I-9 will be going away

[Keith Smith]

After considerable thought, I plan on retiring the I-9 and replacing it with another rating, most likely focusing on another type of instrument approach which isn't already covered in the ratings...possibly the LDA 19R, or the VOR RWY 30 into LGB.

I can't commit to a timeline, but it's now on the list

The issue with the current I-9 is that is forces people into jets and there just isn't a great reason to be doing that for the audience that PilotEdge caters to. it's a legacy from the program's history on the VATSIM network. Now that VATSIM ZLA has a specific Jet training program (this is a good thing), there is no need for the I-9 to cover this material, it can be covered in the jet rating program.

Most GA instrument-rated pilots don't fly jets, so forcing it into a program which otherwise allows them to use any equipment they like for the rest of the ratings has always bothered me a little bit. This'll be a good change for the program on PE, I think. I know some people have gone to great lengths to transition to jet aircraft just for this rating, which is admirable, but essentially represents a flaw in the program.

Feedback is welcome, fire away.

[Pieces]

I think this is a good change. I did have fun with the I-9 though. It was a good chance to do something different.

[wdhurley]

Maybe create the new one but keep the old one as an alternate? Either/Or would get you a pass for I9?

[Keith Smith]

Interesting, Walt, I'll give it some thought. If I can find a parallel rating which is conceptually similar then it might be worth a try.

[Alex Stjepanovic]

Interesting, Walt, I'll give it some thought. If I can find a parallel rating which is conceptually similar then it might be worth a try.

SAN has some RNAV stuff off of TNP, that merges with approaches nicely. It wouldn't be much of a change, besides going south more, and also being assigned one of numerous approaches(lots of changes there over the past few years). Combining an RNAV profile arrival with LOC(only) 27 approach, can spice things up a bit. It'd give people a chance to let "the FMS do all the work" for just about the entire thing, then take over for some conventional navigation and good ole stick and rudder near the end. If the ceilings and visibility go to hell, one could end up with either the true meaning of minimums, or if the winds are so bad, with circling to 9. Ultimately, if it were busy or if SAN were to land on 9 due to other weather factors or even individual landing config, vectors skirting the border, in between the RNAV stuff and the approach(due to LYNDI being 27 only), can add to the fun.

[NM Doug]

For me, generally a single engine <FL180 pilot, the I-9 was more of an exercise in handling a completely unfamiliar airplane than it was a logical extension of the IFR challenges of the earlier ratings. Even so, I found it good to be reminded that there are always new ways to experience the same thing, namely getting behind the airplane . In real life, I think this can happen easily even when not IMC if you're not specifically anticipating it or sensitive to it. For example, when having a new 'toy' in the cockpit - fiddling with a new iPad, maybe? - even normal procedures can get ahead of you.

In the spirit of developing IFR chops and simultaneously developing pilots, I'd second wdhurley's post as far as providing a choice of how to fly the I-9, to the extent it's feasible and reasonable to set up.

- Doug

[ChristophPreinfalk]

Maybe keep the I-9 but don't make it a requirement to move on to I-10.

Or, create a series of I ratings specifically for jets, as it apparently exists on VATSIM (which I never tried, so I don't know how that rating works there). But that option will obviously be a lot of work.

[twharrell]

Keith,

Is it OK to skip the I-9 rating until this gets finalized?

Todd

[Brazen]

I would have to agree: I-9 feels really out of place, since I-11 goes back to approaches using the same recommended aircraft as previous ratings.

If at all possible, I would like to skip it and continue on with the /A refresher with an aircraft of my choosing. In my opinion, it fits better with ZLA's Commercial program (I don't think you do that yet?), even though they have it in their "I" training, too.

How about KSAN's IPL.BARET4? It starts at 8000 which can be reached with any aircraft. Couldn't you clear pilots to descend via that just as easily? When using RWY 27 it only has two stepdowns, though, nor does it have GRAMM's speed restriction. If the objective is the stepdowns, does it really matter if has 2 or more?

It would still be a longish flight, but you could ask the controller nicely for warpspeed on the first leg (sim rate increase). It's along the border of Mexico so I'm not sure if has the traffic volume that would allow for that. Then again, I did KBUR-KLAS in a BE60/A.

Anyway, flying the plane and messing with dials is lot more fun than programming an FMC, lay back, have a Coke and a smile and looking at a couple of numbers every now and then to check if the aircraft is doing what you want it to do.

[Keith Smith]

I'll do my best to get an I9 replacement as soon as possible, I realize it's been a long time coming.

One note, though, flying a jet doesn't mean you have to transition to glass. There are steam gauge jets like the 727, older Citations, etc that still have steam gauge panels.

Also note that the VATSIM ZLA jet training program came about long after the introduction of the I9 rating.

Lastly, the reason the I-10 and I-11 'go back' to other aircraft is that the program used to finish at the I9 level. The I10 and I11 were added after the fact, so they don't fit into the flow quite as well. The I9 used to be the graduating ride in the VATSIM program, so it was appropriate that it would be jet-based as jets make up the vast majority of VATSIM traffic.

In fairness to those who came before, however, I can't authorize skipping of the I9 ride. The replacement for it is likely to be very different, focusing on different tasks...it won't be drop-in non-jet replacement. Hopefully it'll be worth the wait.