More IFR XC requirements?

PanJet

PanJet

Well-Known Member
Okay, I'm not a CFI (yet), so I hope you guys don't mind me posting in here because I have a question for all of you. I want to know what your opinion is on the requirements for IFR XC before getting the instrument rating. I honestly believe the requirements are lacking by only requiring one long IFR XC flight with an instructor.

I have talked to several pilots (a few now CFI's and II's) who have told me that they did not feel ready to fly actual instrument after getting their ratings because they felt like they didn't know the system well enough. I don't believe this has anything to do with a lack of teaching, just a lack of required experience. They said they could fly approaches all day no problem, but they weren't comfortable actually flying somewhere IFR. Personally, I felt pretty comfortable flying IFR after I got my rating because when I was building XC time as a private pilot, I flew several long XC flights with an IR buddy of mine who was building time as well, and he always filed IFR, even if the sky was severe clear. I learned so much from these few flights just by watching him and seeing how the system worked. I believe these few flights did wonders to help me with my understanding of the instrument flying system.

Recently I've flown with some private pilots who weren't all that far behind me in training as private pilots, but for some reason now have kind of stalled in their training for IR. It's not that they don't know how to do the procedures, but it's as if they're doing them because that's what the instructor told them to do, but they don't completely understand what they're doing and why. These pilots have not had the same opportunity to fly with IR pilots as much as I did, and I see a difference.

Kind of out of gratitude for what that buddy of mine did for me, I now look fondly on the opportunity to fly XC's with fresh private pilots at my school and file IFR even in dead clear so they can see how the system works. I like to do for them what worked for me, and I can see it working! Just a couple days ago I was flying with a buddy of mine who just got his private license and is now doing instrument training, and we went on a XC flight that was mostly VFR, but we ran into some IMC and rather than turning around or diverting I got a pop-up clearance and showed him how it was done. Then on the way back I filed and took him back into the IMC. He got to see quite a bit how the system worked that day (even though I'm not an instructor and he couldn't log the actual) and I could just see the wheels turning in his head as I pummeled through the charts and worked with ATC. He was even helping me with the charts with his limited experience from some ground school and instruction, but I could tell he was learning a lot. It was such a good feeling. It's also excellent experience for me because I'm learning how to explain and teach for when I train for CFI.

The IR should really include more XC requirements because during XC instrument flying is really where the system begins to make sense and people learn why, not just how.
 
PanJet said:
Recently I've flown with some private pilots who weren't all that far behind me in training as private pilots, but for some reason now have kind of stalled in their training for IR. It's not that they don't know how to do the procedures, but it's as if they're doing them because that's what the instructor told them to do, but they don't completely understand what they're doing and why. These pilots have not had the same opportunity to fly with IR pilots as much as I did, and I see a difference.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you're talking about.

I think a lot of this goes back to a pilot's natural passion for something. I can tell you have a strong interest in and desire to learn "the system." Other pilots look at instrument training as just another step in the game towards becoming a professional pilot. Just another checkbox to cross off. They don't see instrument flying as the beautiful tool it is. Students who have a sincere interest in something will always learn it better and perform it better than students who don't care as much.

I don't think more legal requirements are the answer. How many XC's should be required? Two? Three? If a student can't learn "the system" in one XC, would they be able to learn it in three? I doubt it, and chances are good that the extra XCs would turn into a waste of time and money.

Maybe your desire to learn the system was increased because flying with those other pilots opened your eyes to what instrument flying is all about. Could a good CFII open the student's eyes in the same way? I think so, if the CFII always stresses how instrument training applies in the real world.

You're right that training could be improved. But I would start with CFII training. The CFII's job is to give the big picture to the student, and I would stress that idea during II training. It seems like a lot of CFIIs do a good job of teaching the nitty gritty details of instrument flying, but they don't pass on the big picture of how the whole system fits together.

Of course, I'm not exactly sure how to quantify "teaching the big picture" to a student. It's something that just happens, based on the CFII's perspective. The same thing happens when a private student is taught stalls. They can either be taught as an arbitrary series of actions that result in a specific outcome, with little understanding of what is happening, or they can be taught as a way to see what happens as airflow begins to seperate from the wing, learn how to maintain control of the plane, then execute the most effecient and safe way of flying away. Both methods of teaching will get the job done, but the latter will produce a better pilot in the end.

...Good grief...as soon as I get my 24 months and start teaching CFI applicants, I'm going to lecture their ears off...
 
More regulation should never be the answer where there is no demonstrated problem.

That said, I've always thought that a weak point in instrument training was the cross-country. Part of that is the approach-centric nature of the Practical Test.

But a big part can be the lack of opportunity to experience different things. That might not be time-based. For example, train in the approach control rich northeast or SOCAL area and you might never "intercept Victor XYZ. Resume own navigation" on your cross country flight and end of thinking of your enroute chart as something to keep in the back seat. First time you get "Radar Contact Lost. Resume own navigation. Report ABCDE intersection," radar contact is not the only thing that's lost.

The answer though, is a CFII that goes the distance to choose a cross country route that will have variety and to teach the student that there are things beyond what they see in their back yard.

So how many instrument pilots have actually received a void time clearance?
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
So how many instrument pilots have actually received a void time clearance?
Click to expand...
4.gif
 
During my only IFR XC for the instrument rating I was having a very hard time keeping up with what needed to be done and I was also forgetting to run many memory/checklist items. Even so my instructor elected to just do some more approaches then let me loose for the checkride. To put it easily, I wish I had the guts to say "Hell no! I ain't ready." For many ppl I feel the requirements for the instrument rating are enough. My training was part 141 and in a Seminole so it was paced faster and naturally required more out of me. The thing is I am not a very quick learner, but I will understand it soon enough. So I wish I had had another XC in my training, whether it was required or not.

After I recieved my instrument rating I started building time for the commercial, as I am doing currently. We are using a Seneca now and have only gotten to do one 7 hour VFR night flight (that was more to get used to the plane) and one 5 hour IFR flight in VMC. And I tell you, I put so many things together on that one IFR flight. It greatly increased the confidence level to where I would have felt comfortable going IFR on my own, albeit, not in a Seneca.

So I would agree theres no need to add more to the requirements because for some ppl its good enough. But for me, I needed just one more IFR XC to tie things together that unfortunately came too late. In hindsight, I let the syllabus dicate what was right for me, when in fact it wasn't...just needed about 3 hours more in it....
 
Swen said:
So I would agree theres no need to add more to the requirements because for some ppl its good enough.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was the key I forgot to mention in my first post.

For every rating, it's impossible to be top-notch, Grade A, #1 super-pilot right after the checkride. The fine points come with experience. I think we all have stories of the lessons we learned on our first solo XCs after getting our private licenses, our first time in the clouds after the instrument checkride, our first time flying for hire after our commercial checkride, etc.

The bottom line here is, could a pilot be safe with only one IFR XC? I think so. Maybe not an expert, but they ought to be able to get from point A to point B without running into a mountain. Like everything else, the ultimate proficiency comes with lots of experience--more so than is practical to get during training.
 
I can see your point with not requiring more XC, but again, I think it's a great experience. I for one had an excellent CFII for my instrument. I've watched instructors instruct other students that have far more time than my instructor that don't seem to have the same ability to get the idea across. This lends credit to JRH's idea about having better CFII's. I agree with that one.
 
First off, ya gotta look at it from a safety/liability standpoint. Not a whole lot of IFR accidents (or IR checkride busts) during the enroute phase to haunt an instructor. Not so during the departure and arrival phases, where most IFR accidents (and checkride busts) occur. With that in mind, it's not so hard to imagine why instructors place more emphasis on approaches than on enroute stuff.

Second, training minimums are just that--minimums. You're free to exceed them all you like. Wanna fly another XC or two? Ask for 'em. I can't imagine your instructor saying no.

Students gotta take a proactive stance with their training. Instead of just handing over the cash and saying "train me", it's your job to push for reiteration when you don't understand something. If you've got a sharp instructor, you can even do this in a sim/FTD, with your instructor playing ATC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top