To all you instrument rated pilots out there: I’ve made a couple stabs at earning my instrument rating and I find that of all the programs the FAA has described, the instrument rating program is just the sloppiest, loosest program outlined by a set of governmental rules. I’ve even gone so far as to think that following the FAA guidelines as a program is a mistake because they really do just outline the rules, requirements and the procedural elements, as they should. What’s been lacking in my experience is a progressive training program that ties all those elements together into an orderly, logical system by which to fly without reference to the horizon. Training for the written exam consists largely of rote memorization and, since the whole instrument flight is an orderly process, my experience with the training just leaves me frustrated.
Flying the approaches has been fairly simple for me. Learning to control the airplane in 4 dimensions (yes, I count time as a dimension) has also been fairly easy. Immersion has not been easy and the more I study the syllabus, the more I become convinced that there’s something structurally wrong with the 3 different training approaches I’ve tried.
So, all of you experienced pilots who hold and use your instrument ratings: How would you go about earning your IFR ticket were you to do it all over again?
Perhaps it would be helpful to state my goals for this rating. My intent is to not plan on flying heavy IFR as neither I or the aircraft will be flying often enough to make the risk of quickly diminishing weather worth the risk. The primary intent is to be able to safely ascend/descend through thin overcast no more than a dozen times a year. Dodging storms doesn’t seem practical for someone who isn’t intending to make a living as a flyer and it’s well outside the envelope of risk I’m comfortable with. I’ve done that sort of flight once, didn’t like it and have since changed how I make weather decisions. No, this ticket is about extending the utility of the airplane and my license but not to the limits of myself or the aircraft as it’s equipped. I understand that goal is in itself a different form of risk that some would classify as higher, but, regardless, that’s my intent.
Something about my current skill level and the capabilities of the airplane I intend to use:
- I’m at about 500 hours TT, including about 400 hours X-Country, and about 440 hours in the same, early Cessna 172.
- About 20 hours of IFR training, about 6 in actual conditions
- 17 Approaches in log
- GPS will be limited to a VFR only system.
- The aircraft is pressure certified to IFR specifications and is equipped with alternator, a pair of Nav/Comm radios with 2 VOR heads (1 with LOC/GS). No ADF need apply as the word “precision” and ADF should never be found in the same sentence, in my opinion. So there won’t be one in *this* airplane.
- Currently do not have heated Pitot tube installed on the aircraft (I’m considering it but I understand it’s optional and I understand why some feel it’s not just an option)
- Despite the non-standard instrument arrangement in this old airplane, learning to do the instrument scan has been easy. Learning how to continually cross-check what they are telling has not been but this has been striking me as a matter of experience (there’s only one way to get that that I know of, unfortunately) and I still have that problem when flying the conventional ‘T’ instrument cluster.
I’ve received advice to take a week with an instructor and cross the country under the hood (sounds like a great, expensive way to immerse yourself and it’s appealing until I realize that I’ll cross the country and see none of it; call that irony). I’m constantly hounded by King Schools to buy their IFR training materials, bit once, said “Aww, geez” to myself several time afterward. I’ve been told to enroll in a 141 school but I have evidence that I’ll end that with a rating and no funds left for exercising the privilege.
What have I found to be the most difficult pieces to put in memory, use and retain?
1. The written exam prep tools are the first thing on the list. All seem to be oriented to just dumping the test questions and answers for memorization. That would be fine if they also explained the logic behind the correct answer. Unlike the Private Exam test prep books, I find the IFR materials to be lacking this detail.
2. The general lack of agreement between pilots, examiners and instructors about the actual aircraft requirements amazes me. For instance, you wouldn’t believe how many of you insist that Pitot heat is a required item of equipment (it isn’t, believe it or not). Sorting the facts from the assertions eats a lot of time (but it’s been largely worthwhile. It’s just not efficient)
So now I want to know from you: What would you do differently to acquire your rating again? What would you like to see me change about the way I’m thinking of this rating? What did you like/dislike about the program you followed? Now that you have hours of instrument flight under your belts, were there any “Aha!!” moments that suddenly made it all clear to you?
Yes, I could really use your help on this. It’s entirely possible that it’s simply not a useful thing for me to pursue this rating. It’s okay to say so because that, too, is valuable to me.
Posts
