VFR flying is it right?

[Hank]

7 minutes ago, 201er said:

Then why not finish and have the utility/experience of the rating? Why not fly the exact same flight VFR above clouds but with the legal option of descending down through them instead of it having to be an emergency?

Because he doesn't want to. Because he doesn't have to. Because doing it his way is within his risk tolerance.

Why do you, Mike, make fatigue-inducing all-day flights that require you to urinate in bottles a d shoot approaches when tired? Wouldn't it be so much simpler to just land the plane? Then you could stand upright, straighten your legs and get rid of the cramps that must interfere with proper rudder usage when you land 10-12 hours after takeoff. Sounds intentionally unsafe to me . . . But don't worry, I won't berate you for several pages.  

[Andy95W]

1 hour ago, DAVIDWH said:

John Glenns moon landing, another story for another day.

When did John Glenn go to the moon?

[Guest]

7 hours ago, thinwing said:

Hi Clarence..you post true for Canadian pilots ...but this debate is regarding US pilots...we are not allowed to function under your 421.44....hence per Canadian Regs...we have to be IR rated while exercising on top rules in C

I'm just correcting your statement that VOT in Canada requires an Instrument rating, which it does not.

Clarence

[PTK]

9 hours ago, 201er said:

Then why not finish and have the utility/experience of the rating? Why not fly the exact same flight VFR above clouds but with the legal option of descending down through them instead of it having to be an emergency? That's what baffles me more than the risk comparisons. Some risks come down to go vs no go whereas others are entirely mitigated through instrument capability which can be achieved through training/testing/proficiency.

Mike, if I were a betting man I would bet Jim has the requisite experience (25+ years) to be a much safer VFR pilot than you can be VFR/IFR. I would trust him and his decision making a lot more because of his experience and discipline. And experience can only come with years of practice and training. Although I do maintain currency and mostly do file, I would have Jim fly me on a hypothetical trip across the country VFR, before you VFR/IFR. Having a piece of paper saying you're "legal" cannot be confused with nor can it replace decades of  "experience." There are no magical powers that an IFR rating suddenly imparts on its holder. It's naive to think that it's that simple. Experience is the key.

[thinwing]

1 hour ago, PTK said:

Mike, if I were a betting man I would bet Jim has the requisite experience (25+ years) to be a much safer VFR pilot than you can be VFR/IFR. I would trust him and his decision making a lot more because of his experience and discipline. And experience can only come with years of practice and training. I would have Jim fly me on a hypothetical trip across the country VFR, before you VFR/IFR. Having a piece of paper saying you're "legal" cannot be confused with nor can it replace decades of  "experience." There are no magical powers that an IFR rating suddenly imparts on its holder. It's naive to think that it's that simple. Experience is the key.

I don't know DR P...Mikes "youth"plus obvious currency makes that a chancy bet.

[Yetti]

18 hours ago, 201er said:

You know what Jim, in all fairness, what I think the difference comes down to is taking risks that have no solution (flying at night, flying over water, etc) vs taking risks that could be substantially mitigated through a bit of training and a rating. We can both choose to take or not take those no-out risks like flying over water or at night. And that would be strictly our choice of risk management. However, your airplane is instrument capable while you are not. What my objection is, is knowingly taking a risk (flying above clouds) that at least COULD be mitigated. I feel that it's important for us to knowingly/willingly mitigate all possible solvable risks so that the ones that we have no control over are the only ones remaining.

No matter what, we're all still single engine, we're all flying at least some of the time over unlandable places, we can all run into unforecast weather or have some freak accident occur. It's how we choose and manage the rest of the risks that play a role on our overall safety.

It always give me a snicker when someone who advocates steep turns near to the ground starts talking risk management/mitigation

[201er]

3 hours ago, PTK said:

Mike, if I were a betting man I would bet Jim has the requisite experience (25+ years) to be a much safer VFR pilot than you can be VFR/IFR. I would trust him and his decision making a lot more because of his experience and discipline. And experience can only come with years of practice and training. Although I do maintain currency and mostly do file, I would have Jim fly me on a hypothetical trip across the country VFR, before you VFR/IFR. Having a piece of paper saying you're "legal" cannot be confused with nor can it replace decades of  "experience." There are no magical powers that an IFR rating suddenly imparts on its holder. It's naive to think that it's that simple. Experience is the key.

I'll sooner take my chances being beaten on United than flying with you.

[201er]

7 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Doc, but come on, guys. Let's not start a betting pool about who is the safer pilot, me or Mike. If history is any indication of the future both of us are very likely to successfully complete such a flight as long as we continue to honor our own well-established personal minimums. I'd really rather that be the lesson learned from this discussion, not who has the bigger ...

Jim

Lmfao, Jim this is coming from the guy who wants to make instrument rating mandatory for all private pilots!

 

"But in all seriousness, as I've said before and it's only my opinion, that we train pilots backwards. Instead of graduating VFR only pilots we should make the instrument ticket mandatory. All pilots should graduate with it and stay current. Then if they choose to only fly VFR it's their prerogative. But they will have the training. " -PTK

Edited April 21, 2017 by 201er

[Hank]

9 minutes ago, 201er said:

Lmfao, Jim this is coming from the guy who wants to make instrument rating mandatory for all private pilots!

 

"But in all seriousness, as I've said before and it's only my opinion, that we train pilots backwards. Instead of graduating VFR only pilots we should make the instrument ticket mandatory. All pilots should graduate with it and stay current. Then if they choose to only fly VFR it's their prerogative. But they will have the training. " -PTK

Give the dentist a break, Mike. Garmin hasn't announced a position relative to required vs. optional instrument training. But when they do . . . .

[Shadrach]

Wow, this thread degraded quickly...Something in the air (I'm on a roll)?  There sure is a lot of passion for hypotheiticals that rarely come to pass. Name calling, questioning other's judgment without ever seeing it in action...

[N201MKTurbo]

Wow,

I can't believe how many people here are afraid to fly VFR and call those who do irresponsible.

Maybe we should all challenge ourselves to make a long VFR cross country without any GPS and paper charts. (Do they still have those.) It would improve your skill set.

Maybe we should make it a race with lots of bad weather to see who has the skills to make it through the fastest.

[DonMuncy]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Wow, this thread degraded quickly...Something in the air (I'm on a roll)?  There sure is a lot of passion for hypotheiticals that rarely come to pass. Name calling, questioning other's judgment without ever seeing it in action...

I think this discussion (and all the other ones just like it), come about because of perceptions. Those of us who have instrument ratings, are (1) proud of our accomplishment (2) think it improves our flying and (3) think it would be of benefit to others. But it is really hard to express these thoughts without coming across as "I'm instrument rated and I'm better than you". I sure don't feel that way, and I suspect most every other IR pilot doesn't either; but it often comes across that way. You don't have to have an IR to be a good pilot. I know several (and probably a lot more that I am unaware of) who are VRF only and who are lot better pilot than me. But we still think it would be of benefit to all pilots and would encourage them to get the training.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Doc, but come on, guys. Let's not start a betting pool about who is the safer pilot, me or Mike. If history is any indication of the future both of us are very likely to successfully complete such a flight as long as we continue to honor our own well-established personal minimums. I'd really rather that be the lesson learned from this discussion, not who has the bigger ...

Jim

That's and easy answer, mine is bigger.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Wow,

I can't believe how many people here are afraid to fly VFR and call those who do irresponsible.

Maybe we should all challenge ourselves to make a long VFR cross country without any GPS and paper charts. (Do they still have those.) It would improve your skill set.

Maybe we should make it a race with lots of bad weather to see who has the skills to make it through the fastest.

Last year I was making a trip (VFR) from Hagerstown MD to Salibury MD (132nm).  I was having iPod issues, so I grabbed my wife's mini and downloaded foreflight the night before.  I entered my flt plan before getting to the airport.  I noticed I had not acquired a GPS signal during taxi and tried rebooting the iPad...no dice...iPad mini has no GPS reciever.  I just blew up the sectional which was downloaded and flew VORs. It was fun to "party like it was 1999", though I elected to climb to 11,500 over the Balt/Wash/Dulles Bravo rather than brave the VFR coridor through the SFRA. 

[ArtVandelay]

Wow, this thread degraded quickly...

Certain topics always do...like "which is better Garmin or Avidyne" or any timmy or was it tommy threads?

[201er]

Just now, Hyett6420 said:

In answer to the original poster.  A mooney is a fast aeroplane.  If you wish to fly it in VFR conditions then why is that different than a 152 flying in vfr conditions, you just travel faster.  So in answer to your question, go get a mooney and fly it in any you wish.  

I don't know if you were joking or making my point. But you're exactly right. A Mooney will travel faster! You can either go a short distance in less time or in the same amount of time, cross a longer distance. This is where you start running into weather and needing an instrument rating. You can usually travel 3-5 hours VFR, but in most parts of the country, you are likely to run into weather beyond that on the same day.

Typically, a weather system will be about 1000nm across. If you're in the middle of it, you'll be able to go 500nm before running into a change in weather or if you happen to be in the front of it, then up to a 1000nm. So about 3 hours for the 500 or about 5 hours for 1000. Mooney goes too fast and is too capable to be limited to that kind of range just because the deadweight steering is short a rating.

[PTK]

6 hours ago, 201er said:

I'll sooner take my chances being beaten on United than flying with you.

Careful because you are the type who would po somebody and they would drag you out of the plane!

[201er]

17 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

I don't really agree with any of that, Mike, but even if you accept your universal 3 to 5 hour VFR weather window as gospel that is long and far enough to get excellent VFR utility out of a Mooney for the vast majority of us. 

It is becoming clear to me that you aren't hearing a word I am saying, so I will probably just shut up on this topic moving forward. 

Just pulled up the current conditions for the US. Typical example.

On the surface analysis chart you'll see that the 3 high pressure systems (Nice VFR Conditions) are around 1000nm across their longest dimension.

Taking a look at airmets for IFR, Mountain Obscuration, Radar, and METARs, we can illustrate pretty much the same picture.

Depending on whether you are at the edge or middle of a system affects how far is the max you can go without encountering weather. If you're already in the weather or it happens to be where you intend to go, you're outta luck. The original question that started this topic was about the practicality of flying a Mooney all over the country VFR.  My point is that the Mooney can do it quite well. The non-instrument rated pilot, not as much.

My point is also that short to mid-size cross countries are doable on the right days. Long cross countries (typically in excess of 500 or 1000nm) will many times cross weather systems and not be possible or not be advisable VFR. The distance that the Mooney might comfortably cover in a day might have to take several days strictly because of the inability of the pilot and not the weather or machine. That's why I strongly believe that it's a very prudent idea to get the pilot's qualifications up to the capabilities of the airplane.

[AZM20C]

A week ago I flew from Alabama (KGAD) to Arizona (KFFZ) VFR. 1400+ nm.  I am still a rookie pilot. About 250 hours.  It was supposed to be IFR but the Heading Indicator didn't work. My friend (and also my CFII) and I decided to make the trip anyway, VFR. I have to say it was a blast! I don't have my IFR but I used my "foggles" a lot. I am going to get my IFR. I am sure I would be a better pilot. The trip was a huge confidence builder for me. We had to deviate north to Wichita because of bad weather in Texas. I'm sure we would have saved a lot of time if we could have flown IFR. It's like someone said in a previous post here. A cross country is just a series of short flights. Watch out for that weather. Enjoy flying everywhere. I plan to. 

[jkhirsch]

wow

[N201MKTurbo]

54 minutes ago, 201er said:

Just pulled up the current conditions for the US. Typical example.

On the surface analysis chart you'll see that the 3 high pressure systems (Nice VFR Conditions) are around 1000nm across their longest dimension.

Taking a look at airmets for IFR, Mountain Obscuration, Radar, and METARs, we can illustrate pretty much the same picture.

Depending on whether you are at the edge or middle of a system affects how far is the max you can go without encountering weather. If you're already in the weather or it happens to be where you intend to go, you're outta luck. The original question that started this topic was about the practicality of flying a Mooney all over the country VFR.  My point is that the Mooney can do it quite well. The non-instrument rated pilot, not as much.

My point is also that short to mid-size cross countries are doable on the right days. Long cross countries (typically in excess of 500 or 1000nm) will many times cross weather systems and not be possible or not be advisable VFR. The distance that the Mooney might comfortably cover in a day might have to take several days strictly because of the inability of the pilot and not the weather or machine. That's why I strongly believe that it's a very prudent idea to get the pilot's qualifications up to the capabilities of the airplane.

Humm,

You drew Xs over a lot of places that are showing VFR ceilings and visibility.

I would fly through most of that VFR and what I can't fly through I can easily fly around.

Some times it is better to cancel IFR and go VFR when there are heavy thunderstorms. When you are out of the clouds you can see what you are getting your self into.

[Skates97]

 

2 hours ago, 201er said:

I don't know if you were joking or making my point. But you're exactly right. A Mooney will travel faster! You can either go a short distance in less time or in the same amount of time, cross a longer distance. This is where you start running into weather and needing an instrument rating. You can usually travel 3-5 hours VFR, but in most parts of the country, you are likely to run into weather beyond that on the same day.

Typically, a weather system will be about 1000nm across. If you're in the middle of it, you'll be able to go 500nm before running into a change in weather or if you happen to be in the front of it, then up to a 1000nm. So about 3 hours for the 500 or about 5 hours for 1000. Mooney goes too fast and is too capable to be limited to that kind of range just because the deadweight steering is short a rating.

Really Mike? This is a perfect example of why these type of discussions devolve so quickly. I'm just a VFR pilot, and a very new one as well. Your whole post makes some great points, and then you end it with a sentence denigrating anyone who doesn't share your zest for an instrument rating. Just make your point about the benefits of an IR without putting down anyone who decides they don't want to pursue one.

On the map you showed above I could fly from my home in Southern California to almost anywhere in the country with the exception of the storm system over the mid-west, but I wouldn't fly that with an IR anyway. And for what it's worth, I fly here all the time when there is mountain obscuration. It's a non-issue because I know where the mountains are, and it doesn't matter if the tops of them are in the clouds, I fly around them anyway. If the skies around the mountains are clear, just don't fly into the clouds...

[bonal]

Speaking to the OP how you want to use your freedom to fly is up to you for six years of flying I have only one time not got there and plan b got us home even though it took a lot longer. But I doubt there are any IR guys that have never had to scrub because of the weather. Does having the IR make you more versatile as a pilot no doubt does it make you a better pilot well if your flying in IMC then absolutely. On the other hand I have learned from my instructors that there are numbers pilots that don't have as good of a feel for the airplane (stick and rudder) as some that were taught differently. Some base it on the nature of part 61 vs part 141 style training. Some have said that flying a faster airplane makes the need for IR more essential and I think if you are thinking in terms of long long flights and keeping to a schedule  probably somewhat true but I think that flying a faster airplane gives you more versatility than a slow one. If I know that I can reach my destination in 4 hours vs 6 I have more control over the weather I am likely to encounter. If I could fly Yoopers Lance I could reach my destination before the weather changes. So my point is the faster you can fly the more you can fly VFR. Whenever we fly longer than say a hundred miles I will use FF and in many trips have never been cancelled even when Seattle advised exactly when they would lose radar they told me to within minutes when to contact Salt lake and when I did they were ready to resume following. I have been vectored around hot MOA's without issue. I have no experience flying on the east side or middle of the country and I think the crazy weather you all have out there an IR makes more sense. I don't know how ATC is back east but I know all the controllers out west are great about providing my VFR requests.

there is absolutely no reason you can't own and enjoy a Mooney as a VFR pilot

 

[Hank]

24 minutes ago, bonal said:

Speaking to the OP how you want to use your freedom to fly is up to you. . . .

there is absolutely no reason you can't own and enjoy a Mooney as a VFR pilot

 

Thanks, bonal. I agree strongly, and flew my Mooney all over the Southeast and Midwest as a VFR pilot.  I am now instrument rated because there were a very few flights that I wanted to make and missed, and a day late for the family reunion does not do any good . . . I am aware that there is still  no guarantee, just the odds are a little more in my favor.

Mooneys are wonderful for long distance travel, and they do it very well both VFR and IFR. I'm no less "deadweignt" in the left seat now than when I finished my insurance dual, I just have a lot more experience, much of which was gained flying it VFR.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Hank

[PTK]

2 hours ago, Skates97 said:

Really Mike?... and then you end it with a sentence denigrating anyone who doesn't share your zest for an instrument rating. Just make your point about the benefits of an IR without putting down anyone who decides they don't want to pursue one...

Very well said. The theme in his posts is that he knows better than anybody. If someone has a different opinion he denigrates them. He is a legend in his own mind!