During the very first lesson that I did under foggles while doing my PPL, I got the leans. It gave me a really healthy fear of venturing into cloud (I’ve no IFR training apart from the foggles on the PPL course).
Of course most people don’t get the leans under the foggles at all during their PPL, so presumably won’t if they venture into the odd cloud with their instructor during training.
There is an advantage of doing such ‘real world’ training in that you’re probably less likely to panic, but a disadvantage because it’s under ‘good’ conditions (your instructor has set everything up, probably worrying about the navigation for you, and has made a peaceful environment) and as a result the student may develop an additude that “this isn’t really all that hard after all”.
I think a good fear of getting into IMC when you’re not trained to do so, is a good thing. Blind panic obviously isn’t good, but I do think VFR pilots should have a fear of going there rather than thinking “it won’t so bad….I’ve done that before….I just won’t tell anyone about it afterwards”.
Ultranomad wrote:
In my opinion, even if it is against the rules, the benefits really outweigh the harm by a large margin. It’s an extremely valuable exercise preventing a young pilot from panicking and losing orientation in the event of accidental flight into IMC. Obviously, this should be done reasonably and responsibly. My first instructor, a former military pilot, made me do it even before my first solo. It was a bright summer day with small white cumulus clouds here and there, we were doing upper air work, orbiting left and right at 30° and 45° bank, and then he said: “And now fly into that cloud and repeat the same exercise by instruments. Watch your altitude. If anything happens, I’ll take over”.
This is my opinion as well. In fact, I think the problem here are the rules, not what we did.
I’m sorry I won’t answer each individual reply due to the sheer number, but most of you seem to think that what my instructor and I did was wrong and stupid. I disagree.
I know I am less experienced at flying than all of you, but this relative “outsider” perspective might give me the ability to notice things that are wrong with PPL training and air law in general that you don’t notice because you are used to it working this way for quite some time now.
IMHO the entire differentiation between VFR and IFR is arbitrary and outdated, at least for training purposes. In many regions of the world, Northern Europe in particular, IMC is nothing unusual. This makes getting around for GA almost impossible unless someone acquired an instrument rating, which is unnecessarily complicated. It also makes the basic PPL a rather dangerous license because people can get into trouble quite soon if they find themselves surrounded by IMC. Unless they stay on the ground all the time a single cloud looms on the horizon. And doing so makes the PPL license rather unattractive and certainly contributes to the decline in recreational, certified GA.
I think because IMC is a normal occurence here in Northern Europe, dealing with it should be part of the standard pilot training. I think Peter had it right in this older thread . Basic PPL training should include some level of instrument proficiency. And incorporate modern navigation equipment such as GPS (or soon Galileo in Europe) instead of ignoring it. Every PPL holder should be made capable to get down an ILS in one piece or fly to a VOR in IMC. Of course higher minima than in the full IR should be required. But I think the only way to create safe PPL pilots in this part of the world is to equip them with some instrument proficiency from the get go.
MedEwok wrote:
But I think the only way to create safe PPL pilots in this part of the world is to equip them with some instrument proficiency from the get go.
They have been doing that for decades in the US, yet the number of accidents due to loss of control in IMC is more or less the same than here (just look at Adam’s recent thread about such an accident). Flying on instruments is not difficult per se. But there is a reason why the practical training for an IR takes more hours than getting a PPL. It is a craft which needs hands-on practice to be mastered. Moreover, flying on instruments is not like bicycling. You can safely ride a bicycle 30 years after the last time you did it. Many pilots can not safely fly an instrument approach 30 days after they did that last time. “We” commercial pilots are reminded of that twice per year when doing our simulator recurrent trainings. After watching the autopilot drive us down the ILS for 6 months (which is what most commercial SOPs demand), having to do it manually feels a bit like the first flight lesson again. Even more so, the steep turns…
So teaching basic IFR flying at PPL level is fine, but it should not induce false confidence in the new pilots. Being able to somehow fly down an instrument approach today does not automatically mean that you will still be able to do that when you need it for real in a year or two.
MedEwok wrote:
Every PPL holder should be made capable to get down an ILS in one piece or fly to a VOR in IMC. Of course higher minima than in the full IR should be required. But I think the only way to create safe PPL pilots in this part of the world is to equip them with some instrument proficiency from the get go.
what_next wrote:
teaching basic IFR flying at PPL level is fine, but it should not induce false confidence in the new pilots. Being able to somehow fly down an instrument approach today does not automatically mean that you will still be able to do that when you need it for real in a year or two.
I did the usual hood work to get my FAA Private, and I agree that I couldn’t fly my (VFR) planes safely in IMC today. It’s also of no interest to me, and not much utility. Given a choice I’d choose living in a sunnier area every time over flying IFR.
MedEwok wrote:
Basic PPL training should include some level of instrument proficiency.
But it already does. This is not the issue. The issue is giving the student the false impression that flying into clouds with an airplane that may not be IFR equipped, with a PIC that may not be IR rated, under VFR is OK, rather than staying at a respectful distance from clouds as per the VFR rules.
I do not think this is a good idea either even if it may be legal (I do not think so although the slant range visibility is satisfactory). 870 AGL between Cambrai and Lille, in an area with windmills and other obstacles at 493’ AGL
LeSving wrote:
Turning 180 degrees etc is dead easy when you are prepared, but if I should suddenly find myself in IMC and my GPS broke down at the same time, I am not sure I could make such a turn.
That attitude could have saved many pilots. When instructing, I hate rehearsing the standard IMC maneuvers for PPL training, because as LeSving states, they ARE easy to perform when you are calm and prepared and the instructor sits next to you. I like better to do it in clouds than simulated IMC, but as I would never do that without IFR flight plan and ATC playing along, it is not always practical.
Feeling confident is not necessarily the same thing as being safe. The problem with the required IMC training (for VFR PPL) is that it very easily makes the VFR pilot think that it easy. So when possible, I prefer to demonstrate to the students that they are not really capable of controlling the aircraft in IMC, and they don’t really know which way is up.
treat clouds as granite.
Another healthy attitude.
MedEwok wrote:
IMHO the entire differentiation between VFR and IFR is arbitrary and outdated, at least for training purposes.
No it is not. The rules are very clear. If you fly VFR you need to remain VMC. If you are IFR you do not. VMC is defined by ability to maintain distance from clouds and required visibility.
In many regions of the world, Northern Europe in particular, IMC is nothing unusual. This makes getting around for GA almost impossible unless someone acquired an instrument rating, which is unnecessarily complicated. It also makes the basic PPL a rather dangerous license because people can get into trouble quite soon if they find themselves surrounded by IMC. Unless they stay on the ground all the time a single cloud looms on the horizon. And doing so makes the PPL license rather unattractive and certainly contributes to the decline in recreational, certified GA.
Absolutely right. Some flight schools and aircraft manufacturers make you think that you can plan and conduct a flight from A to B on day D. The fact is that VFR you never know whether you will actually be able to do the flight. You may have to postpone it by a day or two, or a week depending on the season. And you never know when you get back unless you have some absolutely picture perfects MSLPs for a few days.
So you plan your VFR flight with reasonable weather leaving you some margin. And should you still be caught out by the weather, that’s when you may need to utilise your IMC flying skills.
And with the equipment we fly, even with an IFR capable airplane and IR rated pilot you may have to postpone flights due to icing, convective weather etc.
So the sooner you accept that you will have to cancel many flights, the better.
I happily took PPL students into cloud for the basic instrument flying part of their training. It can be done safely and legally, but there are a few conditions
– confidence in the student. Probably one sortie under the hood to get them acclimatised & see how they do
– instructor is instrument rated and current enough. No need to fly an ILS to 200ft, but you need mental capacity for instructing.
– cloud base > minimum IFR altitude (i.e., 1000ft AGL) – so you can get out of it again without an approach, or don’t prang into anything if things go less than perfect
– some practice flying on instruments from the right hand seat, ESPECIALLY when using classic instruments (parallax on the AI has some interesting side effects)
My flight instructor instructor covered the flying on instruments from the right hand seat briefly during one flight.
Not that I had much opportunity to do this – basically three students at the right stage with the right weather. However I still remember the reaction of one of them when we broke out on top and skimmed the cloud tops… fantastic experience for him.
All of the students said that this was MUCH harder than they thought, even though they all had done it comfortably before under the hood. 2 of the 3 struggled, only one pretty much kept flying whatever I told him to, including climbs, descents, turns to headings. Flight-sim kid, that one…
In the UK, that was very easy, typically with a radar information service (or traffic service as it is called now) from Southend or Farnborough
Aviathor wrote:
And with the equipment we fly, even with an IFR capable airplane and IR rated pilot you may have to postpone flights due to icing, convective weather etc.
Yesterday evening I was flying from Le Bourget to Stuttgart. A cold front was lying over central France. They wouldn’t let us (or anybody else who begged for it) fly higher than FL230. The wind was gusty at around 80kt at that level. In and out of clouds, skimming cloud tops in different layers. Turbulence and icing most of the flight, I had to reduce to our “penetration speed” of 180kt for quite some time which is slow for even a Citation. Lightnings all around us for 15 minutes – the first I’ve seen this year.
Thinking one can handle this kind of “Northern European weather” by flying through some clouds during PPL training is very optimistic.
That’s a great thread you found there, Medewok 
These things go round and round… and the argument will continue because if you introduce PPL students to IFR a bit “too well” they might well try doing it, but we can’t have that, for all sorts of (mostly good) reasons 
In reality, the clever ones do it and most get away with it, because
while the less clever ones have accidents because they tried doing it in shagged hardware, at low level, with poor obstacle awareness, poor planning, and in the wrong place.
As I wrote in the other thread, the most spectacular CFITs are done by IR holders on “fake VFR” flights. Very few CFITs are done by IR holders flying “classical IFR” procedures as published.
