Jump to content

VFR flying is it right?


Dream to fly

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, PTK said:

Yes, as I clearly stated this is my opinion. Do you have a dfferent opinion or are you talking out of both sides of your mouth?

"One thing I can tell you is that I feel a heck of a lot more comfortable flying VFR while having he IFR skills, knowledge, and capability." -201er

I feel that it's extremely useful for flying a Mooney cross country. I think it is silly for Mooney pilots to avoid getting IR when the plane they fly is meant for it and will get them into weather quicker than just about any other single.

I don't think it should be mandatory because there are plenty of pilots flying locally often in non-IFR planes. A guy who wants to just fly a cub around the pattern, aerobatics in the box, or the Skyhawk to the next airport, should not be burdened with a requirement to get a rating they can't make use of.

But at least in Mooneyspace, you would presume that people fly Mooneys (ok, no offense to those who fly M18), and a Mooney isn't an aerobatic, round the pattern, local flying plane. It's a capable, fast, efficient, cross country traveling airplane. You'd expect the pilots choosing Mooneys to align their capabilities with the machine and mission they chose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, M20F said:

The distinction should be IMC versus VMC.  I almost always fly IFR because it reduces my workload thanks to the controller helping with traffic, airspace, weather, etc.  I rarely fly IMC because there just isn't that much of it out there when you really think about it. 

True. But you can't fly IFR without being capable of flying in IMC. You can't legally fly in IMC without being IFR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 201er said:

 Mooney isn't an aerobatic, round the pattern, local flying plane. It's a capable, fast, efficient, cross country traveling airplane. You'd expect the pilots choosing Mooneys to align their capabilities with the machine and mission they chose.

The A-J models have more in common with a 172 then they do with a K or later model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out here in the west, there has been far more times that I couldn't go IFR than I couldn't go VFR. having a non-FIKI airplane really reduces its usefulness when it is actual IMC.  

I have had many flights where I had to cancel IFR for ice or thunder storms and was able to continue the flight VFR. 

The instrument rating is just one tool in the box. Not the cure all for weather flying.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 10:54 PM, carusoam said:

That was the shortest message in my history.

Many of us are VFR only.  

Many of us travel from the home drome, across the country to places like KOSH or SnF.

What is important is your ability to fly long cross countries.  Navigate, communicate, know the weather, don't run out of gas.

That kind of thing.  Start small close to home and expand on your skills.  One step at a time.

No sense in going beyond your skills.  How many hours do you have?  Long cross countries are just a collection of shorter cross countries.  The further you travel, the more crummy weather you will run into.

PP Thinking only. Not a cfii.

Best regards,

-a-

Yes Anthony , and we ALL appreciate that..... Keep up the good work....... Concise , Succinct , to the point.......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Out here in the west, there has been far more times that I couldn't go IMC than I couldn't go VMC

Fixed that for you.  I do a fair amount out West and definitely been times where IMC would be a problem.  I just file for where it is VMC.  It can lead at times for the need to be on an airway or position report but never had an issue with getting lower or higher while IFR to stay VMC.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VFR flying, is it right?  Some think not being IFR rated and current is "silly" if you own a Mooney.  Really?  My primary mission is flying two hours north and 2.5 hours south.  I fly for pleasure.  I don't need to go a certain weekend.  The Mooney reduces travel from 12 & 16 hours round trip to 4 and 5.  I don't have to deal with construction, duck boats, campers and driving.  I drive 30k business miles a year.  I don't need/like to drive long distances when I do it week in week out, year in year out for work.  I enjoy flying the Mooney.  I choose not to obtain my IFR ticket.  I think calling me silly is silly.  The plane costs me 2grand a year plus gas.  Worth it to me for my pleasure time to be pleasureable.  I could not do some weekends to my destinations without Mooney as time would be spent driving NOT recreating.  My mission is not to fly "around the US".  If I am going a long distance I choose Allegiant and a rental car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2017 at 5:30 AM, PTK said:

There are no magical powers that an IFR rating suddenly imparts on its holder.

Bravo! I sort of agree with you as well that pilot training is, not so much backward, but misguided. To be fair to the aviation gods, it evolved this way. Everyone was VFR until the technology made flying in IMC practical.

I think the whole thing needs to be revamped. Why can't we just toss VFR and IFR out the window and move to TO, cruise and landings? I feel confident that the consensus amongst pilots is that IFR  landings are the tricky part, that you spend the majority of your time learning approaches and practicing them, and then to stay current you have to do them. Landings also demand the most expensive equipment.

I'd like to see a different set of flight rules centered around weather conditions in each stage of flight. It would not be difficult then for all PPL pilots to learn and be certified for IFR TO and cruise, with a separate rating for IFR approaches and landing. The landing part would be dictated by conditions at the destination, just like it is now. IMC at origin and in cruise would be open to everyone because that would be included in their training. So any pilot could TO and fly in IMC, but only an IA (Instrument Approach) rated pilot could land in IMC.

This would increase the safety of flight overall and increase the number of flights by GA pilots. It would also increase the number of pilots moving on to the IA rating, which in the end would be equivalent to our current IFR ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.