Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: EFR rating: When VFR rating is not anough and IFR rating is too much.

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Gatineau, Qc, Canada
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
    You just explained why an aviator venturing into IMC must be fully qualified to mix it up with the other traffic on full IFR clearances. One never knows when the weather forecast will "fail" or some of the equipment will fail and one will be on one's own in the goo. It's absurd to think a minimally trained, inexperienced, non-current aviator will always be able to just follow ATC directions to a safe landing.
    I agree with you, a pilot should always take the right decisions before take-off, should be prepare (proficient) for the flight and have plan B, C.... The forecast is never garanty flying VFR, EFR or IFR.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Gatineau, Qc, Canada
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Auburntsts View Post
    Andre, just curious but are you instrument rated?
    Yes Todd, I am instrument rated. Got my airline licence in 1978 but never wanted to fly for the airlines. Flew Beaver and Aztec in northern Quebec. Had 3 ADFs on board and those are my specialities! Most pilots find that ADF approaches are difficult, I don't. Why? Because I practice them a lot. Practice is the key and now as a private pilot (125 hours a year), in my opinion, I don't fly IFR enough. I want to continue to fly IFR and I need to continue practicing and learn. I did a survey in my local pilot association. Most of pilots are not IFR rated but would like to fly (legally) in the clouds, instead of the ground, between point A and point B, if needed. As I said earlier, here in my area, often the wx is good at departure and destination but not VMC enroute so an EFR rating would help us a lot. Imagine taking-off from a lake, flying in the clouds and landing in VMC at destination. With today's technologies (GPS, autopilot, satellite wx and communication, etc) this is helping us a lot. I saw too many pilots flying into the mountains.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    204
    Any and all proper training is good. The ratings and time in your logbooks will only matter to the NTSB if you get in over your head. I know the flying you are talking about in Canada.(Does anyone ever get above 1000’ AGL?). GPS has made it easier, but I would still vote for an IFR rating. This would assure that the airplane stays shiny side up and it’s on course.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    16
    Staying within your limitations is probably key, but extra training also is a good idea. In Canada it takes and extra 5 hours (10 hours total) training under the hood to obtain a night endorsement and 15 hours of under the hood (instrument training) to obtain a VFR OTT rating. Under the hood training is similar to instrument training. The idea is to keep the shinny side up while doing maneuvers by instrument only. Both of those endorsements are a good way to obtain some more training on your way to becoming a better pilot.

    VFR OTT doesn't mean you can fly through the clouds. Your departure and destination both have to be VFR and you need to stay clear of clouds en route. You never know who is in there.

    I have flown both night and VFR OTT many times. I've also decided to wait out the weather. When the stuff you are flying over is full of ice and snow or the ceiling down there is 100 feet there is probably little chance of making a safe landing should you need to go down through that stuff. Even if I did have an IFR rating, I would probably make the same decisions.

    I like to view the scenery on the ground while I'm in the air so IFR isn't on my bucket list.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    3

    Special IFR Rating and Clearance

    Quote Originally Posted by Andre Durocher View Post
    Then, you could take-off in VMC conditions, fly in the clouds and land in VMC conditions. This type of rating exists in Europe and in Australia. This rating wuold increase Safety and Utility of GA aircraft. Any takers?
    I have been preaching exactly that to anyone who would listen and have also suggested it to the FAA once when I had the opportunity. It is often met with the same response as the "I don't cotton to" one that you got. How often are you ready to go, and there is an overcast at 1000 ft., and tops at 3500 or so, and your destination is either VFR or at least is VFR below 1000 AGL? So you have to sit on the ground or commence on one of the most dangerous ventures in aviation known as "SCUD running".

    In my opinion, IFR is the most safe way to fly. I have equipment that is probably better than most aircraft in the GA fleet that are certified IFR. I don't have a rating, but would certainly pursue the EFR ( what does that stand for? ) if there were one. There is a special VFR, and I would call this a special IFR.

    To get a full IFR rating and equip my plane with the minimum required for GPS approaches, would cost a minimum of $20,000. I can fly on instruments, I do have synthetic vision and autopilot, but without adding an almost useless piece of certified equipment ( and that is all you could get for $10,000 ), it is a no go. Training for the current IFR rating would cost at least $10,000 with IFR Certified plane rental. This Special IFR or EFR rating should cost no more than half that. To be able to do what you have suggested, and what I have been preaching, for that price, I will jump on it in a minute and never again even be tempted to venture into that dangerous venture known as "SCUD running"

    Thanks for bringing it up!
    Last edited by PlaneDan; 03-31-2018 at 06:22 AM.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,289
    Quote Originally Posted by PlaneDan View Post
    I have been preaching exactly that to anyone who would listen and have also suggested it to the FAA once when I had the opportunity. It is often met with the same response as the "I don't cotton to" one that you got.

    PlaneDan, one of the neat things about the FAA is you, Joe Citizen can petition for a rule or rule change, not by suggestion but by a formal process to which by law they have to listen, consider and respond to. It's spelled out in step-by-step format here:

    https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...king/petition/

    scroll down to the "how to petition" pdf and you're off to the races.

    I think you'll come to appreciate some of the resistance by the non-cotton pickin' naysayers because it forces you to come up with workable solutions, just as the FAA will expect you to do when you write out your petition. Concerns like the ones brought up by your fellow pilots here will have to be addressed. If your petition is considered and published as an NPRM, expect a lot more comments from you peers, both for and against. Ultimately, they can put the kibosh on your idea if they think it sounds foolhardy.

    Good luck! I'll be looking for the proposal!

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,226
    So the original poster is in Canada. Would likely be more helpful to him to post a link to the Transport Canada rules change petition process. If there is real motivation to try to create change, he is much more likely to get the process started successfully on his home turf.

    But the posters above who are in the US (Joe citizen) can indeed step up and learn how the FAA works. Warning, great persistence is required. Plan on the process taking years.

    Best of luck,

    Wes
    Last edited by WLIU; 03-31-2018 at 07:57 AM.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    3

    I question that anything other than a good pilot will ever keep the shiny side up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Blum View Post
    Any and all proper training is good. The ratings and time in your logbooks will only matter to the NTSB if you get in over your head. I know the flying you are talking about in Canada.(Does anyone ever get above 1000í AGL?). GPS has made it easier, but I would still vote for an IFR rating. This would assure that the airplane stays shiny side up and itís on course.
    The proper training for the situation would be appropriate. I applaud Canada and the other countries that have implemented this rating. However the rating only means that you have satisfactorily completed the training required for the environment in which you intend to fly. I certainly agree that no one should fly in conditions that they are not comfortable with. Safety is the key.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    3
    Thank you for the link and advise. I will prepare and submit a proposal. However I suffer no delusions that this will ever come to pass in my lifetime. When I get a docket number, I will post it on this site. If anyone wants to join me in this endeavor, please let me know.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,226
    Don't forget to carry over the 6 hours of currency from the requirements for being legal to file IFR. You will need to create a spreadsheet showing the Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) that will be maintained.

    Best of luck,

    Wes

Posting Permissions

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