Current IFR rating?

[hkavasch]

Da40 tdi
DA42 tdi

IFR rated

[Donkadillapig]

DA40NG passed my IFR checkride yesterday

[Lou]

DA40 XLS G1000/WAAS/GFC700

Instrument rated. Did it right after my PPL in 2015 with the encouragement of my type instructor. Best advice I ever got. Safety and knowledge of the ‘system’ is indispensable. I rarely get 6/6/6 without going up with a safety pilot. I will do my checkride ahead of schedule sometimes just for recency. Safety and proficiency are worth their weight in gold, in my view.

[Rich]

In the US, at least, obtaining the rating and staying legally current are significantly easier these days than when I obtained my rating in 1974. Offhand: Elimination of the minimum total hours to apply (250 back then, if memory serves), elimination of 6 hours each 6 months, and the expanded authorization of simulators for both the rating and currency.

In addition, operating in the system involves less workload now than in the 1970s and '80s, especially if one compares the available equipment and ATC procedures then and now. All sorts of small things are now easier or no longer necessary due to things I have now and didn't then. These all add up. In the days of yesteryear the mechanics of flying the plane and maintaining scan took up 80% of your attention. Constantly dealing with the other required "therbligs" took up the other 80%. Non-obvious factors that I find collectively add up to significantly workload reduction for the life cycle of an instrument flight:
- Electronic flight plan briefing and filing
- Headsets to eliminate constant fumbling with the mike.
- Cell phones for getting clearance and release
- EFBs for chart management rather than fumbling with managing, retrieving and folding paper charts. Especially at night with poor cockpit lighting.
- Multiple nav-comms with standby frequencies.
- One transponder code for the duration of the flight rather than a new code every time you switch controller frequencies (I kid you not).

Then there is the obvious stuff:
- Better and more widespread availability of autopilots.
- Standardized placement of the all-important six-pack for we round-gauge types. (You might be surprised at the lack of thought once given to this.)
- Better avionics in general.
- In-cockpit weather rather than trying to get updates from Flight Watch.
- Various in-flight availability of various useful information like moving maps, tracking waypoint progress, nearby frequencies, terrain awareness and traffic.

[ultraturtle]

...the FAA definition is pretty strict requiring IMC after the FAF. I've been vectored, intercepted and flown an approach more than once when the IMC cleared before the FAF, ATC can't see the clouds. A few weeks ago I vectored all over, was told to intercept the approach, then had radar services cancelled, but not "IFR cancelled" (I was on an IFR plan) and handed to the tower. It was actually clear just after I intercepted the approach; ATC must have gotten a PIREP from the commercial jet in front of me. So I guess that counted towards "tracking", but not an approach...

...When flying in actual conditions, you must be in IMC when you start the approach and remain in IMC until passing the Final Approach Fix for the approach to count. If you break out into the clear at any point after the FAF but before DH or MDH, the approach counts...

What some of us may be missing here is the FAA's definition of IMC. It simply means "not VMC". In most airspace, that means that you can pass the FAF (or glideslope intercept point) in the clear, unrestricted visibility, with cloud bases 400' above you, and still log the approach for your IFR currency. Surprising how often that occurs here in the SouthEast.

[Boatguy]

What some of us may be missing here is the FAA's definition of IMC. It simply means "not VMC". In most airspace, that means that you can pass the FAF (or glideslope intercept point) in the clear, unrestricted visibility, with cloud bases 400' above you, and still log the approach for your IFR currency. Surprising how often that occurs here in the SouthEast.

Interesting point. IMC means not VMC, and VMC means you can fly VFR so IMC means you can't fly VFR. Basic VFR (FAR 91.155) requires 1,000' above. So you're saying that if the FAF is at 2,000'AGL, and the ceiling at the FAF is 2,900', that's IMC and the approach can be logged to satisfy currency.

I'm assuming when you say glideslope/glidepath intercept point, you mean the one marked on the plate, not when I actually intercept since frequently I intercept well before the point marked on the plate (i.e., a higher altitude). If it was the point at which I actually intercept the GS/GP that would raise the bottom of IMC even further.

[ultraturtle]

Interesting point. IMC means not VMC, and VMC means you can fly VFR so IMC means you can't fly VFR. Basic VFR (FAR 91.155) requires 1,000' above. So you're saying that if the FAF is at 2,000'AGL, and the ceiling at the FAF is 2,900', that's IMC and the approach can be logged to satisfy currency.

Not quite. FARs actually state VMC to be 500' below, so in your scenario, the ceiling would have to be 2,400 ft or lower when starting the final approach segment in order to log the approach for IFR currency.

I'm assuming when you say glideslope/glidepath intercept point, you mean the one marked on the plate, not when I actually intercept since frequently I intercept well before the point marked on the plate (i.e., a higher altitude). If it was the point at which I actually intercept the GS/GP that would raise the bottom of IMC even further.

Here is where it gets interesting. The FAA specifies that the "final approach segment" is the point of evaluation for IMC. Final approach segment actually begins at the glideslope intercept point or the FAF, whichever you get to first, so yes, if the clouds are less than 500' above you at assigned glideslope intercept altitude, you can log it even if that altitude is way above the published glideslope intercept altitude.

[p3dave]

A couple of thoughts, I don't believe that the final approach segment is established on the localizer, it is that segment beginning at the final approach fix and ending at landing or missed approach. As to not being able to maintain VFR cloud clearance making you VMC, I think that is a stretch. To log an approach you are supposed to be flying it by sole reference to the instruments (i.e. not being able to see). In any event, whether the sea lawyers call that an approach or not, it isn't doing much to make you proficient which should be the goal. In my mind, 6 approaches, tracking and a hold in 6 months doesn't make one proficient anyway.

At the end of the day, I don't think anyone is checking logbooks and then looking at the weather for the date/time the approach was logged although in this day and age with Flight Aware etc. that could be possible.

[Rich]

In any event, whether the sea lawyers call that an approach or not, it isn't doing much to make you proficient which should be the goal. In my mind, 6 approaches, tracking and a hold in 6 months doesn't make one proficient anyway.

Many decry regulations as being onerous. But the part 91 requirements for legal IFR are really minimal in many other ways. Note, for example, that there is no requirement to fly any missed approaches - published or otherwise. This is often a much more task-loaded activity than the approach itself. The same goes for those god-awful complex departure clearances one sometimes encounters. And a plane or simulator you might use for legal currency might not vaguely resemble the aircraft you are then entitled to fly IFR/IMC.

There is very little aircraft equipment in the regs required for IFR. Check out what part 91 does NOT require what we all take as normal.

Having said all this I would not want them fiddling around with the regs. Not so long ago the FAA proposed putting that 6-hour requirement back in, along with some other constraints on what navigation infrastructure would have to be utilized. There are no data to support the idea that there would be significant accident improvements based on adjusting what we are now required to do.

[dant]

There is very little aircraft equipment in the regs required for IFR. Check out what part 91 does NOT require what we all take as normal.

My end of course examiner for my IR had an interesting observation - he asked me to compare how onerous the regs were for currency vs alternates, noting that no one believes the currency regs for IR/PPL privileges are sufficient for proficiency. However for alternates, there's this slew of regulation with respect to weather, fuel, minimums at your alternate, alternate mins at the alternate, alternate not available, GPS approaches at both, etc. His comment was that the FAA _really really_ wants you to think about and plan your fuel usage, and have a solid plan "B".

I found it interesting.