I want to vote yes, but then what do people in places like the desert southwest do? Have to travel to get in the clag? Maybe it should depend on what you're going to fly?

Type rated, yup, absolutely must have real solid experience in IMC. Some spamcan driver who just wants to be in the system on trips and bust an occasional layer? Nah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top