Filing and flying IFR without a ticket to ride

[M016576]

A big part of the issue is that not all IMC is created equal... And that, as has been alluded to above, that WX changes.

Personally, in my Mooney, I do exactly as Erik mentioned above. Stay safe and don't go looking for trouble. But still get flebxability out of the plane if it's not "hard ifr."

[Yetti]

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!" 

 

 

When my DPE handed me my license he said "Don't get any blood on it"   He is 80 flight engineer on a bomber in WWII and a test pilot for Navion.   I started having fun on the check ride when he said "look at all those poor people down there, they don't get to fly today"

[Hank]

It all depends on your definition of "hard IFR," and I think that varies between pilots as do personal minimums.

 

For instance, I made a trip from HTS --> BNA, about 2 hours each way, below a spring cold front; freezing level was ~8000' so I flew at 4000' one way and 5000' the other to stay safely under it. I saw the runway on takeoff, and hit the layer around 1000' agl, popped out on the ILS at about 3 nm out. To me, it was an easy flight, pretty calm enroute with some crab on the approach. Was this "hard IFR"? Not to me, that's why I bought the plane and worked hard for the rating.

 

As stated above, all IMC is not equal.

[N201MKTurbo]

I don't consider approaches to minimums to be hard IFR. I consider weather that is trying to break your airplane while you are trying to do an approach to minimums hard IFR!

[Andy95W]

I don't consider approaches to minimums to be hard IFR. I consider weather that is trying to break your airplane while you are trying to do an approach to minimums hard IFR!

Yeah, but with the exception of dust storms, how often do you see real 1/2 mile visibility in Tempe?

[201er]

I don't consider approaches to minimums to be hard IFR. I consider weather that is trying to break your airplane while you are trying to do an approach to minimums hard IFR!

Hard IFR is when the pilot breaks a sweat, where the outcome becomes anything short of certain, when the conditions force the pilot to give it all he's got and possibly even put him a bit behind the plane. What's hard for one pilot may be easy for another. This is where personal minimums really kick in. And like I said before those need to be dynamic rather than fixed. Going to approach minimums on a really gusty day with wind shear isn't the same as going to minimums when things are calm.

[N201MKTurbo]

Yeah, but with the exception of dust storms, how often do you see real 1/2 mile visibility in Tempe?

 

That's why I have a Mooney so I can fly to places with crappy weather!

[N201MKTurbo]

Hard IFR is when the pilot breaks a sweat, where the outcome becomes anything short of certain, when the conditions force the pilot to give it all he's got and possibly even put him a bit behind the plane. What's hard for one pilot may be easy for another. This is where personal minimums really kick in. And like I said before those need to be dynamic rather than fixed. Going to approach minimums on a really gusty day with wind shear isn't the same as going to minimums when things are calm.

 

You can certainly choose when you depart, but when you accept that clearance you are telling the controllers that you are capable of doing anything that your equipment suffix allows.

 

I have had controllers try to vector me into thunderstorms and I gave them a big fat "Unable". And you are certainly able to request a change in your destination. But you should always be ready to fly the approach at your destination down to the DH or MAP, go missed and fly to your alternate if one was required.

 

If you got to your destination and the weather had turned to crap and you told ATC that you were not able to do the approach, you would probably get a phone call.

[N201MKTurbo]

Yeah, but with the exception of dust storms, how often do you see real 1/2 mile visibility in Tempe?

 

In thirty five years of flying I have done two approaches to get home in Arizona. The Phoenix area is below VFR minimums between 4 and 6 hours a year.

[Marauder]

In thirty five years of flying I have done two approaches to get home in Arizona. The Phoenix area is below VFR minimums between 4 and 6 hours a year.

And here in the northeast, it can be 4 and 6 hours a day -- everyday

[DrBill]

Here in the midSouth it's not that often we get socked in except in February and March. I'd say 4-6 days a month outside of Feb and March.. I took my plane to the avionics shop for ADSb  install on 2/18, the only good day that week (need VFR to get back into home airport) . It was done on 2/20.  I picked it up yesterday, the only good day outside a weekend when the shop is closed. Rain today and tomorrow so I"m glad its home... Friday looks to be nice.  Hope to go play with it then.

BILL

[midlifeflyer]

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

[201er]

But you should always be ready to fly the approach at your destination down to the DH or MAP, go missed and fly to your alternate if one was required.

 

If you got to your destination and the weather had turned to crap and you told ATC that you were not able to do the approach, you would probably get a phone call.

I agree that you should be as prepared and proficient as possible but I disagree with the notion that you have to be willing to fly down to absolute approach minimums. There is nothing to say that you can't go missed at 400ft on a standard ILS because that was your personal comfort minimum. If you had to, you can always justify going missed to ATC as a PIC decision based on the circumstance. If you expect very reasonable conditions at the alternate, I don't necessarily see that as a cowardly decision. However, you will have to land sooner or later so if the alternate is much worse as well, then you better be prepared to go all the way.

 

I'm not saying that I am uncomfortable going to minimums, however, I don't think it is fair to tell pilots not to use IFR unless you are ready to go IFR all the way to minimums. There are easily days when it is 3,000ft overcast from departure to destination and bound to stay that way. IFR can allow the pilot to maintain a comfortable and safe altitude all the way in the clear above rather than scud running below. Yet, he won't even have to fly an approach. ATC will give vectors and a descent and then a visual approach. If the pilot is comfortable even so much as flying an approach down to 1500 or 2000ft, he will be more than prepared to handle that condition with ease. You can find a plethora of intermediate scenarios between this one and hard IFR down to minimums.

[midlifeflyer]

I agree that you should be as prepared and proficient as possible but I disagree with the notion that you have to be willing to fly down to absolute approach minimums. There is nothing to say that you can't go missed at 400ft on a standard ILS because that was your personal comfort minimum. If you had to, you can always justify going missed to ATC as a PIC decision based on the circumstance. If you expect very reasonable conditions at the alternate, I don't necessarily see that as a cowardly decision. However, you will have to land sooner or later so if the alternate is much worse as well, then you better be prepared to go all the way.

 

I'm not saying that I am uncomfortable going to minimums, however, I don't think it is fair to tell pilots not to use IFR unless you are ready to go IFR all the way to minimums. There are easily days when it is 3,000ft overcast from departure to destination and bound to stay that way. IFR can allow the pilot to maintain a comfortable and safe altitude all the way in the clear above rather than scud running below. Yet, he won't even have to fly an approach. ATC will give vectors and a descent and then a visual approach. If the pilot is comfortable even so much as flying an approach down to 1500 or 2000ft, he will be more than prepared to handle that condition with ease. You can find a plethora of intermediate scenarios between this one and hard IFR down to minimums.

 

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.

[HRM]

Hard IFR is when the pilot breaks a sweat...

 

I was going to post something to this effect and frankly, this is also the definition of hard VFR 

 

When you are relying solely on instruments from shortly after TO, through a few hours completely in the soup with vectoring and course changes, to a complex approach that pops you out right at minimums—well, probably the best would be sweating just a bit—if not from exhaustion. Toss in some icing and turbulence...

[LANCECASPER]

"As an aside, and of course we don't know exactly what happened, but it appears that IMC took out this man, his wife and his 9 YO son."

 

 

IMC didn't take them out, but lack of training and poor decision making did.

[aviatoreb]

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.

 

You are right.

 

Well I'm so macho and self confident I don't care what other people thing!  I have personal mins and I am even confident enough in myself to talk about that here on a public forum.  Take that macho dudes!

[AndyFromCB]

There is no such thing as hard IFR, only weak autopilots...

[Marauder]

Unfortunately, this thread topic is too timely. The accident on the "Mooney down in Norfolk" thread is exactly this scenario. Look at his FlightAware and you will see he was at an IFR altitude which leads me to believe he filed although his FAA pilot license does not include an IFR a rating.

[aviatoreb]

There is no such thing as hard IFR, only weak autopilots...

 

I disagree vigorously.

[HRM]

Unfortunately, this thread topic is too timely. The accident on the "Mooney down in Norfolk" thread is exactly this scenario. Look at his FlightAware and you will see he was at an IFR altitude which leads me to believe he filed although his FAA pilot license does not include an IFR a rating.

 

That entire scenario is just not to be believed. He obviously was not participating in this thread.

[midlifeflyer]

Unfortunately, this thread topic is too timely. The accident on the "Mooney down in Norfolk" thread is exactly this scenario. Look at his FlightAware and you will see he was at an IFR altitude which leads me to believe he filed although his FAA pilot license does not include an IFR a rating.

 

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.

[AndyFromCB]

I disagree vigorously.

 

I was being sarcastic, well, to a point. Once you move up to auto throttles there really is not such thing as hard ifr...

[aviatoreb]

I was being sarcastic, well, to a point. Once you move up to auto throttles there really is not such thing as hard ifr...

 

I missed you were kidding around - I wasn't in the mood for funny I guess worry about that airplane in Norfolk.  My source of disagreement is we are supposed to be able to live and survive anyway by handflying even if the autopilot goes INOP and in an INOPportune time, like in hard IFR on a difficult approach.

[HRM]

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.

 

...and now looking like the pilot was IR and not the owner of the aircraft. The thread is the most convoluted zig-zag of misinformation that I have seen in quite awhile, not to mention gross speculation. Best to discuss after the NTSB report comes out, but that will take six months or more.