Training, training, training is the way to go we have no other choice. In the hope to reduce LOC (Loss Of Control) some airline pilots receive aerobatic training but as you said this sometimes gives a false sense of security.
Training, training, training is the way to go we have no other choice. In the hope to reduce LOC (Loss Of Control) some airline pilots receive aerobatic training but as you said this sometimes gives a false sense of security.
You are right, getting an IFR rating is the best a pilot can go for and I wish one for every pilot.
Here is what I found on the web: The training for the full Instrument Rating (IR) is vey stringent and costly. Because of this, the UK CAA also issues the Instrument Rating (Restricted), IR(R), which is a simplified version of the IR with fewer privileges. Formely know as the IMC Rating the IR(R) allows flight in IMC but only in certain classes of airspaces and with restrictions on conditions for take-off and landing
I meant stats that shows that the IR(R) or its equivalent enhances safety. The fact it is cheaper is obvious due to reduced training requirements but cost is but a single variable. I’m still not sold on the benefit of such a rating but it really doesn’t matter what I think. However I’d be shocked if the FAA would adopt it.
Todd “I drink and know things” Stovall
PP ASEL - IA
RV-10 N728TT - Flying
EAA Lifetime Member
WAR DAMN EAGLE!
i disagree with your premise that an instrument rating is more costly than necessary. You only need 40 hours of SIMULATED IMC. We still have instrument rated pilots getting disoriented in IMC. Some enroute clouds have a lot of turbulence inside, and you have to be able to recover from an upset by reference to instruments while maintaining maneuvering speed.
Moreover, the EFR rating you suggest would encourage those pilots to undertake more long cross-countries. The longer the flight, the more time for the weather to diverge from the forecast. If it gets worse, or you need to make an unplanned stop, you might be glad you learned to make an instrument approach.
I think you'd be better off looking for ways to simplify IFR.
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.
Andre, just curious but are you instrument rated?
Todd “I drink and know things” Stovall
PP ASEL - IA
RV-10 N728TT - Flying
EAA Lifetime Member
WAR DAMN EAGLE!
Well, I didn't read back all of my posts but I don't think I said that IR is more costly than necessary and if I did this is not what I meant. IR is more expensive compare to an EFR rating. The pilot always has to be up to the task (VFR, EFR, IFR, floats, glider, etc) and more ratings (aerobatic, glider, etc) is the best. By the way, there is an IFR glider rating in Europe and nothing to do with take-off and landing rules and training.
I agree with you, a Private IFR (PIFR) rating not a Commercial IFR (CIFR) rating (the actual rating) would be more usefull to the weekend pilot. Example: MDA (Minimum Descent Altitude) 1500 feet AGL and 3 miles visibility.