midlifeflyer

I didn't have much trouble treating "fly 'IFR'" as meaning anything other than "fly under Instrument Flight Rules." And browsing quickly through the posts, I don't think anyone else did either. Except perhaps for this guy: in which I figured the person either misunderstood the phrase he was using, was intentionally departing from the proper use of the terminology just to produce an effect, or was telling us he flies unlawfully.

There are times insisting on precision in language is necessary and times when it becomes just silly. The folks who feel they are getting points for saying "there's no such thing as a BFR" (because the FAA removed "biennial" from the phrase) are ridiculous. OTOH, 90% of the confusion over Part 61 PIC logging issues can be resolved if people did not use "certificate," "rating," and "endorsement" interchangeably. It's kind of like the decision whether to wear a suit to a job interview if you know it's a casual shop. You are not going to be "wrong" with the suit. You might or might not be right with the khakis and open-neck shirt. PS - if this is US, are you sure he wasn't berating you for using "license" instead of "certificate"? (Not that it would make the berating any better)

Not that many people calculate true airspeed in flight. Even with the 2% increase in TAS for a given IAS with density altitude, that difference is usually going to be minimal compared with a significant discrepancy between uncorrected IAS and GS.

There's no way to know that. I flew a rental Cirrus for a while and joined the Cirrus type club for a year. One of the hot topics at the time was concerns with the lack of use of the BRS system. If you're interested, this is a link to the video COPA Safety Program presentation called "CAPS...Consider." The problem in this accident is that it at least appears (we're just speculating based on limited information) to be the typical chain of poor choices rather than a single catastrophic event. Late night departure, deteriorating conditions, not taking earlier opportunities to divert... coupled with what may be a lack of proficiency in flying an approach to minimums - again speculating, but the "windshield wiper" localizer needed could just be a pilot over-correcting as he got closer to minimums rather than a problem with the localizer; and if it was the localizer, GPS was an option- the GPS LPV minimums for are the same as the ILS at KORF. Add the stress of the situation and it's questionable whether pilot would have had the presence of mind at that point to even consider pulling the chute.

Just an observation based on my own experience in not flying much IFR. Before moving to North Carolina 2 years ago I lived for 20 years in Colorado and very rarely flew IFR. So I definitely needed to find a way to get back into it. And my comment definitely reflects my feelings about checklists and mnemonics. What I think you want to watch out for is that your checklist is not serving duty as a mini instruction manual. That's not a problem with your checklist items; inclusion of "how to fly" information that should be unnecessary is a problem IMO with many checklists. "Throttle - - - Advance" for takeoff is a good basic example. Just as I can't see the need for that in a checklist (unless there is some specific setting that's required other than full or an initial fuel flow target), I also literally can't imagine flying IFR to an airport without checking the ATIS/AWOS (even VFR) in order to select and load an approach and the transition to it and, of course, while doing so, briefing it and ensuring all the appropriate navaids are set. Since I just recently went through it myself and you are talking about not flying IFR enough, consider asking yourself is if your checklist is replacing either instruction or practice (including virtual practice on procedures). They say the cockpit is a bad classroom. I'd add a checklist is a horrible instructor.

I don't know if I did or not. If your point was that we collectively need to be accurate and consistent in our use of terms in order to have a discussion of any value, I guess I got your point but not until this post. Unless one uses an emoticon to assist (and many times even then) few of us are good enought prose writers to convey subtlety. If that wasn't your point I didn't get it at all.

There *are* multiple minimums based on various factors. They are called "personal minimums."

The FAA makes the rules. There is an unfortunate tendency by us to interchange similar terms even if they have specific meanings and that definieitel doens;t help with understanding. "IFR" means instrument flight rules. [FAR 1.2] "IFR conditions" means "weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules" [FAR 1.1] Essentially the same as the term "IMC" [FAR 170.3]. And very, very different from what they mean when the word "actual" is placed in front of them. Your comment is absolutely the very first time I have ever heard it even suggested IFR means "instrument flight rated."

Always a good idea.

The other FlightAware information indicating a route and altitude filing also suggests that an IFR flight plan was filed. So do the ATC communications; they are the communications one would hear between ATC and a pilot on an IFR flight plan, not one who was VFR receiving flight following.

LiveATC feed: http://archive-server.liveatc.net/korf/KORF-Mar-04-2015-0830Z.mp3

Yep. No instrument rating shown in the FAA Airman Database.

It's the "macho" school of aviation. Any personal minimums make you "not a real pilot." As you point out, it's nonsense. Unfortunately it's nonsense you find in many segments of aviation.

Yeah, I've taken off there full rich with high MP also (actually it was the trainee doing the takeoff). But I'm not so sure "leaned to full rich" isn't an oxymoron.

Probably better to use IFR and LIFR rather than "hard" since those terms have specific meanings.

There's a simpler shortcut which does not require standing on the brakes at full power while you go through the process (a problem when the airplane has more power). You can ballpark the proper mixture settings at run-up power by using a method similar to what you may have done at altitude during your primary training. At run-up power, lean until you see the rpm rise, peak and drop. Enrichen back to where it peaked. To allow for greater the greater fuel demands at takeoff power, enrichen about 3 turns of the vernier mixture control. There is some variation among individual aircraft, usually in how many turns of the mixture to enrichen, so, unless you have done it before, you will still want to go to full power briefly to confirm you are getting the power you should. But that only takes a moment and with an airplane that has a target fuel flow, is even easier. It's the method almost universally taught at Colorado flight schools.

Your biggest issue is going to be your experience in high density altitude and mountain operations. I flew a M20C for a while in Colorado and flew in and out of airports as high as 7,000 msl. I've also flown a 180 HP 172 in and out of Leadville (9934 msl). The biggest Mooney issue in general is that it's a great cruiser but not that great on the takeoff distance compared to even lower-powered aircraft.

The issues you are bringing up is exactly the reason for the move to scenario-based training within the past decade and the current steps being taken to change the PTS to bring more focus to human factor issues. Historically, we've been quite deficient in our training, even at the simplest level? How many of you (except fairly recently) have had to divert and set up a landing at an unplanned airport on your dual student pilot cross country? Or have heard volumes about the "go/no-go" decision but next to nothing about the "continue/divert" decision? Actually, I've been exactly the opposite. I tend to be sloppier knowing there is someone in the right seat watching over me than when I am the one truly responsible for my own fate (not to mention my passenger's).

Well, kinda. Yes, with flight following, you are communicating with ATC. But in Class E airspace, VFR you are still at your own discretion for altitude and heading at least 98% of the time and are not receiving mandatory separation services. Never mind that they can drop you if they get too busy. IFR, you are at a specific altitude and heading or course at least 98% of the time and changing course or altitude on your own can mean certificate suspension. Yep, in Class B and C airspace, you are in more positive control but even there, most of the instructions tend to be more limited - of the "remain at or below" type rather than the "descend and maintain" type. When I explain what is the most difficult part of instrument training, I say that IFR flight is only about 20% about the flying - maintaining control over the aircraft for sustained periods in the clouds. The other 80% is about how to operate in the system. While our approach-centric system of instrument training makes it easy to think that what it is all about (and it is indeed the part that can kill you if you do it wrong), there is so much more to operating in the IFR system than that. I mention this specifically in response to what appears to be a minimization of what it actually means to be flying under IFR (instrument flight rules). I saw this initially as a discussion about a pilot who is violates the rules. Yep. It happens just like it does on the ground. As to the accident... The NTSB report is about a CFIT event involving a VFR (Visual Flight Rules) flight in which the pilot flew into a mountainous area famous for eating light airplanes. The commentary about being known to file IFR despite the lack of the rating seems to me to be mostly relevant to a description of his personality style as a pilot happy to head into trouble without reflection. If anything, the 11,599' altitude last recorded on his GPS suggests to me a pilot who had gotten himself in a situation in which he had run out of choices — trying to maintain visual reference in mountainous terrain during at best marginal conditions — as opposed to intentionally flying under instrument flight rules in uncontrolled airspace.

In most any endeavor there is an assumption that most participants are simply playing by the rules. Even in the driving without a license situation, it's not until the unlicensed motorist does something to attract attention is the lack of a license discovered.

Believe me, you are not the only one! You should have seen my tailwheel endorsement training! That's why getting instruction from time to time is so good.

And, of course, if at any point along the way, ATC instructs "Proceed Direct SAPID" (or "Direct JUMDA" or WOHLI), you just tap it in the flight plan and it draws the magenta line to there. The general procedure is you don't activate the approach until you are cleared for it. That keep all your options open. I think all you've really been doing is making it seem more difficult than it actually is.

They key is "Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions. If the pilot needs the instruments to keep the shiny side up, it's "actual." That's the pilot's decision to make subject to some pretty basic cautions (like if a pilot always seem to need the instruments in visual conditions, maybe he actually needs some more training) . Notar, I share your concern that it was not loggable by you since you say that the only reason you needed the instruments anywhere along the approach was for navigation. I would not have logged it under those circumstances because I don't think navigation is what that interpretation means by "adequate control of the aircraft."

BTW, what are you using that you are getting the destination in the flight plan twice? That part suddenly dawned on me that it didn't sound right, so I re-checked with the simulator. In both the GNS400/500 series and the GTN 600/700 series, the destination is only listed once when both loading and activating the approach. Are you referring to the destination and the MAP as being duplicates of each other? If you are, they are not really. Another reason to not delete the destination is in case you need a different approach, either because the winds and weather changed* after you loaded the approach or because you went missed and decided to try a different approach to the same airport. Having to re-enter the destination - since now there is none - in addition to all the other tasks you need to do to load and brief a new approach seems to be an unnecessarily high workload. But, of course, I don't really understand the benefit of deleting it, ============================== * Not with GPS - it was long before then - but on my instrument checkride, my last approach was going to be into a Class C airport. After listening to the ATIS and briefing the approach, ATC (not my Examiner although I was tempted to accuse him of setting it up) put me into a hold as they switched runways due to a change in the winds.

Yes, that's completely unnecessary. The system knows the approach you loaded is for that airport. Yes, until you activate the approach, the GPS is still going direct to wherever it was going direct to previously. So if your current leg is Direct to the airport, it still is. Once you start receiving vectors as you near the airport, you will usually want to stay in "Load" mode and not "Activate" anything. For one thing, you haven't been cleared for the approach and you may still be pretty far from the airport or the approach environment. Activate VTF and you have the problem we discussed earlier if ATC practically later instructs you to go direct to a waypoint on the approach. You don;t want to load the approach, since that will give yo a nice magenta line to whatever you chose as your IAF, which may have little to do with the approach clearance ultimately given. If you remove the destination at that point, you've effectively told the system to go to the waypoint after the destination, the same as if you activated the approach. So why not leave that nice magenta course line to the destination alone? At worst, it's nice situational awareness to see how far off the course you are being vectored. At best, if it turns out that the vectors were for traffic or airspace, and ATC tells you in a while to "proceed direct" to the destination again or re-intercept the old airway, it's only 2 (direct) - 3 (intercept) taps away, not having to pull up your flight plan re-enter the destination you just deleted and then use those 2-4 taps.