Should PPL/CPL Students Do Instrument Training

[NuGuy]

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.

This is true...but back in the day, the IR required 200 hours of total time, then later, 125 hours of total time.

I remember one examiner who really thought that a pilot should have the 200 hours total time (a bit of an old schooler, the DE was upset the FAA lowered it 125 hours TT). Before 200 hours, in the DE's opinion, pilot's didn't have A) a REAL sense of situational awareness, B) Confidence to make the airplane REALLY do what they want, and C) the ability to make a serious read of the weather (the point being if your VFR, you develop a better sense of what really works and what doesn't, instead of blindly barging off IFR).

In any event, I'm sure the FAA considered all of that, but in the end, it figured less people would auger inn if they were inexperienced, but had the rating, instead of being more experienced and didn't. A question of picking the lesser of two evils.

It would be interesting to see after a bit of accident rates go down because of this, or if the numbers stay the same, and simply shift to a different category. Sort of like the anti-lock brake debate.

Nu

 

[Lead Sled]

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.

JFK, Jr was doing nothing illegal when he died - he was flying an airplane in which he was appropriately rated and qualified to fly in legal VFR conditions. Let's suppose that on the day he died, he - at the last minute - couldn't make the trip and asked one of you to fly it for him. How many of you VFR pilots (assuming, of course you had all of the appropriate endorsements and were checked out in the Saratoga), if given the opportunity, would have jumped at the chance to take that same trip?

There are many things that you have to learn as pilots in order to survive in the real world. Two of the big ones are...
Knowing when to say no; and learning one of the basic tenents of aviation - What is legal isn't always safe and what is safe isn't always legal.

Instrument ratings are good things, but only if you keep proficient and current. A non-proficient instrument pilot puts himself, his passengers, and those of us who share his airspace at risk.

Lead Sled

 

[bobbysamd]

JFK, Jr. judgment

JFK, Jr was doing nothing illegal when he died - he was flying an airplane in which he was appropriately rated and qualified to fly in legal VFR conditions.

Legal but somewhat marginal conditions. I also recall that he had suffered an ankle injury and it was in a cast. Also, he had been rushing around that day and was fatigued. He did not have all that much experience.

What we're talking about is judgment. The JFK, Jr. tragedy was a sad example of poor aeronautical decision making, as set forth in the Five Hazardous Thought Attitudes. Studies have shown that aviation accidents begin and snowball when one of these attitudes is exhibited.

There are lots of things you can do as a pilot that are not illegal. But, is doing them an exhibition of good judgment?

 

[lawfly]

Have any of you guys read the full/final NTSB report in the Kennedy matter? I haven't. So, this is just my own preliminary "impression", based on the sketchy media info from back then and since then. I used to teach recovery from unusual attitudes, including at night over Long Island Sound, and have been out to the Vineyard, Nantucket, etc., so the accident was of some personal interest to me. Anyway, my own impression was that whatever contributing causes got him to the point of a spiral attitude, he most likely increased pitch attitude once he was in it, tightening the spiral, rather than first levelling the wings. And who knows what he did or didn't do with the power. This was probably a crash that could have been prevented had the autopilot been flying the airplane to begin with instead of the pilot. I am not suggesting that an autopilot be a substitute for an instrument rating. I have about 1,000 hours of night time (of my 3,000 total), and was just recently over water offshore from Santa Barbara at night in a TBM, returning to Santa Monica after dinner at SBA. The owner of the airplane (a former instrument student of mine) and I simultaneously remarked that a non-instrument rated pilot could well have had some difficulty with the visual cues or lack thereof. (We were IFR). The wx was VFR at the airports in question, but there was some coastal stratus and some other obscuration. I do think there are situations in which good instrument-related skills make a big difference and, of course, good judgment is always an imperative.

 

[JB74]

Here is the NTSB report on the Kennedy crash.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&key=1

Pretty interesting read.

 

[Lead Sled]

What we're talking about is judgment. The JFK, Jr. tragedy was a sad example of poor aeronautical decision making, as set forth in the Five Hazardous Thought Attitudes. Studies have shown that aviation accidents begin and snowball when one of these attitudes is exhibited.

There are lots of things you can do as a pilot that are not illegal. But, is doing them an exhibition of good judgment?

Am I missing something here? Isn't this exactly what I was talking about?

Lead Sled

 

[lawfly]

Instrument Training For PPL/CPL; JFK, Jr.

My final (?) comments on this are: 1.)Thanks to JB74 for the link to NTSB report and 2.) I think citing to JFK ,Jr. is a cite in favor of more instrument training (even the full rating), and is not a cite in support of the status quo. The phrase "an instrument rated JFK, Jr." is an oxymoron. I understand the point the original author was trying to make: that all pilots have to be current and exercise good judgment, but the original thread topic suggests the following question: whether, given the conditions that VFR-only pilots are legally allowed to fly in, should there be some changes ? (e.g., higher VFR night weather minima, more instruction, an instrument rating, more expansive night currency/night experience requirements). A cite to the JFK, Jr tragedy tends to support change. Even if the change is only to spend more time in training discussing the potential hazards of night flight for VFR-only pilots. I just thought that the cite to "an instrument rated JFK, Jr." was, as I said, oxymoronic at best. But no contest that "legal is not always safe" and that currency (personal currency,just like personal VFR and IFR minimums, can be higher than what is legal) and good judgment are collectively a "given", regardless of ratings.

 

[bobbysamd]

JFK, Jr.

I just thought that the cite to "an instrument rated JFK, Jr." was, as I said, oxymoronic at best . . . .

The point, again, was that JFK, Jr., without an instrument rating, exhibited bad judgment. With an instrument rating, the same individual, JFK, Jr., might have thought himself even more invulnerable, and more apt to making poor decisions.

 

[lawfly]

Instrument Training

Whatever you say. I say poor example. The guy was non-instrument rated. Non-persuasive example, to say the least, if you are citing in support of the status quo. I am off to write a California Supreme Court brief in which I had better make sense and cite persuasively. So, will now focus elsewhere. My work here is done. Count me off the thread.

 

[bobbysamd]

Whatever you say.

Being dismissive and patronizing is unnecessary . . .

I say poor example. The guy was non-instrument rated. Non-persuasive example, to say the least, if you are citing in support of the status quo. I am off to write a California Supreme Court brief in which I had better make sense and cite persuasively. So, will now focus elsewhere. My work here is done. Count me off the thread.

As someone who works for attorneys, I am certainly impressed. Sarcasm noted. Go write your brief.

For those who still don't understand the point, being non-instrument rated was enough reason why JFK, Jr. should have thought twice about going. But, he didn't. He thought he was invulnerable. So many instrument-rated but instrument-uncurrent pilots think they're G-d and go in similar conditions. Of course we're speaking hypothetically, but it's not hard to guess what JFK, Jr. or someone similar would have done under similar conditions.

Not all pilots need an instrument rating. By the same token, there are those who have it who should have it yanked. Instrument-rated or not, instrument proficiency is the operative concept. Get it now?

 

[westwind]

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....

Vector4fun is dead on with this one.

Also, I am training in Leadville with a 160 horsepower C-172. What altitude would I have to get to for instrument training here? Never mind about (YIKES) actual.

 

[Vector4fun]

Also, I am training in Leadville with a 160 horsepower C-172. What altitude would I have to get to for instrument training here? Never mind about (YIKES) actual.

Heh, heh, heh. I did some mountain training at Salida in an old C-150 years ago, dead of winter. I imagine the 172 is about the same this time of year. Buena Vista was just a gravel strip serving the prison then. Where are you doing approaches? Cool mining museum up there. Leadville was becoming such a dump back in the '70s, good to see the town sprucing up nowadays.

 

[Whirlwind]

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?

I've taken every private student I've completed a rating for up into actual for their three required hours.

Every single one has been amazed at how hard it really is without training, and the primary reason I do it is to "show" them, rather than "tell" them, why they should stay away from clouds without proper training.

I also spend time talking to them about currency and the need for more training than the legal mins. One way I show this is that when they lose control in actual, I fix it while still talking and teaching, making it look as easy as possible. I then point out that I can do this because I fly every day, it is my choosen profession. Unless they plan to make it their career, they should strongly consider setting higher personal mins than the legal limits.

 

[westwind]

Heh, heh, heh. I did some mountain training at Salida in an old C-150 years ago, dead of winter. I imagine the 172 is about the same this time of year. Buena Vista was just a gravel strip serving the prison then. Where are you doing approaches? Cool mining museum up there. Leadville was becoming such a dump back in the '70s, good to see the town sprucing up nowadays.

No instrument training up here. You would need at least a 182 (with oxygen) to reach the 16,000'+ necessary for the approaches. The weather minimums for VFR are REALY tight. Too many "14ers" to bump into. Luckily enugh, we get plenty of "clear and a million" You wouldn't recognize Buena Vista. 8,300' of nice, wide pavement, neat little FBO with an art gallery. Leadville cleans up nicely too! Come back and check out the place again sometime. Gotta go shovel snow off the steps now. Seeya Later.