IFR " Lite "

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

IFR " Lite "

Post by Cat Driver »

Interesting conversations going on here about the need for an instrument rating to save pilots asses if they are dumb enough to end up IMC on a VFR flight.

Someone suggested a partial IFR rating that is not the full rating so these people who get them selves into IMC flying VRF can save their asses.

IFR " Lite " would be like " Lite " beer, the alcoholics just drink twice the amount.

Don't forget if a commercial pilot gets an instrument rating with their license and they do not keep current and let it lapse they have an IFR " Lite ".
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
sheephunter
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 673
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:02 am
Location: Muskoka

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by sheephunter »

Oh, kinda like having a cooler and using Stoli for mix. Can't wait to fianlly here your conclusion to all this Cat. You can tell the boys ain't flyin' today.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by Cat Driver »

Sheephunter:

Every once in a while we get some good discussion going in this zoo, and every once in a while I get to post something that does not end up in a mud wrestling contest.

When I first started on Avcanada it was with the intention of going back into the flight training business so I could pass on what I learned over the last half century in aviation, but alas it was not to be because I found out that my ideas do not go over to well with the flight training sector.

Seems that there is some interest from the licensed pilots though so what the hell I may as well express my thoughts with that group.

Amazing how civil these last few threads have turned out. :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
matt777
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by matt777 »

Isn't the point of the instrument time to get the PPL to help pilots incase they get into IMC during VFR flights?
---------- ADS -----------
 
'effin hippie
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:44 pm
Location: Further..further...ok, too far...

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by 'effin hippie »

Evidence would suggest that the current IFR training for the PPL and CPL is inadequate.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by Cat Driver »

Evidence would suggest that the current IFR training for the PPL and CPL is inadequate.
Could that be because the training is done in a make believe environment, rather than in actual conditions where there is no need to wear one of those goofy devices on your head for one thing?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Hedley
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 10430
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:40 am
Location: CYSH
Contact:

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by Hedley »

Hood work, like many other of my favorite activities, is best performed at night.
---------- ADS -----------
 
'effin hippie
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:44 pm
Location: Further..further...ok, too far...

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by 'effin hippie »

I couldn't agree more. Almost every FTU I'm aware of grounds their A/C way too quickly for WX. I'd be willing to bet there are lots of CPL instructors out there who have no idea what 1 sm vis even looks like. In all fairness, this may not be entirely the FTU's fault, since I have no idea how they are regulated or what their insurers say.

Training for marginal VMC and /or IMC should require some measure of exposure to actual conditions.
Further to the 'lite' suggestion, I would say that to be effective it would need the exposure mentioned above plus some kind of recurrency requirement.

ef
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
_dwj_
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:08 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by _dwj_ »

No amount of instrument training will help you avoid CFIT. Once you've made the decision to keep flying into fog or whatever, even if you fly on instruments perfectly it just means you fly very nicely into the side of the mountain. The problem, I believe, is with pilots making poor decisions - they keep on going and/or fly lower instead of doing the 180 turn and then climbing on instruments if necessary. It's not rocket science, it's just dumb human nature.

As people have said, in commercial ops it should be up to the chief pilot and management to install a safe attitude in their pilots. I would imagine that TC should also be involved in this, through SMS, but I don't know if this is the case.
---------- ADS -----------
 
2milefinal
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:36 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by 2milefinal »

I am of the opinion that hood work is NOT the best way to teach someone how to fly IFR. Doing it at night would be a start.
If I was in charge (- :lol: -) all hoods would be put in the trash and everyone
would be required to do their training in a full motion sim.
I do NOT like the "IFR lite" idea.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by 2milefinal on Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8133
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by iflyforpie »

Maybe my school was different, I don't know, but..

Much of our IFR was done in actual conditions.

A portion of our night cross country was done across the Thompson plateau from Penticton to Kamloops, with no ground lights and several 'mountains' ranging between 5 and 7000 feet along our route, using only instruments and maps.

I completed my Group 1 IFR as part of my CPL (my own choice, but was encouraged to do it).


I feel more comfortable with an IFR rating, but I still stay the fcuk away from clouds as the MEAs around here are about 2-7000ft higher than I fly. There was an IFR equipped Sundowner 180 I used to fly between the BC coast and the Okanagan but there was no way in hell I was ever going IFR over the Cascade Mountains in that, even if it was totally legal. Took the bus home a few times and no regrets.

There is nothing wrong with additional training, but with it must come the discipline to use it properly.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
Tim
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1026
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 6:16 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by Tim »

I got a grand total of .3 hrs IMC from my flight training, all of it on my ride. I was always sour we didn't do it more often. Also would have been nice to have a seneca for the light icing days.
---------- ADS -----------
 
'effin hippie
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:44 pm
Location: Further..further...ok, too far...

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by 'effin hippie »

_dwj_ wrote:No amount of instrument training will help you avoid CFIT. Once you've made the decision to keep flying into fog or whatever, even if you fly on instruments perfectly it just means you fly very nicely into the side of the mountain. The problem, I believe, is with pilots making poor decisions - they keep on going and/or fly lower instead of doing the 180 turn and then climbing on instruments if necessary. It's not rocket science, it's just dumb human nature.
Are you for real? Instrument training allows firstly for control of the A/C. Upside-down = CFIT. Then it will train situational awareness so you know where you are and where you need to be. Loss of Situational Awareness = CFIT.

What idiot, no matter how fat dumb and happy, after struggling around at low altitude fighting to stay visual, would, upon finally losing visual reference, just shrug, level out and keep going. Come On! They are going to try the 180, or the instrument climb or something, and they will be on the gauges, scared shitless, possibly partial panel. Which is exactly what Instrument training would teach one to deal with, and, the argument is going, isn't being taught enough.

ef
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by Cat Driver »

ef, when I did my commercial training we had to demonstrate the ability to recover from a spin in a Cessna 140 with partial panel and using two stage amber...not a stupid hood.

But that was back in the old days when flight training was inferior to today's training. :rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8133
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by iflyforpie »

Cat Driver wrote:ef, when I did my commercial training we had to demonstrate the ability to recover from a spin in a Cessna 140 with partial panel and using two stage amber...not a stupid hood.

:shock:


Sounds like fun! :)
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
3juggs
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:12 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by 3juggs »

When I was instructing we tried to keep the instrument work during PPL & CPL when able to those SVFR days or at night. SVFR is also a great for low level diversions . You always want to expose a student to reduced visibilities and ceiling as much as possible legally of course to expand experience and comfort level in order to [b]improve situational awareness are decision making[/b]. It would be nice if every pilot had a IFR rating but that isn't the reality so at the very least it's the instructors job to teach how to ideally avoid IMC and if encountered get out of it by using basic instrument skills.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by 3juggs on Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
_dwj_
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:08 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by _dwj_ »

I actually have an "IFR lite", also known as an IMC rating from the UK (which I can't use here). On one of my training flights the cloudbase was somewhere below 500 feet in a pretty bad rainstorm. During the flight to the big airport the weather got worse and when we started the ILS approach the 172 was being bounced around too much for me to be able to keep it lined up. The instructor put in on the autopilot, but even the autopilot couldn't do it, so the instructor manhandled it down the ILS as best he could until we emerged from the clouds at about 300 feet and he flew it back "VFR" asking me to look down and tell him if we lost sight of the ground. The entire view out the front was just clouds, and you could only see straight down, with the plane being bounced around pretty well the whole time. He had been flying around this area for years so he knew where the obstructions were and we didn't hit anything.

Although I never used the rating after I got it, it did teach me that you don't want to be flying a little plane in really shitty weather (IFR or not).

Perhaps if more students got the shit scared out of them (literally) at least once like this during their training, they might think twice about going up in marginal weather. Or perhaps the people who do it don't have any fear and that's the problem.
---------- ADS -----------
 
2milefinal
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:36 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by 2milefinal »

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00611.html


Cat
Is this what you are talking about.
And why did they/we stop using it?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
_dwj_
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:08 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by _dwj_ »

'effin hippie wrote: Are you for real? Instrument training allows firstly for control of the A/C. Upside-down = CFIT.
No, CFIT is "controlled". If you are upside-down you are not in "controlled flight" (unless you're Hedley, but I don't think he does aerobatics in IMC). You're talking about spatial disorientation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by Cat Driver »

The instructor put in on the autopilot, but even the autopilot couldn't do it, so the instructor manhandled it down the ILS as best he could until we emerged from the clouds at about 300 feet and he flew it back "VFR" asking me to look down and tell him if we lost sight of the ground.
You are telling us that after breaking out of cloud at 300 feet on an ILS with a runway ahead of you you two flew back to where ever you started in that weather trying to stay visual????? :prayer: :prayer:
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
'effin hippie
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:44 pm
Location: Further..further...ok, too far...

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by 'effin hippie »

Mea Culpa. In my fearsome righteousness, I forgot what CFIT means.

I don't think CFIT is really what we are looking at here though, but instead, broadly, ways of reducing VFR into IMC related accidents, which, as I'm sure is obvious, I think could be helped by improved/increased instrument training.

ef
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by Cat Driver »

Cat
Is this what you are talking about.
And why did they/we stop using it?
2mile, yes that is basically what we used.

We put amber screens in the windshield and the side windows.

The goggles were normal goggles like safety goggles with blue lenses including on the sides.

The inside of the airplane appeared to be blue tinted and everything outside was black.

Why did they stop using it?

I'll be fuc.ed if I know, because it was just like flying inside cloud at night.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
2milefinal
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:36 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by 2milefinal »

I am thinking that someone thought the hood was a better(cheaper) option :roll:

thanks
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by Cat Driver »

Probably, but that begs the question of why everyone agreed with that idiot?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8133
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: IFR " Lite "

Post by iflyforpie »

What about the old hoods? You know the actual canvas hoods that went under the canopy. There's one from a Harvard in my hangar.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”