Back to Squawk list
  • 30

20 Hours of Sim Time for Instrument Students? Well, No

Remember when we made a big deal last month about the FAA permitting more training time in flight simulators to count toward the instrument rating? Well forget about it. The FAA formally withdrew that policy today, and then reinstated the mind-boggling requirement that instrument students wear Foggles or other view-limiting devices while flying on instruments in a simulator. The reason for the withdrawal? The agency received one negative comment from someone who apparently didn't like the… ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Jeff Lawson 5
AOPA is petitioning the FAA to reconsider their reversal:
^who's the comedian?
btweston 2
Now I'm just a noob here, but isn't one of the central goals of instrument training to learn to ignore the way the airplane "feels" and trust your, well, instruments?

I'm not saying that simulators can or should necessarily replace flying time, but the concern raised by the CFI in this article doesn't really make sense to me. It seems especially strange that the FAA would scrap an idea based on one guy.
royalbfh 2
Yeah, I was just talking to a new Private pilot about him obtaining his instrument rating. One of the things that I mentioned was to "train" yourself to overcome what your body is telling you and trust the instruments. You are right on in my opinion.
joel wiley 1
I wonder of the complainant is selling something whose sales might be adversely affected by the new rule. Foggles maybe?
royalbfh 2
I think we've gotten a little off track with this topic. The original article was about achieving your instrument rating.those of us that are fortunate enough to fly corporately or for an airline know what it costs to get where we are now.achieving your pilot's license up to the commercial instrument multi-engine rating cost a fortune these days. I don't know who paid for yours but I paid for I get to fly for a living and love my job and I hope other people have the same opportunity to do that.
Paul Curs 1
They did the same thing with the Center-Line Thrust CFI rating for former military instructor pilots several years ago. They gave the rating for about one year, then withdrew it because (so they said) one regional manager objected. So much for helping people learn to fly. It's all about control.
The purpose of the simulator is to train pilots to ignore ALL sensory inputs and rely 100% on the instruments. Sooner or later you will read about the CFI in the crash column because he felt something and disregarded the instrument readouts.Want to use sensory readouts? use your nose and smell for smoke, otherwise ignore all sensory inputs that contradict the instrument scan!!! Waiting for sensory inputs causes complacency and a need not to scan the instruments until receiving some type of input. Fly the aircraft, know where you are at all times, and constantly scan the instruments and you will never be awakened by sensor G's telling you should have been paying attention before you observed a full deflection of the rate of climb and a visual sensor of the attitude indicator your brain can't figure out how to correct.
btweston 0
Well, sight is a sensory input. Let's be real here.
If it is part 141, an AATD can currently be used for 17.5 hours toward an instrument rating (50 percent of 35 hours).

[This poster has been suspended.]

royalbfh 6
How would you get the actual 40 hours in? I'm looking out of the window now and its CAVU. What would a IFR student do then, wait? 40 hours is a long time. View limiting devices are useful, practice is great and currency is very important I think.

[This poster has been suspended.]

royalbfh 3
so by your rationale flight training in general should all be done solo without an instructor on board.

[This poster has been suspended.]

Mike Williams 1
I agree. Although there are parts of the country and times of the year where it would be very difficult to get 40 hours of actual due to weather patterns.

Although this brings up a good point. I have met CFII's that are hesitant to fly in the clouds... most likely because THEY are not that experienced in the clouds. Actual is ALWAYS going to be better than simulated.

The best thing my CFII did for me was get me in actual IMC whenever it was possible. When I took my IFR checkride, I think I had around 9 hours of actual logged and I believe it made a difference. It helped a ton once I was flying in IMC on my own.

Foggles are good but they are not perfect. Hand flying in actual IMC with no Foggles forces you to override the seat of your pants feeling and trust the instruments.
btweston 2
So if you live in a place where it's sunny all the time... No instrument rating for you!

[This poster has been suspended.]

royalbfh 4
That makes perfect sense. And very logical...
btweston 1
He said "or a Level C sim..."
royalbfh 2
Right, any idea level "C" s cost? Expensive. That's the reason pilots were scrambling (including me) to pass the ATP written. Full motion Sims are expensive.

[This poster has been suspended.]

btweston -1
You're thirteen years old, right?
Nah, I don't know what they cost, nor care. I just show up and have someone else pay the bill...
Andrew Stagg 1
Mike, can you provide some basis for that argument?

I definitely believe instructors should expose students to as much actual conditions as possible, but what are students down in Florida supposed to do? Flying to Seattle isn't always practical and half the time it's IMC here, there's also icing.

Studies tell us that instrument rated pilots are safer, so we should encourage more pilots to become instrument rated. FTDs help a lot with training since they allow for more repetition and more focus on procedure. They also are much lower cost.
markaz 1
I agree 100% with mike oxlong. Critical sensory cues can ONLY be experienced/learned while in the air. Having an instrument rating is a privilege, not a right, and should only be earned by flying in the conditions that warrant having such a rating. If it takes longer for students to get that experience because they train in an area of severe clear throughout the year, then so be it.
ltcjra 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

FAA withdraws rule on aviation training devices

Because the agency issued its proposals as a direct final rule, it was obligated to withdraw the rule if it received adverse comments.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.