rw2 wrote:

kygreen229 wrote:

obxbushpilot wrote:As I recall; there was a requirement to log a pile of x country (50 hrs?). If you decide to do the crash course to obtain the rating, you need to have that out of the way along with the written.

I think the fast one week cram session approach is best suited to guys who have been chipping away at the rating and are ready to wrap it up. I would certainly consider a refresher course in a condensed manner though I wouldn't choose the condensed approach for the initial rating unless I had some hours of training logged. Or; maybe hit a setback in my training like the instructor, in his/her early twenties at the onset of training, dies of old age before you can get the okay for your check ride. This would be grounds to consider the wrap it up one week to wings program.

Since you mentioned the 50 hours x-country, hopefully someone can clarify this for me.

I have like 68 hours total time or something close to that. You need 50 x-country hours for your instrument rating. This needs to be PIC time correct? My instructor told me to add up all of my x-country including our duals...?

Your CFI should have logged your dual time as PIC as appropriate. Add that up. If he didn't, get him to amend the logs appropriately. Then add them up.

Huh...in my log book he wrote in dual time and x-country time but not PIC time when him and I were flying together on the long x-country we did and then the night x-country. those should be written in as PIC as well?

Thanks,
Kyle

rw2 wrote:

kygreen229 wrote:

obxbushpilot wrote:As I recall; there was a requirement to log a pile of x country (50 hrs?). If you decide to do the crash course to obtain the rating, you need to have that out of the way along with the written.

I think the fast one week cram session approach is best suited to guys who have been chipping away at the rating and are ready to wrap it up. I would certainly consider a refresher course in a condensed manner though I wouldn't choose the condensed approach for the initial rating unless I had some hours of training logged. Or; maybe hit a setback in my training like the instructor, in his/her early twenties at the onset of training, dies of old age before you can get the okay for your check ride. This would be grounds to consider the wrap it up one week to wings program.

Since you mentioned the 50 hours x-country, hopefully someone can clarify this for me.

I have like 68 hours total time or something close to that. You need 50 x-country hours for your instrument rating. This needs to be PIC time correct? My instructor told me to add up all of my x-country including our duals...?

Your CFI should have logged your dual time as PIC as appropriate. Add that up. If he didn't, get him to amend the logs appropriately. Then add them up.

I thought dual received prior to a PPL did not qualify for PIC time. I only thought you can log dual as PIC time; if you had a PPL and could otherwise perform the flight on your own. I know pre-PPL solo time can be logged as PIC, but I believe that was a fairly recent decision which was retroactive, sometime in the last 10-20 years or so.

Assuming you didn't train in a multi-crew airplane, that sounds right.

rw2 wrote:

kygreen229 wrote:
Since you mentioned the 50 hours x-country, hopefully someone can clarify this for me.

I have like 68 hours total time or something close to that. You need 50 x-country hours for your instrument rating. This needs to be PIC time correct? My instructor told me to add up all of my x-country including our duals...?

Your CFI should have logged your dual time as PIC as appropriate. Add that up. If he didn't, get him to amend the logs appropriately. Then add them up.

idair wrote:I thought dual received prior to a PPL did not qualify for PIC time. I only thought you can log dual as PIC time; if you had a PPL and could otherwise perform the flight on your own. I know pre-PPL solo time can be logged as PIC, but I believe that was a fairly recent decision which was retroactive, sometime in the last 10-20 years or so.

Pilot In Command is anytime you are flying solo without your instructor (before PP...Certificate). I have a lot of PIC Xcountry time to build too.

However I was told that during the minimum 40 hours of training, I can use those hours as xcountry if they are...because I am PIC at that point. Anyone else know if this last point is correct?

All of this is spelled out in 61.65(d), as to the eligibility requirements for an IR applicant.

Remember that the actual PIC and logging PIC are two different things. The one who is the actual PIC has responsibility for the flight, must be current for that flight, must have all endorsements necessary for that flight. For instance, let's use a flight in a pressurized 210 which will be flown above 25,000'. The actual PIC must have endorsements for high performance, complex, and high altitude. Because the flight will be above 18,000', he must also be instrument rated and current, and the flight must be on an IFR flight plan.

The actual PIC asks if you'd like to come along, on his 3 hour flight from ABC to XYZ, and fly the airplane. Of course! You hold a private certificate SEL with no endorsements. The PIC talks you through start-up, taxi out, take-off, all the way to downwind at XYZ, a total of 2.7 hours, during which time you're the sole manipulator of the controls. While on downwind, you chicken out because you don't want to prang his half million buck airplane, the PIC takes over, and he lands the airplane, thus ending the 3 hour flight to XYZ.

Who logs what? Well, you were the sole manipulator of the controls for 2.7 hours. You have a private SEL certificate. In spite of all of lacking all of the endorsements necessary to solo the P210, you can log 2.7 hours, because all that is required is that the airplane is SEL, and you're SEL, and you were the sole manipulator of the controls.

What of the actual PIC? If he is not a current instructor, he can only log the time when he was sole manipulator of the controls--in this scenario, .3 hours, from the time he took over on downwind at XYZ until the airplane stopped. He cannot log the 2.7 hours that you flew the airplane, at all.

But if he is a current instructor, he can log all 3 hours as PIC, although he only actually flew the airplane for .3 hours--and you can still log 2.7 hours as PIC.

What if during the flight, IMC is encountered, but you continue to fly the airplane, because although you have no IR, you're pretty competent on instruments. No difference, as to who logs PIC time. 2.7 for you, .3 for the actual PIC.

Can you log the instrument time as actual instrument time? Sure--you were flying solely by reference to instruments, although you don't have your IR.

Can the actual PIC log the time in IMC as actual instrument time? No, he's not flying the airplane. But if he is a CFI (not necessarily a CFII), he can log the time in IMC as actual instrument time, regardless of whether he ever touched the yoke.

Does this make sense? No, but that's not a requirement.

Cary

The most rewarding part of IR training was when you've finished and it's on your license! Can't say I enjoyed the training much but it was satisfying to get in the end. Think it took me around 40 hours plus about 20 or so in a sim. To make my life even harder I did it in a Seneca II which it not a pleasant aircraft to fly.

But now I have it, you'll never get bored of departing on a wet, grey, overcast morning and punching up above the clouds into the clear blue skies above. It's pretty special and something we aviators are so privileged to see

Mine was 8 weeks worth of my primary training. All in clear blue-22.

Then I transitioned to a helicopter that's certified for VFR only - IFR is an emergency because we have a modifiable database in our GPS.

I've got my required semi-annual hood hours from the last 6 years, but nothing inside of a cloud yet!

Cary, forgive my ignorance of CFI stuff, but in your scenario can the cfi also log 3hrs of dual given?

I guess my question is do CFIs start logging dual for all flights where there's another butt in the seat or is there some other requirement for logging dual given?

60 hours should get you a rating.

I did it in about 42 hours. However, I did the accelerated training through a company called AFIT. I recommend the accelerated program because you seem to retain it much better and remember more long term. They came to my home field and we flew my airplane. The training was 10 days for at least 10 hours a day with flying and ground school. Very intense! I did it in my Diamond DA40 XLS with Garmin G1000 avionics and that is amazing avionics. I got my private back in 1967 and I had not flown for 30 years. Anyway, I did it at 63 years old and it was the hardest thing I ever did and the most rewarding. That was two years ago and I have since sold my Diamond and I am considering another plane for some great back country flying.

There were lots of times I didn't think I could get through it, and then it all kind of comes together. The hardest thing for me was "non published" holds, but thanks to my instructor I finally got it.

Good luck! You can do it if you just don't give up. Greg

[youtube]http://youtu.be/2lDjK2ZNmic[/youtube]

If the CFI logs it as dual given, which he can, he has to log it in his own logbook and also in the other pilot's logbook, sign, and enter his CFI number. He doesn't need to log in the other's logbook just to log the time in his own as long as it's not instruction given time.

Lots of screwy anomalies about logging time, but it's all in the regs.

Cary

Regarding the XC hours...fly them. You'll be a better pilot for it, you're going to fly them anyway, no need to get all hung up about whether you can fly them after you get the rating. If that slows the rating down a tad, minor deal. Just fly.

Regarding the XC hours...fly them.

Absolutely. Being hung up on "hours flown" or "does this or that qualify?", etc., is a whole lot less important than, "did you learn from those hours flown?" Are you a better pilot as a consequence of those hours flown?

I don't mean to offend anyone by what I'm about to say, but there are likely those who will be offended anyway. I am more impressed with a lower time pilot who has done all his/her own flying than a higher time pilot who has been in the habit of engaging Otto at 500' AGL and doesn't disengage him (her? Ottette?) until entering the destination pattern. Sometimes when I hear something about a 20,000 hour airline pilot, I wonder how much of that time is really flying the airplane, and how much of that time is watching the doodads fly the airplane. If every 3 hour leg (or longer legs for non-stop coast to coast or across a pond) is really only 10-15 minutes of flying, what's the real time experience? And how beneficial to the pilot's skills is that experience?

Obviously, there are those whose hours really mean something, but otherwise they're often just a number. It really doesn't matter whether it's a 757 or a standard equipped Cirrus or even a decked out 185. If the doodads are flying, the pilot isn't--which raises the question, if the doodads quit flying, can the pilot take over? Some can; the NTSB records those instances in which the pilot can't.

I think the current emphasis on scenario-based training and the requirement on checkrides to use all available doodads in the airplane, including especially Otto, is mistaken. Too many pilots never really get a handle on how to fly, because they become systems managers. Yeah, it's cool to watch that expensive bundle of electrons fly down a glideslope--been there, done that--but in my view, it's even cooler to be able to nail the localizer and glideslope by hand, sticking the IA at a specific airspeed, all the way to DA/DH (depending on when you got your IR), or to be able to put your airplane into that 1000' runway with trees on either side safely and without drama every time.

Rant over--but with the caveat that hours in the logbook don't necessarily equate with the skill or experience of the pilot, so for those seeking other ratings dependent upon hours flown, make sure they are realistic and useful hours flown.

Cary

I appreciate reading all comments here. My personal large part of worrying about hours is the funding. My PPL already cost me a few thousand more than planned so the IR I want to hopefully make sure I can dial it in as best I can and be proficient to have the skills to keep building on.

The IR was a big change for me. During my PP, my instructor kept me in a constant sweat for around half of the dual time. Never a dull moment. The check ride was easy & straightforward by comparison.

During the IR, I remained sweaty (literally) for nearly the entire 40+ hours of IR training. The check ride was again relatively straightforward by comparison.

I mention this because I really think the instructor is a huge factor in making adequate progress and staying on budget. The IR is a more expensive project than the ComP or PP, and a good instructor will really go a long ways to make it happen. If you find yourself slipping a lot of extra $$ into the effort despite being motivated, and you aren't being really challenged a good percentage of the time when in the air, you might consider trying a more intense instructor.

Fly, Fly, Fly...

In actual as much as you can. And REALLY learn partial panel. Practice partial panel. Stay proficient on partial panel. Learn to play and goof off using partial panel.

Did I mention partial panel????

Gump

Gump what are your thoughts on partial panel

Gump what are your thoughts on partial panel

My first trip to the Arctic was also for my first flying job. It was me and my 1951 PA-18 headed north from sunny Kalifornia, and the airplane equiped only with needle-ball-airspeed, a really crappy compass, and a comm radio. I had an ink wet instrument ticket, but no real actual time, and was no where near comfortable with flying IFR or understanding the system.

I passed the stuff for check rides in the company airplanes, but what really did the trick for me was going out in my off time. When we weren't flying the 206's and Sleds, we were off in our crappy own airplanes. And when you get bored 20 something year old pilots in the Arctic in their own airplanes, you get lots of screwing off in those airplanes.

Dogfights, lots of dogfights, and in those days there was some for real uncontrolled airspace with lots of clouds and sharp decks at about 500 feet. It didn't take long before we were spending lots of time in the clouds on nothing but those needle-ball-airspeed panels, and because of that, magic shit happened. It clicked, and it suddenly became natural and the brain freed up from having to consciously control the airplane. And the other thing is, once you get comfortable with the bare minimums, having a real "six-pack" panel was heaven, and really made shit easy.

Gump

The instrument is the most important rating you can get. Don't cut corners. Learn par al pa el and single radio ops. It doesn't all have to be with a CFI, grab a buddy (appropriately rated) and go fly under the hood, save some money and start a whole new thread on how to log that time. hint; your buddy is a required crewmember while you are under the hood.

hint; your buddy is a required crewmember while you are under the hood.

And that means, in current FAA-speak, that your buddy must have a current medical. He/she does NOT have to have any endorsements that might be needed to be PIC, such as if you're practicing in a C-180, your buddy does NOT need a tailwheel endorsement, or if you're practicing in a Bonanza, your buddy does NOT need either a complex or high performance endorsement. The only exception is that if your buddy is SES only, and you're flying a SEL, then your buddy doesn't qualify--but I don't think I've ever met someone who was SES only. Your buddy does NOT need to be current, either (no BFR required, no night time required, no 3 landings in the last 90 days required).

I agree with Gump, too, that getting good and staying good with partial panel is necessary. The only thing I'd add to that, though, is realize that not all partial panel is the same. The traditional training method is to fail the vacuum instruments (DG and AI), but other things fail, too. Like you're shooting a VOR approach, and your VOR's red flag suddenly flips up. Or suddenly you realize that the airspeed indicator increases as you go higher and decreases as you go slower, so it's not working. Or the vacuum system is working fine--but the electrical system dies, so you lose all your avionics. What? You say that your battery is required to be good for half an hour--but have you ever turned off your alternator to find out if that's really true? And what if both the alt and batt CBs blow at the same time. And if you're going to rely on the "traditional" DG and AI failure, recognize that in real life, they don't immediately stop working--it may be several minutes before you realize that your vacuum pump has eaten itself, before you see evidence of that from the DG and AI.

What of the weather? Back in your VFR/VMC days, that was easy. VMC, go; IMC, don't go. Now you need to know how much IMC you can handle, and how much IMC your airplane can handle. Things like imbedded T-storms, icing, freezing rain, hail--all are things you never had to contend with flying VFR.

And yet, the IR opens up so many doors and allows the completion of so many flights that were impossible or at best dicey when you were "only" a VFR pilot.

Can you get along without the IR? Sure. Many pilots do, their entire lives. But it is SOOOOOO worth having, and it can be a true life saver. Review this video again--and take it from me, it's accurate. http://www.aopa.org/AOPA-Live.aspx?watc ... 74403E0%7D

Now let me tell you about my first start-to-finish student. Steve became an excellent "stick" very quickly. Fast learner, but arrogant--believed he was better than he was. I can think of several stories about him, but this one fits this thread. He was very good under the hood, and he'd already had his 3 hours minimum hood time, but no actual. Several times he said that he didn't see why flying on instruments was so hard like he'd heard, and he was sure he could handle it--and that worried me.

We were scheduled for his long cross country, and he wanted to go to Jackson from Laramie. His wife was riding along. An unnecessarily long flight, but it was his money. So we headed northwest, but soon after we passed over Riverton, it was obvious to me that we weren't going to make it, as the weather was coming down. I purposely said nothing, though, because this was a training flight. Finally he said, "we can't continue VFR. Can we go IFR?" I told him that the 172 could never get to the 14,000' MEA that would be required, so he decided to turn around--finally. After he'd turned us around, I took the controls, told him to plot a course to Casper, and we'd have lunch there.

At Casper, I filed IFR for Laramie, anticipating that we'd run into some IMC, and we did. Soon after crossing over Casper Mountain south of Casper, we were in "in and out" IMC. And pretty soon, I had to nudge him and point out the whopper-jawed AI. He righted the airplane, and I called Center to get a block altitude, telling the ATCer that this was a training flight and he would see a lot of diversions from altitude and course on his radar. Because we weren't using headsets (this was in ancient times), Steve didn't hear my comments to ATC.

Pretty soon, we were in a descending spiral again, and I pointed to the AI, he righted the airplane, climbed back up the couple hundred feet we'd lost and got on course. But he was starting to sweat. I let it happen again, and this time I let it go almost to the MEA before I told him--he had lost nearly 1000' and had turned 180 degrees. After making his corrections again, he asked why this kept happening--and I told him it was because he was trusting his feelings, not the instruments--he must absolutely concentrate on the instruments and not glance out the window, not trust his inner ear, only the instruments.

Now we flew along for about 20 minutes more, without any more excursions from heading or altitude. It was cool in the airplane, but he was sweating a lot. Finally he admitted it was just too much and asked if I could fly for awhile. So I flew from where we were at that point (roughly halfway between Casper and Medicine Bow) to just about 10-15 minutes north of Laramie, where we flew out of the IMC. I had him take over, and he flew on and landed.

There is nothing quite like a VFR pilot flying into IMC to teach the value of the IR. The problem is that some choose to do it without a competent instructor aboard, and those are the ones we read about in the NTSB reports. So let me repeat: The IR can be a real life saver.

Cary