Filing and flying IFR without a ticket to ride

[HRM]

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

 

I can tell you that many of the threads in these forums would have erupted into fisticuffs had the posters been within arms reach.

 

Flaps? Who uses flaps?

[jlunseth]

I don't have any dogs in this fight, er, discussion, but have two thoughts.  First, I am one of those pilots who, if I could not get on top and had to do two hours in the clag, probably would not go.  Its not that I can't fly in the stuff and don't have the time or ratings to do it, and it is not the clag that bothers me.  It is the turbulence that invariably is in the clag that I don't like. Ugh.  I would not go if I did not have to. In any event, being turbo'd, I can get on top 98% of the time.  I have very few Actual time entries that are not drips and drabs, ascending or descending through the clag.

 

The other is VFR into IMC, and don't get me wrong I am not recommending that any nonIFR pilots just fly off into the clouds.  But I have inadvertently blundered VFR into IMC a couple of times, they were completely noneventful (I have to say I am and was then instrument rated) so long as you just fly the airplane and figure a route out of it as soon as you can.  The AP helps alot, because it does not have a clue that it is in the clag or whether it has busted any regs, it just flies the damn airplane!  Unerringly.  I am afraid that what gets alot of people is the regulatory fear, they are now where the rules say they should not be, OMG!! 

 

The first priority, as always, is to just fly the aircraft and not panic.  That is what our training as pilots is all about.  Ask for help if you need it, ATC will always provide it and they will be completely nonjudgmental.  We would rather have you safe on the ground and worry with you later about the consequences, which in an inadvertent situation are not at all likely, than having literally died of worry.

[HRM]

First, I am one of those pilots who, if I could not get on top and had to do two hours in the clag, probably would not go.  Its not that I can't fly in the stuff and don't have the time or ratings to do it, and it is not the clag that bothers me.  It is the turbulence that invariably is in the clag that I don't like. Ugh.  I would not go if I did not have to. In any event, being turbo'd, I can get on top 98% of the time.  I have very few Actual time entries that are not drips and drabs, ascending or descending through the clag.

 

The other is VFR into IMC, and don't get me wrong I am not recommending that any nonIFR pilots just fly off into the clouds.  But I have inadvertently blundered VFR into IMC a couple of times, they were completely noneventful (I have to say I am and was then instrument rated) so long as you just fly the airplane and figure a route out of it as soon as you can.  The AP helps alot, because it does not have a clue that it is in the clag or whether it has busted any regs, it just flies the damn airplane!  Unerringly.  I am afraid that what gets alot of people is the regulatory fear, they are now where the rules say they should not be, OMG!! 

 

It just goes to personal minimums in the end. If you are not comfortable with turbulence, don't fly in it.

 

If you are a spaz about finding yourself in a cloud, fly only when CAVU prevails.

 

Somewhere I read/heard (Mooney Summit?) a pilot say that he simply will not do a night-time circling approach. By having that on his list of PMs, he immediately knocked his probability of an incident by, IIRC, 50%. After reading Pilot Error, I can appreciate that logic.

 

So, by avoiding what you are uncomfortable with you significantly alter the probability of getting into a scenario where you may not make it out.

 

I am not advocating total risk avoidance and continuing training should involve a bit of discomfort (like the poster whose CFI/I made him TO under the hood) just for the chance that you do find yourself in a place you would rather not be.

[Marauder]

It just goes to personal minimums in the end. If you are not comfortable with turbulence, don't fly in it.

If you are a spaz about finding yourself in a cloud, fly only when CAVU prevails.

Somewhere I read/heard (Mooney Summit?) a pilot say that he simply will not do a night-time circling approach. By having that on his list of PMs, he immediately knocked his probability of an incident by, IIRC, 50%. After reading Pilot Error, I can appreciate that logic.

So, by avoiding what you are uncomfortable with you significantly alter the probability of getting into a scenario where you may not make it out.

I am not advocating total risk avoidance and continuing training should involve a bit of discomfort (like the poster whose CFI/I made him TO under the hood) just for the chance that you do find yourself in a place you would rather not be.

I thought of your post when I came upon this CAVU weather... It was CAVU 10 miles north and 10 miles south, but not where I was. Snow storms can be interesting.

[HRM]

I thought of your post when I came upon this CAVU weather... It was CAVU 10 miles north and 10 miles south, but not where I was. Snow storms can be interesting.

 

No surprise there. I am just finishing up Collins' Flying IFR and he hits on the notion that CAVU is not always CAVU

 

More importantly, he is the high priest of weather variability and how it must guide your personal minimums.

 

To expect a particular weather condition at any level of certainty has taken many a pilot out.

 

I was shocked at how often pilots ignore the purpose of the alternate, or hesitate to execute the missed approach, or fail to plan adequate fuel reserves, or....<the list goes on>

 

Lastly, I had IFR/Under-the-Hood training during my PPL. I don't know if they still do that or not, but the reality is that VFR pilots can find themselves in IMC even though "CAVU" was forecast. One need not be able to fly "Hard IFR" (Collins hates that term) or difficult approaches to get out of an IMC jam.

 

Of course, best not to get in that jam in the first place.

[mike_elliott]

My CFI is also like a crank old rat terrier.

 

Its part of our CFII training. We have to be in order to pass the double II checkride. While it is not in the PTS, we still have to display this characterization while transferring some knowledge and sweating only out of the right side of our face.

[mike_elliott]

 

Somewhere I read/heard (Mooney Summit?) a pilot say that he simply will not do a night-time circling approach. By having that on his list of PMs, he immediately knocked his probability of an incident by, IIRC, 50%. After reading Pilot Error, I can appreciate that logic.

 

 

Yep, at the Mooney Summit II, during Richard Simile's "Gems" presentation. I forgot who shared this gem.

[Hank]

I've heard it several places, including for people I know. It's such a good idea that I added it to my list.

[HRM]

I've heard it several places, including for people I know. It's such a good idea that I added it to my list.

 

I hate to say this, but I am drawn to the notion, sort of like a moth to a flame.

 

Why is it so dangerous?

 

You are under the ceiling, right?

 

You see the airport, the runway, right?

 

You are just getting into position to land, right?

 

Yes, it's dark, so what?

[Andy95W]

I hate to say this, but I am drawn to the notion, sort of like a moth to a flame.

 

Why is it so dangerous?

 

You are under the ceiling, right?

 

You see the airport, the runway, right?

 

You are just getting into position to land, right?

 

Yes, it's dark, so what?

Lack of visual reference coupled with a not normal sight picture out the window is what makes it more dangerous.

Ever notice how weird it feels to do a circling approach at about 550-600 AGL instead of normal traffic pattern altitude? Ever notice how it's also more difficult to keep airspeed stabilized while doing it (maybe that's just me, but I doubt it). That's WITH normal visual references.

For someone who is extremely proficient and practices often, probably not a problem. At night, I won't do a circling approach below normal traffic pattern altitude just because I know I'm not as proficient as I should be.

[Marauder]

Lack of visual reference coupled with a not normal sight picture out the window is what makes it more dangerous.

Ever notice how weird it feels to do a circling approach at about 550-600 AGL instead of normal traffic pattern altitude? Ever notice how it's also more difficult to keep airspeed stabilized while doing it (maybe that's just me, but I doubt it). That's WITH normal visual references.

For someone who is extremely proficient and practices often, probably not a problem. At night, I won't do a circling approach below normal traffic pattern altitude just because I know I'm not as proficient as I should be.

To add a comment. The light show with low visibility at night adds another complexity to a night circle to land maneuver.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HRM]

Lack of visual reference coupled with a not normal sight picture out the window is what makes it more dangerous.

 

To add a comment. The light show with low visibility at night adds another complexity to a night circle to land maneuver. 

 

I am seeing this now and it fits with the notion that IFR flight starts VFR and ends VFR (semantics notwithstanding).

 

Birds have highly developed vision and the term birdbrain finds credence in the fact that birds gave up a large part of their brains to their visual cortex. Brains are heavy, so to reduce weight evolution took cognition rather than visual processing.

 

We fly visually, we start visual and we place a great deal of emphasis on it. Flying without visual reference is unnatural.

 

Since we are not adapted to flight, our internal balance system is disturbed by it and we initially train it to ignore the balance cues that try to throw us off via visual references.

 

In IFR flight, all that needs to be suppressed or we fall victim to vertigo.

 

Popping out of the soup into a distorted visual reference set, to include the "light show," just puts everything into an extreme environment for doing the most complex activity in manned flight: landing.

 

So much is now making sense regarding an event sequence that happened to me many years ago.

[chrisk]

I hate to say this, but I am drawn to the notion, sort of like a moth to a flame.

 

Why is it so dangerous?

 

You are under the ceiling, right?

 

You see the airport, the runway, right?

 

You are just getting into position to land, right?

 

Yes, it's dark, so what?

 

Circling approaches are often made at low altitude and don't necessarily involve a standard traffic pattern.  At night, you may see the runway, but often you do not see the ground, just a black hole.  If your looking out of the window at the runway, your perhaps not looking at your altimeter or ASI.  Maybe you drop below the minimum altitude and get a little slow since you don't have a good visual reference.  Then one of those black holes turns into CFIT, or you stall.   And add to this the number of pilots who lose visual contact with the runway, but continue a circling approach anyway.

 

For me, I try to avoid circling approaches.  And if I do them, I want the ceiling to be high enough for a normal pattern.  Also it seems I read about a pilot every year that crashes into a hill on final at night because they got to low.    At night, I prefer to fly a LPV approach down to the runway.  It should keep me above any dark obstacles.

[Hank]

We're all supposed to know that if the runway lights disappear, an obstacle is in the way. Or is it a cloud? How close is the ceiling? Is it ragged? Are you looking left at the runway and don't see the tree/hill/unlit tower in front of you?

Circle with decent visibility, maybe. Circle at night, no thanks.

[wishboneash]

While I would like to be able to use the Autopilot in IMC, I have been reluctant as my AP is not very reliable (Century IIB). Sometimes it would not track properly in HDG/NAV modes. The unreliability of it is what is troublesome. Currently it is completely on the blink and needs to be fixed after working for a year or so, more or less. The altitude hold seems to be OK (PSS 60) so I use that occasionally. I don't want to have to debug the AP in actual.

[Marauder]

We're all supposed to know that if the runway lights disappear, an obstacle is in the way. Or is it a cloud? How close is the ceiling? Is it ragged? Are you looking left at the runway and don't see the tree/hill/unlit tower in front of you?

Circle with decent visibility, maybe. Circle at night, no thanks.

 

Circle to land at my home base in the daylight is scary enough!

[N201MKTurbo]

Back in the late 80s I had almost unlimited  access to a 737-200 sim. I would set it up with ceilings 100 ft above circling minimums. My criteria was to not go into the clouds and not go below minimums and keep the speed within 10 KTS. I tried it about 15 times. I was never successful. I have asked a few airline pilots how to do it and they all said "Our airline doesn't allow circle to land approaches at minimums". I could probably have pulled it off with the autopilot, but I figured I need to know how to hand fly it.

 

I've done it a few times in the Mooney but with ceilings way above minimums. The problem is that you have to change from ILS approach configuration to level flight +- 50 ft to some kind of procedure turn +- 50 ft in quick succession. Your power changes have to be known in advance and applied at the exact right time. There is no room for error..

[201er]

I am seeing this now and it fits with the notion that IFR flight starts VFR and ends VFR (semantics notwithstanding).

Still wrong. Even semantics aside and presuming you actually meant "visual conditions" or quite simply "just being able to see something out the damn window," you'd still be wrong. You can legally takeoff in 0/0 under part 91 and in fact most instructors will have you practice a zero/zero takeoff under the hood. Cat III approaches allow 0/0 landings under full autoland. There is absolutely nothing VFR or visual for that matter in these cases. These are strictly IFR operations.

 

This is why you can't put the semantics aside. IFR means instrument flight rules. VFR means visual flight rules. They are all defined and explained in the FARs. Read them.

[gsxrpilot]

Another minor issue with circling approaches at night is runway lighting. At a single runway field, it's often difficult/impossible to see the runway from a perpendicular position. You break out of the clouds and see the runway, but now need to circle to the other end. While on the "downwind" it's easy to loose visual on the runway since the lights are directional. This just adds complexity to the whole event.

[HRM]

Still wrong. Even semantics aside and presuming you actually meant "visual conditions" or quite simply "just being able to see something out the damn window," you'd still be wrong. You can legally takeoff in 0/0 under part 91 and in fact most instructors will have you practice a zero/zero takeoff under the hood. Cat III approaches allow 0/0 landings under full autoland. There is absolutely nothing VFR or visual for that matter in these cases. These are strictly IFR operations.

 

This is why you can't put the semantics aside. IFR means instrument flight rules. VFR means visual flight rules. They are all defined and explained in the FARs. Read them.

 

Good god, give it a rest already.

[Awqward]

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

 

Don

Unrelated post: Don that is a really cool profile picture....what is that effect? It looks like just the right atmospheric conditions (humidity) causing condensation in the prop wash....looks cool

[HRM]

Unrelated post: Don that is a really cool profile picture....what is that effect? It looks like just the right atmospheric conditions (humidity) causing condensation in the prop wash....looks cool

 

Sure it's not a Photoshop effect? 

[midlifeflyer]

Circling approaches are often made at low altitude and don't necessarily involve a standard traffic pattern. 

 

That's the "danger" with circling approaches and the reason why may operators prohibit using them, especially at night. The concern isn't about breaking out of the clouds above a normal pattern altitude with unlimited visibility but with breaking out at  MDA with minimum flight visibility and trying to maneuver at low altitude, keeping the runway in sight and following the pattern direction rules.

[HRM]

Thanks to all who provided guidance on Circling Approaches. I probably should have started a new thread.

 

Daytime, IFR above minimums and good viz the circling approach sounds like it can be taxing but "safe enough" if anything IFR can really be considered safe 

 

Taxing is important, because the hardest part of the IFR flight is the landing, actually of any flight now that we have iPads, and the landing takes place at the end of the flight when the pilot is most fatigued!

 

Now you turn out the lights, lower the ceiling, decrease the visibility and turn off the instruments. Add to that the lighting issues and lots of low speed turning..

 

Wow, no wonder so many, many accidents are night circling approaches.

 

 

[dcrogers11]

Unrelated post: Don that is a really cool profile picture....what is that effect? It looks like just the right atmospheric conditions (humidity) causing condensation in the prop wash....looks cool

 

Yep, it was just a bit of Photoshop fun.  I had always loved the pictures of jets breaking the sound barrier so took portions of the attached photo and added to my Mooney.  Thanks for the comments.

 

Don