Should an IFR rating be a Mandatory part of the CPL?

['effin hippie]

Some other thread and a comment by Widow got me thinking.

Given the number of accidents with flight into IMC as a contributing or causative factor, why would we license any pilot to take paying passengers without ensuring they could safely complete a flight IFR in an emergency? I don't mean a couple hours under the hood/on the sim that currently exists, but a full IFR rating with a 24 month validity requiring a ride for renewal.

To hold costs down, the rating could be done on a single engine A/C. For that matter, let the regulation stipulate that it could be done on any properly equipped A/C. So a float guy (for example) just has to do an IFR training/ride in a 172 or something once every 24 months. Maybe some sim requirement?

Companies would have to bear some increased training costs to provide renewals, and individuals would have to pay more for their licenses, but I don't think that is an excessive burden. Hell we already graduate too many CPL's as it is.

As a next step in trying to improve safety from the current stats, I think the benefits would target the highest risk categories of operations with a reasonable sharing of the costs involved.

ef

[BlueSkies12]

And if you're flying on wheels you should have to do a float rating in case you have to ditch in the water somewhere. Although I know what you're saying anyone flying IMC VFR is breaking the law and on top of that should know their own limitations.

[Hedley]

It is in the USA, where getting your IFR is perfectly
normal. For some odd reason, getting your IFR in
Canada is akin to getting into the astronaut program.

[2milefinal]

yup
...but I already have an ifr so its easy for me to say

[iflyforpie]

Flying IFR in the States is easier because for the most part:

They have more navaids, routes, and IFR approaches available.

They have large areas with lower terrain.

They are less likely to encounter icing.


Where I live here in the rocks, hard IFR in anything less than a turbine, pressurized, two crew aircraft is a gamble that has claimed many lives. No amount of instrument training is going to save me if I inadvertently enter IMC in the mountains.

[2milefinal]

Where I live here in the rocks, hard IFR in anything less than a turbine, pressurized, two crew aircraft is a gamble that has claimed many lives. No amount of instrument training is going to save me if I inadvertently enter IMC in the mountains.

...good point

[Doc]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!

Why? Really simple answer to that. Most, if not all float planes are NOT equipped for flight in IMC! A huge part of the float season is also part of the ICE season. Spring and fall, icing in clouds is almost guaranteed! VFR flight into IMC will always equal dead pilots!

Don't want VFR flight in IMC to kill pilots? STAY THE @#$! OUT OF IMC CONDITIONS WHEN YOU ARE FLYING VFR!!!!!! This is NOT rocket science!!!

[Hedley]

STAY THE @#$! OUT OF IMC CONDITIONS WHEN YOU ARE FLYING VFR!!!!!! This is NOT rocket science!!!

True, but you could make the same arguments about teen
pregnancy, and the spread of venereal diseases - don't
have sex, or if you do, use a condom.

That's not rocket science, either, but still, every year there
are millions of unwanted pregnancies and venereal diseases.

Not sure the Nancy Reagan "Just Say No" philosophy always
works.

[Doc]

STAY THE @#$! OUT OF IMC CONDITIONS WHEN YOU ARE FLYING VFR!!!!!! This is NOT rocket science!!!

True, but you could make the same arguments about teen
pregnancy, and the spread of venereal diseases - don't
have sex, or if you do, use a condom.

That's not rocket science, either, but still, every year there
are millions of unwanted pregnancies and venereal diseases.

Not sure the Nancy Reagan "Just Say No" philosophy always
works.

How many pregnant teens kill several people who, are counting on them to keep them safe? How many others die if you have a brain fart and catch a STD?

Wandering into IMC conditions, unequipped and unqualified manages to KILL several pilots and their passengers every year.....I don't get you connection here, Hedley..

You might as well say..."don't chew with your mouth open...."

[Siddley Hawker]

Just my two cents, but to me having an instrument rating would be an invitation to use it. Not that it would do much good if the airplane wasn't equipped for IFR flight. Fecteau airplanes didn't even have an artificial horizon in 'em, because as the old man said "You put dat t'ing in dere and da boys will fly IFR." I can't remember him having a weather related accident in 30 years, until the company was taken over by someone else.

[Widow]

REPORT OF A SAFETY STUDY ON VFR FLIGHT INTO ADVERSE WEATHER

Both Canadian and American pilots with instrument flying experience were less likely to be involved in VFR-into-IMC accidents; and U.S. commercially-licensed pilots (who generally possessed instrument ratings) were less apt to be involved in VFR-in-IMC accidents compared to their Canadian counterparts (who generally did not possess an instrument rating). The Board does not wish to degrade the traditionally high safety standards for IFR-endorsed pilots flying IFR; however, any procedures which facilitate obtaining and maintaining instrument flying skills and which could lead to a reduction of VFR-into-IMC accidents should be explored. In light of the high involvement of non-instrument qualified pilots in VFR-into-IMC accidents, the Board recommends that:

The Department of Transport develop means by which instrument endorsements could be more readily obtained and maintained by Canadian-licensed pilots.

[Hedley]

having an instrument rating would be an invitation to use it

ok, but then why is an additional 20 hours of hood time (total 25)
required for the commercial licence, then? I don't hear anybody
saying we should get rid of it, despite it's great expense.

[Doc]

I believe it's to give pilots a basic understanding of flying with reference to instruments. It's not intended to "teach" pilots to fly in IMC conditions without further training. Perhaps scrubbing the requirement would be a good idea. Pilots seem too stupid to realize when they are over their heads. At least until they scare themselves to death once or twice?

The IFR rating is no mystery. It's way easier to fly IFR than VFR ( a well guarded secret, BTW) but really deadly when it's not planned for, our outside the pilot's skill set.

['effin hippie]

Doc,

Your main points regarding conditions outside a pilot's skill set could be just as easily used to justify IFR training as not.

I'm not advocating IMC flying in float planes or similar nonsense, or diluting IFR training in any way. How could you think that INRAT training, particularly partial panel, could do anything but enhance safety in marginal VFR flying, which every VFR pilot is going to end up doing.

Respectfully, I must say I am a little surprised at the vehemence which which you are opposing the suggestion. Your point regarding 'cowboys' going IFR when they shouldn't is well taken, but in light of Widow's link I would suggest that it would pose a smaller risk than the current set up. In other words adopting mandatory INRAT's would mean replacing one risk with another, lesser one.

Pie I must also respectfully disagree with you regarding entry into IMC in the rocks. Yes you are in a crapload of trouble, but no you are not automatically dead. What you do with the few dozen seconds available after you lose visual reference to the surface of the earth and before you actually contact that surface will make all the difference, and I would submit that a fully IFR qualified pilot would be far far more likely to survive.

People inadvertently enter IMC for lots of reasons, and many of them involve screwing up or breaking the rules, but sometimes even the best judgment call comes up a loser, and sometimes the WX just takes a big shit. The main point is that it happens regardless of the rules, and causes a lot of accidents. And this might be a category of accident we could address fairly simply.

ef (sorry about the verbal diarrhea)

[2milefinal]

When I got my IFR. It was like someone took the blinders off. (I turned into a real chicken when came to flying mvfr). Unless I am in a fully equipped aircraft, I stay very far away from anything IFR.
IMHO the more training the better.

[Sulako]

"Should an IFR rating be a Mandatory part of the CPL?"

Yes.

[Doc]

My point is....stay out of IMC, as for training, the more the better....you going to pay for it hippie? Lets not issue any licence without an IFR ticket. I'm game. I just don't think that's the answer. Common sense. That's the ticket.

A little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing. More training brings with it more self confidence. This can lead to complacency. Without currency in IMC a pilot can easily find himself outside his comfort zone...even though, he "thought" he was operating within his limitations, things can go "south" pretty quick.

The only really safe way to handle this is to fly VFR, only when it is indeed VMC. Is this too hard to grasp?

Where did I use the term "cowboy"?

Sully...I don't agree with you. Did you get your IFR ticket before you got your CPL?

[Hedley]

I'll bet this guy could have used an instrument rating:

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 54&t=47778

FWIW I find IFR easy. So is VFR. What's hard is the transition
from VFR to IFR - nobody is there to tell you to "look at the
gauges, dummy!". Similarly, when you pop out of the clouds
and night, and have to circle the airport VFR, that's a bit of a
sudden transition.

Crap on me if you wish, but it is the transitions that kill you.

[2milefinal]

hippie?

By the way I agree. In alot cases its easier to fly ifr then vfr.

[Doc]

[quote="Hedley"

Crap on me if you wish, but it is the transitions that kill you.[/quote]

Very true.