Should PPL/CPL Students Do Instrument Training

[uwochris]

Hey guys,

A while back I was watching this show on A&E where some people recommended it become mandatory for all pilots (including PPL) to obtain an instrument rating if they want to fly.

After listening to that FSS tape from the guy who inadvertently entered into IMC, it makes me wonder whether the training people receive today is sufficient.

What are your opinions?

Personally, I do not think that a full instrument rating is necessary, but some level of instrument training should be a standard. I did all my training in Canada, and for the PPL, we are required to obtain at least 5 hours of hood work. Some instructors go as far as to introduce partial panel work. For the CPL, you need to do an additional 20 hours of hood work, which includes radio nav and partial panel (on the CPL flight test, you do climbs and descents at specified IAS and rates, radio nav to/from a VOR or NDB, partial panel timed turns and climbs/descents).

How are things different in the USA for the PPL and CPL candidates? Is there any level of instrument training that is required? If not, should it be?

Thanks in advance,

Chris.

 

[flyer172r]

Private students are required to have 3 hours of instrument training, Commercial applicants have to have an instrument rating if they want an unrestricted commercial certificate.

I don't think everyone should be required to have an instrument rating, because a lot of pilots wouldn't keep it current, and if you don't keep it current then you might as well not have it since it won't do you any good if you need it all of a sudden.

 

[bigD]

I could see some additional instrument training, but requiring the full rating would make flying prohibitively expensive for a lot of people. Not everyone gets a PPL with the goal of being a professional pilot.

There are a lot of areas where the FAA depends on the pilots to excercise good judgement. This is one of them. A required instrument rating would punish a lot of pilots for the mistakes of a few.

 

[A Squared]

Normally, in the US pilots get thier instrument rating before the CPL because the instrument rating has no total time reqiirement, whereas the CPL requires 250 hr. so it makes sense to get the IR while building time for the cpl. As a result, a non instrument rated commercial pilot is a bit of a rarity in hte US. That aside, the US CPL requires 10 hours of instrument training.

DIfferent countries do things differently, in the UK, night flying is a seperate rating on your certificate, and there something like a instrument rating "lite" which allows limited instrument flying short of the full blown instrument rating (or at least there was before the JAA)

Anyway, as far as making the instrument rating a basic requirement, no I don't think that is necessarily a good thing. Instrument flying is a completely seperate skill, and there's plenty of VFR pilots who only fly in good vfr and stay safe doing what they do. I think Flyr172 nailed it when he pointed out that if you don't keep it current, you might as well not have it anyway for all hte good it will do you. In fact I'll take it a step further and say that perhaps someone with the rating who is not current might be tempted to push things, not appreciating how badly his skills have degraded, whereas someone whithout hte rating might maintain a wider margin.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

Commercial also requries 20 hrs of instrument/hood work. At that point, you might as well get your IR.

 

[mar]

As usual, the FAA is a near miss on this one too

The FAA has the right idea to require *some* instrument training but they're not specific enough.

In my humble (yeah, right) opinion, every private pilot should be able to hold straight and level on the gauges.

Just hold an altitude and a heading. That's it.

Just enough so that he can declare an emergency and receive vectors to VFR weather. That would save a lot of lives.

If I could manage it, all of my primary students got some actual time while being vectored to or from the practice area.

 

[Lead Sled]

I don't think everyone should be required to have an instrument rating, because a lot of pilots wouldn't keep it current, and if you don't keep it current then you might as well not have it since it won't do you any good if you need it all of a sudden.

Well said Flyer172R. I remember an interview given by Bob Hoover when he talked about instrument flying and why he gave it up. Simply put, he said that he could be proficient at either instrument flying or aerobatic flying - but not both.

Personally, I believe that safety would be much better served if the FAA required spin training for all pilots. Additionally, if I were king of the world, all pilots would have to get some glider and taildragger time as well.

Lead Sled

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

The FAA has the right idea to require *some* instrument training but they're not specific enough.

In my humble (yeah, right) opinion, every private pilot should be able to hold straight and level on the gauges.

Just hold an altitude and a heading. That's it.

Just enough so that he can declare an emergency and receive vectors to VFR weather. That would save a lot of lives.

If I could manage it, all of my primary students got some actual time while being vectored to or from the practice area.

PTS for PPL says you should be able to do straight and level, climbs, decents, and turns under the hood if I remember correctly.

 

[bobbysamd]

Instrument training for all pilots

Instrument training is one of the best skill-builders and skill-honers around for pilots. Intellectually, I love the idea of all pilots being required to earn their instrument ratings. As a practical matter, doing so could invite more accidents.

There is something about an instrument rating or even instrument training that emboldens some people to take chances. Just imagine the instrument-rated doctor who has not flown in six months and is barely within his comp check taking up his Bonanza in IMC. Or, as a far worse and sad example, someone like an instrument-rated JFK, Jr. Without the rating people like these might think twice before venturing forth into conditions in which they have no business.

There is some columnist in Flying who is a doctor or something who wrote recently how he forged forth in icky, icy IMC. I gathered that althoug he made it through he was scared, but, of course, he just had to go. Those are the people I'm talking about, among others.

I always taught my private students the basic instrument skills set forth in the PTS, but also taught them to capture and track VOR radials and home to NDBs under the hood. Also did simulated DF steers under the hood. Most of them were going on for their Commercial-Instruments, so I figured it was a good introduction to instrument flying and something to get them excited about it.

All pilots really need good, basic instrument skills to fly at night, but not all pilots need or should have instrument ratings. They should have recurrent instrument training, which most pilots can receive in the WINGS program or during a good, thorough BFR.

That's my $0.02.

 

[mar]

And that'll teach you...

PTS for PPL says you should be able to do straight and level, climbs, decents, and turns under the hood if I remember correctly.

...Would you believe my CFI is current but I haven't taught (private pilot) in 10 years???



I still think the FAA is screwed up.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Vector4fun]

I also have to agree with flyer172. Having the rating doesn't do much good if one doesn't keep it current. I'm a CFII, but haven't flown enough in recent years to stay IFR current. I recently did my BFR with some actual thrown in, even though I hadn't actually been PIC in actual IMC for years. I did fine during some simple vectors and climbs/descents, but I well know I'm not ready for low IMC in busy airspace or at night or around high terrain. Having said that, I'm still tempted at times to ask for a short range IFR clearance to penetrate a thin layer of clouds when I know the ceilings are good, but I resist the urge, figuring it's likely to lead to a bad risk decision at some point. And I work enough of those (sometimes) rated, but obviously not current or very sharp IFR pilots to know the kind of messes they get into.


Having said all that, it would be really good experience to take your non-instrument rated students out in marginal VMC night-time conditions, and show them exactly how fast they can get into a world of trouble. It's an eye-opener. Even departing some airports in good VMC at night can be tricky. I remember departing rwy 12 at ABQ VFR one night years ago in a Cherokee 180. Yikes, I was on the guages as soon as I crossed the departure end because it was pitch black, no ground lights, no horizon, and rising terrain. Got my attention in a hurry!

 

[minitour]

Having said all that, it would be really good experience to take your non-instrument rated students out in marginal VMC night-time conditions, and show them exactly how fast they can get into a world of trouble. It's an eye-opener. Even departing some airports in good VMC at night can be tricky. I remember departing rwy 12 at ABQ VFR one night years ago in a Cherokee 180. Yikes, I was on the guages as soon as I crossed the departure end because it was pitch black, no ground lights, no horizon, and rising terrain. Got my attention in a hurry!

I'll agree with that. I know its been posted before, but I think especially over a larger body of water or "featureless" terrain on a high overcast night (8-12k) where there's no moonlight...boy was that an eye opener. You wanna talk about being on the gauges! Especially when good 'ole CLE approach vectors you out over the lake on a big-a$$ final to the 24s. Thank goodness the city was all lit up and I had SOME reference...anyway...
(funny thing, they vector me out for this 10-15mi final, then want me to report 2mi final...wft was that?)


To the point of this thread, I can't say wether you should have to get the rating, or not, but I'm thankful my CFI (a current II on an IFR clearance) took me into some actual during my private training. Not much, only .8, but as we're buzzing along, I noticed the Turn Coordinator starting to go left, so I thought, "okay, little bit of right aileron and rudder and we'll be .... no that feels wrong, we'll just leave it alone". Next thing I know we're in a 1,500fpm diving left turn. Of course, the CFI wouldn't have let it go very much farther before correcting the error, but we broke out probably at 4,500'. REAL eye opener.

That said, however, I'll also agree that even if you've got the ticket, if it isn't current, how good is it?

A question regarding the currency issue: Do you think the currency requirements are too lacking? Do you think they should REQUIRE some actual IMC in the previous ___ months? I realize that its simulated OR actual, but we all know how easy it is to cheat when you've got the foggles on. Just wondering if anyone else thinks you should be required to log say 3.0 actual in 6 months? Maybe more? Opinions?

-minitour

PS - Any of you CFIIs out there that do not train your instrument students in actual? I'm at a school now that SAYS they do, but today is perfect for it (2,000 broken/10 vis) and they won't do it. Any opinions on that?

 

[Tripower455]

In my humble (yeah, right) opinion, every private pilot should be able to hold straight and level on the gauges.

Just hold an altitude and a heading. That's it.

Just enough so that he can declare an emergency and receive vectors to VFR weather. That would save a lot of lives.

I agree 100%!!!! A few hours of basic attitude training would probably saved John John. No need for the full blown instrument rating for private. For someone that inadvertantly gets stuck in IFR conditions, just knowing how to kee the thing upright will be enough.

 

[A Squared]

I agree 100%!!!! A few hours of basic attitude training would probably saved John John. No need for the full blown instrument rating for private. For someone that inadvertantly gets stuck in IFR conditions, just knowing how to kee the thing upright will be enough.

Presumably, John, like all holders of a PPL, was not only trained, but required to demonstrate on his checkride, straight and level flight, climbs, descents, turns to headings and recovery form unusual attitudes, all by reference to instruments. (Area of Operation IX, Basic Instrument Manuvers) Everyone gets this training. I think that there needs to be some recognition that it's not the training, but what is or isn't done after the checkride. John had these skills at one time, but they lapsed, and it killed him.

 

[Lead Sled]

FWIW, I believe that having an instrument rating is probably the cheapest insurance policy that you can buy - provided you keep current and proficient. The problem is that it costs $$$ to get the training and to maintain proficiency. Some are unable or unwilling to make the necessary financial commitments.

Unintentional or unexpected IFR is a real killer and it doesn't matter what your experience level is. Minitour was spot on when he talks about "featureless terrain". A friend of mine (highly experienced ATP and DPE) killed himself and his passengers when he lost situational awareness in a Seneca a few years back. Fortunately, a little common sense goes a long way - night VFR cross country flight, like night SVFR, is something that should be avoided unless you're ready, willing, and able to file and fly IFR. Sure it's legal to do it VFR, but is it smart?

Lead Sled

 

[minitour]

...Minitour was spot on when he talks about "featureless terrain". A friend of mine (highly experienced ATP and DPE) killed himself and his passengers when he lost situational awareness in a Seneca a few years back. Fortunately, a little common sense goes a long way - night VFR cross country flight, like night SVFR, is something that should be avoided unless you're ready, willing, and able to file and fly IFR. Sure it's legal to do it VFR, but is it smart?

Lead Sled

...and you can bet your balls thats a "mistake" I won't be willing to make again any time soon...

-mini

 

[Vector4fun]

PS - Any of you CFIIs out there that do not train your instrument students in actual? I'm at a school now that SAYS they do, but today is perfect for it (2,000 broken/10 vis) and they won't do it. Any opinions on that?

When I was teaching at a college, we'd teach in actual IMC until it got down to around 500x2 or so. (Only had a loc approach at home base at that time.) Below that, we seldom did any training, but the instructors were sometimes given use of the Archer or Arrow to all get current as long as we had mins.

I think it depends on the student and aircraft. If it's less than 1000 x 3, I want to know the student pretty well, AND the aircraft. Even when I was a "bulletproof" kid free-lancing, I wanted to know the aircraft, it's equipment, and quirks before I set out into some low actual IMC. Of course, this was back in the days when most aircraft were a hodge-podge of different radios and indicators, King, Narco, Collins, and ARC. Seemed every stack was a bit different, and every audio panel was too. Non-instrument rated students with their own aircraft were not very reliable judges of their own aircraft's condition for IFR flight of course. (Do the marker beacons work? Dahhhhh....)

I just really didn't want to be teaching at ILS mins unless I knew the aircraft and pilot pretty well.

The other problem, and it is a problem, is in much of the Southwest and West, there's often not a lot of IMC weather that is suitable for light aircraft. Often, if it's IMC, there's lot's of serious convective activity, ice, or 40 kt winds. Not a lot of "benign" 500 x 2 in haze and fog....

 

[lawfly]

"Bobbysamd" refers to an "instrument-rated JFK, Jr." Thought he was NOT instrument rated.
Also, I know the "doctor in his Bonanza" is an aviation cliche, but owners of some high end aircraft (such as a TBM, for example) undergo sim recurrency every 6 months at approved flight training centers, as required by insurance. Indeed, the one fatality of a doctor in a Bonanza (well, a 210, actually) of which I have some personal knowledge involved a non-instrument doctor-pilot who flew his 210 (okay, not a Bonanza) into marine layer during an SVFR departure many years ago. Ironically, and tragically, I was unexpectedly asked to hold in a Mooney at the final approach fix on my IFR clearance because he had not yet reported clear of the control zone (old terminology from back then). He had in fact crashed. The lack of currency is a problem whether one is instrument rated or not. Of course, ultimately good judgment is needed by VFR and IFR pilots alike.
As for the thread topic, I think the instrument rating is a good thing and as a CFII have taken a number of people through to the rating. But not saying it should be a requirement for PPL. Any thoughts about how the sport and recreational pilot cetificates might fit into this discussion?

 

[bobbysamd]

JFK, Jr.

"Bobbysamd" refers to an "instrument-rated JFK, Jr." Thought he was NOT instrument rated.

The point is JFK, Jr. exhibited poor judgment by venturing forth in conditions that were beyond his abilities in an airplane that, too, might have beyond his abilities. Even with an instrument rating, he might have exhibited the same poor judgment. There is a world of difference betwen having an instrument rating and being instrument current.

 

[wxman13]

Ditto what vector4fun said about IMC in the West. We get fog all winter long with 100-200 foot ceilings, which would make for some pretty intense ILS approaches. But then again the temperature is 25 F and the Metar reports FZFG. I think in principle it's a great idea to "require" some amount of training in actual (and it made a big difference for me, as far as being able to see what an ILS looks like when you pop out, instead of flipping up the hood), but it's just not practical in many places.