Teaching Multi-IFR Requirements

Justwannafly · Post by **Justwannafly** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:54 pm

What are the requirments for teaching Multi-IFR?
I thought that they were 50 multi & 10 on type...
...But what does "on type" mean?

Some say that its 10 on the exact AC aka you can only teach on a Senneca if you have 10 hours on a Senneca...Others say that type means that type of AC...so if you have 10 hours on a Senneca & a check out on a very similiar AC then you are OK

Which is it?....TC guy any thoughts would be appreciated.

Hoque · Post by **Hoque** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:39 pm

Justwannafly wrote:What are the requirments for teaching Multi-IFR?
I thought that they were 50 multi & 10 on type...
...But what does "on type" mean?

Some say that its 10 on the exact AC aka you can only teach on a Senneca if you have 10 hours on a Senneca...Others say that type means that type of AC...so if you have 10 hours on a Senneca & a check out on a very similiar AC then you are OK

Which is it?....TC guy any thoughts would be appreciated.

10 hr has be on the aircraft you will be teaching............like Seneca, have to have 10 hr on that.

tired of the ground · Post by **tired of the ground** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:36 pm

The 10 hours on type only applies to the Multi.

Instructing towards a Group I IFR doesn't require any time on type.

Aeros · Post by **Aeros** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:57 pm

Type means type --ie: PA-31, C-404 etc.... If the type cetificate lists a different type than any on which you have 10 hours then you are SOL.

All that being said -- You only need to satisfy these requirements if the student does NOT have a multi-engine endorsement already. If the student has a multi then you don't need any time....

CAR 425.21

(5) A person who conducts flight training in a multi-engine aeroplane where the trainee does not have a multi-engine class rating shall:

(a) be the holder of a Commercial Pilot Licence or an Airline Transport Pilot Licence;

(b) have multi-engine pilot experience, which if acquired on centre thrust multi-engine aeroplanes may be credited toward qualifying a pilot to provide centre thrust multi-engine flight instruction only; and

(c) have experience of not less than 50 hours flight time on multi-engine aeroplanes with not less than 10 hours on the type of aeroplane used for the training.

jamesel · Post by **jamesel** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:57 pm

There is a difference in the experience required based on whether or not the person giving the instruction has an actual Instructor rating.

Taken from TC's website:
Standards 425.21 Qualifications of Flight Instructors
(4 lines down from "Aeros" Quote:)

(9) A person who conducts flight training toward the issuance of an instrument rating shall be the holder of a Commercial Pilot Licence or an Airline Transport Pilot Licence, have an instrument rating and:

(a) have a flight instructor rating; or

(b) have experience of not less than 500 hours pilot‑in‑command flight time, of which:
(i) not less than 100 hours shall be on the applicable aircraft group, and
(ii) in the case of Group I aircraft, not less than 10 hours shall be on the type of multi-engine aeroplane used for the training.

So, according to this excerpt, if the person doing the instruction does not have an Instructor rating, he/she would need 10 hours on type to do IFR training, and a rated Instructor, Class IV or higher does not require any time on type. However, section (5) would still apply in the case of the student not having a multi-engine rating, in which case there is no "freebie" for the Instructor rating, he/she would require the 10 hours on type.

Since in my experience, most students get the multi endorsement when they do the initial IFR ride, 90% of the time you're going to need 10 hours in type to train a multi-IFR student.[/quote]

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:32 am

" Class IV or higher does not require any time on type. "

Yeh, thats the answer if you want quality instruction find a Class IV flight instructor because they don't need to have time on type as they are flight instructors.

Gotta love some of these rules.

Krashman · Post by **Krashman** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:19 pm

Thats how alot of instructors get the 50hrs required to teach a multi engine rating.... they instruct a bunch of multi IFR time to get the hrs.

Teaching the multi raiting is similar to teaching the Float raiting.... just need 50hrs on floats or multi to teach the respective endorsement.... You don't even need an instructor raiting(unless the dual time is being counted toward a licence of some sort)

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 2:05 pm

" Thats how alot of instructors get the 50hrs required to teach a multi engine rating.... they instruct a bunch of multi IFR time to get the hrs. "

In that case there should be a reduced rate for the student to allow for this both learning together kind of flight instruction would you not think?

Krashman · Post by **Krashman** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:40 pm

In that case there should be a reduced rate for the student to allow for this both learning together kind of flight instruction would you not think?

I totally agree with you... but just because you don't have any multi time doesn't mean you don't know IFR

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:51 pm

" but just because you don't have any multi time doesn't mean you don't know IFR "

Depends on what you consider knowing IFR.

There is a big difference between knowing how to teach to the sterile book slanted method of teaching IFR and teaching to the real world of flying IFR.

How many hours of actual IFR in cloud does the average flight instructor with no multi rating have?

One thing you must take into consideration, flying with a vision limiting device such as a hood is far different than flying in cloud.

There is only one other way to teach IFR outside of cloud that is the same as in cloud and that is using two stage amber.

Louis · Post by **Louis** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:23 pm

I asked Cat via PM what two stage amber was. I think his reply is worth posting here as well:

Cat Driver wrote:Hi Louis:

Two stage amber is a method of flying on instruments by using amber sheets of film or plastic inside the windshield and side windows.

The pilot flying instruments wears blue goggles including the sides are blue.

to the pilot flying everything inside the airplane looks exactly the same except it is tinted blue, but you can not see past the amber in the windows because the blue goggles turn the amber into black....so it is just like flying at night.

The nice part is you dont have the tunnel vision of wearing a hood, and you can't cheat.

It was used by the air force to teach instrument flying and we all used it in the fifties and early sixties.

The pilot teaching sees everything outside the airplane in a bright amber color, just like those glasses skiers use to improve their vision when skiing.

Now that you understand how it works, why don't you go back to the forum and ask why no one uses it anymore?

.

So to repeat .'s question, why isn't two stage amber in use anymore? Cost? Not certifiable anymore? Hassle to install or use?

Also, I was wondering, what about requiring a certain amount of IMC flight time and approaches for instrument ratings? Too complicated to prove? Or just something that has to put in the regs?

You can't get a licence without flying a plane, or a multi rating without multi time, same for floats, and you can't be an instructor without practicing instruction with a class 1. Why would IFR be different in that regard?

Goodbye,

Louis

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:26 am

Louis, I am really interested in why two stage amber is not used anymore.

The subject of certifiable does not enter the equasion as the sheets are not attached to the airframe...there must be some reason why it is not used, but why anyone would not prefer that method of simulating flight with reference to instruments only to a fuc.in hood which is like screwing with a sewer pipe on your tool is beyond me.

Then again I'm probably just out of touch with reality and haven't moved into the modern world of make believe.

I'm waiting with bated breath and be still my heart for a few of the TC blessed flight instructors to give their educated thoughts on why they do not use two stage amber to teach people how to fly by instruments.............

Krashman · Post by **Krashman** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:36 am

How many hours of actual IFR in cloud does the average flight instructor with no multi rating have?

One thing you must take into consideration, flying with a vision limiting device such as a hood is far different than flying in cloud.

Definately flying with a hood is definately something totally different... but there aren't a whole bunch of schools that have icing equiped aircraft and if then actually let you go in questionable wx where you might actually pick up ice.

actual IFR yeah probably not too much.... gotta teach some IFR in summer while dodging the thunderstorms...

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:14 am

Krashman:

If you were to choose between a new low flight time instructor teaching something they have never experienced or a very experienced pilot with say 10,000 hours of flying IFR for a living, who would you choose?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:57 pm

Hmmm... there does not seem to be any real intrest in a valuable teaching tool for simulating flight by reference to instruments only.

I find that interesting.

No Brakes · Post by **No Brakes** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:09 pm

Anybody knows when the two stage amber method was dropped? On whose order/(mis)guidance? That may bring insight on why it's not in use anymore... It sounds terribly simple and effective. Maybe THAT's why.

I have also heard of self-fogging goggles that would automatically fog out when trying to look outside and unfog when looking in. Anybody knows about those?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:22 pm

" Anybody knows when the two stage amber method was dropped? On whose order/(mis)guidance? That may bring insight on why it's not in use anymore... It sounds terribly simple and effective. Maybe THAT's why. "

No Brakes I have no idea why that method of flying by instruments in the training schools was dropped. That is why I am asking here, I had hoped someone in the training industry would have some idea why it is no longer used.

Lets examine the plusses and minuses of that aid.

Plus:

(1) Very inexpensive all you need is several sheets of amber film/plastic for the windows and some velcro to stick it in place and a pair of goggles with blue lenses and blue side lenses.

(2) You now have normal visual freedom inside the airplane regardless of where you look....no hood to limit your peripheral vision, and when looking outside it is black.....you are flying by reference to instruments without an unorthodox vision limiting device such as a hood.

Negatives?????

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:28 am

Stuff like the amber sheet was never 'de-certified. '
It is simply that as newer instructors come up and older instructors leave instructing, efective methods die off.

Those instructor refreshers used to have a good leavening of 25000 hour ex airforce class I's with myriad forms of experience.

Now, I don't even know if they have refresher courses.

Ideas like doing evening flying on bumpy days, and lighting matches just beside the students hood to simulate lightening flashes. Sounds stupid right? Until I was flying into YFC one night and a thunderstorm kicked off a few miles away.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:11 am

J.C. one of the most easy to remember tasks your Dad and I had when learning to fly was getting the amber sheets out of Central Airways office and putting them in the Cessna 140's for our instrument training time.

It is puzzeling why such an easy to make and so effective a system was lost to the training schools.

Krashman · Post by **Krashman** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:37 am

Cat Driver:

I would definately choose the guy with alot of experience but unfortunately these days its hard to find instructors with a bunch of actual IFR experience...we're a dying breed

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:23 am

" I would definately choose the guy with alot of experience but unfortunately these days its hard to find instructors with a bunch of actual IFR experience...we're a dying breed "

There are thousands of pilots who fly IFR for a living who can teach IRF and they teach from experience.

You are correct experienced flying instructors as in TC certified instructors are hard to find due to the pay scale.

whoop_whoop · Post by **whoop_whoop** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:33 pm

The only negatives I can see with the goggles & tint would be when you reach minimums and want to land the thing, taking off the goggles at 200' would make for a busy flight deck at low altitude.

But, mind you, that's still quite a weak argument against it.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:02 pm

O.K. fair comment.

Two points.

(1) There is no need to remove the goggles if you are flying a PMA.

( 2) If the simple action of having to use one hand to push the goggles up will overload you and be beyond your ability to cope with you should not fly IFR.

Anyone from TC going to comment on why two stage amber is no longer used?

Teaching Multi-IFR Requirements

Teaching Multi-IFR Requirements

Re: Teaching Multi-IFR Requirements