In the USA, every private pilot gets his IFR before
he gets his commercial ticket. You simply can't
get an instructor rating in the USA without an
instrument rating.
Contrast that to Canada where few instructors
have their instrument ratings, and nearly zero
have seen the inside of a cloud. Again, you have
to be a fighter pilot slash astronaut to have an
instrument rating in Canada.
Well to be fair, having an IFR ticket up here just isn't as useful as having one down there, there is also a different culture of flying around it. For example I know one fellow who has bothered to tottally kit out his Tomahawk for IFR. He's got dual statics, dual vaccuum pumps and even an emergency battery powered attitude indicator. You'd never see that up here just because it isn't practical for the majority of pilots. There's also way more ILS approaches and radar coverage. I think the state of Montana has more ILS appraoches than all of Canada west of Winnipeg combined, and that's not even a populous place down there. Then there's the weather, as one pilot I know says "They're worst weather is our best weather". Looking outside today I can't help but agree. For my part of the world it always seems its very cut and dried its always spectacularly VFR or horribly IFR, and by that I mean its not the type of IFR you'd plow though low level in some bugsmasher, you'd be an ince cube falling out of the sky in no time.
I wouldn't say either that few instructors get instrument ratings, at least not by going through the resume stack I have where I would say around 80% of the fresh instructors also have a class1 group 1 rating in addition to their class 4 instructor rating. This is largely because a majority of instructors also seem to be the product of big gold bar touting flight schools. I'll let you judge whether that's agood or bad thing.
Rookie50 wrote:Ok, 16500. Can't read obviously . Whats the service ceiling of this 172? Ok. Have a good one, hope you don't end up in the other section of this forum.
Legal doesn't mean smart. Should be engraved in every hanger.
What's freaking me out is the fuel guage in the last pic. Above a sea of clouds and just over 5 gal in each tank. I'd be sweatin'.
I don't think you could keep a 172 in a spin that long, they always seem to turn into a spiral after a couple of turns.
Climb rate was around 200 fpm from 14,500 - 16,500, climb speed for the last bit was 75 kias. I was the sole occupant so I was under gross weight by a large margin. I was at 8,500 for about one hour, 12,500 for half an hour, 14,500 for an hour and 16,500 for the last two hours, was a long descent down to KPSC (410'), descended for around 60 miles at 500fpm.
You are correct, I landed about 1.4 hrs after this and still had about an hour of cruise fuel remaining.
It's true - the later-model 172's are crippled by a stupid
swept vertical fin and tiny rudder that was designed by
the moronic suits in the marketing department that
wanted to make them "look fast".
Well, if you want to go fast, look at the tail of a Mooney.
No sweep at all. Morons in suits ... the same people who
brought you T-tails on piston aircraft.
Anyways, if you want to watch a pro spin a Cessna,
here's a 60 turn spin:
Actually a very safe way for a non-IFR pilot to descend
through a layer, even though the "experts" here will tell
you that a high-G, high-speed spiral dive is the way to do it.
PA-32R-300 (1976–1978) Marketed as the Piper Cherokee Lance. Initial version of the retractable PA-32 line, with a standard tail in the 1976 model. The 1977 and 1978 models featured a tail modified to a "T" design with the stabilator (horizontal stabilizer/elevator) moved to the top of the vertical tail. This design placed the stabilator outside of the prop wash compared with the low tail design, and appreciably affected the takeoff and landing characteristics.
PA-32RT-300 (1978–1979) Beginning with this model, the Cherokee name was officially dropped and the model was designated the Lance II. The "T"-tail arrangement was continued on the Lance II.
PA-32RT-300T (1978–1979) Also in 1978 a turbocharged version, designated the Turbo Lance II, was introduced. The Turbo Lance II has a service ceiling of 20,000 ft with a rate of climb of 1050 ft/min. It can cruise at 10,000 ft at 175 kt true airspeed at 75% power burning 20 gal/h. Fuel capacity is 94 usable gallons.
PA-32R-301 (1980–2007) The 1980 models reverted to a standard tail design, and were designated as the Saratoga SP. In 1993 the airplane received several cosmetic and systems updates and was redesignated as the Saratoga II HP.
Another victim of the morons in suits in marketing until
the engineers were able to fix it in 1980. Probably before
you were born.
Cessna has always had an active marketing department. This was especially notable during the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, the marketing department followed the lead of Detroit automobile manufacturers and came up with many marketing slogans and buzzwords to describe Cessna’s product line in an attempt to place their products ahead of the competition.
Other manufacturers and the aviation press widely ridiculed and spoofed many of these marketing terms ...
Omni-Vision – This referred to the rear windows on some Cessna singles, starting with the 182 and 210 in 1962, the 172 in 1963 and the 150 in 1964. The term was intended to make the pilot feel visibility was improved on the notably poor-visibility Cessna line. The introduction of the rear window caused in most models a loss of cruise speed due to the extra drag, while not adding any useful visibility
The "Omni-Vision" Marketing brainwave was when the rudder
was crippled. As well as the cruise speed decreased.
I guess the Cessna Marketing department figured Cessnas
were so slow, Cessna pilots needed to spend a lot of time
looking behind them because they were always being
overtaken.
Again, likely before you were born. The "straight-tail" Cessna 172's
before the "omni-vision" marketing brainwave were far superior.
having an IFR ticket up here just isn't as useful as having one down there
Not sure about that. I live in the lee of the Great
Lakes and there's plenty of days where an IFR ticket
in a little airplane is really handy.
Well there's more to Canada than southern Ontario, as much as that comes as a shock. Here though its generally most of the time good VFR, hence you don't need an IFR rating, or when it is IFR its the worst kind of IFR that I couldn't reccomend plowing through in a typical bugsmasher. Not unless you were a real glutton for punishment. The higher ground elevations certainly don't help either. But that's just my opinion.
Biggest difference I find is the lack of close alternates.
Well add that to the list of impracticalities. Top it off with some hefty airport fees around here and it no longer makes much sense to do. That unfortunately I find is pushing the guys who are really hell bent IFRing around in small planes to start pretending they're finding magic VFR convinience holes, but that's a separate issue.
The IFR is very useful if your typical long-range flights are North-South into the US. Having flown the Ottawa - Florida or Bahamas trip a few times as a private pilot in my Baron, Husky and/or Trinidad, it's much less stressful filing IFR and working with ATC along the North-East corridor and down through Florida.
Heading West toward the mountains in the Husky? I was always VFR and usually under 1000' AGL with both windows open.
On another topic:
Rookie50 wrote:
tonyhunt wrote:
Rookie50 wrote:
Ps. Switch to a class 2 instructor or above, preferably one with other line experience. Sorry to anyone offended, but I don't train with green instructors for IFR training.
What is a green instructor? Don't assume a Class 1 or Class 2 instructor has IFR experience. They will have lots of experience sitting beside a student who is wearing a hood, but that may be all. There are many senior FTU instructors who have not flown in IMC.
....
I meant to get back to this one, as this issue really sticks in my craw. It's really not about class 1, 2 or 20. Whatever. Its all about the FTU industry, in which puppy - mill instructors turn out puppy mill pilots that don't know how to make decisions!
Like IFR instructors teaching without having any actual IMC time themselves. How ridiculous is that?
I had 750+ hours, with 300+ hours multi-IFR Cross Country time in the Baron and 250 hours Husky/tailwheel when my favourite CFI suggested we do the instructor rating together using my Husky. My first three students were my kids, in the Husky, and they were very honest with their feedback. Now I'm addicted to teaching and certainly not doing it for the hours, I have 2500+ hours and maintain my ATPL. Because my Flying Club time is limited, I have to be selective with students and we work together on scheduling. If someone phones the Club and says they will only accept a Class 1 or 2 instructor for their IFR or tailwheel instruction, I won't be your teacher for a couple of reasons.
Lotro wrote:Great conversation on this one guys. Thanks for all the valuable insight.
I feel like I should move to Ottawa, the flying sounds better up there.
It's not all roses in Ottawa. The local airports have experienced a number of significant "teaching moments" recently, and some fatalities. It hasn't been student pilots having accidents, but there has been a pattern. It seems more like licensed pilot/owners who have not been flying enough to be current, or pilots having more confidence in their abilities than their experience would justify. The biggest threat is probably private owners who have cut back their flying for budgetary reasons and the skills and PDM are decaying, along with their aircraft.
My personal opinion is that any money spent on a VFR OTT rating would be better applied to an IFR rating. Not only does it hone your skills and make you a more rounded pilot, but flying a single engine over IFR conditions is just asking for problems in the future. Imagine flying over overcast conditions with no breaks for 500km. Engine quits or an on-board emergency comes up, you're SOL.
How much faith do you guys put into the stats that seem to suggest that the engine out is ~1.3% of all aviation accidents? It is not that I suggest that SE IFR is a great idea, but it does seem to be the engine is not the leading factor in IFR accidents. Then again, there is a lie and there is statistics.
Second point, how much of a difference something like Synthetic Vision would make in such circumstance?
[1] there is no possibility of icing
[2] cloudbase is 1000ft or whatever off the ground
[3] you can fly well on instruments
[4] you know where you are
what is so scary about descending through a layer in the event of an emergency (or if instrument rated)? Although I'm not an expert, I'm fairly certain you don't even need to do a spin or spiral dive to get down.
I'm also not an expert. But:
1. if there is a cloud, there is possibility for icing. Minimally on your way down through the layer if you need to (emergency?)
2. The layer can easily be 4,000 or more thick
3. No, no, you don't do a spiral dive through the clouds to get down. OK, you might be able to do it once in life. It will be the first and last one. A spin - yes, it is a more fancy way to descend safely. Recovery at 200-500AGL is more within the skill set of Captain Sanders, not mine yet.
What we really need is a 2-class instrument rating
No, we don't. Long before you got into aviation, we had one,
and it was a royal pain in the @ss.
Well it works incredibly well in the UK, and appears to be safer than the alternative. How exactly was it a pain in the ass?
I'm not sure about that. If it worked so well, why is the JAA trying to get rid of the IMC rating? For at least 5 years (and I think longer) there have been arguments that it encourages pilots to fly in conditions they shouldn't. They also want to 'streamline' licences and ratings across JAA countries. As far as I can tell the CAA (campaign against aviation) haven't been fighting very hard to keep it. If it worked incredibly well as you say, there would be no question of getting rid of it, and every other European country would be following the UK's lead.
As I recall, there was/is much discussion and argument across various media following a very similar vein to this thread as to the 'value' versus danger of such a two-tier system. Most GA pilots I know in the UK seem to think it's a good thing, and want to keep it more because they don't like being told what to do by Brussels.
Well it works incredibly well in the UK, and appears to be safer than the alternative. How exactly was it a pain in the ass?
I'm not sure about that. If it worked so well, why is the JAA trying to get rid of the IMC rating? For at least 5 years (and I think longer) there have been arguments that it encourages pilots to fly in conditions they shouldn't. They also want to 'streamline' licences and ratings across JAA countries. As far as I can tell the CAA (campaign against aviation) haven't been fighting very hard to keep it. If it worked incredibly well as you say, there would be no question of getting rid of it, and every other European country would be following the UK's lead.
As I recall, there was/is much discussion and argument across various media following a very similar vein to this thread as to the 'value' versus danger of such a two-tier system. Most GA pilots I know in the UK seem to think it's a good thing, and want to keep it more because they don't like being told what to do by Brussels.
One fatality in 40 years seems pretty safe to me. It looks like EASA is introducing an 'en-route instrument rating' in Europe instead of an IMC rating. It looks like it's a slightly more useful version of an VFR-OTT rating that allows you fly en-route in IMC.
Honest question - why would you spin through a cloud? Why wouldn't you just reduce power-attitude-trim and keep steady with an instrument scan through the descent?
Here though its generally most of the time good VFR, hence you don't need an IFR rating, or when it is IFR its the worst kind of IFR that I couldn't reccomend plowing through in a typical bugsmasher. Not unless you were a real glutton for punishment. The higher ground elevations certainly don't help either. But that's just my opinion.
