Re: Successful checkride

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:39:35 -0000, cpw > wrote in
om>:

>I passed my instrument checkride (ASEL) yesterday! Woot!

Congratulations.

>Just in timeas the clouds roll over northern Michigan for the season.

Excellent.

>Now I just have to learn how to use it safely.

And remember, you will probably never be better prepared for IMC
operations than you are at this point.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:39:35 -0000, cpw > wrote in
> om>:
>
>>I passed my instrument checkride (ASEL) yesterday! Woot!
>
> Congratulations.
>
>>Just in timeas the clouds roll over northern Michigan for the season.
>
> Excellent.
>
>>Now I just have to learn how to use it safely.
>
> And remember, you will probably never be better prepared for IMC
> operations than you are at this point.
>
>

Huh?


You're kidding, right?



Bertie

[Tina]

Larry, with all respect, are you serious about having just gotten the
rating he is as well prepared as he ever will be?

My husband, who is rated, characterized that as a comment from someone
who doesn't fly in IMC.

He may be legal to fly in IMC, but wait until he has a couple of
hundred hours of actual before thinking he's ready for hard intrument
conditions.



On Oct 9, 9:48 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:39:35 -0000, cpw > wrote in
> om>:
>
> >I passed my instrument checkride (ASEL) yesterday! Woot!
>
> Congratulations.
>
> >Just in timeas the clouds roll over northern Michigan for the season.
>
> Excellent.
>
> >Now I just have to learn how to use it safely.
>
> And remember, you will probably never be better prepared for IMC
> operations than you are at this point.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:49:42 -0000, Tina > wrote
in . com>:

>Larry, with all respect, are you serious about having just gotten the
>rating he is as well prepared as he ever will be?

I think that is true of a vast majority of pilots who hold instrument
ratings. Those with the time and resources to remain as proficient
and familiar with all the regulations and procedures IFR operations
entail are in the minority in my experience.

>My husband, who is rated, characterized that as a comment from someone
>who doesn't fly in IMC.

That's pretty accurate.

>He may be legal to fly in IMC, but wait until he has a couple of
>hundred hours of actual before thinking he's ready for hard intrument
>conditions.


If he's not commercially employed as a pilot, it's doubtful he'll ever
have those hours, IMO.

In the case of the newly rated pilot who authored the initial article
in this message thread, he writes:

Thanks, guys. I'm lucky in that my partner in our 182 is a CFII.
He's a great mentor and very generous with his time and expertise.
We'll be able to keep each other current and continue to learn how
best to use our G1000.

(Although this violates my personal policy of not posting e-mail
without permission, I doubt there would be any objection in this
case.)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> Larry, with all respect, are you serious about having just gotten the
> rating he is as well prepared as he ever will be?
>
> My husband, who is rated, characterized that as a comment from someone
> who doesn't fly in IMC.
>
> He may be legal to fly in IMC, but wait until he has a couple of
> hundred hours of actual before thinking he's ready for hard intrument
> conditions.


I'd have to agree. I was much better flying instruments after I got a courier
job and had to fly in actual IMC on a regualr basis. When I was fresh from the
check ride for my rating, I may have known the regs better but that was all.
The difference in pucker factor was marked.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[news.verizon.net]

I think that in terms of knowing what it's like to be actual IMC then no,
he's not as prepared as he will be down the road. In terms of having sharp
skills to fly solely by ref to the instruments and knowing all the details
of the systems, then yes it's as good as will ever be. When you spend a
significant amount of time prepping for your check ride you tend to sharpen
those skill to a very great degree. Afterwards you tend to sharpen the
skills that are actually used in everyday IFR flying. They are not always
the same skill sets.

John

"Tina" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Larry, with all respect, are you serious about having just gotten the
> rating he is as well prepared as he ever will be?
>
> My husband, who is rated, characterized that as a comment from someone
> who doesn't fly in IMC.
>
> He may be legal to fly in IMC, but wait until he has a couple of
> hundred hours of actual before thinking he's ready for hard intrument
> conditions.
>
>
>
> On Oct 9, 9:48 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:39:35 -0000, cpw > wrote in
>> om>:
>>
>> >I passed my instrument checkride (ASEL) yesterday! Woot!
>>
>> Congratulations.
>>
>> >Just in timeas the clouds roll over northern Michigan for the season.
>>
>> Excellent.
>>
>> >Now I just have to learn how to use it safely.
>>
>> And remember, you will probably never be better prepared for IMC
>> operations than you are at this point.
>
>

[Mike Isaksen]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>> And remember, you will probably never be better prepared for IMC
>> operations than you are at this point.


"Tina" wrote in message ...
> He may be legal to fly in IMC, but wait until he has a couple of
> hundred hours of actual before thinking he's ready for hard intrument
> conditions.

While I agree that no newly minted ifr pilot should jump into "hard"
instument conditions, very few instrument rated pilots get to a level of
"couple hundred hours of actual" while remaining in part 91 operations. And
almost every pilot I know planning any IMC reaches for the autopilot on
climbout. It's just too much work hand flying, processing the paperwork, and
keeping a conversation going with a chatty passenger.
I think what Larry ment is that the pilot's hand flying skills are probably
at the top of his game. I hope that any diminishing skills will be suffently
supplimented by experience, so to never to fall beyond the crossover point
of the old "skill vs confidence" chart.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"news.verizon.net" > wrote in
news:flqPi.6330$9r2.4554@trndny04:

> I think that in terms of knowing what it's like to be actual IMC then
> no, he's not as prepared as he will be down the road. In terms of
> having sharp skills to fly solely by ref to the instruments and
> knowing all the details of the systems, then yes it's as good as will
> ever be. When you spend a significant amount of time prepping for
> your check ride you tend to sharpen those skill to a very great
> degree. Afterwards you tend to sharpen the skills that are actually
> used in everyday IFR flying. They are not always the same skill sets.
>
>

No, that simply isn't so.


Bertie
>

[Tina]

I know very few instrument rated pilots, but my husband is one of
them. He would absolutely disagree that insrument flight is more
difficult than vfr after one gains some experience. What can be
easier, he says, than flying somewhere, flying an approach, looking up
and finding the airport right where it should be.

The others I know, who use their airplanes mostly for business travel,
feel the same way, Nearly all of them file an instrument flight plan
for any flight more than a short distance. Here in the east (NC) about
a third of his hours are under IMC -- except lately, we NEED rain --
and he wouldn't dream of an afterdusk flight not under IFR.

It would be interesting to see of other more experienced pilots feel
that a newly minted rating guy will be at the top of his or her game.
In fact, long ago, newly rated pilots were encouraged to put a comment
on their flight plan "low time IFR". Maybe it's a lot different now.



On Oct 11, 10:32 am, "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> >> And remember, you will probably never be better prepared for IMC
> >> operations than you are at this point.
> "Tina" wrote in message ...
> > He may be legal to fly in IMC, but wait until he has a couple of
> > hundred hours of actual before thinking he's ready for hard intrument
> > conditions.
>
> While I agree that no newly minted ifr pilot should jump into "hard"
> instument conditions, very few instrument rated pilots get to a level of
> "couple hundred hours of actual" while remaining in part 91 operations. And
> almost every pilot I know planning any IMC reaches for the autopilot on
> climbout. It's just too much work hand flying, processing the paperwork, and
> keeping a conversation going with a chatty passenger.
> I think what Larry ment is that the pilot's hand flying skills are probably
> at the top of his game. I hope that any diminishing skills will be suffently
> supplimented by experience, so to never to fall beyond the crossover point
> of the old "skill vs confidence" chart.

[Mike Isaksen]

"Tina" wrote in message ...
>I know very few instrument rated pilots, but my husband is one of
> them. He would absolutely disagree that insrument flight is more
> difficult than vfr after one gains some experience. What can be
> easier, he says, than flying somewhere, flying an approach, looking up
> and finding the airport right where it should be.

I would never disagree with a wife who thought her husband is a god.
I would be interested if there are any sisters in your family. ;-)

On the issue of "insturment flight (assuming this to be IMC) being no more
difficult than VFR", I would mention:
a. imbedded thunderstorms
b. holds and wide area reroutes
c. holds and expect further (an hr from now)
d. weather worse than forecast
e. airports going below minimums

Not to mention things that can ruin a good day in IMC, that you may not even
notice in VFR:
a. Alternator/Belt failure
b. Vac pump failure
c. Pitot heat failure

[Larry Dighera]

>On Oct 11, 10:32 am, "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> >> And remember, you will probably never be better prepared for IMC
>> >> operations than you are at this point.
>> "Tina" wrote in message ...
>> > He may be legal to fly in IMC, but wait until he has a couple of
>> > hundred hours of actual before thinking he's ready for hard intrument
>> > conditions.
>>
>> While I agree that no newly minted ifr pilot should jump into "hard"
>> instument conditions, very few instrument rated pilots get to a level of
>> "couple hundred hours of actual" while remaining in part 91 operations. And
>> almost every pilot I know planning any IMC reaches for the autopilot on
>> climbout. It's just too much work hand flying, processing the paperwork, and
>> keeping a conversation going with a chatty passenger.
>> I think what Larry ment is that the pilot's hand flying skills are probably
>> at the top of his game. I hope that any diminishing skills will be suffently
>> supplimented by experience, so to never to fall beyond the crossover point
>> of the old "skill vs confidence" chart.
>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:53:59 -0000, Tina > wrote
in om>:

>I know very few instrument rated pilots, but my husband is one of
>them. He would absolutely disagree that insrument flight is more
>difficult than vfr after one gains some experience.

Well, there is IFR flight with autopilot and moving-map GPS in VMC,
and there is IFR flight in unstable IMC without an autopilot nor GPS.
In the first case, if all goes as planned, it's cake. But
single-pilot IFR hand-flown on-the-gages in convective IMC in
congested airspace is probably one of the most challenging tasks a
civil airman faces regardless of experience level.

>What can be easier, he says, than flying somewhere, flying an approach,
>looking up and finding the airport right where it should be.

There is an aspect of IFR operation that is easier than VFR; that is
the lack of necessity to scan for conflicting traffic in IMC, and the
reduction in air traffic as a result of VFR pilots staying on the
ground.

>
>The others I know, who use their airplanes mostly for business travel,
>feel the same way, Nearly all of them file an instrument flight plan
>for any flight more than a short distance.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of those IFR hours
flown result in being conducted in actual instrument conditions.

>Here in the east (NC) about
>a third of his hours are under IMC -- except lately, we NEED rain --

So if the average pilot flies 100 hours a year, he would only log 30
hours of IMC a year. At that rate, it would take a pilot nearly seven
years to amass the 200 hours to which you referred. In seven years
the training that was little (or not) practiced will have degraded.

>and he wouldn't dream of an afterdusk flight not under IFR.

That's a sound policy that adds a margin of safety. Without a horizon
or city lights, as might be encountered with a new moon over water or
the desert, a VFR pilot is effectively on-the-gages anyway, but both
VFR and IFR pilots must still scan for conflicting traffic in VMC.

>
>It would be interesting to see of [if?] other more experienced pilots feel
>that a newly minted rating guy will be at the top of his or her game.

That wasn't exactly my assertion. There are several aspects to IFR
operation: Planning, weather, navigation, communications, turns,
entries, holding patterns, regulations, instrument interpretation,
manual control input, and a myriad of lesser duties also associated
with VFR operations, not to mention emergency procedures that haven't
be recently practiced. Add in a little system failure, and it's very
easy to become task saturated.

>In fact, long ago, newly rated pilots were encouraged to put a comment
>on their flight plan "low time IFR". Maybe it's a lot different now.

I haven't heard of that. But there is support for students entering
such notes.