Instrument Rating

[redwing]

Hi,

I am interested in getting my MIFR rating, but I was wondering if I need the 50 hours XC PIC before I can begin training, or can I start before I have the 50 hours?

Thanks

[Colonel Sanders]

Nope. Click on:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#421_46

to read CAR 421.46, which explains that you need the 50 PIC X/C
for issuance, not as a pre-requisite to commence training.

This is not a silly question. To commence flight training for the class 4 instructor
rating, there is a list of prequisites, at CAR 421.69(1):

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#421_69

[Shiny Side Up]

Nope. Click on:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#421_46

to read CAR 421.46, which explains that you need the 50 PIC X/C
for issuance, not as a pre-requisite to commence training.

Note that as per CAR 421.14 (4)(d)

(d) an applicant for an instrument or instructor rating flight test shall have met all the applicable knowledge and experience requirements for the particular rating applied for prior to the flight test.

So you also need to have the 50 hours X-C PIC before you do the flight test. For this reason I won't begin any training towards an instrument rating unless they have the 50 hours PIC or are close to. Alternatively if they have a plan to get those hours by the time we're done the instrument training. Not usually a problem with people working towards their CPL on a busy schedule, but definitely a problem with a lot of PPL holders who want to upgrade to an IFR rating, since the timeline of their training tends to be in a excessively long frame.

Personally I wish the 50 hours was a prerequisite to starting the training. It would give a lot of PPL holders a bit more reference and experience before plunging into the IFR. Unfortunately I get asked about the IFR frequently who are under some illusion that it will be their ticket to fly anywhere, anytime. If they had the 50 hours of good experience X-C time (not just back and forth to a place just barely out of sight of their home field, or other perfect day joyriding) it will serve them better to start the training or even determine whether that training is for them.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Personally I wish the 50 hours was a prerequisite to starting the training. It would give a lot of PPL holders a bit more reference and experience before plunging into the IFR. Unfortunately I get asked about the IFR frequently who are under some illusion that it will be their ticket to fly anywhere, anytime. If they had the 50 hours of good experience X-C time (not just back and forth to a place just barely out of sight of their home field, or other perfect day joyriding) it will serve them better to start the training or even determine whether that training is for them.

The rule is the rule, although personally I don't think there is a lot of practical difference in ability between a PPL with 25 hrs of XC and one with 50 hrs. Instead of a hour minimum there should IMO be a distance requirement. One VFR XC to a point 1000 miles away is going to pretty much guarantee, that like it or not, fuel planning and weather consideration are going to have to be dealt with. The vast majority of PPL's with 50 hours of XC time have never done any trips that required any serious planning.
Anyway the likelihood of any change is zero so there is no point in wishing for what I will never have. (While I am on a roll maybe I could ask Santa for a TC approved CPL sylabus that requires you to teach things that actually matter for pilots flying commercially ).

My universal issue with PPL's training for the IFR rating is that I pretty much have to teach them the PPL again. They simply can't accurately set and control the aircrafts' attitude, or trim the aircraft, or manage the engine, or talk on the radio correctly, or read a GFA, or use the POH, or know and understand emergency procedures etc etc to the level necessary to fly IFR. Therefore the first few hours is usually spend reviewing ex 5 to 9 VFR and then more tedious hours working on the scan and the basic S & L , climbs/decents/turns. We are usually at the 10 hour mark before any actual IFR procedures are introduced.

[Shiny Side Up]

The rule is the rule, although personally I don't think there is a lot of practical difference in ability between a PPL with 25 hrs of XC and one with 50 hrs.

But there will be a lot of difference between a PPL with zero hours of X-C and one with 50, which is often where I personally get asked a lot about doing IFR training.

Instead of a hour minimum there should IMO be a distance requirement. One VFR XC to a point 1000 miles away is going to pretty much guarantee, that like it or not, fuel planning and weather consideration are going to have to be dealt with. The vast majority of PPL's with 50 hours of XC time have never done any trips that required any serious planning.

On this I would agree and in essense is what I was getting at. No I don't expect TC will change it, but hopefully if someone was reading this thinking about getting their IFR that they might take it into consideration.

[Colonel Sanders]

Indeed. To be a competent IFR pilot, you first need to be a solid VFR pilot.

There is no shortcut. For example. AIM RAC 9.6.1:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... .htm#9-6-1

9.6.1 Contact Approach

A contact approach is an approach wherein an aircraft on an IFR flight plan or flight itinerary having an ATC clearance, operating clear of clouds with at least 1 NM flight visibility ... may deviate from the IAP and proceed to the destination airport by visual reference to the surface of the earth

That's some pretty sporty flying. For that matter, so is a night circling approach!

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... 4.htm#9-23

[Adam Oke]

I'm going to piggy back on this thread here. I did some searching around and couldn't find the answer to my question.

(D) one dual cross-country flight under simulated or actual IMC conditions of a minimum of 100 nautical miles, the flight to be conducted in accordance with an IFR flight plan to include at, two different locations, an instrument approach to minima.

Is the 100nm requirement a radius from the original departure, or is it a 100nm minimum total trip?

ie. Can I fly 88nm out and return (Sarnia-->Kitchener-->London-->Sarnia) to satisfy this requirement?

[New_PIC]

I'm going to piggy back on this thread here. I did some searching around and couldn't find the answer to my question.

(D) one dual cross-country flight under simulated or actual IMC conditions of a minimum of 100 nautical miles, the flight to be conducted in accordance with an IFR flight plan to include at, two different locations, an instrument approach to minima.

Is the 100nm requirement a radius from the original departure, or is it a 100nm minimum total trip?

ie. Can I fly 88nm out and return (Sarnia-->Kitchener-->London-->Sarnia) to satisfy this requirement?

I'm not one of the experts here but I just recently did the minimum 150nm solo X-country for my PPL, CAR Standard 421.26(4)b(ii), and it was the total trip that had to add up to over 150. Your loop route should work.

[Steve Pomroy]

(D) one dual cross-country flight under simulated or actual IMC conditions of a minimum of 100 nautical miles, the flight to be conducted in accordance with an IFR flight plan to include at, two different locations, an instrument approach to minima.

Is the 100nm requirement a radius from the original departure, or is it a 100nm minimum total trip?

ie. Can I fly 88nm out and return (Sarnia-->Kitchener-->London-->Sarnia) to satisfy this requirement?

Your quoted CAR's snippet doesn't include the word "radius", so your round-robin route is fine. Compare to the CPL 300 NM requirement which does specify "radius":

... which shall include a cross-country flight to a point of a minimum of 300 nautical mile radius from the point of departure and shall include a minimum of 3 landings at points other than that of departure;

Cheers,
Steve
http://www.flightwriter.com
http://www.skywriters.aero