Private IFR rating and Commercial IFR rating ?

Correct me if I am wrong but flying in the clouds, with the help of instruments, started as a neccessity for commercial (mail, passengers cargo, etc) and military operations. 1929, Doolittle did the first ''blind approach''. From this time, instruments and airplanes improved. My guess is that IFR operation was mostly done by professionnals and private pilots slowly started to get their IFR rating. The IFR rating is a big step from flying VFR and after earning your rating you need to continue to practice and to be sharp....like a professionnal but in general, a private pilot is not a professionnal pilot. Some private pilot with put the energy, and the money, to get their rating but after some time some of them will stop flying IFR because they don't use it, practice it, anough. On the flight test, and at recurrency, we need to execute approaches at 200 ft AGL, do holds (offset, parrallel, direct, standard and not standard), etc, etc. I don't think that most of us need to do an approach at 200 ft. 1000 ft ceiling is good anough for me. If we could have a lighter version for the IFR rating, a private IFR, then I think more pilots would continue to fly IFR and more pilots would take the rating. A private IFR rating would help increase SAFETY and UTILITY of GA airplanes. I know, and I knew, pilots who prefer to hit the ground instead of the clouds. Today, we have GPS, autopilot, weather and traffic in the cockpit which help us a lot. Why learn ADF, VOR, LOC, GPS approaches? Maybe the GPS and another type of your choice will suffice. Why hold inbound on the 235 degrees radial non standard when holding southwest of XX VOR would do the job....

The UK has a seperate IMC rating from the Instrument rating (which is now aligned with the EU standards). However, I don't think the training for their "light" rating is a whole lot relaxed from what a US Instrument Rating is involved. The IMC rating allows for approaches/departures with higher minimums. There's also an EU lite-IFR rating that only involves enroute (no approaches).

There's no requirement on the flight training part of a US instrument rating to learn all those approaches. The only requirement is for one "precision" (which for this part) and two non-precision approaches. You could do them all with a WAAS GPS only. Of course, finding a WAAS GPS that doesn't also have a ILS and VOR in it is going to be difficult and if you are equipped for it, it is fair game on the checkride to be asked to fly it.

I disagree that an "autopilot only, GPS only" instrument rating is warranted.

Autopilots fail, usually at the worst possible time. Don't ask how I know.

To safely fly in the clouds you need to be able to hand-fly and know how to use all of the equipment in your panel. An autopilot is a great aid. But it should never be your primary means of keeping the airplane upright. And there may come a day when you only have your ship's battery, one comm, and one nav, to get down out of the clouds. Autopilots take power to run and you might not want to run down your battery that way knowing that it has to last until you are on a runway.

Best of luck,

Wes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre Durocher

A private IFR rating would help increase SAFETY and UTILITY of GA airplanes.

---

Exactly, which is why ~25 yrs ago an alphabet pilot group successfully lobbied the FAA to decrease the number of total hours required to obtain an instrument rating, THE instrument rating. Since then, more pilots have continued training after obtaining a Private Pilot certificate and today more private pilots have an instrument rating. That sounds like win-win. Creating a "sport pilot" version (i.e. lower standards for completion) of the instrument rating? Hopefully, someone would study that thoroughly before making such a petition. Could be some issues that would need to be resolved....... but good luck!!!

I agree 100% that a pilot flying in the clouds shall be able to hand fly the plane and fly safely to his/her destination. The private IFR rating (PIFR) would have higher take-off and landing minimas for the initial test, recurrencies and the real life flying. And personnal minimas are always the best choices. This would be a first step towards a commercial IFR rating (CIFR) if the pilot wants to climb this ladder later. Yes, in Europe (EIR= Enroute Instrument Rating) and in Australia (PIFR= Private Instrument Flight Rating) they can take-off VFR, fly into the clouds and land VFR. This is what I call the EFR (Enroute Flight Rules) and this could be a first step towards a PIFR. The step from flying VFR to flying IFR is huge and having a middle step would increase the SAFETY and UTILITY of GA.

My first instrument training was to meet the basic PVT check ride. and I logged 14.7 hrs of hood to comply with the FAA. It was in the J-3 Cub "instrument trainer" (not making a joke) I passed. I was hooked on instruments. Of course, I increased in experience and it became routine. If you have ever been weathered in and got to the point when you said " I'd rather die than spend another day in ....... (fill in name of your least favorite place) With an inst rating, just file and go when the wx looks right. Its the safest way to go.You will not have to sacrifice yourself. I am rated in airplanes and helos and there is little difference. If you become certified, it would help to file on vfr days or take an old hand with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Dingley

My first instrument training was to meet the basic PVT check ride. and I logged 14.7 hrs of hood to comply with the FAA.

---

Well that was a bit overkill! Were you a really bad student Bob? Or was the instructor trying to make his rent payment from your hood time?

"you need to continue to practice and to be sharp"

Rereading the first post there is an assumption that enroute IFR is easier than flying an instrument approach to an airport. I will suggest that the assumption is not correct. There is more to it than simply following the artificial horizon. Every pilot is expected to fly an IFR clearance like a professional. A sloppy pilot who incorrectly copies a clearance or wanders away from the route expected by ATC causes problems for the controllers and nearby traffic. The reality is that there is a lot more IFR traffic in the US, particularly the northeast, than there is in Canada or Europe. That is not to say that IFR in those places is not challenging, but I invite you to fly through NY Center airspace in IFR weather and observe the performance level expected of all traffic by ATC. There are a LOT of airplanes aloft that are expected to perform at a high "professional" level. NY doesn't cut the guy in a GA Cessna any slack because they only burn 100LL.

The other aspect of flying IFR is the cost of maintaining the equipment. I suspect that the cultural differences between Canada, Europe, and the US result in the expense being handling differently. In the US, renting an IFR current aircraft comes with something like a 20% premium price. But I believe that at least half of the pilots here who fly IFR own their ships. So you have database updates, equipment checks, currency flying, all paid for by an individual. Actually getting the Instrument Rating is a relatively small part of the cost(s) of flying safe and comfortable IFR.

Someone that I know, who has a Instrument Rating, once said that it was 250 hours of instrument time before he was really really comfortably ahead of the airplane. Which suggests that there really is not shortcut to competency, even just when enroute.

None of us really knows what we don't know. It is easy to look up and wish that there was an easy way. But when working with/against Mother Nature, there rarely are shortcuts that work. Mother Nature and her friend Murphy always lurk, waiting for us to have a weak moment.

Best of luck,

Wes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martymayes

Well that was a bit overkill! Were you a really bad student Bob? Or was the instructor trying to make his rent payment from your hood time?

---

I was in H.S. in 57 and had completed everything for the CAA check ride. My CFI was old school. Taught on Stearmans for Embry Riddle. I got spins on the 2nd hop. Then spent all the time on on ground ref manouvers, slow flight stalls x-wind landings, etc. The cub had a full swivel tail wheel, no connection to rudder. Only one ground loop logged. Then I joined the Marines and didn't come back till 1960. Clyde, my CFI told me that there were NEW requirements under the New FAA. Had to communicate w/radio, Had to maintain control by instruments and had to nav by radio nav aids. He showed me the J-3 instrument trainer:
A venturi was added to the L. boot cowl, A T&B was added to the panel. A battery was bolted to the floor in front of the stick (like a Birddog) a generator was on the left lift strut to power an ancient comm and a L.F. rec. She was a bit heavier now so the engine was upgraded to a A-75 and a new prop was added. It was a Beech R003 controllable prop. There was what looked like a window crank from a 48 DeSoto on the L.side wall. This was 1960. Guess what nav aid was still in service. Amber seven a LF airway still ran up the eastern seaboard. Off we went. Yeah, I logged 14.7 of hood, but I sure liked the "grunt" that this cub now had and spent some of that time just doing STOL takeoffs. I latter bought a Lusc 8A with one of those props. By 1965, the LF airways were converted to NDBs in my area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WLIU

...And there may come a day when you only have your ship's battery, one comm, and one nav, to get down out of the clouds...Best of luck, Wes

---

You had BOTH a comm AND a nav? Piece of cake! 1982. T-28, we started out with only 1 comm and 1 nav installed. Generator failed in the clouds with bases reported 300'. The battery was getting really weak before we got on downwind for the approach, but the guy in the other seat had a ham radio in his survival vest. As avionics and instruments dropped off line he got a phone patch to the GCA controller at NAS Corpus for a no-gyro PAR. Wet compass, altimeter, airspeed, and slip/skid ball were still working when I saw the water over the bay beneath us - then picked up Ocean Drive off to the right - shook the stick to take control and down we went.

What would the next step have been if that hadn't worked? Procedure was to ask for someone else to join us above the clouds, form up, and follow that aircraft's rotating beacon down. Yep, we'd practiced that. In the clouds.

Fun times.

I agree with you: a VFR, EFR or IFR pilot shouldn't fly where he/she is not up to the task.

The high cost: another good reason why some VFR pilots will not take the IFR rating.

250 hours is a lot but probably right. If the average private pilot flies 25 IFR hours per year then it will take him 10 years to be comfortable. Another reason why an EFR rating would less demanding. The EFR rating is simply to be able to follow ATC instructions, the airways and some other rules which I don't know but a lot less demanding compare to the IFR rating.

And the EFR pilot will have to work with the wx like the VFR and IFR pilots do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre Durocher

I agree with you: a VFR, EFR or IFR pilot shouldn't fly where he/she is not up to the task.

---

Andre, if you were to guess: How many instrument rated private pilots are current to fly IFR??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martymayes

Andre, if you were to guess: How many instrument rated private pilots are current to fly IFR??

---

Marty, I really don't know. I read that 70% of US IFR rated PPLs do not use their rating. The reasons may be: they don't use it anough, they don't feel comfortable, the costs, etc. Current is defined by the law and proficient is something every pilot should aim for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre Durocher

Marty, I really don't know. I read that 70% of US IFR rated PPLs do not use their rating. The reasons may be: they don't use it anough, they don't feel comfortable, the costs, etc. Current is defined by the law and proficient is something every pilot should aim for.

---

I think it's closer to 1 in 5 or 20% that actually stay current.

A few post earlier you said "If the average private pilot flies 25 IFR hours per year" - The number of private pilots that fly that amount is likely very, very small. Using a rule of thumb for an active instrument pilot that 10% of total time will be instrument time (with 10% being very generous) those pilots have to be flying ~250 hrs a yr.

How do these EFR pilots stay current and/or proficient? They can't possibly be logging more than 2-3 hrs of instrument time in a yr.


Edit: to give you an idea of what I am getting at, last yr (2017) I flew 640 hrs. 33 hrs were in IFR conditions. That means about 5% of the time I flew I was in the clouds. The reason people can't stay IFR current is because there is not enough bad wx! I'm just not seeing a whole lot more utility and safety from allowing someone to fly IFR during the enroute portion only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre Durocher

The high cost: another good reason why some VFR pilots will not take the IFR rating.

---

How about this Andre: Offer a PP/instrument rating combined? If a new student starts learning instrument flying from day 1, the overall cost would be somewhat less than earning a PP certificate then adding an instrument rating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martymayes

I think it's closer to 1 in 5 or 20% that actually stay current.

A few post earlier you said "If the average private pilot flies 25 IFR hours per year" - The number of private pilots that fly that amount is likely very, very small. Using a rule of thumb for an active instrument pilot that 10% of total time will be instrument time (with 10% being very generous) those pilots have to be flying ~250 hrs a yr.

How do these EFR pilots stay current and/or proficient? They can't possibly be logging more than 2-3 hrs of instrument time in a yr.


Edit: to give you an idea of what I am getting at, last yr (2017) I flew 640 hrs. 33 hrs were in IFR conditions. That means about 5% of the time I flew I was in the clouds. The reason people can't stay IFR current is because there is not enough bad wx! I'm just not seeing a whole lot more utility and safety from allowing someone to fly IFR during the enroute portion only.

---

Lots of VFR pilots don't fly anough and flying IFR is worse so proficiency is a high goal to achieve.

You fly a lot because you are a professional pilot. An average private IFR pilot will be less proficient compare to you. As you said, flying IFR is not done often so doing approaches is not easely done. This is why the EFR rating could keep the pilot flying legally in the clouds on the enroute portion of the flight. This type of flight is a lot less demanding compare to the actual IFR flying.

There is enough bad wx here where I live maybe this is why I am interested in this type of rating. To be able to fly over the mountains and descend to a VMC destination. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martymayes

How about this Andre: Offer a PP/instrument rating combined? If a new student starts learning instrument flying from day 1, the overall cost would be somewhat less than earning a PP certificate then adding an instrument rating.

---

The same problem will still exist Marty because the new pilot will not fly enough to maintain is IFR rating.

Since you are in Canada, what does Transport Canada have to say about this?

FAA is unlikely to create any new ratings for a long time. Their focus currently appears to be Nexgen/ADS-B and UAV's. No budget for new ratings. And EAA and AOPA are putting their efforts into killing the privitization of ATC here.

Best of luck,

Wes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre Durocher

Lots of VFR pilots don't fly anough and flying IFR is worse so proficiency is a high goal to achieve.

---

So what makes the EFR pilot immune from the same problem? Nothing! They won't be able to maintain currency or proficiency unless they do a LOT of flying in general.

The argument that cost of an instrument rating is a barrier doesn't hold water. The number of IR private pilot supports that. Once the FAA ditched the 200h requirement more private pilots started and finished the instrument rating. Yeah, they don't use their IR to fly IFR. Still benefit from the training and can always get up to speed with currency if they want to fly IFR.

Quote:

---

There is enough bad wx here where I live maybe this is why I am interested in this type of rating. To be able to fly over the mountains and descend to a VMC destination. ;-)

---

In the US, there are very few who would benefit from that type privilege which is probably why you're not finding a lot of support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WLIU

Since you are in Canada, what does Transport Canada have to say about this?

FAA is unlikely to create any new ratings for a long time. Their focus currently appears to be Nexgen/ADS-B and UAV's. No budget for new ratings. And EAA and AOPA are putting their efforts into killing the privitization of ATC here.

Best of luck,

Wes

---

Hi Wes,
I didn't talked to TC yet. Here in Canada we have the VFR OTT rating but not many takers and not many users. To be able to fly above, and later descend below, the clouds the pilot needs a sky to be scattered or better. Need to be at least 1000 ft above and below the clouds with at least 5 miles visibility. If you fly between layers, you need a minimum of 5000 ft between the 2 layers. What do you do if clouds become less than 5000 ft apart and/or visibility goes down? You turn around only to find out that the wx is worse there !!

Some rules in Canada confuse me. I think you meant VFR On Top only if the origin and destination are scattered or better, correct?

Once upon a time, I flew an aerobatic contest in Canada where the ceiling was 700' with large holes drifting by. Relatively thin layer with blue sky above. The TC rep was standing right there as the Contest Director briefed that we would launch, fly to a hole, climb above the layer and hold over a road intersection until one of the large holes moved over the contest box. The Chief Judge would call us in to fly our competition flight program. When we finished we navigated to another hole to descend and return to the airport under the 700' ceiling. With Transport Canada right there, as an American I assumed that this was an aspect of Canada rules that were different. Off we went and flew the contest.

So were we doing what in Canada is VFR On Top? Or does that just apply to cross country flight above the clouds?

Best of luck,

Wes

VFR on top and VFR over the top (OTT) are two separate things. Any VFR pilot can fly over the top in the US; in other countries an endorsement is required. The FAA does not endorse VFR OTT, however it’s not illegal. VFR on top is an IFR operation so one has to be instrument rated and on an IFR flight plan.

So the contest was in Canada. The question was what the rule is in Canada and did it apply to the conditions described.

Unfortunately post #22 does not answer the question.

Best of luck,

Wes

Hello Wes,

I didn't talk to TCCA yet. For the moment, I am talking to private VFR pilots and here in my area they are all interested about this EFR rating. Often, those pilots will not fly because there are clouds between the departure and the destination. I know that lots of pilots stop flying because they don't get the utility of their aircraft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martymayes

VFR on top and VFR over the top (OTT) are two separate things. Any VFR pilot can fly over the top in the US; in other countries an endorsement is required. The FAA does not endorse VFR OTT, however it’s not illegal. VFR on top is an IFR operation so one has to be instrument rated and on an IFR flight plan.

---

Here in Canada we have the VFR Over The Top rating which is done with a VFR licence: needs at least 50% of blue sky at departure and arrival, 5000 ft between 2 layers, 5 miles visibility and 1000 ft from the clouds, only during the day and more restrictions. Not a very popular rating.

In IFR flight we have the '' 1000-ft-on-top''.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre Durocher

Hello Wes,

I didn't talk to TCCA yet. For the moment, I am talking to private VFR pilots and here in my area they are all interested about this EFR rating. Often, those pilots will not fly because there are clouds between the departure and the destination. I know that lots of pilots stop flying because they don't get the utility of their aircraft.

---

**March 22, 2019, I met Transport Canada and th ey are interested in the EIR (Enroute IFR Rating: T-O in VMC, fly in or above the clouds and land in VMC) project. They want me to do a study and present to them a report.

Yesterday, COPA (Canada Owners and Pilots Association) sent a survey to their members to see who is interested to fly EIR. My own survey shows that lots of pilots would like to fly EIR.

Andre.

NOt going to happen in the US no matter how many times you post it in these forums in one day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

NOt going to happen in the US no matter how many times you post it in these forums in one day.

---

Just received today from COPA (your AOPA):

https://copanational.org/en/2019/08/...-or-light-ifr/

''Call it what you will, but the question COPA asked in the newsletter on this topic definitely caught a lot of attention.
At this point, COPA is confident that we will present a favourable proposal to TCCA on this concept in due course. All members are advised that it is still possible to send us feedback for inclusion in our discussions.''

Andre.

TC is a far cry from the FAA and just because COPA says they like something doesn't mean squat to even TC.