I can't speak on the RV side of things, but just generally for flying its REALLY nice to have that IFR capability when you need/want it. Today was the perfect example.
Planned a trip to Big Bear for breakfast, flying out of Montgomery here in San Diego, stopping at Palomar on the way. Marine layer here is very common. Flew IFR to Palomar, picked everyone up, departed IFR and canceled once above the clouds, flew VFR up to Big Bear.
Coming back, I didn't even bother to check if the marine layer had lifted. Who cares if it did? I'll just get pop-up IFR if its still there, otherwise I'll go in VFR. That bit of information will not affect my decision to leave at all. Get back, and it was gone.
I was in the clouds a grand total of MAYBE 5 minutes? Would've had to cancel an otherwise beautiful and 99% CAVU flight if it were not for the instrument capability. I do not plan on flying any real weather in my RV when I get it done, but I will have it IFR capable simply so I can blast through the marine layer.
Thats my $.02, its worth what you paid for it
Brian,
Being an active flight instructor, what is your take on the latest PTS?
I don't believe its changed since I started instructing - it just sort of is what it always was to me. I actually am no longer actively instructing, I wanted a job that would let me afford to build an RV
I am not active but in the process of renewing the CFI certificate (which I do very 2 years for my own education) and find the on line course a major play on words - like it would help to have a PHD in English.
I agree, there is a lot of BS you have to go through and just follow the motions to keep your CFI. I did mine through the AOPA Air Safety Foundation, and it wasn't too bad
For example, have you successfully gotten your students to "synthesize" what they are exposed to? Maybe I am dated, but synthesize brings to mind building synthetic tires not teaching flying. Anyway, the process is a learning experience just keeping up with changes. This is the first time I've noticed the FAA saying "stick and rudder" skills are not primary. If I get the logic, these skills will follow after a complete exposure to everything else that is presented. Stick and rudder skills have to be primary, in my mind, at some point or the student will not pass the PTS requirements.
The primary effort of course is flight safety as it always has been. It just appears a different philosophical approach has been developed resulting in the changes in the process. This will change again in the future when new and different people come on the scene within the FAA. I've been taking this renew course for many years and it is mind boggling how much it keeps changing and how much emphasis there is on the meaning of words and the structure of the entire process. Clearly the people writing it are not pilots but well trained in the use of language and the structure of words. All for the good I guess, but it still takes a special skill to transfer what one knows to a student. The FAA structure to get that done is daunting to say the least.
I'm definitely glad I don't have their task! The last school I was working with had a very strict by-the-book way of doing things. Didn't like it one bit. All instructors are different, and all students are different, and I believe that the instructor should teach in a way to maximize the effectiveness of their strengths - IOW, what works for you may not work for me. Likewise, although their seems to be some consensus that any instructor should be able to teach any student, I never found that to be the case. There were students I had (especially at the pilot mill) that just did not work out. Simply a personality mismatch.
With regard to IFR-VFR, the subject of this thread, single engine IFR is outside my safety envelope so I don't do it. To each his own. When I was younger, I did do it but the envelope has become smaller over the years.
