VFR flying is it right?

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, 201er said:

Yeah, I think that's pretty irresponsible as a VFR only pilot. It's not just about relying on the plane not breaking. Say your passenger gets sick or something else forces you to need to land ASAP but the overcast continues around you for many miles. You have no out. If it's a non-emergency but an urgent situation, your passenger is about to crap themselves and you value your interior, you're SOL. If it's a declared emergency, you still don't have the training, experience in the system, or currency to reliably pull that off.

I think calling VFR  pilots flying over IFR conditions irresponsible is a bit over-the-top (punny). It's certainly not conservative, but irresponsible?  Do you scrub a trip if sections of weather along your route are forecast to be below IFR minimums?   While the situation is different, your options are the same. Meaning you've put yourself in a situation where an emergency would require you to bust the regs and possibly dead stick in IMC...off airport. 

Irresponsible is a serious word. It's also subjective. One could make a case that single engine IFR is irresponsible. 

[201er]

21 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I think calling VFR  pilots flying over IFR conditions irresponsible  is a bit over-the-top.it's certainly not conservative, but irresponsible?  Do you swim a trip in sections and weather along your route are forecast to be below IFR minimums?   While the situation is different, your options are the same. Meaning put yourself in a situation where an emergency would require you to bust the regs and possibly dead stick in IMC off airport. 

Irresponsible is serious word. It's also subjective. One could make a case that single engine IFR is irresponsible. 

Ok, unconservative or something like that. Not sure how you'd call something in that range of severity. Less than irresponsible but more than just right. You get my point though. Don't get hung up on the word but feel free to disagree to my overall explained opinion. 

[Shadrach]

9 minutes ago, 201er said:

Ok, unconservative or something like that. Not sure how you'd call something in that range of severity. Less than irresponsible but more than just right. You get my point though. Don't get hung up on the word but feel free to disagree to my overall explained opinion. 

You didn't answer the question sir! Is it your SOP to scrub a trip if the weather along your route is forecast below minimums?

[Shadrach]

Guys, I'm posting from an iPhone with a mind of its own. I've edited my posts to say what I wanted them to say instead of what my phone thought I wanted to say.

[201er]

Just now, Shadrach said:

You didn't answer the question sir! Is it your SOP to scrub a trip if the weather along your route is forecast below minimums?

Yes

[Shadrach]

Just now, 201er said:

Yes

I don't know the typed equivalent of covering your mouth and coughing the word bull$hit but if I did I would be typing it here...

 

[201er]

Will I fly xcountry crossing a single airport that's below minimums but with other places to go, yeah. Will I fly xcountry where every airport for 100 miles is below minimums, no. It could be 1000 overcast and some airports have low quality approaches with high minimums. But if there are other airports around with ILS, that's alright with me. But will I go when the ILS airports are below minimums? NO.

[201er]

Just now, bluehighwayflyer said:

I'm joking here of course, Mike, but what happens if your engine quits, your passenger has a heart attack, and your bird shits in your lap all at the same time and while you are flying at night over that one airport along your route that is below IFR minimums?  Would you be in a better position than would I under identical circumstances (minus the bird shit, of course!) along my day VFR over the top route of travel?

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.

[Hank]

What we have here is a classic case of some highly-strung IFR pilots trying to force their own personal limits on VFR pilots.

Let me rephrase:  everyone has different personal limits. Don't hold me to yours, and I won't hold you to mine. That's why they are "personal" limits.

I flew 1300+ nm each way on vacation with my wife as a VFR opilot. Crossed 200 hours in my logbook on that trip, as I'd had the Mooney for a year and a month. Had the generic 5 hr PPL training, and Insurance required this 62-hour pilot to get 5 more hours of real or simulated IMC during transition. That's all I had, and there were no problems. Took a long lunch in Illinois westbound, and stopped short of Springfield, IL coming home. Not bad considering I logged just over 25 hours on that trip. Were the skies clear all the time? No. Was there overcast? yes. Did I dodge any clouds? You betcha! Didn't hit any, though.

the reason I continued training was due to missing a trip that I really wanted to make, going to the family reunion and picking up Mom on the way. Turned around with eyes glued to the TC and AH as the forecast mountain obscuration in E. KY didn't clear up as forecast and wasn't limited to ground fog . . .

Go fly, fly often, learn your plane and be proficient. If you can do that, travel the world in your Mooney, as far and fast as you want to go. My own travel plans:

1. if good weather, go VFR.
2. if bad weather, go IFR.
3. if really bad, go CAR.
4. slap anyone who tries to impose their personal limits on me, then walk away.

And remember, perfect weather is rare in most of the country.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Hank

[Dream to fly]

3 hours ago, 201er said:

To the OP (and the other non IR guys), you will notice a common theme when it comes to IR bashing and trying to affirm VFR, it's exclusively the VFR only guys that do it. You're not going to find an instrument rated guy that regrets it. Everyone that has gotten the training and has witnessed the utility of it will support it. It's only the guys who for one reason or another don't want to put the work in to getting it that will tell you that VFR is just as good.

 

I agree and in no way was putting IFR pilots down.  I just know my wallet at the moment is tapped because of airplane issues and in time will complete and succeed in getting my IFR ticket.  My reserve is that as you stated when you get stuck on the ground is easy but in the air you can't pull over to cloud 9 and wait you have to turn around or get out.  There is the chance that neither is possible that is why I do agree that IFR is important.  The one thing I am fully taking away from this thread is that all pilots are passionate about their abilities and planning the flight either IFR or VFR is mission critical.  So I have a question to ask...  Has a VFR pilot every gotten into trouble after asking for help when weather turned or they were closed in even after what they thought was proper planning but poor decision making?  I know if you enter a no fly zone whatever they label it as is a no-no and that is a different story.  My fear I think after reading all the posts is that repercussions could be extreme with the FAA and fellow airmen.  

[Yetti]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

I think calling VFR  pilots flying over IFR conditions irresponsible  is a bit over-the-top.

I see what you did there

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

We as PICs all have to decide how to pare the risk tree and we can do it in whatever manner we like as long as it is consistent with the FARs. I think in your case you obtained your instrument rating relatively early in your flying experience and that before that you never engaged much in complex weather related aeronautical decision making.  As a result now you view less than perfect weather and VFR as mutually exclusive and they very much are not.  You often fly very long flights at night and over sparsely traveled international waters and you have every right to do so. I wouldn't, but you do and that is fine. I enjoy reading about and watching your videos about your experiences. Please keep posting them but accept that not everyone's path is the same as yours. Have you ever spent a week receiving instrument training at Flight Safety in Wichita?  I have.  Aircraft Ditching School in Groton?  I have.  Chamber training?  Yada, yada, yada. 

We get so tied up with our personal point of view being a universal RIGHT, we miss this point. Our views of what is acceptable is so tied to our experiences. I learned how to fly in New England where the summer "milk bottle" meant "clear skies with 5 miles visibility in haze" and a 20 NM water overflight meant not having sight of land. Yeah, it led me to want the instrument rating but it really was perfectly acceptable VFR.

Fast forward to 20 years in Colorado where 10 miles visibility is considered "marginal VFR," a 3,000' ceiling pretty much IMC, and crossing a body of water much larger than a puddle tied knots in our stomachs.

My choices don't have to be yours and your don't have to be mine. Personally, I like it that way.

[Shadrach]

1 hour 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.

Being instrument "certified" and being instrument "capable" are not synonomous. CFIT happens across the spectrum.  

My primary instructor made sure that we were instrument capable well beyond what was required by the regs to get a PPL.

There's an instructor at my airport that pushes his customers to do their flightreviews under the hood regardless of their rating.  I applaud him for it. 

[Yetti]

1 hour ago, Dream to fly said:

I  Has a VFR pilot every gotten into trouble after asking for help when weather turned or they were closed in even after what they thought was proper planning but poor decision making?

NO ATC is there to help you.   Fly to the most options means using all options available to you to get down safely.  ATC is someone that may know of more options that you currently know of.

[Yetti]

other airplanes in the area would be another option.  Even the manned  FBO with a radio is an option.

[Yetti]

Cell phone is also an option

[thinwing]

3 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

We as PICs all have to decide how to pare the risk tree and we can do it in whatever manner we like as long as it is consistent with the FARs. I think in your case you obtained your instrument rating relatively early in your flying experience and that before that you never engaged much in complex weather related aeronautical decision making.  As a result now you view less than perfect weather and VFR as mutually exclusive and they very much are not.  You often fly very long flights at night and over sparsely traveled international waters and you have every right to do so. I wouldn't, but you do and that is fine. I enjoy reading about and watching your videos about your experiences. Please keep posting them but accept that not everyone's path is the same as yours. Have you ever spent a week receiving instrument training at Flight Safety in Wichita?  I have.  Aircraft Ditching School in Groton?  I have.  Chamber training?  Yada, yada, yada. 

The vfr on top you are recommending is completely illegal in Canada and Mexico without an IR.Why do you think that is?Do you think it is because too many pilots got stuck on top while trying to traverse hundreds of miles of undercast?Perhaps our Mooneys are actually pretty slow when compared with a turboprop or business jet so that on board weather isn't going to help you if you are 2 hours out from vmc,and the weather at destination is changing.Hey you mention a week at Flight Safety receiving instrument training...I've been there and except their current vero beach Flight Safety Academy ,I wasn't aware Flight Safety ever did basic instrument training.Yes on type ratings,ATP ,turbine transitions,dispatch . Etc ,Were you there for a type rating or required proficiency?

[Marauder]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[thinwing]

In the case of Canada and Mexico ,both terms OTT and OT both require an IR.The first because that's a pilot limitation (along with some pretty strict destination weather and cloud layer requirements) and the second because it's under IFR flight rules.So my point (and 201ers) is that long distance Vfr flight above a undercast without an IR is risky business.You are correct it is legal in the US ,but apparently no where else.Every flight instructor I've had in the past ,has basically recommended against it.Your comment on flight Safety surprised me...when I was there the minimum requirement was a ppl with IR and that was for a rare pvt operator getting a type rating and maybe an atp.I guess they had different rules for you than.

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, thinwing said:

In the case of Canada and Mexico ,both terms OTT and OT both require an IR.The first because that's a pilot limitation (along with some pretty strict destination weather and cloud layer requirements) and the second because it's under IFR flight rules.So my point (and 201ers) is that long distance Vfr flight above a undercast without an IR is risky business.You are correct it is legal in the US ,but apparently no where else.Every flight instructor I've had in the past ,has basically recommended against it.Your comment on flight Safety surprised me...when I was there the minimum requirement was a ppl with IR and that was for a rare pvt operator getting a type rating and maybe an atp.I guess they had different rules for you than.

So the real question is does "everywhere else" enjoy a significant per capita, statistical reduction in IMC incidents and accidents by VFR only pilots?  I am all for good policy that balances saftey against personal freedom, but if the data doesn't show that it makes a difference, then it's just a feel good talking point.  

[Guest]

6 hours ago, thinwing said:

The vfr on top you are recommending is completely illegal in Canada and Mexico without an IR.Why do you think that is?Do you think it is because too many pilots got stuck on top while trying to traverse hundreds of miles of undercast?Perhaps our Mooneys are actually pretty slow when compared with a turboprop or business jet so that on board weather isn't going to help you if you are 2 hours out from vmc,and the weather at destination is changing.Hey you mention a week at Flight Safety receiving instrument training...I've been there and except their current vero beach Flight Safety Academy ,I wasn't aware Flight Safety ever did basic instrument training.Yes on type ratings,ATP ,turbine transitions,dispatch . Etc ,Were you there for a type rating or required proficiency?

In Canada a VFR on top rating is an additional rating, it requires additional instrument training above and beyond what is required for a PPL.  It is not and Instrument Rating.

Clarence

DIVISION XIII - VFR OVER-THE-TOP RATING

421.44 Requirements

(1) General

A VFR OTT rating may be issued for either the aeroplane or helicopter category. Once an applicant has obtained the VFR OTT privileges in one category, those privileges may also be attached to a licence held in the other category.
(amended 2000/09/01; previous version)

(2) Knowledge

An applicant for a VFR OTT rating shall acquire a standard of knowledge in accordance with the Flight Instructor Standard - VFR OTT.

(3) Experience

An applicant for a VFR OTT rating shall complete a minimum of 15 hours dual instrument time of which a maximum of 5 hours may be instrument ground time. Training shall be in accordance with the Flight Instructor Standard - VFR OTT.

(4) Skill

An applicant for a VFR OTT rating shall have reached the level of skill specified in the Flight Instructor Standard - VFR OTT.

(5) Credits

An applicant for a VFR OTT rating who holds, or has held an instrument rating shall be considered to have met the Knowledge, Experience and Skill Requirements specified above, and shall be issued a VFR OTT rating upon request.
(amended 1999/03/01; previous version)

(6) Credits for DND Applicants

(amended 1999/03/01; no previous version)

An applicant who holds or has held an Instrument Rating issued by the Canadian Forces shall be considered to have met the Knowledge, Experience and Skill requirements specified above.
(amended 1999/03/01; no previous version)

(7) Credits for Foreign Applicants

(amended 1999/03/01; no previous version)

An applicant who holds or has held an instrument rating issued by a Contracting State shall be considered to have met the Knowledge, Experience and Skill requirements specified above.
(amended 1999/03/01; no previous version)

[201er]

54 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

In Canada a VFR on top rating is an additional rating, it requires additional instrument training above and beyond what is required for a PPL.  It is not and Instrument Rating.

Are there currency requirements you gotta maintain with that?

[thinwing]

56 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

In Canada a VFR on top rating is an additional rating, it requires additional instrument training above and beyond what is required for a PPL.  It is not and Instrument Rating.

Clarence

DIVISION XIII - VFR OVER-THE-TOP RATING

421.44 Requirements

(1) General

A VFR OTT rating may be issued for either the aeroplane or helicopter category. Once an applicant has obtained the VFR OTT privileges in one category, those privileges may also be attached to a licence held in the other category.
(amended 2000/09/01; previous version)

(2) Knowledge

An applicant for a VFR OTT rating shall acquire a standard of knowledge in accordance with the Flight Instructor Standard - VFR OTT.

(3) Experience

An applicant for a VFR OTT rating shall complete a minimum of 15 hours dual instrument time of which a maximum of 5 hours may be instrument ground time. Training shall be in accordance with the Flight Instructor Standard - VFR OTT.

(4) Skill

An applicant for a VFR OTT rating shall have reached the level of skill specified in the Flight Instructor Standard - VFR OTT.

(5) Credits

An applicant for a VFR OTT rating who holds, or has held an instrument rating shall be considered to have met the Knowledge, Experience and Skill Requirements specified above, and shall be issued a VFR OTT rating upon request.
(amended 1999/03/01; previous version)

(6) Credits for DND Applicants

(amended 1999/03/01; no previous version)

An applicant who holds or has held an Instrument Rating issued by the Canadian Forces shall be considered to have met the Knowledge, Experience and Skill requirements specified above.
(amended 1999/03/01; no previous version)

(7) Credits for Foreign Applicants

(amended 1999/03/01; no previous version)

An applicant who holds or has held an instrument rating issued by a Contracting State shall be considered to have met the Knowledge, Experience and Skill requirements specified above.
(amended 1999/03/01; no previous version)

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

[201er]

4 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

I'm pretty sure that by any reasonable measure I would meet and greatly exceed Canada's standard for the VFR over the top rating, which was the point I was alluding to earlier when I referenced only some of the premier training that I have sought out... Look guys, I have studied for and received high 90th percentile scores on the instrument written pre tests several times. Because I wanted to.  I have done the dunker school, aerobatics school, tailwheel school, high altitude school, and even some pretty premier instrument and systems training over the years.  Because I wanted to.  I am probably not the VFR pilot you are so afraid of.

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.

Edited April 21, 2017 by 201er

[DAVIDWH]

IFR or VFR, it all depends.

when Lindbergh landed in Paris and Sulley landed in the Hudson, 

I believe they were both on a visual.

John Glenns moon landing, another story for another day.