Weather Minimums
 

This may not be the most appropriate forum for this question but, I am currently a CFI in search on an airline job and I am curious to know what the consensus among real pilots is. I am a full time flight instructor for a university that is starting a flight program. We are decent sized at 180 students with 150 flying this semester. So here is the question, our DO has said that no flight training may be conducted below 700-1. The CFII's feel that this is ludicrous because we trained in worse and we would not feel confident if not for these expereiences. The ppl in charge are retired military helo drivers and missionary pilots. Both are mostly VFR jobs. There is one F-15 pilot who feels that 200-1/2 is the minimum and therefore train to the hardest tolerance. We instructors are now getting in trouble because our SOP's do not reflect the 700-1 rule but only say that IFR training will be per FAR 91 (200-1/2). In fact, I was ridiculed for taking off with a commercial student into OVC027 to shoot approaches. I was told that when I got back on the ground, that as I took off, a speci came out with OVC007. I was told that I was negligent in my ADM and that I exercisized poor training skills. That same day, another CFII took off in a 2006 Diamond Star with a G1000 that had just come out of 100 hour and lost his alternator while on the ILS. He was ripped for being negligent. Im curious to know if I am out to left field with this, or is low IFR training a reasonable thing.

A few questions for you?

What do the school's insurance underwriters say?
What's the average total flight time, and years of CFII experience for the school's instructional staff (i.e. CFI's)?
I'm assuming the program is FAR 142, what does the FISDO say?

all the CFII's have at least 500TT and 50 hours actual. when asked about the insurance, the statement was, insurance is not the limiting factor, it is the decision of the staff, and finally it is a 141 school, the fsdo has said that they wish to remain out of the ops specs as much as possible.

way my school used to work, we could use real minimums as long as the instructor had enough actual IFR experience (or student had enough actual IFR experience) that didn't particially stop people from going up and flying in 200 & 1/2 but....it kept the responsible people responsible. Until you gained enough actual, you were kept to high mins.

Though it is important to get as much actual as possible, it may not be the best idea to go flying in a training environment when the reported minimums are CAT1 ILS mins. When the reported weather is already at the mins for the approach, what happens if/when it deteriorates and you are not able to get in?

That said, I think that 700-1 is slightly restrictive, as a lower ceiling should be allowed.

At UND there were were very few restrictions on the weather minimums we could fly in. I have shot approaches with students at airports where the weather was reported as "less than 001OVC and less than 1/4mi vis" knowing we wouldn't see the runway. Good experience for a student to actually shoot an approach heads up and not see anything and go missed. The few restrictions we had were no simulated instrument or powerplant failures in IMC and at night you had to add 100' and 1/2mi to the minimums required for the approach. The experience is invaluable to students and some of the most worthwhile time they can spend in an airplane.

freezingflyboy's organization has the right idea. When will the new pilots first approach to actual minimums be? In a controlled environment with a second pilot of more experience next to him as a backup/safety valve? Or on his own at the end of a long night in a complex twin flying cargo? Or with 30 people in the back and an incompetent captain? I have personaly seen the effect that these overly conservative artificial minima have on young pilots, as I've given IOE to them. They are expected to "just do it" at the airline, as their Commercial/Instrument ticket would indicate that they can. Yet they show up in the airline world having never seen the inside of a cloud, never shot an approach to 200+1/2, having never landed in a crosswind of more than 10 knots. Their first attempt at a 30kt crosswind is in a 27000 pound airplane, with 30 paying customers along for the ride. Unsurprisingly, it isn't pretty. The effect on their confidence is then problematic. Common sense would dictate that the 100 hour pilot shouldn't blast into 200 overcast to practice approaches on his own, but the envelope has to be expanded, and arbitrary minima such as you've described fail in that task, and thus fail the student.

Weather today in Newark:

Rwy 4R RVR 4000v5000 Wind 030/12 with mist (BR). Heavy rain (+RA). 3ovc alt 29.53

This weather was widespread in the Northeast today. Any instrument student should be trained to this standard as this is a routine and legal approach. Why would one think that training to 700-1 would prepare someone to land safely in this weather. Finding yourself airborne with this weather should not lead to disaster when at 700 feet a young instrument pilot panics when he or she doesn't see the field. Train to below minimums so this type approach is routine rather than catastrophic. JMHO!

Amen. That was always my attitude as an instructor. I would rather get an inexperienced pilot into a situation where they aren't comfortable with someone more experienced who has been there before. Can you imagine if that first approach to mins was with friends and/or family in the back (or someone elses!:eek: ).

i really hate to harp on my program. today, as im leaving my boss pulls me aside and begins to tell me that the consensus among the senior staff is that becuase i have been attempting to get a job elsewhere, I am conveying a bad attitude towards flight instruction and that because I am seeking another job with an airline it shows that I am no longer committed to flight instruction and that if the offer in the works doenst happen, i should quickly find another job offer and move on. the overwhelming consensus would is that they will be happy to see my no longer cfi mind turned airline attitude gone. additionally, a friend at eagle who used to be an instructor said that he would never come back to instruct and i simply agreed with him. when asked about him, i told my fellow workers that he was loving life and would never come back to instruct cause it was to boring and he did it for too long. this info was further used against me and i was told if and when i move on not to call back and discuss how much better the airlines are then flight instruction. i really cant wait to move on. flight instruction is not all that terrible, but dealing with ppl that readily admit that weather flying scares them and that the airlines is something they would never want to do is where the aggravation comes from. we market ourselves as a flight school to the airlines, yet, we approach the training environment as though we are tough warriors; warriors for saturday afternoon...looking forward to ground school!