Flight School backed up

[Roger_Waveoff]

Do you have a reference for that? I don't think that would fly on the FAR side because you'd be VMC past the FAF. On the Navy side, I thought you had to be some level of IMC at some point within the IAP (but those penguins are quickly departing the pattern).

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm honestly curious if it's spelled out somewhere that I'm (undoubtedly) forgetting.

Per the FARs and other FAA guidance, no, you cannot log a visual approach as non-precision. For an approach to be loggable, it must be conducted with sole reference to instruments. If in actual IMC, the pilot must transition from IMC to VMC at some point on the final approach segment (between glideslope intercept/FAF and mins). If in simulated IMC, the pilot must remain simulated IMC until mins unless forced to deviate for traffic or similar.

3710's list of non-precision approaches is not exhaustive, but it lists neither visual nor contact approaches. Interestingly, it does list self-contained approaches, so with a bit of sea lawyering, one could argue use of the V-22's hover page and RVL Symbology is loggable. Same with the actual SCA capability on the fancier C-130s and probably the spooky AFSOC turboprops.

Obviously at your own risk with "fly what you want, log what you need."

 

[ChuckMK23]

Not quite to mins - but almost (last week)

 

[jointhelocalizer]

Do you have a reference for that? I don't think that would fly on the FAR side because you'd be VMC past the FAF. On the Navy side, I thought you had to be some level of IMC at some point within the IAP (but those penguins are quickly departing the pattern).

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm honestly curious if it's spelled out somewhere that I'm (undoubtedly) forgetting.

You can't on the civil side. However, in CNATRA, visuals were listed under non-precision approach options, including for the 3710/2 instrument check. Maybe a CNATRAism, but I couldn't find anything to the affirmative or negative in the 3710.7.

For the record, visuals were always logged as simulated vice actual. You need to be in IMC below 1000 ft AGL to log it as an actual (per the 3710.7).

 

[Gatordev]

Interestingly, it does list self-contained approaches, so with a bit of sea lawyering,

Interesting. We would do those at sea in the -60 all the time for practice for the crewman in case it was needed for real. It wasn't hard, but sometimes it took a minute for the AW to get the technique down (like zooming way in). We would log those, but not because anyone said we could.

You need to be in IMC below 1000 ft AGL to log it as an actual (per the 3710.7).

That was the number I was thinking of but forgot. Thanks.

 

[ChuckMK23]

The program is desperately searching for IP's. $30k with lodging for instructing (ground and flying) for a 16 week semester in FT Worth. Lodging provided.

 

[Gatordev]

The program is desperately searching for IP's. $30k with lodging for instructing (ground and flying) for a 16 week semester in FT Worth. Lodging provided.

I may be misunderstanding your numbers, but when I do the math, and assuming you work an 8 hour day (instructing is never an 8 hour day, especially when you're standing up a unit), that comes out to $46.87/hour. Not terrible for the industry as a whole, but less than what a contract military IP makes.

I have to wonder who they're looking at hiring...military aviators or anyone with CFI time (hopefully turbine CFI time)?

 

[MGoBrew11]

The program is desperately searching for IP's. $30k with lodging for instructing (ground and flying) for a 16 week semester in FT Worth. Lodging provided.

View attachment 38964

Yeah, that’s a “no” from me dawg. They’re going to have to pony up a lot more if they want former Navy/military instructors.

 

[ChuckMK23]

I think they are more targeting entry level CFI's w/ Rotorcraft-Helo Flight Instructor on their certificate and maybe a little turbine time. I've heard that the job entails 8-10 hour day with 4 hours of ground and 4 hours of brief/flight planning/flying per day. But I agree with you both. Will be interesting to watch and see the quality of SNA the program puts out.

 

[Roger_Waveoff]

I think they are more targeting entry level CFI's w/ Rotorcraft-Helo Flight Instructor on their certificate and maybe a little turbine time. I've heard that the job entails 8-10 hour day with 4 hours of ground and 4 hours of brief/flight planning/flying per day. But I agree with you both. Will be interesting to watch and see the quality of SNA the program puts out.

So the equivalent of the Air Force's bid to get Airplane CFIs to instruct in T-6s, that to my knowledge never got off the ground?

 

[sevenhelmet]

Yeah, that’s a “no” from me dawg. They’re going to have to pony up a lot more if they want former Navy/military instructors.

It's amazing how little CFI jobs pay. It really only works if you're young and desperate for flight time to go to UAL, or an "old guy", professionally established, working a side-hustle or retirement gig (in other words, you don't need the money to live). I'm an instructor at a local flying club, so I guess I'm the latter. The extra little bit of money is nice, but I do it mostly for the enjoyment and experience of teaching.

 

[SteveHolt!!!]

It really only works if you're young and desperate for flight time to go to UAL, or an "old guy", professionally established, working a side-hustle or retirement gig (in other words, you don't need the money to live).

The good news is, these are my top two choices for people to introduce impressionable ensigns to Navy flight instruction.

 

[Griz882]

It's amazing how little CFI jobs pay. It really only works if you're young and desperate for flight time to go to UAL, or an "old guy", professionally established, working a side-hustle or retirement gig (in other words, you don't need the money to live). I'm an instructor at a local flying club, so I guess I'm the latter. The extra little bit of money is nice, but I do it mostly for the enjoyment and experience of teaching.

If I lived in Texas I’d consider doing it for beer $.

 

[MGoBrew11]

The good news is, these are my top two choices for people to introduce impressionable ensigns to Navy flight instruction.

Yeah, this is sounding a lot like a helo version of IFS. Which, no offense to those guys, but that was the worst flight instruction I got in the Navy by far.

Studs, another reason to avoid this direct to helo pipeline!

 

[SynixMan]

I agree in the fact that it could be a topic saved for Advanced, but I would like to see it more of a normalcy surrounding visuals in CNATRA. In my advanced syllabus (Multi), I think we did one as a special syllabus requirement and we had to do one in review stage. That was it. However, I’ve done plenty of circling approaches, full DME arcs, Localizer B/C, etc. Things to stay proficient at for sure. However, when the IP cadre is saying “you do a ton of visuals in the Fleet,” and you’ve done two your entire syllabus, it makes you wonder why we don’t spend more time on them. They can be logged as non-precision approaches as well. I think it would make more sense to do one or two per block instead of treating them like they are this special thing.

Again, this is a nice idea, but dollars and time are the most important thing in CNATRA. Is there a real need for an MPRA Cat 1 to have demonstrated proficiency in this when they'll be with a PPC/IP all the time for first two years of their winged time? (FRS + Fleet through PPC)

 

[sevenhelmet]

Again, this is a nice idea, but dollars and time are the most important thing in CNATRA. Is there a real need for an MPRA Cat 1 to have demonstrated proficiency in this when they'll be with a PPC/IP all the time for first two years of their winged time? (FRS + Fleet through PPC)

Yes. So they can fully understand the mission, have done it, and can be a thinking co-pilot, instead of just along for the ride. Also facilitates faster qualification in the more expensive to operate fleet aircraft.

Enough things are already done in the fleet for the first time. We will accept an inferior product at our own peril with the above line of reasoning.