IFR “practice” with certificate vs without. Good idea or Bad?

[Schllc]

On the heels of that painful atc conversation with the pilot who was struggling…  

I don’t mean to bash the guy, just analyzing what I heard  it’s hard to believe they were fresh a ticket holder,  not only did he sound lost but that flight path and inability to even conform to a vector was inexcusable 

It made me think about a friend of mine that is cautious and has good self limits.  He will not likely ever get his IFR, nor own a plane.  He would never illegally file IFR, but may very well find himself in unanticipated IMC. My first thought was to do some actual IFR training with foggles and hood time. Make him feel the spacial disorientation and how easily it can happen, as well as what to do if you think it is happening. 
Sounds practical on its face, but then made me wonder if familiarizing people to this extent, would make them more risk prone out of perhaps confidence, or safer due to understanding of the consequences. 
I wanted to take a poll and hear the brain trusts thoughts. 
Is it better to do it to protect all of the cautious among us, or deign to the more risk prone?

[Pinecone]

There is no right answer.  As it depends on the person.

For some, they will use it as intended, to better thir chances if something goes wrong.  Others will use it as to do things they shouldn't be doing.

A better tact is to convince them to get their instrument rating.  The best of both worlds.  Not to go blasting off into hard IFR, but to increase skills and overall be a better pilot.

[Boilermonkey]

Another big part of IFR is radio comms.  Even with a bunch of hood time, it is easy for new pilots to get flustered with ATC comms and get confused.   I found several CFII who do a lot of training, but don't spend time in the system who struggle too.   Understanding what to expect and when is important.  It's also important to know what to say when you don't understand.   For example, getting a re route or change of approach.  Sometimes the fixes might be unfamiliar, you need them spelled out, etc.   Sometimes it's best to ask for a vector and then phonetic spelling.   That gets you going in the right direction and allows time to get things sorted out.  ...of course you need to be able to fly vectors....

[Schllc]

31 minutes ago, Boilermonkey said:

Another big part of IFR is radio comms.  Even with a bunch of hood time, it is easy for new pilots to get flustered with ATC comms and get confused.   I found several CFII who do a lot of training, but don't spend time in the system who struggle too.   Understanding what to expect and when is important.  It's also important to know what to say when you don't understand.   For example, getting a re route or change of approach.  Sometimes the fixes might be unfamiliar, you need them spelled out, etc.   Sometimes it's best to ask for a vector and then phonetic spelling.   That gets you going in the right direction and allows time to get things sorted out.  ...of course you need to be able to fly vectors....

I watched this documentary on JUUL the e-cigarette maker, and what struck me was how far off intent their mission went, and the deleterious effects. 

Some people really found a way to quit smoking using the product, but an enormous amount of children started using, which was not the impetus behind the invention.  

Point being, do you provide the information to those who would respect it and use it properly, as in an inadvertent entry into imc, to prevent hurting themselves, knowing that some would simply use it to abuse the privilege. 

Obviously getting the ticket and maintaining currency is ideal, part of me thinks it should be part of a ppl, but that would be a pretty hotly debated topic.....  

[A64Pilot]

I promise you, fly enough and one day you will realize that you can no longer see the wing tips, more likely to happen at night of course, happened one night to my Father on a night with the forecast of severe clear, the wing leveler on his C model likely saved his life, maybe. He started instrument training right after that I think

When that happens you will either kill yourself and possibly others, or survive it. The likelihood of survival increases with the amount of training and actual experience you have, and to some extent the equipment, but equipment is not a replacement for training (in my opinion)

”Back in the day” Army helicopter pilots were trained to a standard of a “tactical instrument ticket” that is to be able to maintain level flight and accomplish a 180 degree turn etc but not to be able to operate in the National airspace IFR and execute approaches etc. Later due I believe to the accident rate they were trained to full IFR tickets and of course Commercial Pilot standards.

In my opinion, any training is good, better of course to get the full ticket, but as an example I believe upset AKA unusual attitude training may one day save your life, probably best to get the full aerobatics sign off, but even if you don’t the unusual attitude training is valuable.

Honestly I don’t think you can’t get too much training and or experience, even sometimes if it’s something you never expect or intend to do, like how to recover from a spin for instance. I will never intentionally spin my Mooney, but being familiar with spin recovery may one day be valuable.

Trust me table talk in no way really prepares you for an honest spin, and pretend IMC really doesn’t either. (another opinion)

[Danb]

I personally can’t reason why more instruction is not a good thing. I also believe that getting your PPL should include more hood training, communications both relaying and understanding etc. Even though I acquired my PPL decades ago my instructor did give me hood time and introduced me to spatial disorientation which is still useful. It also was a good introduction to my instrument rating. A lot of these problems lay at the hand of instructors who don’t demonstrate all aspects we may encounter as VFR pilots. The DPE’s should ensure the pilot is ready to handle aspects such as inadvertent flying in low conditions speaking with class B controllers and so on. I know of a couple pilots who got there PPL in a couple weeks don’t know if that’s good or not. Plus we need to continue our training and practice while we continue to fly. Just my opinion 

D

[N201MKTurbo]

Back in 1980 while taking my PPL training, my instructor had me fly two ILSs under the hood into KPHX at night. I think it was more to see what I could do more than instruction. I thought they were easy.

[EricJ]

I had 10.1 hours under the hood and 3.1 of actual instrument before I soloed.   But, then, I had about 118 hours total when I soloed and knew all the commercial maneuvers, too.    Slow learner. 

If there is opportunity and willingness then more training doesn't hurt, but if resources (including time) are tight, then it can be detrimental to achieving the goals.

[Hank]

5 hours ago, Boilermonkey said:

Another big part of IFR is radio comms.  Even with a bunch of hood time, it is easy for new pilots to get flustered with ATC comms and get confused.   I found several CFII who do a lot of training, but don't spend time in the system who struggle too.   Understanding what to expect and when is important.  It's also important to know what to say when you don't understand.   For example, getting a re route or change of approach.  Sometimes the fixes might be unfamiliar, you need them spelled out, etc.   Sometimes it's best to ask for a vector and then phonetic spelling.   That gets you going in the right direction and allows time to get things sorted out.  ...of course you need to be able to fly vectors....

Took me three years to knuckle.down and start IFR training. But radio skills weren't an issue--I had flight following every time.i left the ground, and made many 400+ nm VFR trips in my little Mooney. 

Flight following was uses every training flight, and I found it so useful that I continued to do so afterwards. 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm not sure what the question means. 

If we're talking about such things as adding how to fly a localizer or activate  the  FAC to a VFR pilot's bag of tricks, sure.  That's useful VFR. Right or wrong, "join the localizer" is a fairly common instruction at some airports, particularly Cs and Bs with parallel runways,

OTOH, if we're talking about enabling a VFR pilot's rule violations by giving them just enough rope to hang themselves, nah.

[ricardo-sf]

it depends on the pilot .. some will use the extra training to survive an event. — others will take that small amount of knowledge and get themselves killed with it.

it takes more than just reading a plate to be able to fly it in less than vfr conditions. you have to have training to be able to fly the numbers regardless of what all your other senses are telling you to do.

i’d like to think that some familiarity will save lives because the pilot will be able to overcome the startle effect of the emergency and remember their training.

[McMooney]

this shouldn't be a question, the person intentionally filing while not qualified, will do it with or without training.

My first ils was with 10 or 11 hours during my ppl when a marine layer hit klvk. 

forward 20 years, one dark moonless night(i know right), the stars went out,  while i didn't have the rating, you can be assured i appreciated every hour of instrument training i'd received to that point

 

[201er]

Not to say that extra training isn’t beneficial for most people, a lot of deliberate VFR into IMC flights come from people with “some instrument training.”
 

 

[Rick Junkin]

The elephant in the room is Aeronautical Decision Making skills.

It's up to the instructor's judgement and assessment of the student as to whether they display any of the negative risk traits and address those at the same time as providing the instrument familiarization training. Assessing whether the student understands the intent of the instrument training and is developing or has developed the judgement to use it appropriately plays a big role in my decision of what and how to teach. And then, when we practice flight with reference to instruments, emphasizing this is what you'll have to do if you've already made some bad decisions or things didn't go as planned and find yourself in a square corner.

A student or pilot who demonstrates consistent ADM skills will likely make the correct decisions regarding weather and their ability to fly in it. Those who exhibit poor ADM need to have that behavior corrected before proceeding with training they would otherwise misuse and potentially get themselves hurt.

To answer the original question - train to the pilot's/student's capability to learn and properly apply the training. So yes, provide the training.

Cheers,
Rick

[201er]

21 hours ago, Schllc said:

Sounds practical on its face, but then made me wonder if familiarizing people to this extent, would make them more risk prone out of perhaps confidence, or safer due to understanding of the consequences. 
I wanted to take a poll and hear the brain trusts thoughts. 
Is it better to do it to protect all of the cautious among us, or deign to the more risk prone?

I don’t know if you want to be responsible for introducing someone to instrument operations if you aren’t an instructor. But here’s a good video to share.

 

 

[Schllc]

32 minutes ago, 201er said:

I don’t know if you want to be responsible for introducing someone to instrument operations if you aren’t an instructor. But here’s a good video to share.

 

 

You realize that’s exactly what a safety pilot is right?  They are not required to be an instructor and we have almost all done if for someone at some point. 
My “intention” when I thought about this, was to save his life if he found himself in inadvertent IMC, not to embolden him to make a bad decision. 
Such is the quandary, and the root of the question. 

 

[wombat]

Basic Instrument Maneuver training is required by 61.107(b)(1)(xi) for private pilots and testing as part of the checkride. Specifically, section VIII is Basic Instrument Maneuvers.   https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/training_testing/testing/acs/private_airplane_acs_change_1.pdf

It includes: (starting on page 45 of the PDF)

• straight and level flight
• constant airspeed climbs
• constant airspeed descents
• turns to headings
• recovery from unusual flight attitudes
• Radio communications, navigation systems/facilities, and radar services

I doubt that anyone here would be flying with a PPL or better who has not done this.

In my opinion as a CFI it's entirely reasonable for a pilot to go up with a safety pilot who is not instrument rated and is not an instructor and practice these basic instrument maneuvers.

[201er]

1 hour ago, Schllc said:

You realize that’s exactly what a safety pilot is right?  They are not required to be an instructor and we have almost all done if for someone at some point. 
My “intention” when I thought about this, was to save his life if he found himself in inadvertent IMC, not to embolden him to make a bad decision. 
Such is the quandary, and the root of the question. 

No, it’s not. Safety pilot pilot is only required for maintaining visual traffic separation per 91.113b and

 

91.109(c) No person may operate a  civil aircraftin simulated  instrument flight unless— 

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least:

(i) A private pilot certificate with category and class ratingsappropriate to the  aircraft being flown; or

(ii) For purposes of providing training for a solo cross-country endorsement under § 61.93 of this chapter, a flight instructor certificate with an appropriate sport pilot  rating and meets the requirements of § 61.412of this chapter.

(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the  aircraftadequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and 

(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that  aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls. 

[Pinecone]

2 hours ago, 201er said:

I don’t know if you want to be responsible for introducing someone to instrument operations if you aren’t an instructor. But here’s a good video to share.

I am not a fan of non-instructors introducing anyone to anything.

Until you have trained to instruct, you don't know how much you don't know about instructing.

You do not necessarily need to be trained to instruct flying, but some formal training instructing

 

 

[Utah20Gflyer]

I think we should take the top 10 scenarios that kill pilots and teach specifically to those situations.  One would be IMC, but also base to final turns, failing to maintain control, Impossible turn, etc.  

A lot of these things could be affordably and effectively taught in a simulator where you could be given real life scenarios rapid fire.   Scenarios that induce get homeitis are possible.  Combine the flying with good story telling and acting and I think you could much more effectively drive home the lessons people need to learn.   Just telling someone to not take risks isn’t effective.  
 

If you have a person in the sim with you telling you how important it is they get home and when you tell them you can’t they push back and try to convince you that you should.  Then if they proceed you end up in some totally crappy situation that ends up with the plane impacting terrain I think they will more effectively learn the lesson.  
 

I think we need to get more creative and drive down these accident rates. 

[Schllc]

1 hour ago, 201er said:

No, it’s not. Safety pilot pilot is only required for maintaining visual traffic separation per 91.113b and

 

91.109(c) No person may operate a  civil aircraftin simulated  instrument flight unless— 

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least:

(i) A private pilot certificate with category and class ratingsappropriate to the  aircraft being flown; or

(ii) For purposes of providing training for a solo cross-country endorsement under § 61.93 of this chapter, a flight instructor certificate with an appropriate sport pilot  rating and meets the requirements of § 61.412of this chapter.

(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the  aircraftadequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and 

(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that  aircraft is equipped with fully functioning dual controls. 

I don’t see a conflict with the rule and what I said.  I suggested flying with s friend in simulated instrument conditions. 
Did you think I meant flying in actual imc?

[hubcap]

Heck, let’s train something much easier - How to avoid fuel exhaustion.

I am a big fan of training, although it is very expensive. It is a complex issue due to costs and practicality.

I don’t know how you train good aeronautical decision making effectively, because everyone has differing views on risk tolerance. 

[201er]

23 minutes ago, Schllc said:

I don’t see a conflict with the rule and what I said.  I suggested flying with s friend in simulated instrument conditions. 
Did you think I meant flying in actual imc?

A safety pilot has no legal safety responsibility besides looking out for traffic. Anything else is just advice as friends or “for entertainment purposes only.” 
 

If the pilot under the hood is so bad that the safety pilot needs to say much besides pointing out traffic, he may need an IPC or some help from a CFII

[N201MKTurbo]

I thought the safety pilot needs to be qualified to be PIC.

[201er]

10 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I thought the safety pilot needs to be qualified to be PIC.

 

Private pilot, rated in category/class, medical or basic med. Does not require complex/hp endorsements, bfr, or currency to be safety pilot. 

 

However, to act as PIC while being safety pilot, one must be qualified.

 

 

§ 61.55 Second-in-command qualifications.

(a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an  aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that  person holds:

(1) At least a private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating;