Too few instrument ratings?
Thread Starter
Too few instrument ratings?
In the January 2024 issue of the US AOPA Pilot Magazine, it states:
Why is it so much lower in Australia? Could it be the reason for so many weather related fatalities?
In the US, when you get an instrument rating, if you complete your recency requirements (in an aircraft or a simulator) you don’t have to do an instrument proficiency check – even at your flight review. You only have to do an instrument proficiency check if you haven’t maintained recency for 6 months.
What percentage of Aussie pilots hold an instrument rating? I bet it would be a lot lower.
“In 2022, US Civil Airmen Statistics reveal 54% of private and commercial pilots hold an instrument rating.”
In the US, when you get an instrument rating, if you complete your recency requirements (in an aircraft or a simulator) you don’t have to do an instrument proficiency check – even at your flight review. You only have to do an instrument proficiency check if you haven’t maintained recency for 6 months.
What percentage of Aussie pilots hold an instrument rating? I bet it would be a lot lower.
Australia has lower terrain and more benign weather. It's harder to justify a rating for a private pilot.
And Australians are cheap.
I was an instructor at Moorabbin many years ago, and a private Mooney owner walked in to the office. He wanted to return to Sydney, I think it was, but the weather had him locked into the Melbourne area. He asked if I could fly his Mooney IFR over the hills, so he could continue north from Mangalore. That's not an unusual job, if you need to get home.
So I worked up a quote - one pilot in a Warrior IFR to Mangalore and back (for the pick up and return to Moorabbin), and one pilot for his Mooney. He literally gasped at the price, so I asked him what he thought would be reasonable.
He said "I thought you would do it for the experience.", and I asked how he expected me to get back, and he said "Well, by bus, I expect."
So ... what he thought was "reasonable" was for me to use my professional licence and rating to fly him for 45 minutes or so to Mangalore, and then spend six or eight hours to catch a bus back to Melbourne and find my own way to Moorabbin from there, all for free (for the 45 minutes log book time).
I actually laughed in his face.
And Australians are cheap.
I was an instructor at Moorabbin many years ago, and a private Mooney owner walked in to the office. He wanted to return to Sydney, I think it was, but the weather had him locked into the Melbourne area. He asked if I could fly his Mooney IFR over the hills, so he could continue north from Mangalore. That's not an unusual job, if you need to get home.
So I worked up a quote - one pilot in a Warrior IFR to Mangalore and back (for the pick up and return to Moorabbin), and one pilot for his Mooney. He literally gasped at the price, so I asked him what he thought would be reasonable.
He said "I thought you would do it for the experience.", and I asked how he expected me to get back, and he said "Well, by bus, I expect."
So ... what he thought was "reasonable" was for me to use my professional licence and rating to fly him for 45 minutes or so to Mangalore, and then spend six or eight hours to catch a bus back to Melbourne and find my own way to Moorabbin from there, all for free (for the 45 minutes log book time).
I actually laughed in his face.
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Currently: A landlocked country with high terrain, otherwise Melbourne, Australia + Washington D.C.
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia has lower terrain and more benign weather. It's harder to justify a rating for a private pilot.
So I worked up a quote - one pilot in a Warrior IFR to Mangalore and back (for the pick up and return to Moorabbin), and one pilot for his Mooney. He literally gasped at the price, so I asked him what he thought would be reasonable.
So I worked up a quote - one pilot in a Warrior IFR to Mangalore and back (for the pick up and return to Moorabbin), and one pilot for his Mooney. He literally gasped at the price, so I asked him what he thought would be reasonable.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Currently: A landlocked country with high terrain, otherwise Melbourne, Australia + Washington D.C.
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I barely had enough hours when I started my IR (some schools sneered at me) but I never looked back and it made all my flying so much more interesting. I actually wonder why people aren't more drawn to that.
You also won't find many IR helo pilots, apart from those employed on multis serving the oil rigs. An IFR chopper is slow, and ATC doesn't like trying to fit it into a stream of 250kt jets for an approach to a busy airport. Just trying to remain current on ILS was a pain, I never got to fly one to minimas in Sydney because ATC vectored me out of the way from 5nm because I was only doing 145kt.
Aside from the benign weather (everywhere in north of the ranges), as an aspiring PIFR pilot, I'd say the flying part is easy to handle compared with the cost and complexity.
Say "IREX" in the ready room of your local flying school and watch students running for the exits! It's almost like Airservices don't want people to be instrument-rated unless they're heading for the airlines.
Dick, that's far too sensible to be implemented over here. 
Say "IREX" in the ready room of your local flying school and watch students running for the exits! It's almost like Airservices don't want people to be instrument-rated unless they're heading for the airlines.
In the US, when you get an instrument rating, if you complete your recency requirements (in an aircraft or a simulator) you don’t have to do an instrument proficiency check – even at your flight review. You only have to do an instrument proficiency check if you haven’t maintained recency for 6 months.
The following users liked this post:
The data I've found only goes to December 2021, but it shows a gradual decline from 53-54% to 46% of all (eligible) US pilots hold an instrument rating. I excluded glider and sport pilots from the total US pilot population but left student pilots included. The %-age will be slightly lower if you were to include glider & sport pilots, but I don't think that's fair. It's like including RAAus pilots in the pilot population here...
However, If you simply exclude student pilots but leave everyone else there, you'll find about 2/3rds of all US pilots hold an instrument rating - but If you crunch the numbers a little more (table 9's the best view), and assume CPL/ATPL's need a CIR for their employment, you find that it's 15% of PPL's that hold a rating as at December 2021
It’s probably easier and cheaper to obtain an I/R in the states. Maintaining currency would be a lot easier as well. I remember try to maintain ILS. recency in Australia was very difficult if you had a bush job. Going back for maintenance after a few weeks in the outback and the weather had to be good as you were unlikely to be current.
If and when Airservices/CASA get SBAS up and running and the GA pilot can do an LPV approach to 200ft minima to an airport that does not require a $100,000 AWIS, then who would bother trying to keep current on an ILS/VOR/NDB ..or the dreaded circling approach.
It'd be an interesting comparison to see how many Oz PPL's have gone the PIFR route compared to US PPL's with their rating. Granted by the time you add everything to the PIFR you might as well just do a CIR, at least if you don't routinely use, or even have access to an ILS or VOR, you can just do the basics you will use.
Sure, but they insist you still know all that to get the rating in the first place.. and in a world filled with G1000's, try finding an aircraft fitted with a working ADF!
No it's not. Dick Smith is pretty spot on on what he's said, but it's a little more involved than that.
The data I've found only goes to December 2021, but it shows a gradual decline from 53-54% to 46% of all (eligible) US pilots hold an instrument rating. I excluded glider and sport pilots from the total US pilot population but left student pilots included. The %-age will be slightly lower if you were to include glider & sport pilots, but I don't think that's fair. It's like including RAAus pilots in the pilot population here...
However, If you simply exclude student pilots but leave everyone else there, you'll find about 2/3rds of all US pilots hold an instrument rating - but If you crunch the numbers a little more (table 9's the best view), and assume CPL/ATPL's need a CIR for their employment, you find that it's 15% of PPL's that hold a rating as at December 2021
The data I've found only goes to December 2021, but it shows a gradual decline from 53-54% to 46% of all (eligible) US pilots hold an instrument rating. I excluded glider and sport pilots from the total US pilot population but left student pilots included. The %-age will be slightly lower if you were to include glider & sport pilots, but I don't think that's fair. It's like including RAAus pilots in the pilot population here...
However, If you simply exclude student pilots but leave everyone else there, you'll find about 2/3rds of all US pilots hold an instrument rating - but If you crunch the numbers a little more (table 9's the best view), and assume CPL/ATPL's need a CIR for their employment, you find that it's 15% of PPL's that hold a rating as at December 2021
It'd be an interesting comparison to see how many Oz PPL's have gone the PIFR route
Even then, as the suitable testing officers retired from the game, I had to pay CA$A to bring an old FOI up from Melbourne to Sydney, pay his accommodation, pay for the test and so on, and he only held a bare years-old endorsement on the type and had never been in that model. And he was officially in command for the flight, as I was under a hood. How safe is that. When the review finished at the Richmond ILS, he begged me to have a fly back to KSA. Probably doubled his time on type.
From a hirer's perspective, thee seems to have always been a lack of aircraft in the IFR category to hire, and rarely something at the lower end. If you can't hire something then it makes the rating pointless.
The following users liked this post:
The aircraft are out there, just expect to (a) wait your turn - maybe for months - and (b) pay through the nose for the privilege.
It’s probably easier and cheaper to obtain an I/R in the states. Maintaining currency would be a lot easier as well. I remember try to maintain ILS. recency in Australia was very difficult if you had a bush job. Going back for maintenance after a few weeks in the outback and the weather had to be good as you were unlikely to be current.
The weather and availability of nav aids in the USA means an instrument rated pilot has both incentive and opportunity to remain current. Those fortunate enough to own light aircraft seem to fly them more, too, often at night in winter.
Here in dear old Oz it’s less likely that pilots at PPL or even CPL level (unless they are doing night freight or medevacs or similar) are ever REALLY current between renewal IPCs. Some ‘pretend’ instrument time may go in the logbook, but in my examiner days I got the impression that the average GA pilot really struggled with any ‘hard’ IFR or high workload. The best some of them ever got was the day they passed their initial IPC.
It’s not always a lack of diligence but simply the environment we live in here = benign weather, high nav and fuel costs etc.
The only thing keeping some pilots at least partly competent is the annual IPC, so it needs to stay. Less emphasis in the test on pissant rules and more time spent on handling would be nice, but I guess that would only add costs that would cause some to bleat and others to give up on the IR altogether.
The cost of currency and relative lack of availability of instrument airports would certainly be a factor. Another consideration, I would imagine (with no statistical evidence to prove this so please feel free to correct me anyone) that there are more pilots in the USA who use their PPLs for commuting, whether it be for work or leisure. An instrument rating, while it is indisputably going to produce a more well rounded and able pilot, is difficult to justify for the average PPL who wants to take their family and friends up on nice smooth days to get lunch somewhere close by or check out the local scenery. Poking around in low cloud with the likelihood of turbulence, icing and all that sort of thing probably doesn't appeal much to someone flying purely for fun. For similar reasons, I'd encourage every PPL to pursue an aerobatic rating, or at the very least some aerobatic lessons, but the reality is for some people it's hard to justify spending potentially thousands of dollars on something you really don't enjoy, even with the potential of an increase in proficiency it brings.