midlifeflyer

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.

The reason I make the switch (unless it has already taken place) is, as I said, in part for consistency. If, for example, I am shooting an ILS in an airplane (I fly multiple mane/models) in which the GPS doesn't automatically change the nav source, shortly before the intercept to the FAC (or its extension) is my final manual changeover. In the days before GPS, it was also the point of the final check to see that the VOR OBS was set up correctly. So, my SOP is to do something at that stage on a consistent basis. Although I am far from perfect myself, I'm a great believer in the power of consistent SOPs to help form habits, and that habits are our primary protection against errors. So yes, while you are correct that once the approach is loaded, intercepting the FAC will result in the GPS sequencing to that leg, I choose to consistently cross check that the correct entry is there, whatever approach I may be flying.

If the approach is loaded and you hit PECIT, as you said, the FAC will become active. The box is smart enough for that. Or, you can activate vectors to final and get the extended FAC or as you said, activate leg. I'm not sure about going direct since that is going to bring you direct to whatever fix you chose for the direct navigation. It's going to depend on where you are when you hit direct. I like to keep this simple and consistent at this stage so, my SOP is going to be to hit FPL → Activate VTF if it is in fact a finale vector to the FAC unless the box beats me to it.

Another I can think of off-hand is dealing with the recommendation to enter an approach to your departure airport when the weather is IFR in case there is a problem shortly after departure (or to a nearby airport if that makes more sense). Since you can only enter approaches for the destination, add your home airport (or nearby one) after your real destination and load the approach. Easy enough to delete it at your leisure once en route.

Yep. That's the "And you wouldn't really have to do even that." part

Good tips. This one is generic to most if not all IFR GPS boxes. In fact the AIM now advises to never use vectors to final, but rather load an appropriate IAF, for this very reason. Consider the effect of coming into Raleigh NC from the west, hearing "expect vectors to the final approach course" and entering vectors to final instead of selecting the PECIT IAF for the Runway 5L ILS: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1502/00516IL5R.PDF You are now 25 NM west of RDU when the controller comes back to tell you, "Fly direct PECIT; cleared for the ILS 5L approach." Oops. Now you have to go back and re-load the approach. And that's after you stared blankly at the screen trying to figure out what the hec the controller was talking about. OTOH, if you selected PECIT to begin with and it was a vector to intercept, the absolute most you would have to do would be to tap the unit twice. And you wouldn't really have to do even that. I've seen it happen a number of times, once in this exact scenario, and at other airports as well.

You are, but it is a guidance not a rule. And keep in mind that it's one waypoint in each Center airspace. Depending on where you are. that can be a pretty large area. You can file direct from Grand Rapids, MI (KGRR) to Grand Island, NE (KGRI), a 583 NM direct route and be in full compliance with the advisory. Probably easier to do in the midwest than in the more populated east and west coast areas.

If you go to a site like FlyPlan.com or Fliteaware or one of the EFB apps that shows common ATC cleared routes, you'll see how many of them are either direct or have large direct segments. A lot. The amount is pretty dependent on geography. The AIM has a guidance that one should select at least one named waypoint in each Center airspace. I've found that for the most part this seems to be what most of the cleared routes entail, and when I gen a route amendment, it's typically to add a real waypoint. So I generally file that way (and tune my Nav 2 to VORs)

I think you are correct about the concern about being sanctioned, or at least being called upon to do a lot of paperwork. But I think that's less about ego than it is ignorance. When I do my FAA enforcement seminars, I discuss declaring an emergency as the exact opposite - in many situations it's an effective way to avoid an enforcement action. I've declared emergencies twice; once was in solid IMC in the Rocky Mountains when I lost most of my manifold pressure. The aftermath was terrible - as I mentally flagellated myself for what I perceived as my own part in creating it. OTOH, my telephone interview with a FSDO Inspector was downright enjoyable. But you are also right that we really don;t know what he was thinking or why he made the decisions he did.

I don't think that was the issue. The GPS/LPV approach to Runway 32 at SBY has the same minimums as the ILS, which would have made the GPS option just as realistic as the ILS option. In both cases the weather was above minimums. The pilot told ATC he was having "a problem" with his GPS, when he twice executed the missed well above minimums.There was nothing in the report to indicate whether there was in fact some problem with the GPS or the GS. So we don't really know whether it was a GPS issue, whether, if it was a GPS issue, that an ILS would have worked, or whether it was a pilot proficiency/stress/confidence/missionitis issue. The probable cause is listed only as the pilot's failure to land and to declare a "fuel emergency" sooner. No contributing causes mentioned. A real sad read.

I think one of the other takeaways is something someone else alluded to earlier. VOR with no DME and no GPS can be fine for training for the rating since it forces you to be able to rely on very bare bones navigation. But I think you are going to find that for practical IFR use, you will need more. I flew a set-up like yours for a few years when I lived in Colorado and flew VFR 95+% of the time. One day, for jollies, I decided to see where I could actually go IFR and, in additon to the obvious situational awareness benefit, there were few places that did not require DME (or GPS in substitution). And that was before the FAA started de-commissioning compass locators instead of fixing them, increasing the number of "DME Required" chart notes.

I like that option a lot. It can work. So can HRM's proposed option to file to KEDC. Here's there's thing. There are multiple options for this flight. And as someone else pointed out, the "filed" alternate is a preflight planning requirement not an "in flight" consideration. And what one thinks would be the best "real" alternate might not be the best (or legal) "filed" alternate. So, for another possibly, one can file for KEDC, list KAUS as the alternate, and plan, if the visual is not available into KEDC but the weather is right, to ask for the approach into T34 and plan to land or break it off to go to KEDC. Which of the available planing choices makes the most sense depends on a number of things, some of which may have nothing to do with flying but all of which have to do with the pilot. Is my experience such that I don't want to play "multiple choice" in the phase of flight when the workload tends to be highest? If someone is picking me up, what is convenient for them? If I ultimately need a car or overnight lodging, which airport has the best available services? Those are just examples. The real difference between VFR and IFR flight is that IFR gives us more options. That's the best part of IFR flight but it's also what sometimes makes sorting the choices and selecting the best one more difficult.

Here's the one I mentioned and recently saw a discussion on. http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20121216X70057&key=1 Note the "inadequate assistance provided by FAA ATC personnel, and the inadequate recurrent training of FAA ATC personnel in recognizing and responding to in-flight emergency situations" as a significant contributing factor. The full narrative is long by with a lot of good lessons.

Declare an emergency. It is one after all.

I'm not entirely convinced that filing to the destination even knowing you likely can't get in and making the final decision while en route is any less "prudent" than the three other options I mentioned in another post

A SID that involves expected vectors also needs to tell you what to do in the case of communication failure or other need for non-vector navigation. The MIAMI 3 WINCO Transition SID is vectors to the transition. But if there is a comm failure you need some way to get there with self-navigation. Forget GPS and recall the service volume of VORs. Looking at the en route chart, doesn't DHP to WINCO make a lot of sense for that?