IFR ticket vs. professional training (MD, PhD...)

I think that I have. I recieved the IR in 1998 and have flown over 1500hrs
since then in the same airplane and virtually all of the flying in the MU-2
is IFR because of the fuel savings in the flight levels. I no longer
consciously "scan" the instruments, I just look at the panel and take in the
information. I also find that my skills don't atrophy as fast as they did
1000hrs ago. I get about 6hrs of simulator time every year at Simcom,
virtually all of which is IMC. I don't do any practice approaches or
training in the airplane. I don't know how much of this is avionics (Garmin
530/430, GPS roll steering, Flight Director, dual HSI's and RMI's) and a
stable airplane vs how much is applicable to experience.

I am somewhere between conscious competent and unconscious competent in the
Helio. I certainly haven't mastered the airplane but I no longer conciously
think about "dancing" on the rudder pedals and that kind of stuff.

Mike
MU-2


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
4) Unconsious competent-you can do the task without thinking about it.

Have you made it to "unconscious competent" yet?

After 5+ years of instrument flying, I must say I haven't achieved this
state. I doubt I ever shall, flying only about ten actual approaches per
year plus a dozen for practice. I find that flying approaches in IMC
still
requires intense, deliberate concentration for me to stay ahead of the
situation.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

I don't know how much of this is avionics (Garmin
530/430, GPS roll steering, Flight Director, dual HSI's and RMI's) and
a
stable airplane vs how much is applicable to experience.

I suspect it's mostly flight experience. My experience and outlook is
rather similar to yours, except that I do my recurrent training in the
airplane. My recurrent training cycle is about 3-5 hours every 6-10
months, mostly under the hood or in IMC. Last time I stretched it a
bit to fit in the ATP. I don't have any of those gadgets in my
airplane (not even a single HSI) and don't miss them. I find that an
approach is IMC is no particular challenge unless I'm doing something
unusual, like a full procedure NDB to mins where I've decided to
actually fly the ADF needle rather than LORAN/GPS.

Michael

I'm an insurance actuary; it took me 8 years of home study to be fully
accredited. The IFR written was a lot easier.

I just got my rating last year, and find that routine IFR is no big
deal, but proficiency is another story - the process of doing 3
approaches in rapid succession with successive holds and route
intersections typical of what you do for the practical exam requires a
level of concentration which in my life compares only with high-level
musical performance (I'm a singer in my spare time).

Interesting how many engineers, and especially EEs there are on this
thread.

Anyway, I've got a BSEE and work in the semiconductor business. To me,
comparing flying IFR and doing my job is really just apples and
oranges.

I don't do enough flying in IMC to say that it is second nature for me,
and it probably never will be, but overall, the intellectual task is
not anywhere as difficult as circuit design. Then again, when I was
doing design, if I got confused while doing my day job, I could get up,
get a cup of coffee and chat in the breakroom until I was ready to face
my workstation. Can't do that in an airplane.

Nowadays, I'm an FAE (Field Apps) and, while meeting with customers
there is a real-time component to the job, but still, it's nothing like
IFR flight. As someone else said: death is not a likely outcome from a
customer meeting. (Aside from the times I want to kill my customers.)

So, I think the difference is that learning to fly IFR is not as taxing
mentally as an advanced degree or practicing an art that requires an
advanced degree. However, flying requires quick thinking and constant
attention that few other domains approach.

For the computer nerds: design engineering is like running a huge, cpu
and disk instensive cad tool on your GHz PC. Flying is like a little
high-priority service routine that only burns a few MIPS of that CPU.
However, god help you if you don't handle that interrupt in a timely
manner.

For all you super-duper engineer pilots out there, try solving
Schroedinger's wave equation while flying in IMC. No autopilots or
scratch paper allowed.

Dave J

jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

wrote:
As someone else said: death is not a likely outcome from a
customer meeting. (Aside from the times I want to kill my customers.)

awesome.


And thanks everyone else for the interesting comparisons.

Gerald

"G. Sylvester" wrote in message
m...

I got into a discussion with an non-pilot MD comparing
a professional degree versus flying...
This person I had the discussion with
is under the impression of flying is probably more like driving and
anybody
can do it...
So the big question, compared to a your profession, how does flying
VFR and IFR compare with regards to training, proficiency, continued
training, mental challenge and anything else that comes to mind?

There are two comparisons in question he flying vs. driving, and flying
vs. professional training.

Flying is harder than driving, in several respects. There are important
aspects of flying that are initially counterintuitive (not just pulling the
nose up if you're about to land short, for instance). Flying (safely)
requires more knowledge about weather conditions and the vehicle's
interaction with them. There are more emergency procedures that need to be
instantly deployable. Navigation while flying is more complicated than while
driving (except perhaps with GPS). Flying requires more multitasking. There
are more regulations to be familiar with when flying.

But there's no comparison between flying and professional training. Flying
requires only a high-school student's knowledge, skill, and judgment (that's
why we license 16-year-olds to solo, and 17-year-olds to carry passengers).
Getting a PPL requires perhaps a month's full-time study (usually spread out
over a much longer period, though); an instrument rating is perhaps another
month. Compared to the years of complex study needed for an MD or a PhD,
flight training is a relaxing diversion. That's why retired doctors and
scientists often become pilots, but retired pilots seldom become doctors or
scientists.

--Gary

I happen to be one of those physicians, and also work as a surgeon in Level
I trauma center. Additionally I also had an additional six years of graduate
school and research training along with my multi instrument rating. My
flying time is spent between cross countries in a twin or more fun doing
aerobatics.

Regardless, there is no comparison between the rigors of medical training,
especially surgery, and flight training. As a resident, and still today we
often have to stay up an entire night operating or monitoring a patient who
is gravely ill or injured. There are times when we need to make immediate
decisions regarding the need to do something that might save someone's life
or limb.

Some may call this arrogance, but some times this is created from the
necessity of having the confidence to make critical decisions in the face of
crisis situations. Lack of confidence and indecisiveness can lead to fatal
delays.

The pressures and stresses of making these decisions is much greater than
seeing the ground rushing up at 200k while flying acro- there is simply no
comparison.

Interestingly, while working as a flight surgeon in a fighter unit, I saw
the same attitudes in the pilots- some people called it arrogance, but most
would agree that it was confidence from having to carry out a difficult and
stressful job.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:08:20 GMT, "G. Sylvester"
wrote:


I got into a discussion with an non-pilot MD comparing
a professional degree versus flying.

snip
So the big question, compared to a your profession, how does flying
VFR and IFR compare with regards to training, proficiency, continued
training, mental challenge and anything else that comes to mind? No
need to convince me but more to convince the non-pilot. In particular
I'd like to hear from the professions that require advanced degrees.

You don't have to get as far as the advanced degrees.
As someone else already said, aviation is a technical field.

Look at it this way.
PPL Ground school: one term, one class.
Practical experience to get ready to test: about the equivalent in
hours of one class, one term.
Instrument rating: An additional class one term for flight and one
class for books.

Overall: 4 one term classes.
I would liken flying more as an art than mechanical endeavor though.
True, there are those who will never get beyond the mechanical phase
of flying, but to those who do it is like music.

However, going beyond the basic private with the instrument rating
takes more learning and more time. If your add up the flying hours
required to reach ATP (and get a job) it's probably close to the same
as getting a bachelors degree.

Continued training is a fact of life in many professions so I'd not
set aviation apart in that respect.

As far as flying IFR Vs my job: With only me and maybe my wife and/or
a couple of passengers my decisions and competency affect only them
and maybe a few people on the ground if I really screw up.

As a project manager in industry and although primarily a computer
jockey, the ramifications of a mistake in process control or quality
control could affect thousands of individuals. Some mistakes could
result in the evacuation of many people from their homes.

The same is true for many of the Chemical and Electrical Engineers I
worked with. I've seen things go amiss where the engineers were
truely happy a particular plant was out in the country.

As far as individual responsibility and pressure, I'd rate flying in
solid IMC no different than going into work through rush hour traffic
during a storm. Actually, I don't think I'd rate single pilot IMC as
any where near that stressful.

I have never felt any undue pressure flying in IMC (except as a
student). Possibly as I had some very thorough instructors and lots
of time in actual right down to minimums prior to taking the PTS to
get the rating, I feel much more comfortable than many.

I much prefer to fly cross country IFR now days as it makes things
much simpler. Of course I still pick the smaller airports as my choice
for destinations. It puts me up higher and *generally* out of the see
and avoid crowd in high density areas. Of course it never takes away
that responsibility.

So, to directly answer the question: Only going through the PPL with
the instrument rating is no where near as time consuming or difficult
on an overall basis than getting a Bachelor of Science degree, let
alone Masters or PHD. BUT this is sorta the proverbial, Apples to
Oranges comparison.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Gerald Sylvester

Look at it this way.
PPL Ground school: one term, one class.
Practical experience to get ready to test: about the equivalent in
hours of one class, one term.
Instrument rating: An additional class one term for flight and one
class for books.

Another point I forgot to make originally was that most classes you
take during undergraduate and even graduate programs have no value
to your final profession. I took 7 semesters of math above calculus.
When was the last time I took a derivative? Ummm, a long time ago.
I use the concept but I certainly didn't need 7 semesters of math.
So with PPL and so far with the IFR, 95% of everything you learn is
practical and therefore the training is a lot more efficient.


Gerald Sylvester

G. Sylvester wrote:
Look at it this way.
PPL Ground school: one term, one class. Practical experience to get
ready to test: about the equivalent in
hours of one class, one term.
Instrument rating: An additional class one term for flight and one
class for books.


Another point I forgot to make originally was that most classes you
take during undergraduate and even graduate programs have no value
to your final profession. I took 7 semesters of math above calculus.
When was the last time I took a derivative? Ummm, a long time ago.
I use the concept but I certainly didn't need 7 semesters of math.
So with PPL and so far with the IFR, 95% of everything you learn is
practical and therefore the training is a lot more efficient.

Yes, don't confuse education with training. A college degree is
intended to educate you, not train you. Pilot training is definitely
training.


Matt