That sentence IMO proves that it isn’t taught in a practical manner.
I agree. But schools must first teach what the authorities where the exams are held expect the students to know. And until now, the exams are not done using flight planning software on iPads…
Or are you talking about “uncontrolled IFR” in airspace G?
This is what I was talking about.
True, but until this is embraced during the learning stage, “you” will be continuing to turn out IR holders who can’t fly anywhere.
Agreed. But it doesn’t matter as 49 of 50 IR holders that we turn out will never in their life file a flight plan. The dispatch department of their airline or air taxi company will do that for them. Many private IR pilots that I know don’t file their own flight plans either, but use commercial flight planning services instead. It costs in the order of 20 Euros per flight and if it saves a dentist ten minutes of his time (that’s two more patients if we works as quickly as mine 
) it’s well worth it.
It’s a bit like if you teach somebody to load up a GNS430, they can use anything else, with just minimal familiarisation. That’s until you get to stuff like the missed approach behaviour but they will have an idea of where this can bite them.
This is why we still (and will forever continue to do so!) teach basic flying skills and raw data flying. Because almost every missed approach is constructed in a way that it can be flown using ground based navaids – just in case the pilot messes up his GNS430 missed approach… the same applies to holdings as well!
I would say that is because you don’t specialise in that market sector. Nearly all FTOs don’t, and some (IME) are downright hostile to a private pilot making an enquiry.
The problem is that this market sector is much too small to specialise in. My home base host a substantial number of private IFR capable aircraft, from C172 to CitationJet. Something like 50. That makes 50 wealthy IR private pilots who gained their licenses over maybe 30 years. Using one of the two resident flying schools. Or 0.8 students per flying school per year. I wouldn’t call that a market
The thread isn’t answering the original question I put or what I intended. I did say initially that
This isn’t expressing negativity about what flight training schools provide – they have to work towards the syllabus and contain costs – more of a reflection on the current system
It’s clear that FTOs training mostly commercial pilots wouldn’t expect to cover many of the practical aspects of single pilot single engine IR real world flight, so those that do are to be commended.
Perhaps instead, imagine if you have just passed your car driving test – you have a “licence to learn”. What specific aspects did you need to research or expand on to make full use of the IR ?
Well I will start by saying that I am not a PPL/IR pilot (I hold a CPL) nor am I involved in training pilots to do such things.
Looking back on my training (not that long ago) I can’t think of much else the FTO could really have done. This is not me saying I was at the world’s best FTO, more just that the things I have learnt (through necessity or otherwise) after getting rated were not things that I could imagine the FTO could have readily taught or anticipated.
Autopilot stuff means that the school needs working autopilots. This already can increase cost by a huge amount and I don’t really think there is much to gain from it. Flying a coupled approach is not difficult as one just needs to know how to work the autopilot (which will be different for different models) and how to discipline themselves with the limitations of the approach and autopilot. The only thing which could potentially be useful (and could be simulated with an ‘instructor autopilot’ at a push) would be an autopilot failure, whether it’s a mode failure or a pitch trim runaway. Even this will be different for different installations.
My first job was air taxi work with only a half-in-place operations department. They basically told us where to go at what time but flight planning etc was left to us, for which we used AFPEX. I remember not having a clue how to work AFPEX at first but it wasn’t something my FTO in Europe could have taught me.
In terms of what the FTO should teach, actual weather flying springs to mind. My training did not emphasize interpretation of IFR weather, and the associated go/no-go decisions, weather avoidance… Or maybe it was because I trained in California and apart from morning fog we did not have much weather at all :-)
But schools must first teach what the authorities where the exams are held expect the students to know
Absolutely so, so this would need to change first.
But it doesn’t matter as 49 of 50 IR holders that we turn out will never in their life file a flight plan
Agreed 100%, which is IMHO how the present system hangs together. It works because in the LHS you have (in N Europe, anyway) an experienced training captain, and (everywhere) you are flying a very high perf aircraft (+5000fpm+, FL350+ ceiling, deiced, radar, etc) so the fact that the RHS knows sod-all doesn’t matter. But such a “system” (a charade, really, especially looking at how much these “kids” end up paying) is no good for training private pilots.
Autopilot stuff means that the school needs working autopilots.
True, but we keep coming back to this. I am sure WN is right about the market being very small, but I think there is a market for say one or two specialised firms who do private clients. It’s a bit like in the Cirrus market there are one or two outfits (in the UK) that do type specific training. You don’t need 20 of them. Such a firm could get a well equipped plane on which everything works. On mine, everything works so why can’t a commercial outfit manage it?
The other problem area is that one needs to carefully avoid teaching a different IR syllabus to private pilots to what one teaches to commercial pilots, because that could result in a “second grade IR” and that could result in the holders being banned from certain airspaces. This risk was avoided in the CB IR development process by making the CB IR the standard flight training for the CPL/IR process also (of course a CPL/IR has to sit all 14 ATPL exams, but the IR flight test is the same and that avoids the “grade 2 IR” risk).
I would cover autopilots, because they are all similar in their behaviour. Pressing the AP button gives you wings level and pitch hold. They tend to have the same gotchas – for example if you are at 5000ft and you set a preset of 7000ft, and set a VS of minus 500fpm, every autopilot in GA will kill you. Or if you set a preset of 3000ft and minus 500fpm and forget (or deselect) the ARM mode, you will also die.
Modern weather services must be covered, and ways to develop and file flight plans. This is easy stuff, but not teaching it means a new IR holder doesn’t have a clue. The existing pilot forums (other than EuroGA ) are less than ideal for learning because nowadays (compared to say 10 years ago) they are full of aggressive stuff and sky gods and don’t have many smart pilots posting on them anymore. Also most pilots don’t participate on them and never will. They might pop in to have a read but that’s it.
I get countless emails on this topic from other newly qualified pilots…
what next, are you jealous about Aero-Beta’s C172SP with G1000 and a working autopilot? 
I think their D-EXBB can also fly an ILS on AP but that is an expensive plane to rent (R182).
I agree that there is little point to teach IR students how to create valid Eurocontrol flight plans. This is not required to get a license and they can easily find out afterwards by talking to experienced pilots and using the internet. If they feel they need more training, there are hundreds of professional pilots willing to fly RHS with them until they are comfortable. I know somebody with a SR22T for $750k that until today only flies with a CFI on RHS. In his equation, it’s not even a significant cost factor…
…but I think there is a market for say one or two specialised firms who do private clients.
Maybe that would work for greater London with 10 (or 20?) million people not too far away. But two such schools for a whole country will mean that most clients will have to travel much more than they are comfortable with and rather train with their local school even if that can’t offer training tailored to their needs. Or they go to the States and do a three-week-intensive course.
… every autopilot in GA will kill you.
Every autopilot of most commercial aircraft just as welll. “Monitoring” is the magic word. When you let the automatics do the work for you, you must monitor what it is doing.
they can easily find out afterwards by talking to experienced pilots and using the internet
Yes, but you could say that about everything.
It’s not that easy.
In many (most?) scenarios, you don’t bump into experienced IFR pilots. For example, at Shoreham where I have been hanging out for 14 years, I don’t know of any experienced private pilot who hangs out in the cafe, or anywhere else. There is a bunch of taildragger pilots, and a bunch of renters who seemingly mostly fly to the Isle of Wight. But then I don’t “hang out” at Shoreham either. I pop in for a soup and go straight out again. The learning value of that environment is close to zero.
The internet is the key to learning “operational details” but there is so much crap on the internet that it’s hard to make sense of it.
And I am hardly a novice internet user myself
So I think there would be a lot of value in having a place where you could learn this stuff in an organised environment.
WN’s point above about having to travel is probably a major stopper…
When you let the automatics do the work for you, you must monitor what it is doing.
Of course, but if every pilot did that right, the death rate would plummet
Of course, but if every pilot did that right, the death rate would plummet
So it must be beneficial to train with the crap systems installed in our training aircraft because they fail more often than they work. It teaches students never to trust technology and to rely on their own skills and keep them up to date A student trained in a factory new Cirrus will never understand this concept…
Is there any real reason why learning IFR cannot be done 100% on simulator?
