EFR rating: When VFR rating is not anough and IFR rating is too much.

[Andre Durocher]

You are right, getting an IFR rating is the best a pilot can go for and I wish one for every pilot.

[Andre Durocher]

The difference in Frank’s example is if things go bad, the instrument rated pilot has the option of retaining the IFR clearance and concluding the flight safely IFR and without having to resort to trying to descend through a sucker hole or scud run.

I agree with you. I wish an IFR rating to all pilots.

[dougbush]

Sometimes, often, lower than Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) shows up between your departure and your destination. Sometimes this is forecasted and sometimes this is not. Then, VFR pilots will turn back, continue, deviate, fly illegally in the clouds or worse hit mother Earth. After 1 or 2 years of fying around, too many VFR pilots will stop flying and many will not even start flying. Taking the IFR rating is a solution but this is a big step (training, cost, time, recurrencies, etc). What if an EFR (Enroute Flight Rules) rating could be obtain? Then, you could take-off in VMC conditions, fly in the clouds and land in VMC conditions. This type of rating exists in Europe and in Australia. This rating wuold increase Safety and Utility of GA aircraft. Any takers?

i disagree with your premise that an instrument rating is more costly than necessary. You only need 40 hours of SIMULATED IMC. We still have instrument rated pilots getting disoriented in IMC. Some enroute clouds have a lot of turbulence inside, and you have to be able to recover from an upset by reference to instruments while maintaining maneuvering speed.

Moreover, the EFR rating you suggest would encourage those pilots to undertake more long cross-countries. The longer the flight, the more time for the weather to diverge from the forecast. If it gets worse, or you need to make an unplanned stop, you might be glad you learned to make an instrument approach.

I think you'd be better off looking for ways to simplify IFR.

[Andre Durocher]

i disagree with your premise that an instrument rating is more costly than necessary. You only need 40 hours of SIMULATED IMC. We still have instrument rated pilots getting disoriented in IMC. Some enroute clouds have a lot of turbulence inside, and you have to be able to recover from an upset by reference to instruments while maintaining maneuvering speed.

Moreover, the EFR rating you suggest would encourage those pilots to undertake more long cross-countries. The longer the flight, the more time for the weather to diverge from the forecast. If it gets worse, or you need to make an unplanned stop, you might be glad you learned to make an instrument approach.

I think you'd be better off looking for ways to simplify IFR.

Well, I didn't read back all of my posts but I don't think I said that IR is more costly than necessary and if I did this is not what I meant. IR is more expensive compare to an EFR rating. The pilot always has to be up to the task (VFR, EFR, IFR, floats, glider, etc) and more ratings (aerobatic, glider, etc) is the best. By the way, there is an IFR glider rating in Europe and nothing to do with take-off and landing rules and training.

I agree with you, a Private IFR (PIFR) rating not a Commercial IFR (CIFR) rating (the actual rating) would be more usefull to the weekend pilot. Example: MDA (Minimum Descent Altitude) 1500 feet AGL and 3 miles visibility.

[Mike M]

Sometimes, often, lower than Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) shows up between your departure and your destination. Sometimes this is forecasted and sometimes this is not.....

You just explained why an aviator venturing into IMC must be fully qualified to mix it up with the other traffic on full IFR clearances. One never knows when the weather forecast will "fail" or some of the equipment will fail and one will be on one's own in the goo. It's absurd to think a minimally trained, inexperienced, non-current aviator will always be able to just follow ATC directions to a safe landing.

[Auburntsts]

Andre, just curious but are you instrument rated?

[Andre Durocher]

Andre, just curious but are you instrument rated?

Yes Todd, I am instrument rated. Got my airline licence in 1978 but never wanted to fly for the airlines. Flew Beaver and Aztec in northern Quebec. Had 3 ADFs on board and those are my specialities! Most pilots find that ADF approaches are difficult, I don't. Why? Because I practice them a lot. Practice is the key and now as a private pilot (125 hours a year), in my opinion, I don't fly IFR enough. I want to continue to fly IFR and I need to continue practicing and learn. I did a survey in my local pilot association. Most of pilots are not IFR rated but would like to fly (legally) in the clouds, instead of the ground, between point A and point B, if needed. As I said earlier, here in my area, often the wx is good at departure and destination but not VMC enroute so an EFR rating would help us a lot. Imagine taking-off from a lake, flying in the clouds and landing in VMC at destination. With today's technologies (GPS, autopilot, satellite wx and communication, etc) this is helping us a lot. I saw too many pilots flying into the mountains.

[Ron Blum]

Any and all proper training is good. The ratings and time in your logbooks will only matter to the NTSB if you get in over your head. I know the flying you are talking about in Canada.(Does anyone ever get above 1000’ AGL?). GPS has made it easier, but I would still vote for an IFR rating. This would assure that the airplane stays shiny side up and it’s on course.

[mmarien]

Staying within your limitations is probably key, but extra training also is a good idea. In Canada it takes and extra 5 hours (10 hours total) training under the hood to obtain a night endorsement and 15 hours of under the hood (instrument training) to obtain a VFR OTT rating. Under the hood training is similar to instrument training. The idea is to keep the shinny side up while doing maneuvers by instrument only. Both of those endorsements are a good way to obtain some more training on your way to becoming a better pilot.

VFR OTT doesn't mean you can fly through the clouds. Your departure and destination both have to be VFR and you need to stay clear of clouds en route. You never know who is in there.

I have flown both night and VFR OTT many times. I've also decided to wait out the weather. When the stuff you are flying over is full of ice and snow or the ceiling down there is 100 feet there is probably little chance of making a safe landing should you need to go down through that stuff. Even if I did have an IFR rating, I would probably make the same decisions.

I like to view the scenery on the ground while I'm in the air so IFR isn't on my bucket list.

[PlaneDan]

Any and all proper training is good. The ratings and time in your logbooks will only matter to the NTSB if you get in over your head. I know the flying you are talking about in Canada.(Does anyone ever get above 1000’ AGL?). GPS has made it easier, but I would still vote for an IFR rating. This would assure that the airplane stays shiny side up and it’s on course.

The proper training for the situation would be appropriate. I applaud Canada and the other countries that have implemented this rating. However the rating only means that you have satisfactorily completed the training required for the environment in which you intend to fly. I certainly agree that no one should fly in conditions that they are not comfortable with. Safety is the key.