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

[wombat]

I think the original poster was perhaps a bit sloppy in his wording and that's causing us some consternation. The original phrasing is "do some actual IFR training with foggles and hood time."

As exactly stated "IFR training" that sounds like it needs an instrument instructor.      But just like a pilot working on his commercial certificate doesn't need an instructor in the plane with him or her, or a student pilot doing solo flights in preparation for their checkride, working on "IFR training" doesn't necessarily need an instrument instructor with them.   If the pilot wants to consider it that, that is cool, but they can't log it as instruction received.    They could log PIC, simulated instrument, and have notes about what they worked on, but it isn't 'instruction received'.

[Joshua Blackh4t]

My 2c worth. From someone VFR rated.

In Australia, Night Vfr is a separate rating, and when I got it, I was taught it as a bit of an introductory IFR. 

The biggest safety thing that I learnt was that its not just handling the plane blind, its getting back out of the clouds. I believe this should be taught.

Previously, my thoughts on inadvertent IMC was 'sure, I think I can fly on instruments, I had plenty of hood time'. Now I more think about if I go blind in low cloud, then I have to climb to lowest safe, then I can't get back under the clouds so I'm stuck there trusting a non-certified gps for location.

So yes, I believe survival IFR training would be good. 

 

[Schllc]

7 hours ago, wombat said:

I think the original poster was perhaps a bit sloppy in his wording and that's causing us some consternation. The original phrasing is "do some actual IFR training with foggles and hood time."

 

That’s fair, I could have said practice instead for the purpose of clarity, and to avoid nitpicking. 
(topic has been edited)

[Pinecone]

These things are already part of the training.

There is 3 hours of instrument training before your PP.  That SHOULD cover 180 turn and some unusual attitude recovery.

Fuel planning should be taught.

Base to final turn should be taught, although I am a big fan of some spin training pre-PP.

Flight Reviews are required every 2 years.

But we keep having the same causes for mishaps.   But, I saw a statement, that people who are active on forums, attend things like Mooney Max and Mooney Summit are less likely to be involved in these types of mishaps.

[midlifeflyer]

10 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

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

Safety Pilot Rules (no paywall).

[midlifeflyer]

10 hours ago, 201er said:

§ 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;

61.55 does not apply to safety pilots.  

[N201MKTurbo]

So, let’s say that after I flew a few approaches with a safety pilot, it was determined that the safety pilot was not qualified. Do those approaches still count?
 

Just trying to make trouble.

[N201MKTurbo]

FWIW, I’ve never logged safety pilot time, I don’t think my safety pilots have ever either. 
 

I only see these rules being enforced in formal flight training scenarios where multiple pilots are trying to log as many hours as possible. I have heard where the PIC (the pilot flying at least) will always wear a hood so two pilots can log time, even when no currency is trying to be maintained.

[wombat]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, let’s say that after I flew a few approaches with a safety pilot, it was determined that the safety pilot was not qualified. Do those approaches still count?
 

Just trying to make trouble.

The currency requirements are to perform and log specific things that are listed in 14 CFR 61.57.   If you performed and logged those things, then it 'counts'.    You don't even need to have a safety pilot or have a valid medical in order to meet the requirements of 14 CFR 61.57.    But if you don't, there are plenty of other things wrong. 

[wombat]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

FWIW, I’ve never logged safety pilot time, I don’t think my safety pilots have ever either. 
 

I only see these rules being enforced in formal flight training scenarios where multiple pilots are trying to log as many hours as possible. I have heard where the PIC (the pilot flying at least) will always wear a hood so two pilots can log time, even when no currency is trying to be maintained.

Despite having flown as a safety pilot many times while legal to act as PIC in the aircraft and wanting to log more time in that make and model, I have not logged any of it either.

[Hank]

On 10/12/2023 at 6:32 AM, Pinecone said:

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.

When I bought my Mooney with 62 hours in two 172s, the insurance company required 15 hours dual with "their" CFII, including at least 5 hours simulated or real IMC. Climbing out of Beckley, WV on his IFR clearance, we climbed straight into the front face of a nice cumulus cloud. 

I verified twice that he wanted me to go straight into it, and he said Yes both times. Just before reaching the grayness, I said "this just seems wrong." He said, "it is wrong, but keep going." Twas nothing like the hood time I'd had a few months before while working on my PPL. But I learned a lot about controlling the plane (thank you, PC system!), so that it was easy when I eventually started Instrument training. Thunk I surprised that CFII when she started covering gages and I kept flying normally, flew a good pattern and landed on our obstructed 3000' field on the first attempt. 

Training is as good as the "student" 's attitude.

[PeteMc]

If the intent is to give him some solid practice on making that 180 with confidence and some skill if he does find himself in IMC, then I think it's a great idea.  That's why they include it in your Primary training.  But I don't know that you (or I) should be giving that instruction to your friend, I think he really should go seek out a CFII. 

Just explain to them that the goal is skill and confidence for that Oh Sh*t moment to turn around.  And even if he turns around there's sill no blue sky.  No need for explaining in detail "join the Localizer" or much at all about Instrument Flight Rules or Procedures.  But a lot about no sudden movements, slowly turn on the Autopilot, once stable immediately get out the Mayday and get help from ATC to get him back into VMC.  If it's a wacky Wx change and fog came out of nowhere, then let them get a CFII to talk him down. (My wife knows EXACTLY who she's going to have them call to talk her down.   A CFII that knows my plane well and if he's not around, there's a BU that also knows the plane, just not as well, but better than a total stranger.)

 

 

[ricardo-sf]

oh — i didn’t realize the question was wether a non-certificated pilot should file IFR for practice.

the answer to that is NO .. do not file IFR if you dont have the rating.  —  i think there is an exception to this rule if you are flying with a CFII and receiving dual .. then yes you can file IFR.

[ricardo-sf]

On 10/13/2023 at 6:00 AM, N201MKTurbo said:

So, let’s say that after I flew a few approaches with a safety pilot, it was determined that the safety pilot was not qualified. Do those approaches still count?
 

Just trying to make trouble.

this is an easy question.

No you cannot log those approaches for currency.  since you did not have a safety pilot, and one would be required in order to log an approach in VMC.

Now if those approaches were dont in IMC, then you could log them, because you would not have needed a safety pilot.

The FAA may choose to come after you for flying under the hood without a safety pilot.

[wombat]

1 hour ago, ricardo-sf said:

this is an easy question.

No you cannot log those approaches for currency.  since you did not have a safety pilot, and one would be required in order to log an approach in VMC.

Now if those approaches were dont in IMC, then you could log them, because you would not have needed a safety pilot.

The FAA may choose to come after you for flying under the hood without a safety pilot.

The logging of the approaches doesn't require a safety pilot.  The logging of approaches requires simulated or actual instrument conditions.   So you can log them if you are in simulated or actual IMC.  While the flight is in violation of other rules, that doesn't mean you didn't fly the approaches.

Another example of this would be landing currency.  Let's say it's been 91 days since you flew, and then you go up with a non-pilot friend and fly the pattern for 3+ takeoffs and landings in the traffic pattern.  You log them that night.   Yes, that flight was in violation of the FARs.  But can you legally go fly with your buddy again the next day?  I say you can.

The whole thing is mostly absurd, but imagine a part 135 pilot who takes a 90 day vacation, and then immediately starts flying passengers again.  I am saying in this situation they are doing single pilot operations and do not have some sort of incremental currency rules or other compliance mechanism such as a simulator to get the pilot current again.   So let's say this pilot never flies solo or with any other required flight crew members, but they fly multiple legs a day with passengers....   Will this pilot just NEVER be current again and every flight was illegal?  I say no, only the first three takeoffs and landings (and traffic patterns) were illegal.  Provided the pilot logged them, all the rest are legal again because the pilot did meet the currency requirements.

[Schllc]

2 hours ago, ricardo-sf said:

oh — i didn’t realize the question was wether a non-certificated pilot should file IFR for practice.

the answer to that is NO .. do not file IFR if you dont have the rating.  —  i think there is an exception to this rule if you are flying with a CFII and receiving dual .. then yes you can file IFR.

Never said anything about filing or flying approaches. 
that was absolutely not the question 

the intent was practice using instruments to prepare for inadvertent IMC. 
the purpose is safety and life saving. 

[kortopates]

Never said anything about filing or flying approaches. 
that was absolutely not the question 
the intent was practice using instruments to prepare for inadvertent IMC. 
the purpose is safety and life saving. 

I never really understood the question.
But this 100% a part of the private pilot requirements - min 3 hrs of instrument time. And a part of every Wings Flight review I give along with unusual attitude recovery. With an instrument pilot the unusual att rec becomes partial panel recovery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[M20F-1968]

I routinely will follow an ILS or RNAV approach when coming in VFR.  It traffic is light at an uncontrolled airport, I will announce my intentions, be sure people know what I am doing, and follow the approach in.  If I am doing a traditional VFR pattern, I may also have the approach loaded, or use the VFR version on my G600.  

There is no reason why a VFR pilot can not do a typical VFR pattern and join the approach and glide slope while under VFR conditions.  I will give them a leg up on handling the plane, build a good sight model of a 3-degree glide slope, and give them vertical guidance.  You do not need a n IFR license to use the equipment during a VFR flight, as long as you follow VFR rules and expectations.

John Breda

[Schllc]

Just now, kortopates said:

I never really understood the question.
But this 100% a part of the private pilot requirements - min 3 hrs of instrument time. And a part of every Wings Flight review I give along with unusual attitude recovery. With an instrument pilot the unusual att rec becomes partial panel recovery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was all kind of mixed for me bc I started training for my instrument rating  the day after my ppl checkride. 
And all of my bfr’s have been in conjunction with my  ipc’s.

The friends I have that are only vfr rated don’t really practice anything for inadvertent imc. 
it seems that regular practice using instruments  to prepare for the possibility would be  a  good idea. 
Lots of opinions on the topic. 

Stimulating the conversation was the important part. I read a story nearly every day about this and it seems to me if people were more prepared to get themselves out of the situation it would be s good thing.  
What do I know, I’m not an instructor, and I can’t quote the FAR, I merely thought it was common sense….

[kortopates]

It was all kind of mixed for me bc I started training for my instrument rating  the day after my ppl checkride. 
And all of my bfr’s have been in conjunction with my  ipc’s.
The friends I have that are only vfr rated don’t really practice anything for inadvertent imc. 
it seems that regular practice using instruments  to prepare for the possibility would be  a  good idea. 
Lots of opinions on the topic. 

Stimulating the conversation was the important part. I read a story nearly every day about this and it seems to me if people were more prepared to get themselves out of the situation it would be s good thing.  
What do I know, I’m not an instructor, and I can’t quote the FAR, I merely thought it was common sense….

Understand. Based on that i don’t think the issue is curriculum we teach. Because it's fully covered. But as an instructor my opinion is that the issue is private pilots that don’t spend time and money on recurrent training, fly very few hours per year and then do the minimum waiting 2 years to complete a biennial 61.56 flight review - which can be as little as 1 hr flying and not do anything to ACS standards.

You’re to be congratulated for doing regular flight reviews along with IPC’s. Several of you here that i know and fly with do this but you are the well above average pilots out there.

For what’s it worth i stopped doing the basic 61.56 flight review and exclusively do Wings flight reviews for about 15 years now which have many advantages including being able to show you can do all the maneuvers to ACS standards. They also give the pilot a much better reputation in the eyes of the FAA if one is ever deviated - they see you immediately as one of the good guys taking recurrent training seriously.

The pilot has to value recurrent training though and practice regularly. As the saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

I also get to give remedial training to some of the pilots that weren't taking their proficiency seriously. Nobody like the iPad pilot we read about though, I doubt the FAA would even give him that option if it's true he's a repeat offender like his track logs suggest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

On 10/12/2023 at 8:37 AM, A64Pilot said:

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

”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.

My uncle did two tours in Vietnam flying S&R and Medevac missions in Chinooks. I was shocked to find out that he did not get an instrument rating until years later when he started flying fixed wing GA.

To the OP. I think additional training is always a good idea. Everyone should be able to keep an airplane upright in the clouds. I think panic contributes to horrible outcomes when a pilot has an inadvertent IMC encounter.

[jlunseth]

The original question is a fair question and often asked. I want to rephrase it: “Because there are Darwinian Award candidates in aviation as there are in the human population as a whole, should aviation as a whole refrain from providing any instrument training to pilots who are not instrument rated or training for the instrument rating?”

Unfortunately, there are always going to be Darwinian candidates. If they don’t find ways to kill themselves in aircraft, they will do it in race cars, or powerboats, or driving drunk or just plain driving. We can’t save them. We can only hope that they will mature before they win the Award.

As for the other 99% of nonrated pilots, heck yes, give them all the instrument training possible. Also, stop the scare tactics about VFR into IMC. In my opinion, pilots are killed just because the only skill they have ever learned is to panic if they blunder into IMC. If you are a pilot and do more than just fly in the pattern or do maneuvers locally, you are sooner or later going to find yourself in that predicament. It is actually easy to get out provided you aren’t so frightened of a license-terminating enforcement proceeding that you think yourself bound by restrictions that are not even there. Just like the pilots who want to constantly fight with ATC. ATC is there to help you. I have never found a controller who is not willing to help a pilot get out of a predicament or avoid a risk. It makes their day. ATC actually gives them awards for doing it, can you believe that? Every year!

I am not rated for aerobatics in IMC. Is anyone? Nevertheless, it occurred to me that I had never had training on what to do if I stupidly stumbled into convection while in IMC and manage to invert or spin. In my mind there were two approaches to the issue. One, shit in your pants and die. Two, have a plan and the skills to execute it. So I went to a school that taught intensive upset recovery, including upset recovery from spins and inverts while on instruments. I now know what the AI looks like when you are upside down. Now, does that mean I am going to feel so great about what a superior pilot I am that I am going to fly through every Tstorm I can find just for the joyride? Hitting the ceiling ain’t that much fun. Is there a pilot somewhere who would respond that way? Probably. Give him/her an Award, they never belonged in aviation to begin with.

Edited October 15, 2023 by jlunseth

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, jlunseth said:

The original question is a fair question and often asked. I want to rephrase it: “Because there are Darwinian Award candidates in aviation as there are in the human population as a whole, should aviation as a whole refrain from providing any instrument training to pilots who are not instrument rated or training for the instrument rating?”

No. 

The issue to me isn't whether we teach more than the bare minimum, but what we teach and the context in which we teach it. Beyond basic private checkride competence, it's more a pilot ADM/judgment issue than a skills issue.

I regularly include hood work in a flight review for a non-rated pilot. A majority of my first-timers tell me it's the first time they were under the hood since their checkride. I've seen pilots go into an unusual attitude within seconds of straight and level. So even considering it as a purely emergency thing, there are significant competence deficiencies.

 

[Schllc]

^^^^^^^^^THIS!!!!^^^^^^^^
 

There is a fine line between encouraging our fellow pilots to continue learning and being a busy body. 
I’ll encourage anyone who is receptive to learning more and I hope my pilot friends would do the same for me.  I don’t enjoy hearing criticism or about my shortcomings, but I would rather hear them than hurt myself or others. 
I realize how my question and comments are being misconstrued as trying to instruct without credentials, but that is not what I am suggesting. 
If I can help a fellow pilot become safer, more proficient, and develop better awareness, I would contend that is a good thing, and does not contravene any rules at all. 

[Fly Boomer]

3 hours ago, jlunseth said:

shit in your pants and die.

Made me laugh.    I know it's a serious topic, but I like a little humor mixed in.