Why CPL's should work for free!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Thirsk, North Yorks
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why CPL's should work for free!
Right I'm going to stick my head well and truly above the parapet on this one.
Can anyone tell me why ours is the only industry where people think we should work for the pure pleasure of flying?
I constantly see posts referring to this subject, usually in relation to improving flight safety for the PPL fraternity.
I have yet to have my car fixed free of charge or had an electrician fit a fire detection system to my house, even though my families safety would be increased immeasurably.
I would never dream of asking any tradesman to do work for free.
If you can afford an helicopter you probably have a lot more money than your run of the mill CPL.
If you feel you are not competent to fly an aircraft solo then don't (and I salute you for realizing your limitations).
If you have a friend that has nothing better to do and happens to be an experienced pilot, do not abuse your friendship as you are a very lucky person.
Flight safety is everyone's concern but please do not demean yourself or my profession by asking for freebies, as refusal often offends.
I will gladly offer my services for free the day the VW garage say my next service is free because it gives them a nice warm feeling that I will safe next time I go down the M1.
OK that's my rant over I have donned my flack jacket, so fill your boots.
And safe flying!
Can anyone tell me why ours is the only industry where people think we should work for the pure pleasure of flying?
I constantly see posts referring to this subject, usually in relation to improving flight safety for the PPL fraternity.
I have yet to have my car fixed free of charge or had an electrician fit a fire detection system to my house, even though my families safety would be increased immeasurably.
I would never dream of asking any tradesman to do work for free.
If you can afford an helicopter you probably have a lot more money than your run of the mill CPL.
If you feel you are not competent to fly an aircraft solo then don't (and I salute you for realizing your limitations).
If you have a friend that has nothing better to do and happens to be an experienced pilot, do not abuse your friendship as you are a very lucky person.
Flight safety is everyone's concern but please do not demean yourself or my profession by asking for freebies, as refusal often offends.
I will gladly offer my services for free the day the VW garage say my next service is free because it gives them a nice warm feeling that I will safe next time I go down the M1.
OK that's my rant over I have donned my flack jacket, so fill your boots.
And safe flying!
I totally agree and when i changed from a 206 to the 350 i had 3 to 4 days where i felt safer with a pilot with me . I know the reply i would have had if i had asked for it to be free !!!! There is no such thing as a free lunch .
New Pilots see it as a way of building hours to get themselves a job. There is no shortage of new low time pilots willing to do this. It's called volunteering over here in Australia. The CPL arrives volunteers his/her time until one of the more experienced pilots moves on and then they get a paying postion. Pay for a new pilot here is about 25K if they are lucky.
I have always been paid to fly but there are so many low hour pilots dreaming about becoming a Helicopter pilot that this will never stop.
In saying that if it was a good mate needing a hand in a non revenue situation I would help them out for free. If the machine was making money then I would expect my daily rate and some beers.
I have always been paid to fly but there are so many low hour pilots dreaming about becoming a Helicopter pilot that this will never stop.
In saying that if it was a good mate needing a hand in a non revenue situation I would help them out for free. If the machine was making money then I would expect my daily rate and some beers.
I think Basher was referring mainly to safety pilots and with the best will in the world i still needed a safety pilot when i had just got my cpl !!! I think an experienced ppl would be a lot more use for safety than a new cpl ......
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supply and demand unfortunately, too many green pilots ready to sacrifice themselves for the almighty hour....
Just like anything else worth doing for a living.. i.e motor racing, same thing.. green drivers - ain't worth s**t, Lewis Hamilton - seven figures please.
Just like anything else worth doing for a living.. i.e motor racing, same thing.. green drivers - ain't worth s**t, Lewis Hamilton - seven figures please.
This can of worms is one of the reasons we haven't just jumped in and tried to buddy people up as part of the helicopter safety initiative.
It was suggested earlier in the year by one of the guys who sets up the safety evenings, his suggestion related to the buddying up of inexperienced pilots on the sort of two pairs of eyes are better than one basis, the discussion moved one evening to buddying up CPLs and FIs with PPLs. It became apparent quite quickly that
Anyone at the Leeds evening last week may have heard me say [rightly or wrongly] something similar to that said by Basher577 in that if you can't afford to pay for further training after qualifying then perhaps you should give up now (flack jacket donned, but my focus is safety not commercial and they don't always go hand in hand).
It is an expensive hobby and one which will bite you in the arse or kill you if not carried out with some level of competence.
Some high time CPLs have voulnteered some time to help people out for free and fair play to them it can sometimes relieve the monotony of their day jobs or get them back in the air after retirement.
I usually do it the other way by taking low houred CPLs along on jobs with me to show them how someone else does it, it shows them some more of the country but I don't let them fly unless its on an empty sector and they are type rated. I wouldn't dream of charging them for it, but I am being paid already.
The fly with a friend calendar does exist in a rudimentary form but I've held it back until we sort out a way to do it safely.
Thinking on my feet now there is nothing to stop us buddying up pilots who either want to do it for free or be paid and perhaps set some criteria on the babysitters qualifications before he or she can offer their services. I am sure that would cause problems also.
I am open to any suggestions as to how we can set something up that improves safety.
GS
It was suggested earlier in the year by one of the guys who sets up the safety evenings, his suggestion related to the buddying up of inexperienced pilots on the sort of two pairs of eyes are better than one basis, the discussion moved one evening to buddying up CPLs and FIs with PPLs. It became apparent quite quickly that
- If we buddy up inexperienced ppls we may make matters worse for the reasons already stated by Nigelh on the Cheltenham Gazelle crash thread.
- If we buddy up PPLS with low time CPLS we may make matters worse, as one may defer to the other who has only a slightly greater level of experience.
- It brought with it a whole host of insurance implications (as mentioned by Heather at the Leeds evening).
- How may schools would be happy with it ? So it may only benefit private owners who if they can afford a helicopter can afford a safety pilot (if they can't the helicopter probably won't stay very long).
Anyone at the Leeds evening last week may have heard me say [rightly or wrongly] something similar to that said by Basher577 in that if you can't afford to pay for further training after qualifying then perhaps you should give up now (flack jacket donned, but my focus is safety not commercial and they don't always go hand in hand).
It is an expensive hobby and one which will bite you in the arse or kill you if not carried out with some level of competence.
Some high time CPLs have voulnteered some time to help people out for free and fair play to them it can sometimes relieve the monotony of their day jobs or get them back in the air after retirement.
I usually do it the other way by taking low houred CPLs along on jobs with me to show them how someone else does it, it shows them some more of the country but I don't let them fly unless its on an empty sector and they are type rated. I wouldn't dream of charging them for it, but I am being paid already.
The fly with a friend calendar does exist in a rudimentary form but I've held it back until we sort out a way to do it safely.
Thinking on my feet now there is nothing to stop us buddying up pilots who either want to do it for free or be paid and perhaps set some criteria on the babysitters qualifications before he or she can offer their services. I am sure that would cause problems also.
I am open to any suggestions as to how we can set something up that improves safety.
GS
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GS,
Dons flak hat and body armour..............
It is a can of worms, and perhaps safety pilot is the wrong title?
I'm helping a friend improve his Heli lanes knowledge. I've no longer got an FI rating or an R44 ticket and I won't be doing any of the actual flying (in fact the school can remove the duals for all I care). I'm there to help with the knowledge you can't get from the map and as a confidence boost. If the weather looks poor I'll be saying so and I won't be flying - my life, my choice.
I've done similar with longer trips that this guy has planned. He plans what he reckons and simply picks my brains. I see little point in paying an FI or CPL (or anybody else for that matter) for services that he/she is only marginally more experienced at. When I fly with this chap there is no debate, he is the P1 and I'm merely an interested party with an opinion. I'm not there for him to push his luck and then bail him out of the $hit. I'm there to point out when things are going to go wrong BEFORE he gets himself in the $hit. Suggesting being paid would make anybody feel happier about speaking out earlier is laughable. At the end of the day if he crashes so do you/I! Little satisfaction in speaking up after the incident purely to say 'I knew/ told you that was going to happen'.I'm there for my experience to be of use, it's not as simple as merely turning up and going flying. We both understand EXACTLY what our roles are.
It's no different to my early days with my current employer, I could be doing the actual flying but the voice of vast experience sat beside me would (and still does at times) chip in with the invaluable pearls of wisdom.
Those offering to help aren't doing it for free to take work from CPL's or FI's, neither are we looking to network and increase our own hours and/or employability, we're simply trying to fill the void between the current training flaws and the realities. I'm not there to provide actual hands on flight tuition - that's an FI's job. A PPL is merely a licence to learn, you could be a great set of hands (thanks to a good FI) but still very inexperienced.
FW
Dons flak hat and body armour..............
It is a can of worms, and perhaps safety pilot is the wrong title?
I'm helping a friend improve his Heli lanes knowledge. I've no longer got an FI rating or an R44 ticket and I won't be doing any of the actual flying (in fact the school can remove the duals for all I care). I'm there to help with the knowledge you can't get from the map and as a confidence boost. If the weather looks poor I'll be saying so and I won't be flying - my life, my choice.
I've done similar with longer trips that this guy has planned. He plans what he reckons and simply picks my brains. I see little point in paying an FI or CPL (or anybody else for that matter) for services that he/she is only marginally more experienced at. When I fly with this chap there is no debate, he is the P1 and I'm merely an interested party with an opinion. I'm not there for him to push his luck and then bail him out of the $hit. I'm there to point out when things are going to go wrong BEFORE he gets himself in the $hit. Suggesting being paid would make anybody feel happier about speaking out earlier is laughable. At the end of the day if he crashes so do you/I! Little satisfaction in speaking up after the incident purely to say 'I knew/ told you that was going to happen'.I'm there for my experience to be of use, it's not as simple as merely turning up and going flying. We both understand EXACTLY what our roles are.
It's no different to my early days with my current employer, I could be doing the actual flying but the voice of vast experience sat beside me would (and still does at times) chip in with the invaluable pearls of wisdom.
Those offering to help aren't doing it for free to take work from CPL's or FI's, neither are we looking to network and increase our own hours and/or employability, we're simply trying to fill the void between the current training flaws and the realities. I'm not there to provide actual hands on flight tuition - that's an FI's job. A PPL is merely a licence to learn, you could be a great set of hands (thanks to a good FI) but still very inexperienced.
FW
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: One Mile High
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once or twice, just for the novelty of it, I see no problem. I haven't been in a Robinson in many years and would jump at the opportunity to ride along. However, if it were to become a regular thing, the novelty would wear off rather quickly and some sort of financial arrangement would be expected.
-Stan-
-Stan-
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another aspect that may require some thought is to get a very clear understanding of who is in charge.
In my flying experience I have had a number of "incidents" when flying with a safety pilot or being a safety pilot. It is the same thing as when an instructor checks out another instructor. You have to be very clear and specific in the brief about who does what, and what role the two pilots are performing.
This aspect does not really alter if payment is made or not.
In my flying experience I have had a number of "incidents" when flying with a safety pilot or being a safety pilot. It is the same thing as when an instructor checks out another instructor. You have to be very clear and specific in the brief about who does what, and what role the two pilots are performing.
This aspect does not really alter if payment is made or not.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point!
I just did 5 hours in a U.S.-registered Cessna in Germany, where I know very little about VFR flying. I paid for a safety pilot and considered that money well spent.
On the other hand, I once had a dorky brother-in-law tell me that going for a ride would not go amiss. I told him, "No problem! Aircraft check-out about $100, cost per hour about $60, two hours should do, so when do you want to go?"
I got such a look! Hey, didn't I just live for the privilege of having people graciously consent to go for free rides? I guess he thought holding a Commercial ticket made you some sort of public transport?
Once I knew him better I came to regret not taking him for a free demo of spinning a small Cessna, making sure to scream, "Aiyee! We are all going to die!" on the entry. Live and learn.
On the other hand, I once had a dorky brother-in-law tell me that going for a ride would not go amiss. I told him, "No problem! Aircraft check-out about $100, cost per hour about $60, two hours should do, so when do you want to go?"
I got such a look! Hey, didn't I just live for the privilege of having people graciously consent to go for free rides? I guess he thought holding a Commercial ticket made you some sort of public transport?
Once I knew him better I came to regret not taking him for a free demo of spinning a small Cessna, making sure to scream, "Aiyee! We are all going to die!" on the entry. Live and learn.
I do have sympathy with the view that if you cant afford to pay for a safety pilot or extra training maybe you should pack up . The problem i think , is that on a good vfr day you probably should not need a safety pilot . ( IF you do , then how come you have a licence ???) therefore you only need one when the weather is poor or could be crap enroute .... In that circumstance the safety pilot would need to keep you away from the fluffy stuff before you get too close or into it ...thats fine but it does not actually help you on the next trip where you expect good vfr but stumble too far into it .....THIS is the point where things go tits up and you have no tool in your box to deal with it . Why ? Because your training kept you out of it ....then your safety pilot kept you out of it . Now 200 hrs later and cockier, you STILL are totally unprepared for the day it happens . This day will be the first time you have EVER been at the controls in cloud/mist/heavy rain with a misted up shield/or even flying into a low sun over water . ( all of these mean going onto instruments for a period of time ) I would love to have a show of hands and see how many ppl,s have flown in actual ifr in cloud ...my guess is maybe 10% . I think this is a shocking statistic ( if true ) and is one of the main areas that the training lets us down . There are plenty of days that one could ( forget the rules) practice flying in cloud in your own R22, R44, 206 etc quite safely with an instructor and i believe that 10 hrs actual would definitely save lives . The first time i flew my machine in cloud i would have DEFINITELY lost it in 30 secs if alone ( i have always found flying on instruments with a hood and instructor v easy !!! 180,s NO problem . 360 with no loss of height NO problem ) After about 2 hrs of actual i dont feel at all confident but i at least have given myself a chance .
FACT. If you fly one day you may possibly end up in cloud even for a second or two . FACT. you have a better chance of keeping it together if you have experienced it at least once before . Look at the statistics and tell me the old way is working .
FACT. If you fly one day you may possibly end up in cloud even for a second or two . FACT. you have a better chance of keeping it together if you have experienced it at least once before . Look at the statistics and tell me the old way is working .
If anyone thinks Nigelh's idea is a good one, having an instructor take you into cloud for the experience in your R22, then you probably shouldn' be flying. Go try it in an FNPT2, sure, but even just a quick look-see for real, in an unstabilised a/c, not certificated for flight in IMC (with good reason may I add) with someone who doesn't hold an instrument rating, is a sure fire way to be somewhere you don't need or want to be.
Okay, most of you may not agree but i'm totally against anything like that.
A lot of people lose it very quickly in cloud if they don't have the experience or skills. Forget your hoods which give you soe peripheral view anyway. Nothing like being completely in cloud with nothing to see without that removable hood. When it's for real, and you're on your own, I guarantee you'll feel not so comfortable with your few hours experience. GS hopes to be arranging some SIM days soon for research and hopefully a lot of the ppl's etc will have a try under fairly strict circumstances. Nigelh, can I suggest you have a go too?
Okay, most of you may not agree but i'm totally against anything like that.
A lot of people lose it very quickly in cloud if they don't have the experience or skills. Forget your hoods which give you soe peripheral view anyway. Nothing like being completely in cloud with nothing to see without that removable hood. When it's for real, and you're on your own, I guarantee you'll feel not so comfortable with your few hours experience. GS hopes to be arranging some SIM days soon for research and hopefully a lot of the ppl's etc will have a try under fairly strict circumstances. Nigelh, can I suggest you have a go too?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: england
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in cloud
Helimutt, Agree with every word you said.
Nigelh. I think I get your point, and it's a valid one. But I don't think it's right to bumble off into cloud with an inexperienced FI in a R22. The stats may prove it isn't working now, but I bet it would be worse if that became the norm.
You are right, helicopter pilots will press on into worsening weather, especially as SatNav and other avionics equipment gets better and better.
So we shouldn't kid ourselves that at the first hint of lowering stratus everyone is going to dump the lever and land near a pub.
From what I understand, the "Instrument Rating" is all about flying in non-visual conditions. It's way too expensive to be justifyable for leisure pilots, and (IMHO) in many ways would be fairly pointless too.
I think that there's now a PPL (IR) for fixed-wing -- maybe we need something similar for rotary?
Certainly I agree that something needs to change, because no matter what the law says, human nature dictates that pilots will end up in situations that are (a) outside the law and (b) beyond their capability to cope with the conditions. It's point (b) that is the one that brings sadness and regret.
Big Ls
Nigelh. I think I get your point, and it's a valid one. But I don't think it's right to bumble off into cloud with an inexperienced FI in a R22. The stats may prove it isn't working now, but I bet it would be worse if that became the norm.
You are right, helicopter pilots will press on into worsening weather, especially as SatNav and other avionics equipment gets better and better.
So we shouldn't kid ourselves that at the first hint of lowering stratus everyone is going to dump the lever and land near a pub.
From what I understand, the "Instrument Rating" is all about flying in non-visual conditions. It's way too expensive to be justifyable for leisure pilots, and (IMHO) in many ways would be fairly pointless too.
I think that there's now a PPL (IR) for fixed-wing -- maybe we need something similar for rotary?
Certainly I agree that something needs to change, because no matter what the law says, human nature dictates that pilots will end up in situations that are (a) outside the law and (b) beyond their capability to cope with the conditions. It's point (b) that is the one that brings sadness and regret.
Big Ls
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear 
If anybody thinks that a few hours of actual IMC 8 months ago (with no breadth of IFR experience to rely upon) AND in a non IFR certified machine is sufficient to act as a 'Life Saver' should you push your luck.......... Please hand your licences back NOW and save your family the inevitable heartache, and the industry the inevitable negative publicity.
Surely, learning when to stop pressing onwards is a more sensible option than having a 'go' on the quiet and then hoping it all comes together when you need it to? Getting steadily lower and slower in an effort to 'beat' the weather until you're suddenly in cloud (Note: I don't agree that it's sudden) just isn't sensible
So the weather isn't as forecast (perhaps thats why its called a forecast?), what certain people lack is the forethought to ascertain when things are going wrong before they actually do and take appropriate action early enough
If the CAA seem helpless (with a few exceptions), CAA examiners seem helpless, JAA rules seem not to help and some FI's also seem unable to help...........
Whats wrong with the industry trying to help itself?
Either we as a group get a grip, or eventually some paper pusher will do it for us
I know which I'd prefer!
FW
If anybody thinks that a few hours of actual IMC 8 months ago (with no breadth of IFR experience to rely upon) AND in a non IFR certified machine is sufficient to act as a 'Life Saver' should you push your luck.......... Please hand your licences back NOW and save your family the inevitable heartache, and the industry the inevitable negative publicity.
Surely, learning when to stop pressing onwards is a more sensible option than having a 'go' on the quiet and then hoping it all comes together when you need it to? Getting steadily lower and slower in an effort to 'beat' the weather until you're suddenly in cloud (Note: I don't agree that it's sudden) just isn't sensible
So the weather isn't as forecast (perhaps thats why its called a forecast?), what certain people lack is the forethought to ascertain when things are going wrong before they actually do and take appropriate action early enough
If the CAA seem helpless (with a few exceptions), CAA examiners seem helpless, JAA rules seem not to help and some FI's also seem unable to help...........
Whats wrong with the industry trying to help itself?
Either we as a group get a grip, or eventually some paper pusher will do it for us
I know which I'd prefer!
FW
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists) not seek to improve driver standards (even though people have already got their driving licence) - and the instructors there (some being police instructors) - operate for free hoping to improve driver standards and reduce accident rates and statistics......and in turn - they may learn something themselves.
...I can see both sides of the argument in this (but as a "nearly" PPL holder (and a motorbike IAM holder !) - who is not flush with an abundance of cash) - I would appreciate being able to call on a "safety pilot" as appropriate !
...I can see both sides of the argument in this (but as a "nearly" PPL holder (and a motorbike IAM holder !) - who is not flush with an abundance of cash) - I would appreciate being able to call on a "safety pilot" as appropriate !
This is the typical response that i would expect 
OF COURSE it would be with an instrument instructor
Who has suddenly decided that ifr in a non sas machine is dangerous ???? Granted it is more difficult but the military have been doing it for many years in gazelles without problem .
NO NO NO i am NOT advocating going into bad wx and going ifr but just get real and accept it IS a possibility and HAS happened many times before with terrible consequences . You guys are just spilling out the same old drivvel about dont push on , dont fly in poor weather, dont even think about flying ifr ( even just to turn around )in a single non sas machine .....
We all have our opinions and mine is that being "CAPABLE" of doing a 180 in cloud makes you a safer pilot .....to be " CAPABLE" you must surely have demonstrated it ...No??? Whoever says flying into some fluffy clouds with a good cloud base , with an Inst instructor is dangerous really do not understand the basics of flying and are just keeping the myth alive that if you go into cloud you die That is a fine thing to say to a student to try to frighten him into staying away from it ......but on the other side of the scale it means he will panic if it does happen and have no chance . Give me one good reason why actual ifr training is not a good idea ? Has it been done before ? Does sim and hood training have a good track record ? I ask again , how many ppl,s have flown actual ifr even for 30 sec,s ??? Fear of the unknown induces panic and panic kills . We spend countless hours practicing autos...why ???? We all know the chances of an engine failure a remote compared to the chances of getting into poor viz. Its bollocks and it aint working . How you guys think training for the most life threatening event you are likely to face in your chopper is wrong defies belief
OF COURSE it would be with an instrument instructor
Who has suddenly decided that ifr in a non sas machine is dangerous ???? Granted it is more difficult but the military have been doing it for many years in gazelles without problem .
NO NO NO i am NOT advocating going into bad wx and going ifr
but just get real and accept it IS a possibility and HAS happened many times before with terrible consequences . You guys are just spilling out the same old drivvel about dont push on , dont fly in poor weather, dont even think about flying ifr ( even just to turn around )in a single non sas machine .....We all have our opinions and mine is that being "CAPABLE" of doing a 180 in cloud makes you a safer pilot .....to be " CAPABLE" you must surely have demonstrated it ...No??? Whoever says flying into some fluffy clouds with a good cloud base , with an Inst instructor is dangerous really do not understand the basics of flying and are just keeping the myth alive that if you go into cloud you die
That is a fine thing to say to a student to try to frighten him into staying away from it ......but on the other side of the scale it means he will panic if it does happen and have no chance . Give me one good reason why actual ifr training is not a good idea ? Has it been done before ? Does sim and hood training have a good track record ? I ask again , how many ppl,s have flown actual ifr even for 30 sec,s ??? Fear of the unknown induces panic and panic kills . We spend countless hours practicing autos...why ???? We all know the chances of an engine failure a remote compared to the chances of getting into poor viz. Its bollocks and it aint working . How you guys think training for the most life threatening event you are likely to face in your chopper is wrong defies belief
Where are we going with this one?
After reading the replies my opinion is that there are some valid points and some not so valid points.
Showing a pupil some flying in a R22 in actual IMC could be seen as stupid. I certainly would not entertain it. Placing a student under the hood simulating IMC does not give the whole benefit and IMHO is not a good substitute for TEACHING IMC.
With the 5 hours of instrument training on the PPL(H) course some students will accept that flying IMC (in the usual PPL role) is dodgy and beyond their limitations and will not go near the fluffy stuff, however there are others who think the 5 hours is the IR course done and off they go to find the clag and satisfy their ego that they are truly great. An instructor needs to be able to identify this and go about the right way of addressing it.
Anyway I thought this thread was CPL,s flying for free. I will fly for free provided you pay for my petrol at £8 per mile for me to get to you. Cash of course.
Showing a pupil some flying in a R22 in actual IMC could be seen as stupid. I certainly would not entertain it. Placing a student under the hood simulating IMC does not give the whole benefit and IMHO is not a good substitute for TEACHING IMC.
With the 5 hours of instrument training on the PPL(H) course some students will accept that flying IMC (in the usual PPL role) is dodgy and beyond their limitations and will not go near the fluffy stuff, however there are others who think the 5 hours is the IR course done and off they go to find the clag and satisfy their ego that they are truly great. An instructor needs to be able to identify this and go about the right way of addressing it.
Anyway I thought this thread was CPL,s flying for free. I will fly for free provided you pay for my petrol at £8 per mile for me to get to you. Cash of course.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel,
I'm sorry you consider my opinion drivel, but I make no apologies for it. This should we/ shouldn't we IMC arguement has been going on for ages, and both sides never agree.
I accept showing a student or ppl the full IMC grey screen is light years better than trying to simulate it using foggles. I might even be persuaded that a very quick foray into a small lone cloud when there is very good ground clearance is a possible option. But...................
What experience level to you insist upon for the FI? Newly qualified with 15 simulated hours, 50, 100 simulated hours and by that do you mean foggles (accepted as unrealistic), an FNPT2 simulator or actual IMC time??????
What experience level for the student or ppl holder?
What parameters do you put on an acceptable cloud for this foray?? Size, base, horizontal visibility?????
And then how do you monitor the rules are being followed?
At what point do you introduce awareness of icing and minimum IFR control speeds? How do you get the minimum IMC speed approved and in the PoH when the aircraft is uncertificated for IMC flight by the manufacturer and the licensing authority? What about insurance?????
Your suggestion whilst having some merit has more than a few flaws before we consider a few other points.
If pilots are getting this wrong and CFIT incidents are unacceptably high, which is the greater issue requiring attention?
1) Insufficient simulated or actual IMC time so that the pilot is not comfortable executing a competent 180 turn solely on instruments OR
2) Pilots having insufficient ability to acurrately plan their proposed trip with regard to route and weather interpretation, and experience at deciding when to turn back, when to make a precautionary landing, and selecting a suitable landing site?
I've seen plenty of pilots who don't really flight plan. They're fairly sure of the route, give the met a cursory glance and then they're away, relying primarily on GPS and luck.
Looking to fly IMC/IFR requires more planning than a VFR flight. If 'we' cannot get certain pilots to plan VFR properly how do you suggest we get them to do the extra work that comes with planned IFR?
There is also a very big difference between flying into a small cloud, way away from the ground and knowing whatever happens you're guaranteed to be ok and steadily getting lower and slower (scud running), stress levels rising, and then going IMC too low, too slow and poorly prepared.
What about stability systems, TCAS, EGPWS, weather radar a dual comms and nav fit and all the other stuff that IR pilots routinely tune, ID and use even when flying VFR????
And when you've answers for those, maybe we can discuss IMC currency rules and how we intend to monitor those.
I've spent today flying predominately IMC, letting down to off airfield private sites and finally back at my base airfield (which has a 300' cloud base and about 3k viz at present), I take my flying very seriously and the trip was planned fully and limits were set that I won't deviate from. That's born from a very healthy respect for the extra demands of planned IMC/IFR flight. Maybe when 90% of pilots take VFR planning seriously your suggestions may have a chance, until then an additional false sense of security will have only one effect
FW
I'm sorry you consider my opinion drivel, but I make no apologies for it. This should we/ shouldn't we IMC arguement has been going on for ages, and both sides never agree.
I accept showing a student or ppl the full IMC grey screen is light years better than trying to simulate it using foggles. I might even be persuaded that a very quick foray into a small lone cloud when there is very good ground clearance is a possible option. But...................
What experience level to you insist upon for the FI? Newly qualified with 15 simulated hours, 50, 100 simulated hours and by that do you mean foggles (accepted as unrealistic), an FNPT2 simulator or actual IMC time??????
What experience level for the student or ppl holder?
What parameters do you put on an acceptable cloud for this foray?? Size, base, horizontal visibility?????
And then how do you monitor the rules are being followed?
At what point do you introduce awareness of icing and minimum IFR control speeds? How do you get the minimum IMC speed approved and in the PoH when the aircraft is uncertificated for IMC flight by the manufacturer and the licensing authority? What about insurance?????
Your suggestion whilst having some merit has more than a few flaws before we consider a few other points.
If pilots are getting this wrong and CFIT incidents are unacceptably high, which is the greater issue requiring attention?
1) Insufficient simulated or actual IMC time so that the pilot is not comfortable executing a competent 180 turn solely on instruments OR
2) Pilots having insufficient ability to acurrately plan their proposed trip with regard to route and weather interpretation, and experience at deciding when to turn back, when to make a precautionary landing, and selecting a suitable landing site?
I've seen plenty of pilots who don't really flight plan. They're fairly sure of the route, give the met a cursory glance and then they're away, relying primarily on GPS and luck.
Looking to fly IMC/IFR requires more planning than a VFR flight. If 'we' cannot get certain pilots to plan VFR properly how do you suggest we get them to do the extra work that comes with planned IFR?
There is also a very big difference between flying into a small cloud, way away from the ground and knowing whatever happens you're guaranteed to be ok and steadily getting lower and slower (scud running), stress levels rising, and then going IMC too low, too slow and poorly prepared.
What about stability systems, TCAS, EGPWS, weather radar a dual comms and nav fit and all the other stuff that IR pilots routinely tune, ID and use even when flying VFR????
And when you've answers for those, maybe we can discuss IMC currency rules and how we intend to monitor those.
I've spent today flying predominately IMC, letting down to off airfield private sites and finally back at my base airfield (which has a 300' cloud base and about 3k viz at present), I take my flying very seriously and the trip was planned fully and limits were set that I won't deviate from. That's born from a very healthy respect for the extra demands of planned IMC/IFR flight. Maybe when 90% of pilots take VFR planning seriously your suggestions may have a chance, until then an additional false sense of security will have only one effect
FW
Last edited by Flingingwings; 6th Nov 2008 at 08:36.