Tim wrote:

Then the training was lacking.

Baloney. Training and capability and confidence learned through
experience are two different things entirely. I don't care if we are
talking about flying, driving, or a profession, the training/education
are just the beginning. Practice and experience beyond that is what
makes you a good driver, pilot, doctor, engineer or whatever. If you
really don't know the difference here, then I feel really sorry for you.


No need to feel sorry for me. I already conceded that experience will make
you better. What you have still not convinced me of is that after I get my
rating I should be "prudent" and not actually fly to the standards I was
training at and took the practical? You are confusing two different
issues. What I would like someone to explain is why a person who just
passed the practical should not be able to file a plan, fly in actual and
complete an approach to minimums. I argue that if they can't then:

If you feel that you can fly to the edge of the envelope (fully utilize
everything legally available to you in IMC conditions) at day one, what
is left to gain from experience? I'm not being facetrious here, I'm
really curious as to what value you feel that experience will bring?
Generally, it brings additional capabilities beyond what you had at the
start. But since you can't legally fly in worse weather after 500 hours
than you can after 0 hours (I'm talking post rating here), what is left
to gain from your experience?


On your own without an instructor is no way to "learn" how to do an approach
to minimums. (I can not figure out how else you get to that point on your
own, since it seems that you are arguing that a person's training did not
prepare them to make a flight in IMC and land after doing an approach to
minimums)

I don't think anyone is claiming that you need to learn to do the
approach. It is a question of precision, confidence, and the ability to
handle the unforeseen that comes with experience. I believe any new
insrument pilot should have the knowledge to fly an approach to
minimums. They shouldn't need to learn anything from a "mechanical"
perspective. That isn't what experience usually brings. It is the
ability to recognize and deal with the non-mechanical aspects (fatique,
etc.) that occur in real flying much more so than during training.


That's unfortunate. My instrument test was nearly 3 hours long, about
1.5 on the ground and 1.5 in the air. I passed, but wouldn't launch
into low IFR to an airport reporting minimums at that point in my
instrument flying career.



Damn right it is unfortunate. Why wouldn't you have?

Because doing things in a simulated environment isn't the same as doing
things for real. I've learned this in many aspects of my personal and
professional life. If I'd had the occasion to fly several approaches to
minimums in actual during my training, then I'd have felt differently.
I simply chose to explore the areas incrementally where I'd not had the
chance to explore them "for real" during training.


I had already agreed to that. The point is that after the test you should
be expected to fly in IMC on your own and make an approach at minimums -
after all that is what you trained and tested for.

I will make it clear again - I am not arguing that a person who just passed
his practical is going to be a wunderkind and be able to fly better or has
better habits or is more capable than one who has been flying for years.

What capbilities will you be able to use after experience than you could
the day you got your rating? You can't arbitrarily fly to an MDA or DH
lower than what is published, just because you are now a better pilot.


As to your question: would you want a doctor who had just graduated from
medical school perform his/her first
quadruple bypass on you without a more experienced surgeon in the
operating room?


Totally different and your example is not even close in so many ways.

Such as?


Matt