Filing and flying IFR without a ticket to ride

[201er]

One of the old saws is that your PPL is just a "license to learn." Earlier we saw on this thread that the IFR rating is pretty much the same thing. The value of a certificate is measured only in what an individual put in to getting it and what they do with it. Otherwise, that certificate and five bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks.

 

I started this thread because I was interested in discussion over what I found to be an appalling discovery--that there was a guy blatantly breaking the rules until mother nature reared up and put an end to it. Well, was it ended because of his lack of skill, the fact that he did not have the ticket? Frankly, we will never know. Let's say he did have the rating, would the outcome have been different? Reading the scenarios in Pilot Error, where legally IFR rated pilots go down to their deaths indicates the answer may be no.

Can you provide the full version of the story? It kind of depends on what mistake he made and in what phase of flight to help distinguish between lack of training and a freak accident.

[Dave Marten]

 

I started this thread because I was interested in discussion over what I found to be an appalling discovery--that there was a guy blatantly breaking the rules until mother nature reared up and put an end to it. Well, was it ended because of his lack of skill, the fact that he did not have the ticket? Frankly, we will never know. Let's say he did have the rating, would the outcome have been different? Reading the scenarios in Pilot Error, where legally IFR rated pilots go down to their deaths indicates the answer may be no.

I think you need to examine this from a different angle. You seem to be implying that this unqualified pilot was doing everything right until 'mother nature' reared up and pulled him down to his death. I say NO. We are not passengers passively going on our merry way until tragically plucked from the sky by forces beyond our control. We are Pilots In Command and as such our lives are dependent on our ability to safely operate within our own capabilities and the limitations of our aircraft. Exceeding our own capabilities due to lack of judgement or skill is playing Russian roulette. You may get lucky a couple times but sooner or later there will be a live round in the chamber.

Yes, this pilot had a skill problem. The IFR rating ensures a prescribed minimum amount of training was conducted and a minimum level of proficiency was demonstrated in order to obtain the rating. While the ticket is just a piece of paper, like a diploma, you can't get one without going to school and passing the final exams. The mishap pilot was operating beyond his abilities, others knew he was a hazard but nobody intervened. Sad.

When your study aircraft accidents your perspective must be "as PIC, what would I have done differently leading up that scenario to avoid/prevent that accident". "Break the chain". Pilots (human error) are responsible for 80 percent of all aircraft accidents. We pilots have a responsibility to learn from the mistakes others have made so to lessen our chances of repeating them.

Always maintain proactive approach. Stay ahead of the aircraft.

[HRM]

Can you provide the full version of the story? It kind of depends on what mistake he made and in what phase of flight to help distinguish between lack of training and a freak accident.

 

Here you go.

[HRM]

I think you need to examine this from a different angle. You seem to be implying that this unqualified pilot was doing everything right until 'mother nature' reared up and pulled him down to his death.

 

No, that was not my intent. What I meant was that even if this pilot had been IFR rated it may not have made any difference. I am waxing philosophical now in the sense that the rating does not magically make you immune from consequence and the lack of it does not mean that you cannot make a difficult and successful IFR flight.

 

The point of this thread was "Gosh! There are pilots flying in IMC without a rating!" Recall from my initial post that the reason for even looking at the accident, which was not in a Mooney, was because an employee brought it up.

 

It is not unlike the umbrage that many A&P's feel when they hear of the latest repair or installation that a hangar elf was attributed to.  

[201er]

Thanks for the link. The longer version provides a few key things that you may have overlooked. This isn't a case of a non instrument rated pilot flying IFR. This is a case of a non instrument pilot flying VFR in IMC!

"The non-instrument-rated pilot and two passengers departed their home state of Texas in the single-engine airplane, bound for an airport in mountainous terrain in Idaho. No records of telephone or computer contact by the pilot to either obtain preflight weather briefings or file any flight plans were located. There were no records of contact with air traffic controllers for any portion of the multi-leg flight."

An istrument pilot (rated or not but with the suitable knowledge/experience) would not fly VFR in this sort of weather and most likely would not even fly IFR in it either. This is sooner an illustration of an inexperienced not instrument rated pilot pretending to know what IFR flying is without actually knowing. That is why an instrument rating is necessary.

[HRM]

Thanks for the link. The longer version provides a few key things that you may have overlooked. This isn't a case of a non instrument rated pilot flying IFR. This is a case of a non instrument pilot flying VFR in IMC!

"The non-instrument-rated pilot and two passengers departed their home state of Texas in the single-engine airplane, bound for an airport in mountainous terrain in Idaho. No records of telephone or computer contact by the pilot to either obtain preflight weather briefings or file any flight plans were located. There were no records of contact with air traffic controllers for any portion of the multi-leg flight."

An istrument pilot (rated or not but with the suitable knowledge/experience) would not fly VFR in this sort of weather and most likely would not even fly IFR in it either. This is sooner an illustration of an inexperienced not instrument rated pilot pretending to know what IFR flying is without actually knowing. That is why an instrument rating is necessary.

 

I think you are confusing, as happened earlier, filing with flying. For example, I fly IFR in VMC, I don't file IFR, but I fly it. Wait! What does it mean to fly IFR? Frankly, that phrase is somewhat ambiguous. In the air you are either in VMC or IMC. You are either on a flight plan or not. If on a flight plan, it is either VFR or IFR. Lastly, you are obeying rules or you are not. This thread was about a pilot who had an accident who was known to break the rules.

 

No one should doubt, at least on this board, that an instrument rating is necessary if one wishes to fly in IMC and have the odds in his favor.

 

Additionally, I would point out that the NTSB database has many, many accounts of IFR rated pilots flying in IMC when they should not have. See a thread that I published that discusses how something like that can happen.

[carusoam]

HRM,

I am a bit confused about what the discussion is...

Is there a question being asked or a statement that is being made?

Are you IR?

What does it mean to fly IFR, if you don't file an IFR flight plan in advance?

The filed flight plan reserves protected volumes of space for your flight for times that you intend to use it...(for the most part)

Flying VFR using IFR altitudes wouldn't do anything of value, and be somewhat against the rules...

Are you flying approaches at the end of your flight?

Bear with me a bit...

Best regards,

-a-

[HRM]

Are you IR?

What does it mean to fly IFR, if you don't file an IFR flight plan in advance?

The filed flight plan reserves protected volumes of space for your flight for times that you intend to use it...(for the most part)

Flying VFR using IFR altitudes wouldn't do anything of value, and be somewhat against the rules...

Are you flying approaches at the end of your flight?

Bear with me a bit...

 

Anthony,

 

I am not IR. I took poetic license in saying I fly IFR in VFR as a vehicle to understand flying under IFR: earlier discussion illuminated this essentially as FF, especially when flying through a Bravo. We could define pure VFR flight as NORDO flight in uncontrolled airspace. Once you add FF, you have radio comm and that radio comm is no different from the radio comm that IFR flights are using. Once in a Bravo, you can be vectored all over and you must maintain headings and altitudes. Controllers will even mention waypoints and navaids, but I think this is because they assume you are IR if you are flying a Mooney. Thus, IFR in VFR. What's missing? Well, the IMC and approaches. The latter is why I said that at the end of the day IFR boils down to weather and approaches.

 

poetic license: the freedom to depart from the facts of a matter or from the conventional rules of language when speaking or writing in order to create an effect.

[201er]

Anthony,

 

I am not IR. I took poetic license in saying I fly IFR in VFR as a vehicle to understand flying under IFR: earlier discussion illuminated this essentially as FF, especially when flying through a Bravo. We could define pure VFR flight as NORDO flight in uncontrolled airspace. Once you add FF, you have radio comm and that radio comm is no different from the radio comm that IFR flights are using. Once in a Bravo, you can be vectored all over and you must maintain headings and altitudes. Controllers will even mention waypoints and navaids, but I think this is because they assume you are IR if you are flying a Mooney. Thus, IFR in VFR. What's missing? Well, the IMC and approaches. The latter is why I said that at the end of the day IFR boils down to weather and approaches.

 

poetic license: the freedom to depart from the facts of a matter or from the conventional rules of language when speaking or writing in order to create an effect.

 

Sorry Dude but you're completely wrong. You still don't understand VFR vs IFR. It's ok though, I'm not trying to be mean or blame you. I think a lot of pilots don't understand and this cowboy that took 2 other victims to their deaths didn't either. Unfortunately IFR may be one of those kinds of things that you have to earn it (rating) and do it to understand it. That's why the best advice you can give to a non Instrument rated pilot is just "believe me you don't know what you're doing and don't do it".

 

IFR literally means Instrument Flight Rules. Instrument flight rules dictate the rules by which you must fly your aircraft regardless of the meteorological condition (weather) while you are engaged in Instrument Flight Rules. Visual flight rules are kind of everything else that you are already aware of. VFR incorporates cloud clearance requirements. So for example if you are VFR in class B airspace, you must have 3 mile visibility and remain clear of clouds. If you are IFR in class B, you can have lower visibility or be in and out of the clouds.

 

Flight into class B airspace does require a clearance and the controllers will be interested in your intentions. However, unless issued a limitation or a specific instruction, under VFR you can still go wherever you want. You can turn, you can use your own waypoints, you can change altitudes. IFR will have specific instructions and not leave those things up to the pilot. You may get a more similar treatment to IFR traffic in class B because things are so busy that the controllers need you in a certain place to keep you apart from the IFR traffic they are handling. On a non-busy day or at night, you can get clearance into Bravo and go just about anywhere you like VFR.

 

Under IFR, (except in an emergency) you are required to fly the clearance or instructions you were given. Under VFR, you can essentially do what you want. When you have flight following, they don't tell you where to go. You go where you want, possibly advise your intentions to simplify things, and they call out traffic to you. Under IFR, ATC tells you where to go and them telling you where to go encompasses terrain and aircraft separation. Flight following does not! IFR encompasses minimum flight altitudes for radar coverage, radio coverage, navigational coverage, and of course terrain avoidance.

 

You sir, cannot be flying IFR in VMC yourself (with an instructor you could). You can wear a hood with a safety pilot and pretend to be IFR but you are still responsible for maintaining VFR (through the use of a safety pilot). You can request a practice approach but notice ATC will say "Maintain VFR, separation services will not be provided." That means there can be other erratic VFR aircraft flying around just like you that nobody knows what they will do so you have to see and avoid. On the other hand if you make a mistake flying your approach because you are inexperienced or heck your instructor throws things at you, you can do non-standard things because you still are VFR. In other words you are not bound to strictly adhere to the rules and methods required to fly the approach. Without an instrument rating (and an instrument flight plan and clearance in controlled airspace), you just simply cannot be following instrument flight rules whether you are using the instruments or not, whether you are flying instrument approaches or not, etc.

 

You see there is a lot more to it than what is on the surface. I think analogies to flight following and class B flying were made to help you understand the system and some of the similarities but the rules are entirely different. Please don't confuse the two and avoid calling flight "IFR" simply because it is in clouds or low visibility. It's only IFR when the Instrument Flight Rules are being followed. Anything else is flight into IMC, maybe flight by sole reference to instruments, but it is not IFR. For example if you accidentally flew into a cloud and very skillfully followed your instruments to do a maneuver to exit the clouds. You did not fly IFR. You would have flown VFR into IMC. You would have been in actual instrument conditions. And you would have maneuvered by sole reference to the instruments. IFR is not just instrument flying, but an entire set of rules that allows safe flight from point A to point B with a much lower threshold for weather conditions and the ability of the pilot to see and avoid.

[midlifeflyer]

Anthony,

 

I am not IR. I took poetic license in saying I fly IFR in VFR as a vehicle to understand flying under IFR: earlier discussion illuminated this essentially as FF, especially when flying through a Bravo. We could define pure VFR flight as NORDO flight in uncontrolled airspace. Once you add FF, you have radio comm and that radio comm is no different from the radio comm that IFR flights are using. Once in a Bravo, you can be vectored all over and you must maintain headings and altitudes. Controllers will even mention waypoints and navaids, but I think this is because they assume you are IR if you are flying a Mooney. Thus, IFR in VFR. What's missing? Well, the IMC and approaches. The latter is why I said that at the end of the day IFR boils down to weather and approaches.

 

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.

[HRM]

Sorry Dude but you're completely wrong. 

 

This is not about right versus wrong, but I appreciate your insight.

[rbp]

1. Aircraft dispatchers share legal responsibility for flights.

2. although you cannot operate under IFR without a ticket, you can request IFR-type procedures from ATC: "Approach, 54X would like ILS 29 practice approach into Stockton, own nav, will maintain VFR" Approach: "54X cleared practice approach 29, Stockton, remain VFR" or "Approch, 54X would like vectors to intercept Victor 235, and hold over Stockton VOR, three-thousand." Approach: "54X, turn right heading 250, intercept Victor 235, Hold Stockton VOR as published, three-thousand, maintain VFR". if PIC is under the hood, he must have safety pilot in a pilots seat, but she doesn't need an instrument rating.

-----

14 CFR 121.663 - Responsibility for dispatch release: Domestic and flag operations.

Each certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations shall prepare a dispatch release for each flight between specified points, based on information furnished by an authorized aircraft dispatcher. The pilot in command and an authorized aircraft dispatcher shall sign the release only if they both believe that the flight can be made with safety. The aircraft dispatcher may delegate authority to sign a release for a particular flight, but he may not delegate his authority to dispatch.

[carusoam]

I would go with...

It is too physically dangerous to skip the training and the rating.

Normal people don't fly IFR without the training...

Normal people don't fly IFR without the rating...

Normal and other people sense their limitations and get trained and obtain the rating.

Insurance companies don't cover people that intentionally avoid the rules.

In the litigious society that we live in, it makes less sense to fly IFR without the rating.

Summary:

If you have the training get the rating...

If you have the rating keep it current...

If you keep it current, use it often...

If you don't have the rating, or you are not current, it is in your best interest to not fly IFR.

Essentially, IFR flight is a physical and cognitive challenge to be taken seriously to be successful.

Being unsuccessful at IFR flight could be ruinous to your health, machinery and wealth.

Would there be a reason to fly IFR without the training?

I may have lost my ability to use poetic license...

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

Normal people don't fly IFR without the training...

Normal people don't fly IFR without the rating...

Normal and other people sense their limitations and get trained and obtain the rating.

 

I agree with all that - I ended up doing like a lot of people I know and respect - when I had my instrument license freshly minted I was very specific about what I would fly in (said that way - I still am very specific and careful about what I will fly in) but that meant then that I filed IFR everywhere I went but I wasn't mentally ready to do much IMC so I was almost more careful than when I was VFR to try to keep to VMC conditions - then after a few weeks of that I was ready to punch through layers and what a thrill that was to punch through thin layers without my CFI-II on board.  Just a minute or so in the clouds and the sunshine above - but that is a big step.  Getting the ticket wet as they say.  And I stuck with that for months and built confidence.  Careful to always have true VFR below the layer.  Eventually after a few months I built up confidence to allow an approach at the arrival.  I would go out and fly to no where in particular when the approach was one that I considered a good practice to gradually build my confidence and experience.  Sometimes very short flights.  Now with my IFR ticket 6 years old and even with a commercial rating in my pocket (that's new) I still have mins a good bit above published minimums.  Partly because I am spifr usually, but mostly I realize I am in a single engine and I have flown to destinations before (rarely) that have promised me 1000ft ceilings only to find published minimums upon arrival -meaning its good to have a buffer if single engine and spifr.  That's how I roll.  If I were either twin or two pilots in the cockpit I would (and have) flown different mins.

[N201MKTurbo]

Weather does not always do as forecast. When you depart on an IFR clearance, you have to be ready to do an approach to minimums at the other end. If you are not prepared to do that you shouldn't be filing.

[aviatoreb]

Weather does not always do as forecast. When you depart on an IFR clearance, you have to be ready to do an approach to minimums at the other end. If you are not prepared to do that you shouldn't be filing.

 

Exactly what I was describing - but anyway nothing wrong with planning to not knowingly launch into predicted minimums - in my book that's weighting the deck against me.

[HRM]

I would go with...

I may have lost my ability to use poetic license...

 

Kidding, right?

[201er]

Weather does not always do as forecast. When you depart on an IFR clearance, you have to be ready to do an approach to minimums at the other end. If you are not prepared to do that you shouldn't be filing.

You can have your own higher minimums. If the destination does not meet your personal minimums, fly to an alternate that does. There is nothing to say thay you can't have higher minimums. Nobody knows their own minimums like themselves.

If it has been 5 months since I've practiced approaches and I am tired and the airport is unfamiliar, my minimums will be higher than if these things were otherwise. Whole legal minimums are rigid, personal minimums can change on a case by case basis factoring in all varables and conditions.

[carusoam]

HRM,

By the title it sounds like a pilot wants to fly IFR without the proper rating.

The discussion has moved on to personal limitations...

I am going with I am still unable to use poetic license...

Sorry if my statement was too abrupt. I am still working on my writing skills.

I appreciate that you included the definition for me. I get your point, now.

Best regards,

-a-

[HRM]

Sorry if my statement was too abrupt. I am still working on my writing skills.

 

...and I am sorry I didn't include a smiley ( ) in that retort...it was a bit abrupt and not intended that way.

[aviatoreb]

HRM,

By the title it sounds like a pilot wants to fly IFR without the proper rating.

The discussion has moved on to personal limitations...

I am going with I am still unable to use poetic license...

Sorry if my statement was too abrupt. I am still working on my writing skills.

I appreciate that you included the definition for me. I get your point, now.

Best regards,

-a-

 

I think it was a natural progression - I actually started the personal min discussion - it was in response to a comment that you made "normal people don't ...." break the law and fly without training.  Meanwhile I was saying rated pilots are careful and consider a lot of factors in what specifically they will fly in.

[HRM]

I think it was a natural progression - I actually started the personal min discussion - it was in response to a comment that you made "normal people don't ...." break the law and fly without training.  Meanwhile I was saying rated pilots are careful and consider a lot of factors in what specifically they will fly in.

 

Agreed. We are all friends here, all members of the same BS troop, all loving Mooney's and everything about them. I will aggressively defend the following statement: the Mooney M20E Super 21 was marketed as an IFR aircraft and was designed with IFR flying in mind. This is a forum, as such a vehicle to foster discussion—let the discussion flow. 

 

For me, at least, it has been very useful and stimulating.

[Marauder]

One of the old saws is that your PPL is just a "license to learn." Earlier we saw on this thread that the IFR rating is pretty much the same thing. The value of a certificate is measured only in what an individual put in to getting it and what they do with it. Otherwise, that certificate and five bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks.

 

I started this thread because I was interested in discussion over what I found to be an appalling discovery--that there was a guy blatantly breaking the rules until mother nature reared up and put an end to it. Well, was it ended because of his lack of skill, the fact that he did not have the ticket? Frankly, we will never know. Let's say he did have the rating, would the outcome have been different? Reading the scenarios in Pilot Error, where legally IFR rated pilots go down to their deaths indicates the answer may be no.

 

I wanted to share some thoughts on this topic. When I was handed my PPL, the DPE said to me the cliché line "It's a license to learn". When I got my instrument rating, my instructor said to me "you are now rated to scare yourself, just don't kill yourself!" 

 

I have been instrument rated since the early 90s. The instrument rating for me was a lot more challenging than the private license but also much more rewarding. The challenge came from not only the physical act of flying with reference to instruments but also to understand the entire ecosystem as it relates to instrument flying. Whether it is knowledge of the regs, performance specifications of the plane, avionics, approach procedures or weather -- there is a lot to know and more importantly comprehend and be able to use when & if needed. Any knucklehead can break through a 1000' thick stratus layer and survive. But only a competent and current instrument rated pilot will have a chance to deal with all the factors that you will encounter during an instrument flight.

 

What troubles me is when I see an accident report of an experienced pilot. Especially this one: http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20060501X00494&ntsbno=CHI06MA115&akey=1 The pilot involved in this accident was no novice:    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Scott_Crossfield

 

So if a pilot as experienced as Scott Crossfield can be involved in a weather related accident, what chance did these guys have?:

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20101028X12506&key=1&queryId=be3443dc-5ff8-444a-8a64-6b4943c8185c&pgno=3&pgsize=100

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20080219X00205&key=1&queryId=be3443dc-5ff8-444a-8a64-6b4943c8185c&pgno=4&pgsize=100

[N201MKTurbo]

About 19 years ago I went to an aviation seminar in downtown Phoenix. I walked in the building with my 3 year old son on my shoulders an old guy was walking the other way and started messing with my son, giving him high fives, tickling him and asking him if he liked airplanes. It was Scott Crossfield.

[ryoder]

I read a lot of Dick Collins material and take my instrument training very seriously. I have high personal minimums when vfr and will probably not fly IFR into actual without an instructor for a long time. I also don't plan to fly at night or when tired.