Yes (we) do, and I would posit that VFR into IMC is not a big problem for most of us who are in that category.

Upon receiving a new certificate in FAA-land, the airman surrenders his previous one. Thus, when you pass your commercial check ride, you cease to be a private pilot forever more, even if you only maintain a 3rd class medical and never shoot another approach or submit to another IPC.

That may be true, but so far as the stats you are quoting are concerned it means that the private pilot certificate holders who obtained their IFR rating before becoming commercial or ‘higher’ certificate holders are ‘lost’ to the stats once they get that ‘higher’ certificate.

Tell me where in the stats it shows how many commercial or ‘higher’ certificate holders obtained their IFR rating as private pilots before becoming a commercial certificate holder. Your previous assertion as to the numbers assumes that no pilot who moved from being a private certificate holder to a ‘higher’ certificate holder in the US obtained an IFR rating before doing so. That’s a rather brave assumption.

I'm with Thornbird.

CASA's approach to IFR ratings costs lives.

Since GPS and the ability to "follow the magenta line" IFR ratings should be materially easier. There's no need for NDB, VOR or DME approaches. ILS is not really needed (we hardly have any that are accessible to GA). The theory should be a shadow of what IREX was. The only reason I can see for the gap between the proportion of pilots with instrument ratings in the US compared with Australia is bloody minded bureaucracy. And we should call out that it costs lives.

All very good talking about IMC training for new pilots but unless you're going to have some sort of recurrent training mandated, it will all be for nought. Many of these accidents involve pilots who have had their licences for years. As you know, unless you regularly fly IMC, or have been doing it so long it's become second nature, you need regular refreshers.

An instrument rating, in the US, is not a certificate, per se. If, as is the case with me, one held a PPL with an instrument rating before receiving a commercial certificate, the instrument rating “follows” one to any subsequent certificate.
There are, in fact, quite a few commercial certificate holders who do not hold an instrument rating (mostly Ag pilots), so I think that the denominator would hold true for them as well when it comes to NIR into IMC crashes.
What I am getting at, is that really, a minority of private pilots (nowhere near the 68% you posit) have an instrument rating.

Your argument reinforces my point.

I got the 68% figure from Table 11.

You said, in effect, that the 68% figure isn’t a reliable indicator of how many private certificate holder have IFR ratings because the 68% covers a whole bunch of commercial certificate holders as well. I said that a whole bunch of those commercial certificate holders may have obtained IFR ratings before they obtained their commercial certificates.

Now you’re saying that a bunch of commercial certificate holders don’t hold IFR ratings. If that is correct, it would inexorably follow that the 68% covers a correspondingly greater number of private certificate holders.

Until that 68% figure is ‘sliced and diced’ in a way that can identify the ‘certificate history’ of the holders of IFR ratings, I do not think it’s reasonable to use phrases like “the vast majority” of private pilots don’t have instrument ratings (although I note that you’ve moderated your language to a “minority” do).

I’m sorry, but I have no more time for this inanity. You are wrong, as you well know.
The vast majority of PPLs don’t have instrument rratings, and essentially no CPLs die as the result of the transgressions in question.

Enjoy your weather down there.

I just flew my first trip today (IMC from 10 min after takeoff until 20 mi before landing) in the last 16 that didn’t end ind in an instrument approach.

no drama, nobody died, I am a current, instrument-rated pilot, and just happen to currently posses a third class medical, so I can only exercise private privledges.

The PIFR is about as cheap as it gets.
As a CIRSEA holder since 1987 I dropped back to PIFR in 2010 and have done biennial renewals/reviews at SHT on the MNG VOR and SHT NDB with the flight school and biennial cost was under $500
Providing you practice your recency faithfully there is no issue in staying current.
As for VFR into IFR imo its the guys who tell you IFR is crap who are the ones who always push the elements.
And they always make a point they think we ifr guys are arrogant idiots always pushing them out if the way.
Wierd attitude.
Getting to IFR from VFR in view of a recent local quote I got fir a bfr review of $1000 is probably going to die a death like the hapless souls who fly controlled into high terrain probably on their gos dead in track.

Did you check your tolerance on flight radar and your track keeping or was it autopilot flying the plane.
What a foolish admission to make on social media!
Officer I have a porsche and I drive it at 100 in a 65
Do your passengers kniw you are flying illegally
.

Never went into imc?
I guess Sth Cal is sunny all the time, but what about the highbterrain to the east?
no clouds?
Where I live in sw vic back in 1987 trying to get out vfr was a mugs game.
Did the I follow railway lines crap and then upgraded with casa to class 1 stayed that way until 2010 for 5000 hours in single engined cessnas.
Then went to our new pifr which was the ONLY concession afforded to ifr guys in three decades.
And now its a two year review and you have to ge honest with yourself in both recency and currency, though I now see under new licencing the pifr has been tightened up.
Its now 2020 have done about 30 ifr flight tests and would not swap with vfr guys for a million bucks.
IMO its always the vfr guys protesting the degree of difficulty in upgrading not the IFR guys maintaining their profficiency.
And now with flight radar everyone knows how well ifr guys are at track keeping and maintaining tolerances lol!

What the heck are you implying? I am in no way flying illegally. I am simply saying that, as I obtained my 2nd class medical more than a year ago, it has “degraded” to a 3rd. I am flying myself under part 91 for business, and not operating for hire, so I’m perfectly legal to operate with private privileges.


I was just pointing out (well, kvetching really) that even one operating only as a private pilot can be very current (about 300 hrs a year for the past 5) and very competent in the clag (as above).
Weather here sucks, lots of ice and clouds. Even the ducks would rather be in Florida...

be nice...

Guys, you really say that there are PPL pilots out there who can not fly rate one turn under hood just with instruments? I understand they can not fly departures, arrivals, approaches and all that serious IFR things but simple turn?

I am sure most could do it under the hood. They would have demonstrated that umpteen years earlier when getting their licence.

Problem is when it happens for real some time down the track and they do a rate one turn and find themselves still in the clag and in real life with no one to help. And they are at low level because they have tried to get under deteriorating conditions that looked sort of OK until a few minutes ago. And now do not know where they are in relation to the terrain. And seeing little bits of ground appearing when they do not expect it and it appears to be at an angle they do not expect while turning they get the leans. And having only ever done instrument flying under the hood, not for real, always with an instructor next to them and even then rarely and under no real pressure, they start to panic and turn to wherever they thought was better but it doesn't get better.

I still think the idea that exiting IMC by a simple 180 turn is probably not actually an option available when this situation claims VFR pilots. By the time they are onto instruments they have already dug themselves way past that. The situations that are resolved by a 180 turn I suspect never make the accident reports.

A very stressed VFR pilot who has just entered IMC needs to get their act together quickly. Maybe turn away from rising terrain, if possible without entering a spiral dive, and set the aircraft up in a climb (500 fpm) on a fixed heading whilst you calm down.

Sure you may still hit solid clouds or encounter icing conditions but at least you are in control of the aircraft. I am just stating what worked for me many years ago. 15 minutes later I popped into bright sunshine at 8500’.

The myth: one second it's VFR next second it's IMC. Upon entering none VMC you go on the dials, exicute a basic 180deg turn back in to clear sky.

Reality: It's turbulent, you've been getting further and further beyond yr limits visually and getting lower and lower to stay visual, at times not far above the ground, the rain is now a factor, you are sweating getting very tense with viz slowing deteriorating to conditions you've never experienced before. You have family onboard the wife is firing off questions beyond what you can answer with any certainty. The kids are starting to get upset due turbulence and the rain now pelting the aluminium can you are all in. You know you have really stuffed up and attempt to squint further into the muck, it doesn't feel right, noises are getting louder, the dials are all over the place, yr GPS ground speed has increased a lot, you are shaking, the wife is now screaming louder than the wind noise, the G forces are nasty & combined with the bad turbulence you are totally confused, you emerge from the bottom of the cloud and instantly see the ground at a 90+ deg angle, you pull back hard but the trees rush up rapidly.......lights out!!

YOU are the ultimate protection!

Do I detect just a wee bit of embellishment with that statement?

OK , I though it was relevent but I've deleted it now.

I did not mean that 180 turn will save you. I though the problem was that they can not even fly basic things without looking out of the window. Sure you just can't turn back. When you realise what is going on it is too late.

But even the idea to push close to ground so you can see is really bad. I understand that VFR pilot wants to see but they should know. Just keep it straight, maybe turn back and call for help if you can't navigate yourself out of it.

We had accident like that few years ago. She got into VMC (PPL, maybe 70-80 hours total), called ATC for help and ended up in a hill. She was so scared and lost that I could not finish whole communication recording.

t
Its not that simple!
U turn to safety is fine in theory
other factors such as turbulence emotional adrenelin kick in
and the way back thru the sucker hole may have closed off

I remember in more recent tests drifting off into uncommanded turns will fiddling with the comms panel
scanning takes practice practice practice
and now it is mandatory to demonstrate low and slow down low
for obvious reasons

IFR is a skill that you quickly lose if you dont regularly practice or exercise in flight
its why recency is a legal requirement in all classes of IFR
and a highly reccomended activity if we arecall being honest with ourselves

By the way after all that is said here
i profess to have chickened out of IFR flying after seeing errors develope in my flying that all the training in the world did not correct all there to see on flight radar

everyone stalks flight radar now as you saw with the crash of the c130
it was on tv within the hour

altitude heading speed and rate of descent

take a look at your last flight type in tail number its all there to see especially the crashes

Angel Flight vfr into imc Mt Gambier for one
Angel Flight near Warracknabeal results shown to us in a CASA safety seminar was sobering evience to see
nothing excuses that sort of pilot behavior
nothing

This has worked for many a pilot. The worse similar scenario though is when it doesn’t clear up at 8,500ft. Then you have the added complexity of calling up ATC and trying to work out with them where to come down again. You could be stuck in the cloud for a long while when this occurs. Plenty have done that successfully also. It’s much easier and less embarrassing to scud run whilst dodging mountains though, especially if you can make it through. It all depends on how desperately you want to get there.

Years ago I needed to always get there. Nowadays, I don’t.

The most dangerous thing on my aircraft..... is a schedule.

Didn’t EASA run a seminar for exactly this situation a year or so ago?
It involved a sim session and debrief with the aim of prevention in the future.

Thanks, that one made my day :)

I'd rather be embarrassed than deceased? And there's nothing embarrasing in admitting a bad decision.

From an air traffic controllers point of view, we will do our outmost to help if you get into trouble, noone is gonna yell at you on the frequency. We do understand that everyone makes a bad jugdement from time to time, and there's no need to kill the guys over that.

Even the authorities will normally go easy on folks now a days, they won't say "good job" or pad your back, but they will not fine or jail you either.

This was over 36 years ago during flight training. Me and my CFI checked the weather teletype (I told you it was a long time ago) and he "signed off" on my flight from a tower-controlled airport inside a radar-service area (I am not current and only fly as a passenger, so I don't know the current alphabet soup).

Climbed out and started encountering the cloud layer. My first reaction was "no big deal" because I had flown commercial out of that same airport and staring out from a window seat, crossing the cloud layer and coming out on top was such a conditioned experience. My next reaction was, "not cool -- I am not legally allowed to do this." My third reaction was, don't make your trouble worse, level off and key the microphone. "Departure, Warrior Thirty-Echo, it's kind of cloudy up here, I would like to turn around. Student pilot." I learned that last phrase from just having attended an FAA Safety Seminar.

The controller was exceedingly kind, gentle and non-scolding. I was vectored around until I get sight of the runway, where I was cleared to land. When I tied down the airplane, the guy behind me was the eye-in-the-sky traffic police officer. His weather info sent him up, too, but it was not a day to catch speeding motorists from the air.

Thanks ATC!

2 things:
1. I met an FAA instructor once who had flown out of Long Beach where he said IFR flight into VMC was commonplace (apparently instructors must have IFR licence) or they could not find any VMC to reach VFR! He did not like the Australian rules to instructors which apparently forbid such a practice, hence removing from students the experience of getting used to being in cloud and the difficulties they could encounter. He thought that was more value than teaching how to get out of trouble. This also assumes his flying school aircraft were equipped for IFR flight which also might be different in Australia. (Disclaimer: long ago conversation so details might not be accurate)
2. In conjuction with this post, a note about requesting special VFR clearance. According to ICAO PANS/ATM Doc. 4444 Para.7-14, this can only be issued by ATC to allow a VFR pilot to transit non-VMC conditions for the purposes of arriving, departing or transitting a Control Zone. Australian regulations modify ICAO in Part 172 Manual of Standards para 12.1.3 to allow Special VFR in Control Area, and not for transit purposes.

• I recently heard Channel 9 news state that ATC had "allowed" the Kobe Bryant helicopter pilot to fly in non-VMC conditions, this is apparently (subject to NTSB Interin Report) true, but Ch. 9 is ignorant of the purpose of a Special VFR clearance. The only reason a controller should refuse a Special VFR clearance is if he/she cannot separate the aircraft from IFR or other Special VFR aircraft in the Class C or D control zone. Normally VFR flights in Class C or D can simply have traffic information on other VFR flights, but not under Special VFR. The controller is not required to make an assessment of whether Special VFR conditions exist, that is the pilots job, however controllers do have a duty of care to pass on relevant information such as a recent IFR pilots estimate of the visibility, and confirm the pilot still wishes to proceed Special VFR.
• So VFR pilots, do not assume that a Special VFR clearance contains a clearance to operate in less than the Special VFR minima for your type of aircraft, that is your job - it simply means that there are no other aircraft in your way.

Special VFR is very grey and always has been. They let potentially low time inexperienced VFR pilots into sub-optimal situations with very poor visibility.

My first intro to Special VFR was a very long time ago into Moorabbin. ATC told me it was IFR only, however I could request special VFR if I wanted to and continue as normal. So I did.... let’s just say I was very surprised anyone could fly VFR at the time and it felt like an accident waiting to happen.

If you didn’t know the rules you’d assume special VFR required an IFR rated pilot and IFR equipped aircraft, but without the requirement to follow full IFR procedures. It feels like that’s the way it should be.

In Canada we have a VFR-Over-the-top rating, which I picked up along the way to the CPL. It has a lot more instrument training than the night rating, seemingly to help if you get to dest and the forecast VMC is not there, as well as keeping level between layers.

Even before that, my night rating was enough to get me out of a bone-shaking foray into severe mechanical chop with IMC at night, while in the Toronto Terminal zone You know it's serious when the controller's voice is replaced by an older, more experienced-sounding one!.

The secret is practice. My instructors would never have made a living if they only flew in CAVU - the area around the Caledon Hills North of YYZ is notoriously unstable. Transiting to the practice area was often under the hood just to make sure I could keep the plane level.

Squawk7700,
In my opinion ATC should not have "offered" Special VFR.
It is the pilot's prerogative and if the pilot does not know about it then that is a good reason not to mention it!
Special VFR requires the pilot to be able to navigate visually:
By day, when VMC do not exist, the ATC unit responsible for a control zone may issue, at pilot request, a special VFR clearance for flight in the CTR, or in controlled airspace next to the CTR for the purpose of entering or leaving the CTR, providing
(AIP ENR 1.2):

• the special VFR flight will not unduly delay an IFR flight
• the flight can be conducted clear of cloud
• the visibility is not less than
  • 1600 m for aeroplanes
  • 800 m for helicopters
  • for balloons, not less than 100 m below 500 ft AGL and 3000 m at and above 500 ft AGL
• a helicopter is operated at such a speed that the pilot has adequate opportunity to observe any obstructions or other traffic in sufficient time to avoid collisions and
• the flight can be conducted in accordance with the requirements of CAR 157 regarding low flying (see page 1.28 ).

There are cases where the conditions for VFR in a control zone applies, but depending on where the VFR flight is, he may opt to request Special VFR.

For instance, the weather is fine, but the aircraft has to cross a ridge, which will bring him closer to clouds than the prescribed VFR minima for the CTR, the only option would be to ask for special VFR (or fly around).

Noone does that though..... eventhough they remove the safety built into the class D airspace where "see and avoid" applies between IFR and VFR by removing the 1000 ft separation from the clouds where IFR flights will be dumping out.

I don't think 4444 mention that you are not allowed not to offer special VFR? Just never even mention the word "VFR" to an IFR flight... or even think about it (they'll come during the night and drag you off).