Five hours instrument training.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on who you ask.
If you ask an aerobatic pilot he will say it's 5 hours too much.
If you ask somebody who goes places, he will probably say it's not enough.
The basic problem is that if you did more than the very minimum, for example you taught people to really fly (and navigate) safely in IMC, and fly some basic instrument approach (say an SRA) then you would be accused of leading pilots to their deaths etc when they fly into hills. The fact that many more lives would be saved will be disregarded because one doesn't get to hear about those.
And the proposal will be criticised by the old guard as introducing a back door quasi IR which is illegal to use anyway.
So, the minimal instrument training is consistent with the basic PPL privileges that you must remain VMC and if you enter IMC you must get out of it fast.
I think it's cynical but I also see it can never be changed - until there is a big overhaul of flying and somebody decides to train people to have some significant mission capability, beyond flying a circuit.
If I was teaching somebody I care about to fly I would make sure they can do everything in IMC (on autopilot) and land with an ILS or an SRA. Before they go solo.
If you ask an aerobatic pilot he will say it's 5 hours too much.
If you ask somebody who goes places, he will probably say it's not enough.
The basic problem is that if you did more than the very minimum, for example you taught people to really fly (and navigate) safely in IMC, and fly some basic instrument approach (say an SRA) then you would be accused of leading pilots to their deaths etc when they fly into hills. The fact that many more lives would be saved will be disregarded because one doesn't get to hear about those.
And the proposal will be criticised by the old guard as introducing a back door quasi IR which is illegal to use anyway.
So, the minimal instrument training is consistent with the basic PPL privileges that you must remain VMC and if you enter IMC you must get out of it fast.
I think it's cynical but I also see it can never be changed - until there is a big overhaul of flying and somebody decides to train people to have some significant mission capability, beyond flying a circuit.
If I was teaching somebody I care about to fly I would make sure they can do everything in IMC (on autopilot) and land with an ILS or an SRA. Before they go solo.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't change too much. Just the two hours required like now (simulated IMC to learn the 180 on instrument) followed by or combined with a requirement to spend at least 15 minutes in actual IMC ie. cloud. To show that simulated IMC is NOT the same as actual IMC.
If during your 45 hours PPL you cannot find actual cloud (it happens), you are limited to very good viz conditions until you've done the 15 minutes actual cloud time with an instructor.
Just to prevent people from thinking that with the very limited training they've had, they can enter cloud safely.
My first time in actual cloud, two years and something like 60 hours since my PPL skills test, was a serious wake-up call for me. (Had an instructor with me though.)
If during your 45 hours PPL you cannot find actual cloud (it happens), you are limited to very good viz conditions until you've done the 15 minutes actual cloud time with an instructor.
Just to prevent people from thinking that with the very limited training they've had, they can enter cloud safely.
My first time in actual cloud, two years and something like 60 hours since my PPL skills test, was a serious wake-up call for me. (Had an instructor with me though.)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If during your 45 hours PPL you cannot find actual cloud (it happens),
Using two stage amber to teach instrument flying is the same as flying in cloud.
Why is it not used anymore in instrument flight training?
Using two stage amber to teach instrument flying is the same as flying in cloud.
Why is it not used anymore in instrument flight training?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using two stage amber to teach instrument flying is the same as flying in cloud.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard it talked about in the past. I think it is where transparent orange tinted screens are put up over the windows. The instructor can see through them for lookout, etc. The student puts a pair of polarised glasses on, orientated 90 degrees out of phase to the screens. The result is that the student cannot see through the screens, but can see the instruments. The instructor can see everything.
Sounds much better than a hood. No cheating!
Sounds much better than a hood. No cheating!
IIRC I read about 617 Sqn using something similar to simulate night flying during WW2.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two stage amber was the name the military gave it when they used it.
Orange film or plastic in the windows....instructor sees everything bright orange outside..sort of like ski goggles.
Student wears blue goggles and everything inside the airplane is blue tinted but everything outside is black.
This is a far better way to teach instrument flying because the student sees everything inside the airplane normally instead of like a tunnel when wearing a hood.
Why did they quit using this logical excellent means of simulating flight in cloud?
Orange film or plastic in the windows....instructor sees everything bright orange outside..sort of like ski goggles.
Student wears blue goggles and everything inside the airplane is blue tinted but everything outside is black.
This is a far better way to teach instrument flying because the student sees everything inside the airplane normally instead of like a tunnel when wearing a hood.
Why did they quit using this logical excellent means of simulating flight in cloud?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chuck
I guess the question is why are the 5 hours in the syllabus (it was 4 hours in my day.)
What did I get out of my 4 hours?
1 - an understanding that I would kill myself fairly quickly if I tried to fly in cloud for any length of time
2 - enough instrument ability to turn around and get back to VMC
3 - a realisation that clouds can be scary places (entered real IMC and got into a small embedded CB)
4 - a better appreciation about how the instruments worked and displayed
5 - an understanding that instrument flying is very different to visual flying
So all in all, I'd say that this was time well spent
I guess the question is why are the 5 hours in the syllabus (it was 4 hours in my day.)
What did I get out of my 4 hours?
1 - an understanding that I would kill myself fairly quickly if I tried to fly in cloud for any length of time
2 - enough instrument ability to turn around and get back to VMC
3 - a realisation that clouds can be scary places (entered real IMC and got into a small embedded CB)
4 - a better appreciation about how the instruments worked and displayed
5 - an understanding that instrument flying is very different to visual flying
So all in all, I'd say that this was time well spent
Professional Student
Why did they quit using this logical excellent means of simulating flight in cloud?
At my club, when I did my IMCR training we used screens, which were angled to give the instructor outside vision but the student couldn't see anything. I would think that the two stage amber would probably cost more than this, or possibly be timeconsuming to remove/reinstall (the aircraft used for IMCR training were not exclusively so).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I started my instrument training we used Cessna 140's, the orange screens were cut to fit the windshield and side windows and only took a few seconds to install, putting on the blue goggles was obviously not a problem.
Cost wise, what does it cost to buy orange film / plastic and blue goggles?
So I can't see cost or the time to install the screens being the reason it is not used anymore.
Maybe some flight instructors would know why this method is no longer used?
Maybe it is just to realistic and to simple?
Cost wise, what does it cost to buy orange film / plastic and blue goggles?
So I can't see cost or the time to install the screens being the reason it is not used anymore.
Maybe some flight instructors would know why this method is no longer used?
Maybe it is just to realistic and to simple?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say that in order to really have a worth while PPL, then the PPL should include 5 hrs instrument and 5 hrs night - could be run at the same time though. The reason is that anyone in the world can embark on a VFR only flight, only to get caught out and then make a bad decision and end up killing someone. The night thing would mean we could do away with the silly NQ. I wouldn't dream on embarking on a night cross country myself without any insturment training.....(or even crossing long sea crossings), and it may be quite useful to do some of the instrument stuff at night...
5 hrs is about the minimum to get to grips with basic attitude instrument flying with no frills - enough to keep one alive IMHO.
5 hrs is about the minimum to get to grips with basic attitude instrument flying with no frills - enough to keep one alive IMHO.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's used because most places don't even know about it. It would certainly make my life simpler teaching instrument. I think I will investigate it and talk to the CAAFU guys.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember when I post these questions here I am not really in the loop with todays modern advanced training methods, simply because I no longer teach ab-initio flight training.
As to the CAA, I would be very surprised if they would be against using two stage amber for training as I can think of no reason they would.
Quite frankly it is my opinion that flight training is all ass backwards anyhow.....how can you have a high standard of training when the bulk of the trainers just learned to fly themselves and the industry pay reflects this.
You generally get what you pay for.
I know I'm going to get the standard argument about how these instructors are trained to a high standard and all those feel good things, but the fact remains there has to be a reason these highly trained instructors are working for slave wages.
There that ought to really get me flamed...
As to the CAA, I would be very surprised if they would be against using two stage amber for training as I can think of no reason they would.
Quite frankly it is my opinion that flight training is all ass backwards anyhow.....how can you have a high standard of training when the bulk of the trainers just learned to fly themselves and the industry pay reflects this.
You generally get what you pay for.
I know I'm going to get the standard argument about how these instructors are trained to a high standard and all those feel good things, but the fact remains there has to be a reason these highly trained instructors are working for slave wages.
There that ought to really get me flamed...
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah calling me Princess will get you flamed!
I happen to agree completely with you. I was flamed for suggesting Instructors should have 700 hrs to become an Instructor. I had 1500 hrs when I became an Instructor and figured I might just be starting to gain enough experience to give back. A thousand after that I was still hoping I might have enough experience and so it goes on....
I happen to agree completely with you. I was flamed for suggesting Instructors should have 700 hrs to become an Instructor. I had 1500 hrs when I became an Instructor and figured I might just be starting to gain enough experience to give back. A thousand after that I was still hoping I might have enough experience and so it goes on....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real reason that these problems such as ass backwards thinking in how training is conducted exist in aviation is " inertia " .
As in bureaucratic inertia.
Every aviation government agency on earth has the same dumb assed myopic system in place whereby they think that they can put in place a training standard that will guarantee a high quality product trained by instructors who are barely beyond the student stage themselves....
.....it is so easy to just go along with the status quo and remain stuck in the cave dwelling era as far as making changes to the system goes...hell it is human nature..these guys get paid regardless of what happens so why change things?
I have found the only real difference in the way things are done in aviation from country to country is each country sort of pretends to be different but when you look at the general efficiency they are all the same except for the acronyms.
***************************************
bose-X:
If the gang here calls you Princess as your new name then you can get mad at me.
As in bureaucratic inertia.
Every aviation government agency on earth has the same dumb assed myopic system in place whereby they think that they can put in place a training standard that will guarantee a high quality product trained by instructors who are barely beyond the student stage themselves....
.....it is so easy to just go along with the status quo and remain stuck in the cave dwelling era as far as making changes to the system goes...hell it is human nature..these guys get paid regardless of what happens so why change things?
I have found the only real difference in the way things are done in aviation from country to country is each country sort of pretends to be different but when you look at the general efficiency they are all the same except for the acronyms.
***************************************
bose-X:
If the gang here calls you Princess as your new name then you can get mad at me.
