Instrument Rating

[Rookie50]

I'd definitely put more stock in a school that will teach you in actual (some schools won't do any actual).

Which schools won't train in IMC? Name them please.

Well, let's look at your school PF -- does every instructor who teaches IFR there, have at least a small amount of actual IMC experience before they instructed -- lets say 50 hours -- I'm a low timer bug smasher, and I have a bit more than that ---

[photofly]

I don't know any instructors (with students training for an IR) anywhere, who won't teach in IMC. But my experience of the industry across Canada is limited.

Which flight schools don't permit it?

[HiFlyChick]

I don't know any instructors (with students training for an IR) anywhere, who won't teach in IMC. But my experience of the industry across Canada is limited.

Which flight schools don't permit it?

I can't recall the schools, but I've run into different pilots who said that their schools/clubs didn't allow training in IMC. They would allow them to rent them afterwards, but not during the training. Most recently I talked to someone who said that Moncton Flight College had recently put a restriction on their IMC training, but I can't recall if it was no more IMC or just no more single engine IMC... I'm trying to recall if it had something to do with insurance or what... (getting old I guess - can't recall the details, but I remember thinking that it wasn't a good direction to be going, but if it was insurance issues there's not a lot you can do). I know that a few years after I finished my training at a local flying club years ago, they switched management and subsequently stopped IMC training.

Anyone who recently training at MFC who can clarify if they will still do any training in IMC? (I'm also wondering if at the time this guy told me that if perhaps they had lost some of their most experienced instructors and it was a temporary restriction)

[Cat Driver]

Ahhh there was a time when all IFR training was virtual IMC because we used two stage amber as the vision limiting method.

So when you flew in IMC it was normal.

I can not imagine why the training industry decided to use hoods, just does not make any sense.

[awitzke]

How did that lighting work? I'm about 4 flights dell on my mifr and given the weather we've been having in vancouver it's all been under the hood. I don't really notice it much. Too busy flying to even care it's on my head. IFR is a hell of a lot different than I imagined it would be. Stressful.. but fun.

[5x5]

I can't recall the schools, but I've run into different pilots who said that their schools/clubs didn't allow training in IMC.

I continue to be amazed and saddened by people's willingness to berate flight training using innuendo and unfounded claims. Here's someone who claims they met "some pilots" who made the statement but can't remember even one name of a school? That's one of the easiest ways ever to make a generic slag, right along of the lines of "Everybody knows ....blah,blah,blah." or "Studies show .......blah,blah,blah."

Certainly most schools are careful when deciding when to enter IMC as they are almost always using non-deice equipped airplanes. Also, initial training wherein the student is struggling with basic procedures is not a good situation to introduce difficult weather situations requiring decision making while the student is still struggling with basics. The purpose of training at a flight school is to teach a student the basic IFR procedures. It's not intended to give them a lot of actual experience. That is the role of the companies they first work for, and the rest of their careers. It's also why they fly with a seasoned pilot for quite a few hours before being given command themselves. (Any discussion about first jobs being single pilot IFR needs a completely new thread.)

A lot of people here don't seem to understand the difference between education and experience. You can't teach experience, it has to be acquired. And there are countless threads here also berating people who pay for their experience. And often these posters are the same ones making derogatory comments about flight schools not providing more experience - which of course the students would have to pay for.

Can't seem to win on this site.

[Rookie50]

I can't recall the schools, but I've run into different pilots who said that their schools/clubs didn't allow training in IMC.

I continue to be amazed and saddened by people's willingness to berate flight training using innuendo and unfounded claims. Here's someone who claims they met "some pilots" who made the statement but can't remember even one name of a school? That's one of the easiest ways ever to make a generic slag, right along of the lines of "Everybody knows ....blah,blah,blah." or "Studies show .......blah,blah,blah."

Certainly most schools are careful when deciding when to enter IMC as they are almost always using non-deice equipped airplanes. Also, initial training wherein the student is struggling with basic procedures is not a good situation to introduce difficult weather situations requiring decision making while the student is still struggling with basics. The purpose of training at a flight school is to teach a student the basic IFR procedures. It's not intended to give them a lot of actual experience. That is the role of the companies they first work for, and the rest of their careers. It's also why they fly with a seasoned pilot for quite a few hours before being given command themselves. (Any discussion about first jobs being single pilot IFR needs a completely new thread.)

I'm amazed too. I got my IFR to fly my own plane SE IFR. I'm the PIC, right off the bat. Now Its not the flight schools job to fully prepare me to do that? HMMMM.......

Not all of us have the opportunity to fly with someone else. I did with a mentor, but that can't be assumed.

[photofly]

I'm amazed too. I got my IFR to fly my own plane SE IFR. I'm the PIC, right off the bat. Now Its not the flight schools job to fully prepare me to do that? HMMMM.......

It depends what you mean by "fully". There's plenty of VMC weather that PPL training doesn't fully prepare you for, you have to work up to it, if you want to fly in it comfortably. don't think it's different for an instrument rating.

Not all of us have the opportunity to fly with someone else. I did with a mentor, but that can't be assumed.

I think you're not taking (sufficient) account of people's ability to learn by themselves.

I do agree that training for an instrument rating should include some exposure to flight in IMC. But someone with basic competence in instrument handling can work through to the more challenging scenarios. Learning doesn't end at the instrument rating flight test.

[iSight]

I can't recall the schools, but I've run into different pilots who said that their schools/clubs didn't allow training in IMC.

I continue to be amazed and saddened by people's willingness to berate flight training using innuendo and unfounded claims. Here's someone who claims they met "some pilots" who made the statement but can't remember even one name of a school? That's one of the easiest ways ever to make a generic slag, right along of the lines of "Everybody knows ....blah,blah,blah." or "Studies show .......blah,blah,blah."

Certainly most schools are careful when deciding when to enter IMC as they are almost always using non-deice equipped airplanes. Also, initial training wherein the student is struggling with basic procedures is not a good situation to introduce difficult weather situations requiring decision making while the student is still struggling with basics. The purpose of training at a flight school is to teach a student the basic IFR procedures. It's not intended to give them a lot of actual experience. That is the role of the companies they first work for, and the rest of their careers. It's also why they fly with a seasoned pilot for quite a few hours before being given command themselves. (Any discussion about first jobs being single pilot IFR needs a completely new thread.)

A lot of people here don't seem to understand the difference between education and experience. You can't teach experience, it has to be acquired. And there are countless threads here also berating people who pay for their experience. And often these posters are the same ones making derogatory comments about flight schools not providing more experience - which of course the students would have to pay for.

Can't seem to win on this site.

+1^

I'm amazed too. I got my IFR to fly my own plane SE IFR. I'm the PIC, right off the bat. Now Its not the flight schools job to fully prepare me to do that? HMMMM.......

With a fresh PPL I could legally go fly in 1sm vis, 500' off the ground. Something in my head told me that was probably a bad idea. It was not the instructors/school's job to make me fly in svfr conditions all day long just because I might be stupid enough to try it on day 1 of having my license. It was their job to teach me basic flying skills and general knowledge involved but also to teach me PDM, to teach me I don't know it all, to teach me that doing 5hrs of hood time doesn't mean I can safely fly svfr into a city centre airport. It was also their job to show me how I can continue to learn on my own (slowly increasing the amount of xwind I fly in, reading accident reports, talking to more experienced pilots-maybe even going for flights with them, etc).

[Rookie50]

Insight,

At least your PPL instructor was both qualified and experienced in the conditions he was teaching you to fly in --- day VFR. It's not a comparable discussion.

What seems to be advocated here is it doesn't matter whether the instructor teaching IFR is either legal, current or experienced flying in IMC conditions. I disagree with this assertion, and that "you are only to be trained as a first officer -- to complete your training with an experienced captain"

And what happens on your first line flight in hard IFR if your captain keels over with 19 pax in the back?

Truer words were never spoken IMO about the state of a lot of flight training in this country -- it's to train first officers not PIC.

The goal of an IFR rating is to be qualified and safe to fly in IMC conditions. IMC is IMC -- it's not 1,2, or 3 miles visibility. It's abruptly zero. If you can't control the AC in cruise IMC, you're in a spiral dive. That's a bit different than a too high crosswind that results in a diversion, hopefully, or a runway excursion.

The fatality risk of IFR flight compared to day PPL flight is at a different magnitude, IMO. Training should be up to the challenge and that requires a serious approach from both instructor and student.

I seriously don't get the problem here. Those who want to teach IFR, you already need 500 hrs, right? Find a way, and get 25-50 hours in hard IMC. It will make you a better pilot and a far better instructor. That's a goal of every instructor -- isn't it? And that should seriously be in the regs, too.

[photofly]

Insight,

At least your PPL instructor was both qualified and experienced in the conditions he was teaching you to fly in --- day VFR. It's not a comparable discussion.

It's unlikely your PPL instructor was experienced in flying at 500' in 2sm visibility, which is what your basic PPL is entitled to do, so it's exactly a comparable discussion. if you foul up ..-running, you're just as likely to end up dead as getting an instrument approach wrong. And more likely than if you end up in a dive in a cloud, where with goodwill you've a couple of thousand feet of clear air below to fix it.

The most unforgiving flying appears to me to be that closest to the ground. Crop dusting, perhaps. You can do that with a PPL, but would you be safe doing so? Can you argue that because your PPL instructor didn't equip you to do that - your training was deficient?

And no, according to the CARs you don't need 500 hrs to teach for an instrument rating. You need to hold an instrument rating and have either an instructor rating or 500 hours PIC.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned having some experience flying in IMC from the right seat. It's an interesting complication having the instruments across the other side of the panel.

PS - what is hard IMC, and what's soft IMC?

[Rookie50]

...

[photofly]

You know, I'm sensing a theme here. On the one hand everything is very easy for you, yet on the other hand everyone else is poorly skilled because of their inadequate training.

Must be your mentoring, I guess.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Instrument training is like any other kind of flight training. There are highly experienced excellent instructors and there are nothing much to offer, right seat warmers. There are definitely IFR instructors with significant real world experience out there so do your research and find the one that gives you what you want.

There is IMO no way an initial IFR course can adequately prepare a student for real world any time anywhere IFR on their own. Keeping the dirty side down and the needle in the middle is only part of safe and efficient IFR flight. The weather smarts, the routing tips and tricks, the correct prioritizing of tasks, etc etc can only come from actual experience flying from A to B.

Therefore a period of mentorship after the IFR ride is IMO essential. New CPL's that will go to the right seat of a 703 or 704 machine and be mentored by the Captain. New PPL's will have to find a mentor and commit to getting out there and using their ticket.

Finally I think before you blame the schools look in the mirror. The last PPL who approached me to do his instrument rating in his airplane told me the $ 75 an hour I charged was too expensive. He found a new Class 3 with no actual IFR time who only charged 30 dollars an hour and then whined about how come he wasn't ready for his ride in the minimum hours.

The inconvenient truth for the serial instructor bashers on the Avcanda training form:

For every crappy IFR instructor there are a whole bunch of cheap ass pilots who won't pay for good training, want to only meet the minimum standard, or will commit to attaining and maintaining an appropriate level of skill..........

[iSight]

@rockie50- I was talking about special vfr. My ppl (and probably my cpl as well) instructor certainly was not experienced in svfr flight. Yet I was perfectly legal to go fly svfr on day one of my license. Using a few brain cells, one would realise it would be foolish to do so.
It's no different for an IFR rating. So I get a "4" on flying an ILS (maybe my flight test was even in imc!), does that mean I should consider myself an expert flyer in imc and assume I can fly down to mins in anything, anywhere, anytime? Hopefully I've got more brains than that. Hell, there are guys I work with that are qualified on a plane they don't often fly. They all can hand-fly an approach to mins beautifully. They all have thousands of hrs of operational time. But if a flight gets dispatched on a super sh!tty day in the plane they don't fly often, they will refuse. Someone taught them (or they figured it out for themselves) PDM. The combination of currency on type/ conditions make them decide against it.
And cruise in imc is very different than an approach. IMC is not IMC. Heavy ice IMC, heavy precip IMC, gutsy winds IMC, etc. They all present unique challenges that can easily result in bent tin. 50 hrs of IMC and you might still have never had to shoot an approach with gusts, shear and blowing snow obscuring most of the rwy.
There was an accident pilot that was the topic of much discussion on here not too long ago. He managed to cruise fine right up to the localizer where he was suddenly not successful. 50 hrs hard imc might have saved his ass. Better decision making surely would have as well. If you end up in a spiral dive in cruise you probably suck at flying under hood too and therefore shouldn't have an IFR to begin with (let alone your cpl)
Maybe we should require 50 hrs worth of approaches in imc to get an IFR. 100? Isn't it the sum of the parts that make a PIC a PIC anyway? I don't think people are advocating "training to become an FO", but flying ability isn't the only part of being a good PIC. Successfully flying an approach to mins only to miss, go to your alternate, repeat, run out of gas and die doesn't make a very good PIC ("at least he died doing what he loved - flying perfect approaches to DH and not spiral diving in cruise")

The "not flying" part is just as hard as the"flying" part of exercising your privilege of operating in IMC. Even more so for those that have so few actual IMC hrs. Emphasizing making the right decisions in step with as much real world imc as possible is ideal.

And FWIW neither the school I worked at nor the one where I did my IFR had any aversion to training in actual IMC

[HiFlyChick]

...
PS - what is hard IMC, and what's soft IMC?

Sometimes the definitions vary based on a person's experience - I've watched some YouTube videos labelled hard IMC or similar and remember thinking "Dude - you need to visit us on the east coast...!"

At the DH, when all you see are the approach lights, not the runway lights, and after you touch down you can't find your taxiway - that's the hard stuff! Really low ceilings make it difficult, but couple that with really low vis and you get some really challenging flying.

With regards to various comments about being rated vs. being safe, newly rated IFR pilots would benefit from having a "hard IMC" flight, so they will take seriously setting their own personal limits based on experience. When I was newly rated I recall having the conversation with my instructor about what sort of ceilings I should accept and I think he recommended that until I got some time in IMC I should be looking at 800-1000 ft ceilings.

During my instructing years, I never instructed IFR (and actually can't recall if I got my instrument rating before or after I quit instructing), but I liked to make sure that my private pilot students went up with an experienced IFR instructor in 3 mile vis and then would say something like "OK, so that's legal VMC - will you ever fly in that?" And always got a "No way!" which was of course what I was looking for.

It's all about setting personal limits and not getting sucked into tring to keep up with someone who has more experience than you do.

[DanWEC]

I'd be curious as to hear from some other instructors what their actual FTU rules are governing IMC. Sounds ludicrous to not allow it, unless they have zero faith in their instructors.

I'm the apparent enemy in this thread, an instructor with a few hundred multi hours.

I flew about 75 hrs of good solid IMC this past year before the icing started. Looking forward to warmer weather and getting back into it. It's absolutely amazing to see a student completely shit the bed as soon as the windscreen whites out.
For some reason the hood just does NOT compare, while in IMC I've had to take control a few times, even had one guy completely freak out- literally. He threw up his hands and yelled "You have control!!" As we slowly entered a life threatening 20 degree bank.... Kid had maybe 15 hours of hood time, and that's what happened after 30 seconds of IMC.

The students that have had a few hours of actual are MUCH better, not only the flying, but they get a lot more from a freaking real world breifing beforehand, analyzing the Wx, alternates, escape routes, etc. much more effective. They just don't like getting wet during the walkaround.
(BTW, 10 group 1 passes in a row as of last weekend.... Haven't had a partial in months, and almost every one of them have had at least an hour or two of IMC if I can get it for them)

[Rookie50]

Instrument training is like any other kind of flight training. There are highly experienced excellent instructors and there are nothing much to offer, right seat warmers. There are definitely IFR instructors with significant real world experience out there so do your research and find the one that gives you what you want.

There is IMO no way an initial IFR course can adequately prepare a student for real world any time anywhere IFR on their own. Keeping the dirty side down and the needle in the middle is only part of safe and efficient IFR flight. The weather smarts, the routing tips and tricks, the correct prioritizing of tasks, etc etc can only come from actual experience flying from A to B.

Therefore a period of mentorship after the IFR ride is IMO essential. New CPL's that will go to the right seat of a 703 or 704 machine and be mentored by the Captain. New PPL's will have to find a mentor and commit to getting out there and using their ticket.

Finally I think before you blame the schools look in the mirror. The last PPL who approached me to do his instrument rating in his airplane told me the $ 75 an hour I charged was too expensive. He found a new Class 3 with no actual IFR time who only charged 30 dollars an hour and then whined about how come he wasn't ready for his ride in the minimum hours.

The inconvenient truth for the serial instructor bashers on the Avcanda training form:

For every crappy IFR instructor there are a whole bunch of cheap ass pilots who won't pay for good training, want to only meet the minimum standard, or will commit to attaining and maintaining an appropriate level of skill..........

BPF,

As I've posted this before -- I have ZERO tolerance and ZERO understanding for lazy students, or licenced pilots, who refuse to work extremely hard towards excellence and the serious study of becoming an aviator. I am very, very driven, and I applied that to my own flight training at each level, and still apply try to apply it today in developing as a pilot. And that includes saying no many times, because of what I consider to be the safe limitations of SP IFR. (Driven doesn't mean I push it)


It takes 2 and I have little patience either for cheap students. Pay up and do it right, and pay for extra training, as I often have, to remove rust, sharpen skills, post rating.

I'm thrilled to pay 75 bucks for an hour of someone with experience.

Hifly, post rating, and perhaps I read this or from my instructor, I first. did flights takeoff / land WMC, Cruise IMC, then takeoff gentle IMC (1000+), land VMC, then finally 800-1000 ceilings, then lower. But there are still approach conditions Ive never had -- no heavy precipitation (at least on short final approach) or vis below @ 1 1/2 miles -- and never done an approach below 400 or so. Lots I would still say no to. I'm still a rookie and very cautious.

One thing about even moderate precipitation -- it's LOUD and can throw one off - bit different than a hood -- even in cruise IMC rain and turbulence -- not what I'd call fun. Prefer lovely VFR flight through BC mountain passes.....

[Big Pistons Forever]

When I was newly rated I recall having the conversation with my instructor about what sort of ceilings I should accept and I think he recommended that until I got some time in IMC I should be looking at 800-1000 ft ceilings.

On a recent IFR flight the TAF said scattered 2000 broken 4000 and the ATIS said few 500 overcast 3800. We got solid IMC the whole way down the ILS 09 and we broke out at 500 feet as there was a thick band of cloud just to the west of the airport that covered most of the ILS. The wind was 090-5kts on the ground and 270-28kts at 3000 so there was a non trivial amount of wind sheer on the approach. The ILS would have been a nonevent if we had broken out at 3800 feet, but it was a whole different animal when we were in the goo almost all the way.....

So could, when you were a newly rated IFR pilot, put your hand on your heart and say you were fully ready for something like that ?

The weather is what you get not what you want, so you best be ready for everything, anytime. If you are not take somebody who is.........

[iSight]

To the OP,

Quality - you could always ask to see a record of successful flight tests. Just remember that passing a flight test can be extremely easy if you've spent all of your training flying the flight test and therefore can be a completely useless measure.

Cost - there will be small variances in airplane/instructor prices per hour but in the end it will amount to such a small difference it shouldn't be a factor - unless you get a really cheap, $30/hr guy (which might end up costing you more anyway). It's always going to be half a mortgage payment at the end of a multi/IFR flight. Your face will look like this

Competence of instructor - this one is a big factor. There large variances in instructor ability, knowledge, experience, teaching skills, and just plain old give-a-f@ck. Interviewing them is a good start. Also how they make use of time is another. If it's severe clear out and your instructor asks you to plan a flight to A-B-C and then you brief the weather and talk about alternates...waste of time. ("It's clear. Ok let's go"). Instead I would hope that there would be a plan for the actual airplane work that day (why cancel because the weather is screaming sunshine for a week straight?) and another plan for airports C-D-E in another part of the country that is experiencing imc that you can ground brief on. You want your instructor to make smart use of your time (and money). Unfortunately it can be difficult to judge this until after you've already parted with large sums of money.

Availability - just go ask how many planes/instructors they have and how often they work.

Aircraft - all light twins used for training are pretty damn similar.
Glass vs steam? Who cares?
Turbo? So now you know not to throw the throttle to the firewall and to let things cool before shutting the engine off.
Hopefully it's maintained and doesn't go mechanical for 3 months a week prior to flight test. A not too ancient gps is nice. Maybe smell the shoulder belt-puke does not come out of those things.

Weather - as stated at least once by someone, actual imc is golden. But with imc comes ice if it's the right (wrong?) time of year. Weather is difficult to bank on now a days (I am having the most amazing winter! 22° on Saturday?) and you might have to just take what you get. But like I stated above, if the weather is vfr where you are training that day hopefully your instructor is using other parts of the country with imc as examples for planning and briefing.

My long-winded thoughts

[Cat Driver]

Flying in IMC is easier than flying VFR because you will fly more accurately.

Flying in IMC following published IFR departures, routes and approaches makes for even easier flying.

[Aviatard]

Hey Cat,

How did you teach instrument scan back in the day? I seem to remember you posted something on this recently but I can't find it.

I know, thread drift. Maybe this should be a separate topic.

[Cat Driver]

Hey Cat,

How did you teach instrument scan back in the day? I seem to remember you posted something on this recently but I can't find it.

I do not teach a " Scan ".

I teach looking at the whole picture with the instrument you are using for the information at the moment in the center of your vision.....the other instruments are still in your sight field and their information is part of the picture.

In my personal opinion teaching a " Scan " sets up a jerky method of information gathering and can produce attitude chasing much like one sees in pilots airspeed chasing in the climb after take off.

I will probably have a few people here not agreeing with me but you asked and I answered.

[gaamin]

.

[awitzke]

.......