Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Private IFR rating and Commercial IFR rating ?

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Gatineau, Qc, Canada
    Posts
    19
    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.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre Durocher View Post
    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??

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Gatineau, Qc, Canada
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by martymayes View Post
    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.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre Durocher View Post
    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.
    Last edited by martymayes; 03-27-2018 at 09:02 PM.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre Durocher View Post
    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.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Gatineau, Qc, Canada
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by martymayes View Post
    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. ;-)

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Gatineau, Qc, Canada
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by martymayes View Post
    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.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,202
    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

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Andre Durocher View Post
    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.

    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.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Gatineau, Qc, Canada
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by WLIU View Post
    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 !!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •