Filing and flying IFR without a ticket to ride

[xcrmckenna]

Anyone remember a teenager that took mom's car out for a drive before they got their license...?

What do people think of that guy now..? (He grew up so much since then...)

A,I plead the fifth.......

[Awqward]

European regulators apparently do not believe in super pilots and require functioning autopilot for any IFR. Neither does FAA when it comes to single pilot exemptions for all jets, MU2 and anything over 12,500lb. Should we be able to fly IFR without a functioning autopilot. Sure? Should we actually do? I would not depart into IMC without a functioning autopilot and would consider an autopilot failure to be an emergency in IMC if single pilot, requiring an immediate action. An yes, I can shoot ILS down to minimums by hand, with the best of them. And I do shoot about every third approach by hand, without a flight director, but when things get busy as they sometimes do, an George is invaluable to safety. I cannot imagine going missed, messing with the radios, looking up weather at the alternate, etc, etc, etc, without at very least a functioning wing leveler. I like all the help I can get.

Andy, that is NOT an EASA requirement....it is certainly NOT the case in the UK....I believe Germany may have such a requirement....I know a pilot with a Comanche with no autopilot and he managed to get PRNAV approval! The only implication of not having a fully coupled autopilot is visibility is 800m instead of 550m on an ILS...

[M016576]

European regulators apparently do not believe in super pilots and require functioning autopilot for any IFR. Neither does FAA when it comes to single pilot exemptions for all jets, MU2 and anything over 12,500lb. Should we be able to fly IFR without a functioning autopilot. Sure? Should we actually do? I would not depart into IMC without a functioning autopilot and would consider an autopilot failure to be an emergency in IMC if single pilot, requiring an immediate action. An yes, I can shoot ILS down to minimums by hand, with the best of them. And I do shoot about every third approach by hand, without a flight director, but when things get busy as they sometimes do, an George is invaluable to safety. I cannot imagine going missed, messing with the radios, looking up weather at the alternate, etc, etc, etc, without at very least a functioning wing leveler. I like all the help I can get.

You wouldn't make a very good single seat fighter pilot, then... It's certainly no emergency to be single pilot in IMC without an autopilot. In the F-15, The autopilot only has 2 modes: attitude hold and Alt. Hold.,. And it rarely works. I never trust that pos to hold altitude In VMC, let alone the Weather. No GPS either, just a mechanical HSI, ils and DoD paper charts. Shot a 300-1 approach a few weeks back, no problems.

It's not a matter of the systems, it's the training like you alluded to. That said, I don't fly my mooney down to mins like that. And I always couple the autopilot in the mooney when I can. I accept different levels of risk based on the capabilities of the aircraft and my current proficiency... And by capabilities, I don't mean just the avionics- but number of engines, speed, fuel states, etc.

[rbp]

It's not a matter of the systems, it's the training like you alluded to. That said, I don't fly my mooney down to mins like that. And I always couple the autopilot in the mooney when I can. I accept different levels of risk based on the capabilities of the aircraft and my current proficiency... And by capabilities, I don't mean just the avionics- but number of engines, speed, fuel states, etc.

this is the best answer yet

[HRM]

M016576, on 06 Mar 2015 - 2:34 PM, said:

It's not a matter of the systems, it's the training like you alluded to. That said, I don't fly my mooney down to mins like that. And I always couple the autopilot in the mooney when I can. I accept different levels of risk based on the capabilities of the aircraft and my current proficiency... And by capabilities, I don't mean just the avionics- but number of engines, speed, fuel states, etc.

 

this is the best answer yet

 

Agreed.

 

I just finished Pilot Error and besides being both a gripping and sobering read, the reality is that so many, many IMC accidents wind up being coupled in some way to personal minimums. No wonder that the FAA harps on knowing them and revising them as necessary.

[Marauder]

M016576, on 06 Mar 2015 - 2:34 PM, said:

Agreed.

I just finished Pilot Error and besides being both a gripping and sobering read, the reality is that so many, many IMC accidents wind up being coupled in some way to personal minimums. No wonder that the FAA harps on knowing them and revising them as necessary.

You get the bejeebers scared out of you once, you learn to set personal minimums and live with them.

When I first obtained my instrument rating all I cared about was the weather at my destination. After an engine problem enroute, over low IMC, I now have minimums for the weather along the route. I'm okay flying a few miles over low weather, but if I want some sort of reasonable ceiling over the terrain that I overfly so at least I have a chance to set the plane down visually.

[HRM]

You get the bejeebers scared out of you once, you learn to set personal minimums and live with them.

When I first obtained my instrument rating all I cared about was the weather at my destination. After an engine problem enroute, over low IMC, I now have minimums for the weather along the route. I'm okay flying a few miles over low weather, but if I want some sort of reasonable ceiling over the terrain that I overfly so at least I have a chance to set the plane down visually.

 

Interesting point. I wondered about "what do you do if an engine quits while in the soup" and no one seemed to discuss it—until you, now.

 

This morning the weather at my house was unlimited RVR (it was clear for more city blocks than I could discern objects at distance) and ceiling easily at 600'. At the airport, which is located in a very low, near swampy area, fog/mist had settled in and visibility was enough for TO, but not good enough for landing.

 

That said, I wondered what one would do if there was engine failure on TO.

 

Given that outside the area conditions were good, the urge to "just get out and get clear" of the airport weather would be strong.

 

The reality is that (unless you have the equipment, training and approach plate for a CAT II/III) all approaches are, at the end, VFR. The TO is, for all intents and purposes, VFR. You TO into the soup, may stay in the soup to your destination, and then break out and land. 

 

I had some difficulty getting my head around that for some reason.

 

All that is left is: How low is the soup that you TO into, how long does the soup last during the enroute phase of your flight, and lastly, again, how low is the soup where you need to land?

 

All of those "How's" are constrained by rules and personal minimums. Basically, if you break the rules or set your personal minimums too low, your probability of an accident is increased. Pretty simple math. If you are Barbie and "Math is hard, let's go shopping!" then you are flying at risk.

[Hank]

My personal takeoff minimum is that there must be a way for me to return if I have to. Best is a VFR return, but at least shoot an approach back in, above minimums. The lower the ceiling gets, the closer good weather must be for me to depart. Otherwise, I either wait it out or drive away.

That being said, I've flown XC for a couple of hours in the soup. I've climbed through several thousand feet of clouds to clear air on top, then had the tops rise up around me until I broke out the bottom (while cruising at 9000 msl).

I left town last fall through a narrow ribbon of fog less than 10 miles wide, and flew along it in bright sun for > 50 miles. Weather like that used to frustrate me to no end as a VFR pilot.

[201er]

The reality is that (unless you have the equipment, training and approach plate for a CAT II/III) all approaches are, at the end, VFR. The TO is, for all intents and purposes, VFR. You TO into the soup, may stay in the soup to your destination, and then break out and land. 

Uh, no. Do you know what VFR means?

[M016576]

Uh, no. Do you know what VFR means?

I think he means VMC- but really that's not necessarily true either, as all you need to continue through minimums legally is the "runway environment" in sight. You could technically roll out on the runway and only have ever seen rabbit lights and runway edge lights during the whole approach to land.... Technically. Not that i'd endorse that!!!!

[M016576]

Interesting point. I wondered about "what do you do if an engine quits while in the soup" and no one seemed to discuss it—until you, now.

This morning the weather at my house was unlimited RVR (it was clear for more city blocks than I could discern objects at distance) and ceiling easily at 600'. At the airport, which is located in a very low, near swampy area, fog/mist had settled in and visibility was enough for TO, but not good enough for landing.

That said, I wondered what one would do if there was engine failure on TO.

Given that outside the area conditions were good, the urge to "just get out and get clear" of the airport weather would be strong.

The reality is that (unless you have the equipment, training and approach plate for a CAT II/III) all approaches are, at the end, VFR. The TO is, for all intents and purposes, VFR. You TO into the soup, may stay in the soup to your destination, and then break out and land.

I had some difficulty getting my head around that for some reason.

All that is left is: How low is the soup that you TO into, how long does the soup last during the enroute phase of your flight, and lastly, again, how low is the soup where you need to land?

All of those "How's" are constrained by rules and personal minimums. Basically, if you break the rules or set your personal minimums too low, your probability of an accident is increased. Pretty simple math. If you are Barbie and "Math is hard, let's go shopping!" then you are flying at risk.

Excellent points! I agree wholeheartedly: we talk about personal minimums at our destination, but part of a sound risk analysis MUST take into account enroute ceilings, even if you're safely VMC/VFR on top.

[HRM]

Uh, no. Do you know what VFR means?

 

You're just messing with me now.

[HRM]

I think he means VMC- but really that's not necessarily true either, as all you need to continue through minimums legally is the "runway environment" in sight. You could technically roll out on the runway and only have ever seen rabbit lights and runway edge lights during the whole approach to land.... Technically. Not that i'd endorse that!!!!

 

You two are with the FAA, aren't you?

[HRM]

Excellent points! I agree wholeheartedly: we talk about personal minimums at our destination, but part of a sound risk analysis MUST take into account enroute ceilings, even if you're safely VMC/VFR on top.

 

Indeed! ....another way to think of what I said is that you are not under the hood at TO or after you clear the MAP.

 

From all that I have read, from the newest IFR rated pilot to an ATP veteran, the goal is to "be on top". So there too you have a visual out of the airplane, just like on TO and landing, but enroute.

 

That said, you are absolutely correct that even if you get on top you cannot forget the fact that IMC may be waiting for you at some point in the flight.

 

What is astonishing to me is the number of IFR rated pilots who stay current "just to get out" of their home base when IMC prevails. That if they were facing hard IFR the entire trip they wouldn't go.

 

Of course, that may be the lowest of personal minimums and there is nothing wrong with that I suppose.

[M016576]

You two are with the FAA, aren't you?

Hah!

[Hank]

<hmmm, once again I can't quote . . . >

 

 

Harley, it doesn't much matter to me if I'm flying on top, in IMC or skipping in and out of the cloud layer. What matters is that I'm flying to where I want to be, that the ride isn't too bad, no serious weather is around and that I'll be able to land when I get there.

 

I've had 2 hour flights where I went into the clouds just after wheels up, and came out of the clouds inside the Final Approach Fix, 2-3 miles from the runway. But it was smooth, with enough light to partially change my glasses, and no risk of thunderstorms or icing.

 

The further you travel, the greater your chances to find IMC enroute. If not rated and current, your choice becomes deviate around it if possible, divert somewhere and wait for it to pass or turn around and go home and wait for it to clear up. Sometimes these are choices that we don't want to make, so we study and train and practice in order to keep going. To me, it's about getting greater use from the plane.

 

Some places, apparently the West Coast, have little IMC other than the thin marine layer that moves in from time to time. I've never experienced that. East of the Mississippi and along the Appalachians where I fly, summer haze can create IMC with no clouds around at all. It can be CAVU where I am, with widespread low ceilings on the other side of the mountains where I am going. It's been clear here, cloudy with light rain passing through IMC in N GA, then partly cloudy and easy to stay VFR near my destination in NC. All it takes is an instrument rating with currency, or lots of patience.

 

Sometimes it is fun skipping in and out of the tops. Sometimes it is disconcerting skipping in and out of the bottoms at night as temperatures drop. Neither are doable VFR.

 

And no, I don't depart "under the hood," except that one time in training when the CFII made me. But I do depart into obscures skies, when I'm confident of what is and is not lurking in the clouds, and when they are high enough that if something happens I can come back in. I don't head for destinations with minimum ceiling forecasts, but accept that forecasts can be incorrect and actual conditions can change; that is why we are taught about alternates, fuel planning and going missed. And yes, I have made approaches and missed, and no, the MAP was not clear, it was in the clouds just like the field was. Stuff happens, be ready or don't go. Right now, I'm not ready for the weather we've been having around here . . .

[carusoam]

I think this part of the discussion includes the situation of 'my plane broke, I have to land...'

It also goes with running out of fuel and running out of power.

We have had a few planes that have

A ) lost power on take-off. (Stuck valve, broken cylinder,

B ) lost oil pressure in flight.

C ) turbo and related issues.

During take-off, returning to the field can require more than 1,000' AGL of altitude. Departing with a ceiling any lower adds to the challenge.

1,000' ceiling is common during the year in NJ.

This makes VFR flight an unpredictable challenge.

Can you grasp the idea of engine out, breaking through the clouds at 1,000', find a field, set up for landing, put it down safely?

Safely=avoid tree trunks while getting to the ground...

You will have help from ATC available...GPS maps make things easier...

(Take-off)If you don't know if you are producing full power, don't go into the clouds...

With some practice, you will most likely have a safe outcome.

My statistics come from MS. My memory is fuzzy at best.

Get the training, and continue to discuss the Mooney challenges...

Best regards,

-a-

[HRM]

And no, I don't depart "under the hood," except that one time in training when the CFII made me. But I do depart into obscures skies, when I'm confident of what is and is not lurking in the clouds, and when they are high enough that if something happens I can come back in. I don't head for destinations with minimum ceiling forecasts, but accept that forecasts can be incorrect and actual conditions can change; that is why we are taught about alternates, fuel planning and going missed. And yes, I have made approaches and missed, and no, the MAP was not clear, it was in the clouds just like the field was. Stuff happens, be ready or don't go. Right now, I'm not ready for the weather we've been having around here . . .

 

Hank, you read Pilot Error, didn't you 

[dcrogers11]

Little Timmy would have probably grown up to hand-fly single-engine into hard IMC to minimums every time.  

 

Don

[HRM]

Little Timmy would have probably grown up to hand-fly single-engine into hard IMC to minimums every time.  

 

Don

 

Will someone puh-leez PM me about what this "Little Timmy" thing is? I feel like the guy left out of the prank.

[201er]

Can you grasp the idea of engine out, breaking through the clouds at 1,000', find a field, set up for landing, put it down safely?

Statistics say it is far more likely that a pilot (instrument rated or not) will get into an accident going VFR into IMC than have an engine out in IMC... And even more likely than those combined that he will stall the plane into the ground at some point in the pattern... When it comes to safety, your fears are better spent learning and flying angle of attack in the pattern than worrying about problems in IMC. Focus on the stuff more likely to get you first, you know?

[carusoam]

Later in the year....

http://www.bendixking.com/Products/Flight-Controls-Indicators/Indicators/KLR-10

201er has the smoothest landings, all of the time. He uses an AOA...

Best regards,

-a-

[Hank]

Will someone puh-leez PM me about what this "Little Timmy" thing is? I feel like the guy left out of the prank.

It was a long thread (2000+ posts) where people vented their angst on an ever-changing array of non-aviation-related topics. Got so long that 40-50 pages were cut out, according to some complaints. Then it was locked. Search for something like "Little Timmy wants to know why nobody likes airplanes anymore" but have some free time and several stiff drinks available . . . . I would say "happy reading," but it probably won't be. I visited it half a dozen times, to check if anything had changed or improved, then just ignored it for the last half of its life.

[HRM]

It was a long thread (2000+ posts) where people vented their angst on an ever-changing array of non-aviation-related topics. Got so long that 40-50 pages were cut out, according to some complaints. Then it was locked. Search for something like "Little Timmy wants to know why nobody likes airplanes anymore" but have some free time and several stiff drinks available . . . . I would say "happy reading," but it probably won't be. I visited it half a dozen times, to check if anything had changed or improved, then just ignored it for the last half of its life.

 

Got it. In fact, I discovered that the thread is still there (I thought it had been deleted when I looked for it a while back).

 

I had never paid attention to the thread title, I think I may have looked briefly and then resisted the urge to jump in--the issue is a broken record.

 

Now IFR issues, there's a thread topic we can all agree on!!!

[Hank]

 

Now IFR issues, there's a thread topic we can all agree on!!!

Or at least we can all agree to discuss civilly! It is slightly less contentious than flap usage, Camguard and LOP.