Jump to content

IFR area of discussion?


Recommended Posts

About six or so months ago I went away for 10 days and picked up my IFR rating.

 

Like just getting the ppl there is the “now is the time to continue to learn” thing.

 

When I was a VFR only pilot I was very good and quite diligent at reviewing cloud bases and type of sky forecasts - few, scattered, broken — and then putting the whole picture together to see if I could make the VFR either below the bases or possibly above a layer with the forecast providing confidence/confirmation that I could get back through.

 

Every evening before a long (500 mile cross country) there was always a bit of anxiety regarding my confidence level of getting there.

 

I’m still nowhere near a down to minimums kind of pilot, but even with a 1500 foot personal minimum ceiling, my evening before flight anxiety is quite low and my dispatch rate is quite high.

 

So, this is a long-winded way of wondering if there would be value in an IFR forum/sub forum are in MS? I’m not on Facebook anymore and that is one area that I miss.

 

Buying a Mooney makes the Owner a time traveler. Getting the IR makes the IR rated pilot the master of his own Tardis.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

Congrats on picking up the rating. Now keep at it. The goal is to have your personal minimums printed on the approach plate.

I've always thought getting the IR is like taking off the training wheels. And I always get flamed for saying that. :ph34r:

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider the IR applies to all MSers...

It works across all Mooneys...

Some discussions include IR details when discussing the various places being travel to...

Often the discussion is generally IR specific...

Is there a reason to put it where other MSers won’t look at it?

 

Living in NJ, I might not read. The FL Mooney group threads...until last... :)

The CA Mooney group has really interesting activities... I might read them first....

 

What would be the advantage of separating out the IFR specific stuff?

If everyone wrote their favorite three reasons for doing it... it may make sense....

 

Some ideas sound better than they are... there is a Bravo owners group... But no Ovation owners group...

Things that get put in the Bravo owners group often apply to many other planes... the issues don’t get solved very quickly because of the narrowed audience...

PP thoughts only, neither pro or anti on the subject...

Best regards,

-a-

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have had lots of discussions on the topic, just not under an “IFR” heading. AIrframe icing, induction icing, weather sources (Scott Dennestaedt drops in now and then), instrumentation, how to fly particular approaches. The Mooney is a long distance cruiser and IFR/IMC are definitely in the mission. Lots of safety issues. I vote for it.

Edited by jlunseth
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

@irishpilot, yep - one area to go to about flying Mooney IFR - my thinking was that it would be a place to learn from others... but also as the IFR certificate changes one's airplane to "real" transportation - something that I'm just recently grasping.

@gsxrpilot - that is a great idea - one's own minimum's on an approach plate! That is just the kind of thing that would be great to have corralled in one area.

@carusoam - having them  separate in their own MS sub-forum would make them easier to read through for new MSers or to browse through on really low IFR days.  I suppose that we could also (just) use a consistent tag, but that would require diligence. Also, I get it that it might make things too diluted -- on the positive side, I won't ask for a Brittain Auto Pilot forum - but a couple of those crazy long threads are crazy useful to new comers. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Congrats on picking up the rating. Now keep at it. The goal is to have your personal minimums printed on the approach plate.

I've always thought getting the IR is like taking off the training wheels. And I always get flamed for saying that. :ph34r:

Agreed on the approach plate personal minimums.  A fellow MSer (who I consider one of the safest and conservative pilots I've met) told me his personal minimums were the approach plate minimums.  This person doesn't fly for a living but practices approaches under the hood on a weekly basis down to minimums.  I completely agree with him on this subject. The rationale is that if you're staying current and always training to this level, why wouldn't this be the level you should fly to?

Additionally, if you're never going to go out in real IMC conditions when the layer is lower than 1500' or 1000', what happens when you're all of a sudden caught off guard with a 300-500' ceiling?  The weather has a funny way of messing with even the most perfect plan.

I'm not saying personal minimums do not make sense, but they should be commensurate with the level of practice and currency being maintained.  I'd argue that a 5000 hr pilot flying to LPV mins after not flying for a month or two is much riskier than a someone with significantly lowers hours who is practicing them on a weekly basis.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Davidv said:

Agreed on the approach plate personal minimums.  A fellow MSer (who I consider one of the safest and conservative pilots I've met) told me his personal minimums were the approach plate minimums.  This person doesn't fly for a living but practices approaches under the hood on a weekly basis down to minimums.  I completely agree with him on this subject. The rationale is that if you're staying current and always training to this level, why wouldn't this be the level you should fly to?

Always take your practice approaches to minimums. But I don't plan to fly somewhere that is forecasting minimums at my expected arrival, because weather happens and you get what you get (often different from the forecast).

The PPL is a license to learn, the Instrument Rating is the same but more challenging and with greater risks and rewards.

Stay current, stay proficient and stay safe!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 211º said:

@irishpilot, yep - one area to go to about flying Mooney IFR - my thinking was that it would be a place to learn from others... but also as the IFR certificate changes one's airplane to "real" transportation - something that I'm just recently grasping.

@gsxrpilot - that is a great idea - one's own minimum's on an approach plate! That is just the kind of thing that would be great to have corralled in one area.

@carusoam - having them  separate in their own MS sub-forum would make them easier to read through for new MSers or to browse through on really low IFR days.  I suppose that we could also (just) use a consistent tag, but that would require diligence. Also, I get it that it might make things too diluted -- on the positive side, I won't ask for a Brittain Auto Pilot forum - but a couple of those crazy long threads are crazy useful to new comers. 

Congrats.

Don't worry, you can still be anxious.  Now instead of worrying about the cloud bases, you can worry about the freezing level and icing.

I think you misunderstood gsxrpilot's comment about minimums.  I don't think he was suggesting that you be able to write your personal minimums on the plate.  I think he was saying your goal should be to eventually be comfortable with flying an approach to minimums.

There is more than one type of minimums for approaches.

Takeoff minimums.  Zero zero?  One mile? 300 & 1?  Approach minimums at some near by airport in case something goes wrong right after takeoff?  Mine are 1 mile visibility (I can see the power lines off the end of the runway) and an airport reasonably close with weather above minimums.

Go no go minimums.  Minimum weather at your destination at departure time.  Current weather below minimums but forecast to be above minimums at arrival?  Current and forecast above minimums?  Something better?  Mine are current and forecast 200 & 1/2 above minimums.

Actual approach minimums.  How low will you go before going missed approach?  Mine are published minimums.  Of course having an autopilot that can fly the approach while I look for the runway helps.

Let me give it a try anyway minimums.  There are times when the weather sounds like you won't get in but it turns out you see the runway before minimums anyway.  Depending on the approach I'd probably give it one try with reported weather 100 or 200 below minimums and/or vis 1/2 of required vis.

Alternate minimums.  How far away?  Happy with 600 & 2 or 800 & 2?  I want my alternate to be almost a sure thing.  I'm thinking more like 1000 & 3 at an airport with an ILS or LPV.

Along with great power comes great responsibility.  Enjoy your new rating.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, to me most IFR discussions are 1) weather, 2) equipment, or 3) configs/technique.  Weather has a home in Misc Aviation, Equipment is specific to the model or maybe General Mooney, and Config/Technique is often specific to the model.  Seems like a lot of cross-pollination and something that's hard to pin down.  I'd probably vote to not have another forum.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

I think you misunderstood gsxrpilot's comment about minimums.  I don't think he was suggesting that you be able to write your personal minimums on the plate.  I think he was saying your goal should be to eventually be comfortable with flying an approach to minimums.

Correct.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm for this.  If it encourages pilots to ask questions about about unique approaches, weather, or even things that were covered "years" ago when he/she got their IR, then I think it's a good thing.  I realize BT has a lot more members (many of us are members of both) but they have an IFR/WX category as well.  In fact I see many MS'rs over there in that category even.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also favor a new IFR section or IFR/Weather section. You’re always learning flying IFR. I used to hear a few pilots say that they will never be as sharp as they were for the IFR checkride. I couldn’t disagree more and hope that’s never the case. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be a little bit contrarian and say that I don't think any of this sort of discussion should be in an isolated area where VFR pilots or people just not interested in an IFR-only area might miss them.   These discussions already happen and can happen in the existing catch-all flying sections, and I think it is beneficial for them to be more apparent and available to VFR or not-specifically-interested pilots so that they'll be more likely to participate or benefit.

I don't think I'd have bothered going to an IFR-specific sub-forum before I got my IR, but I did read the occasional IFR-topic that went by if it seemed interesting and relevant, and I think that's very useful.   Especially weather topics or dealing with ATC, etc., I think will be far more beneficial to the wider audience.

I guess I'd ask what problem is solved by making a separate sub-forum?   I think it just makes useful stuff less broadly accessible with potentially fewer participants.

Edited by EricJ
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Correct.

 And I’ll add that even after you get enough experience to be comfortable down to minimums there are lots of judgment calls to be made.  For example, if the destination is unfamiliar and/or in mountainous terrain, etc. Lots of variables to consider for the prudent pilot.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric I don’t think having a subtopic regarding instrument situations would be limited to those only with the rating merely a consolidation of IFR/WX topics which obviously is good for all of us to absorb 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Danb said:

Eric I don’t think having a subtopic regarding instrument situations would be limited to those only with the rating merely a consolidation of IFR/WX topics which obviously is good for all of us to absorb 

Of course it wouldn't be set up to be intentionally exclusive, but it would naturally have the effect of reducing readership by VFR or other folks just not bothering with it.   I don't think that's a good side effect.   I don't really see a benefit to it, but I do see some downsides.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Davidv said:

Agreed on the approach plate personal minimums.  A fellow MSer (who I consider one of the safest and conservative pilots I've met) told me his personal minimums were the approach plate minimums.  This person doesn't fly for a living but practices approaches under the hood on a weekly basis down to minimums.  I completely agree with him on this subject. The rationale is that if you're staying current and always training to this level, why wouldn't this be the level you should fly to?

Yes agree on that as long as you keep enough currency for it, there is no other choice than getting comfortable with flying down to plate numbers, any other numbers will make in-flight decision sluggish & hard & irrational: if you break at 1000ft (even with surface in-sight) you don't see the runway, unlike when you go down to plate numbers and open you eyes it is either there or not there (and with high probability it is there :)), for planning, Go/NoGo on the ground one can use their own conservative "personal planing minimums"

Getting 1nm visibility for 5nm forecasted or 500ft ceiling for 1000ft planned is very common and to see the runway from 1000ft DH you will need +5nm visibility, that will be impossible most of the times

No suggesting to anyone changing their planning/flying personal minima, just describing how I personally end up practicing/flying approach down to plates numbers instead of using "conservative 3km vis/800ft cei and 50% en-route in VMC" which I still use for planning due to lack of IFR backups and decent AP on the aircraft but surely not when flying...

Edited by Ibra
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ibra said:

Yes agree on that as long as you keep enough currency for it, there is no other choice than getting comfortable with flying down to plate numbers, any other numbers will make in-flight decision sluggish & hard & irrational: if you break at 1000ft (even with surface in-sight) you don't see the runway, unlike when you go down to plate numbers and open you eyes it is either there or not there (and with high probability it is there :)), for planning, Go/NoGo on the ground one can use their own conservative "personal planing minimums"

Getting 1nm visibility for 5nm forecasted or 500ft ceiling for 1000ft planned is very common and to see the runway from 1000ft DH you will need +5nm visibility, that will be impossible most of the times

No suggesting to anyone changing their planning/flying personal minima, just describing how I personally end up practicing/flying approach down to plates numbers instead of using "conservative 3km vis/800ft cei and 50% en-route in VMC" which I still use for planning due to lack of IFR backups and decent AP on the aircraft but surely not when flying...

Unfortunately that occurs albeit seldom if one follows the forecast and current wx enroute.

A few years ago like most everyone who flies it happens, going into Gulfport I expected 1500 ovc, 5+ visibility, oh well, tstorms eliminated going to alt which was crummy also. Had to brief debrief plates numerous times to make sure the approach was clearly understood, broke out at minimums,  tstorm hit before parked.  Ie. Practice I just pretended my CFI as sitting next to me.

ie. Plan for you self minimums be prepared for worse.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bravoman said:

 And I’ll add that even after you get enough experience to be comfortable down to minimums there are lots of judgment calls to be made.  For example, if the destination is unfamiliar and/or in mountainous terrain, etc. Lots of variables to consider for the prudent pilot.

I fly professionally.  The vast majority of my 31,000 hours are IFR (not IMC).  Flying the Mooney, I do not use published minima for the same reason that I do not fly single engine airplanes after dark.  In my own personal risk-reward matrix, an engine, or electrical failure in published minima conditions doesn't compute.

I realize that other pilots' risk-reward matrix is different from mine.

Edited by Mooneymite
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

In my own personal risk-reward matrix, an engine, or electrical failure in published minima conditions doesn't compute.

How much that opinion would change with dual electrics? dual engines? or parachute?

For engine failures, in low IFR approach isn't that the same risk-reward situation as visual takeoff EFATO in CAVOK with power rolling back at 500ft? not much can be done, the outcome is mainly determined by keeping wing level and flying controllable slow speed than making the best landing options but yes more risk-reward or risk appetite question than flight rules or conditions...also that low 500ft agl risk profile will not change much with a twin on one engine or parachute, for en-route cruise in IMC/Night I agree it may make a whole different change to risk profile flying a twin or parachute, but down to low 500ft IFR, I would argue it is the same risk-reward if one incorporates lack of OEI currency, complexity, MTOW and higher speeds... 

To guarantee 100% a successful forced landing one needs 2000ft heights and decent patches in glide range, asking for 2000ft ceiling en-route would make any sort of IFR in single engines impossible, but I still some pilots prefer to fly them VFR at 1000ft under 2000ft agl ceiling rather than IFR at 8000ft over the tops, sometimes instrument rated due to their concerns with engine failure options, I am not sure if that's a rational choice given that the failure randomly happens along the cruise flight path :D?

For electric failures, I completely agree with your statement about capability to reach minima is decided by having robust IFR backups, for those without robust IFR avionics one will have to stick to "1500ft agl & 5km vis & 6 oktas" in their planning.... 

It is all subjective of course ;)

Edited by Ibra
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2020 at 10:08 AM, gsxrpilot said:

Filing IFR even on VFR days is good practice for the radio work and procedures. The more you sound like a pro pilot, the more likely ATC will treat you like a pro pilot. 

I'm a controller and this is absolutely true.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am skeptical that a new forum category is useful for IFR. A good many of the IFR procedural discussions we have are all in the context of a particular navigator where we have a forum on Avionics as it is. 

I am more of the opinion we have too many and that more easily lead to miss use which is apparent when you go searching for something you recall but couldn't recall where. But perhaps the Bravo forum is the best example of an unnecessary forum IMO - very little of its discussion has to do with the Bravo engine and the rest is no different than any other Longbody Mooney.  The geographical forums we have make more sense, but why does Florida need its own forum versus all the other states. 

I guess I prefer simplicity. 

 

Edited by kortopates
  • Like 4
Link to post
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.