Questions about INRAT training

[roach374]

I'm currently studying for my instrument rating, and trying to untangle the CAP-GEN gibberish. I had a couple of questions that don't seem to have ready answers via Google, so the answer must be obvious to everyone but me. Can anyone help?

1) Why do CAP Advisory visibilities / approach bans exist? Like I get that I have to take the value from the approach plate, and depending on whether I'm commercial, GA, Ops spec, planning, planning alternate, or actually landing, apply one of fifty different adjustements to that value, but, like, why? Is it increasing safety somehow? Why not just use what's actually written on the approach plate?

2) There's some verbiage in the section on "Alternate Aerodrome Weather Minima Requirements" for satellite-based approaches. Lots of talk about "taking credit", when "credit may be taken", and "No credit may be taken", etc. What does this mean? What "credit" are they talking about?

[roach374]

Also, according to the Spaghetti diagram, "In all Cases, Crew can perform approach and landing". Is that true? And if so, why torture ourselves memorizing all the spaghetti?

[lownslow]

1) Why do CAP Advisory visibilities / approach bans exist? Like I get that I have to take the value from the approach plate, and depending on whether I'm commercial, GA, Ops spec, planning, planning alternate, or actually landing, apply one of fifty different adjustements to that value, but, like, why? Is it increasing safety somehow? Why not just use what's actually written on the approach plate?

I’ve always assumed Canadian approach bans are to walk that fine line of dealing with the imperfect nature of weather reporting while also preventing pilots from doing shady things like continuing an approach waaaaay below minima. On one hand, any time the vis gets bad take a look at the METAR for the nearest large airport. Many times they’ll have an RVR that’s notably higher than the reported visibility which has to do with where it’s reported from as well as how it’s measured. Having an approach ban higher than charted visibility gives you a chance to at least see if the reported visibility is true or not. On the other hand, there have historically been pilots who will just blindly continue an approach way past minima and the approach ban puts the brakes on them to some degree. It’s not a perfect system but it’s what we have.

2) There's some verbiage in the section on "Alternate Aerodrome Weather Minima Requirements" for satellite-based approaches. Lots of talk about "taking credit", when "credit may be taken", and "No credit may be taken", etc. What does this mean? What "credit" are they talking about?

I too hate that ‘take credit’ verbiage. I suspect it’s legalese but I mentally replace it with ‘intend to and rely on using.’

[roach374]

2) There's some verbiage in the section on "Alternate Aerodrome Weather Minima Requirements" for satellite-based approaches. Lots of talk about "taking credit", when "credit may be taken", and "No credit may be taken", etc. What does this mean? What "credit" are they talking about?

I too hate that ‘take credit’ verbiage. I suspect it’s legalese but I mentally replace it with ‘intend to and rely on using.’

This is great. I'll mentally use this going forward. I thought it might have something to do with currency requirements of flying 6 approaches to minimums, etc., but it didn't make sense in this context. Thanks!

[TalkingPie]

I'm currently working on my instrument rating and just wrote my INRAT last week. It seems to me that there's a disconnect between what you need to pass the exam and what you'll really need out in the real world of flying.

To pass the exam, you don't need to worry about applying adjustments to the advisory values - the curriculum doesn't touch on it at all. On the other hand, I spent months on pilottraining.ca, and in that particular course there's so much extra stuff that may or may not be useful in the real world, but wasn't time-efficient for preparing for the exam. After going through the course, doing practice exams is what quickly distilled what Transport Canada wants you to know in order to sign you off. On my first practice exam after dutifully doing the course I scored 54%. After a few more I was scoring 80s and 90s. I got 90% on my TC exam.

I have no personal experience with them, but lots of students and instructors around me swear by these 2-3 day intensive seminars like Aerocourse.

After you pass the INRAT is when I figure the real learning begins.

[roach374]

I'm currently working on my instrument rating and just wrote my INRAT last week. It seems to me that there's a disconnect between what you need to pass the exam and what you'll really need out in the real world of flying.

To pass the exam, you don't need to worry about applying adjustments to the advisory values - the curriculum doesn't touch on it at all. On the other hand, I spent months on pilottraining.ca, and in that particular course there's so much extra stuff that may or may not be useful in the real world, but wasn't time-efficient for preparing for the exam. After going through the course, doing practice exams is what quickly distilled what Transport Canada wants you to know in order to sign you off. On my first practice exam after dutifully doing the course I scored 54%. After a few more I was scoring 80s and 90s. I got 90% on my TC exam.

I have no personal experience with them, but lots of students and instructors around me swear by these 2-3 day intensive seminars like Aerocourse.

After you pass the INRAT is when I figure the real learning begins.

Thanks for this. I'm grinding the Dauntless practice tests at the moment. pilottraining.ca was just too much to get through. I'll check out Aerocourse!

[CaptDukeNukem]

I'm currently working on my instrument rating and just wrote my INRAT last week. It seems to me that there's a disconnect between what you need to pass the exam and what you'll really need out in the real world of flying.

To pass the exam, you don't need to worry about applying adjustments to the advisory values - the curriculum doesn't touch on it at all. On the other hand, I spent months on pilottraining.ca, and in that particular course there's so much extra stuff that may or may not be useful in the real world, but wasn't time-efficient for preparing for the exam. After going through the course, doing practice exams is what quickly distilled what Transport Canada wants you to know in order to sign you off. On my first practice exam after dutifully doing the course I scored 54%. After a few more I was scoring 80s and 90s. I got 90% on my TC exam.

I have no personal experience with them, but lots of students and instructors around me swear by these 2-3 day intensive seminars like Aerocourse.

After you pass the INRAT is when I figure the real learning begins.

Thanks for this. I'm grinding the Dauntless practice tests at the moment. pilottraining.ca was just too much to get through. I'll check out Aerocourse!

Highly recommend aerocourse especially for the ATPL.