Today was the first time I've ever been established on approach, in actual.
A bit unnerving if I say so myself. Partly because it's been a month since
I've been able to fly.
We (another instrument pilot and I) started down into La Grange (KLGC) after
we were cleared for the approach and had to intercept the localizer while
still in the clouds. I over-banked a bit at first. We only had to descend
through about 2000' of cloud deck, but it sure felt like a lot more. We
broke out at ~1500' AGL, a little to the right of the localizer and above
the slope.

I think it will be a lot more hours before I attempt any single pilot IFR.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Wizard of Draws > wrote in message >...
> Today was the first time I've ever been established on approach, in actual.
> A bit unnerving if I say so myself. Partly because it's been a month since
> I've been able to fly.
> We (another instrument pilot and I) started down into La Grange (KLGC) after
> we were cleared for the approach and had to intercept the localizer while
> still in the clouds. I over-banked a bit at first. We only had to descend
> through about 2000' of cloud deck, but it sure felt like a lot more. We
> broke out at ~1500' AGL, a little to the right of the localizer and above
> the slope.
>
> I think it will be a lot more hours before I attempt any single pilot IFR.

Sounds like a good plan with regards to acquiring more time. Due to
knee surgery I hadn't flown in about month, so yesterday I went up
with my instructor to brush up and get back in the groove. While we
didn't have much IMC during the approach phase, we made most of the
return trip back in IMC. After getting the IR my first trip without a
CFI in IMC was with another pilot, so I'm a fan of this gradual
approach into single pilot IMC. Just having another pilot next to you
that could help out if things started going wrong definitely increases
your confidence. While I have a few guys that I will go up with as
safety pilots, it's my goal to go up with my instructor every 2-3
months. I also asked him to call me on any day where the ceilings are
near minimums and he doesn't have a student, even if it means ducking
out of work. :-)

Congrats on the first step.

Dave

"Wizard of Draws" wrote:
> I think it will be a lot more hours before I attempt any single pilot IFR.

[sings] "Ain't nothin' like the real thing, baby!"

The first time you take off by yourself and plow into a low overcast while
turning is a real sphincter tightener. That experience will make you
understand how close to death you *really* are - in a way no CFII can quite
get across.

I wish I could tell you that you will be able to train to the point where
your first solo experiences will be "no sweat," but I just don't think so.
Yes, you are right to ease into it. Practice in IMC with an instructor
every chance you get; that will help, but the time is going to come when you
are going to have to just do it. From reading your posts, I suspect you
will do fine.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

On 10/11/04 5:37 PM, in article , "Dan
Luke" > wrote:

>
> "Wizard of Draws" wrote:
>> I think it will be a lot more hours before I attempt any single pilot IFR.
>
> [sings] "Ain't nothin' like the real thing, baby!"
>
> The first time you take off by yourself and plow into a low overcast while
> turning is a real sphincter tightener. That experience will make you
> understand how close to death you *really* are - in a way no CFII can quite
> get across.
>

This was my biggest learning experience from this flight. Descending *and*
turning to intercept the localizer while in the clouds was what caught my
attention and made me realize how serious this could get, and how quickly,
especially when I saw how much I had over-banked initially.

> I wish I could tell you that you will be able to train to the point where
> your first solo experiences will be "no sweat," but I just don't think so.
> Yes, you are right to ease into it. Practice in IMC with an instructor
> every chance you get; that will help, but the time is going to come when you
> are going to have to just do it. From reading your posts, I suspect you
> will do fine.

It's funny how much I'm wishing for IMC, now that I have the rating. All the
primary students in the area are probably ready to stick pins in little
Wizard of Draws' voodoo dolls.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
news:BD90A9BF.28E0E%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
> On 10/11/04 5:37 PM, in article , "Dan
> Luke" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Wizard of Draws" wrote:
> >> I think it will be a lot more hours before I attempt any single pilot
IFR.
> >
> > [sings] "Ain't nothin' like the real thing, baby!"
> >
> > The first time you take off by yourself and plow into a low overcast
while
> > turning is a real sphincter tightener. That experience will make you
> > understand how close to death you *really* are - in a way no CFII can
quite
> > get across.
> >
>
> This was my biggest learning experience from this flight. Descending *and*
> turning to intercept the localizer while in the clouds was what caught my
> attention and made me realize how serious this could get, and how quickly,
> especially when I saw how much I had over-banked initially.

That's when you really, really understand why you did those unusual attitude
drills.

I've done a few single-pilot IMC flights (mostly flying 50-100 miles IMC to
get in the clear) shortly after earning my rating. While I don't have any problem
with normal operations in the soup, it's the unknowns of potentential task saturation
that I'm mostly concerned with. I'm hoping to get some good solid IMC practice with
another IR pilot before I head out on another 2.5hour IMC on a 4 hour x-c with a 600',
2mi LOC/DME at the end. It's all about building confidence, and having someone to
hold the plane for a minute while you collect your charts/plates/frequencies/weather
briefing/wits would be a nice safety-net to task saturation. I believe most people
call them "auto-pilots," but my plane is not so equipped... :)

-Cory

Dan Luke > wrote:

: "Wizard of Draws" wrote:
: > I think it will be a lot more hours before I attempt any single pilot IFR.

: [sings] "Ain't nothin' like the real thing, baby!"

: The first time you take off by yourself and plow into a low overcast while
: turning is a real sphincter tightener. That experience will make you
: understand how close to death you *really* are - in a way no CFII can quite
: get across.

: I wish I could tell you that you will be able to train to the point where
: your first solo experiences will be "no sweat," but I just don't think so.
: Yes, you are right to ease into it. Practice in IMC with an instructor
: every chance you get; that will help, but the time is going to come when you
: are going to have to just do it. From reading your posts, I suspect you
: will do fine.
: --
: Dan
: C-172RG at BFM



--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

> wrote:
> I've done a few single-pilot IMC flights (mostly flying 50-100 miles
> IMC to
> get in the clear) shortly after earning my rating. While I don't have
> any problem
> with normal operations in the soup, it's the unknowns of potentential
> task saturation
> that I'm mostly concerned with.

Yep, I agree. I've done quite a few single-pilot approaches in actual
IMC, and the most important thing I've learned is that there is a fine
line between being ahead of the situation and being behind it. Staying
ahead starts way before arrival in the terminal area. If you're not
completely ready by the time you get that first vector to final or,
worse, when you arrive at the IAF of a full approach, you are in serious
jeopardy of getting irretrievably behind. Task saturation can result,
and I believe this is the cause of many fatal IFR accidents.

> It's all about building confidence, and having someone to
> hold the plane for a minute while you collect your
> charts/plates/frequencies/weather
> briefing/wits would be a nice safety-net to task saturation. I
> believe most people
> call them "auto-pilots," but my plane is not so equipped... :)

What are you going to do when you don't have that? Don't get me wrong,
I'm a firm believer that a good autopilot reduces the risk of
single-pilot IFR operations - I use mine extensively - but what if it
dies? Shouldn't you be able to hand fly the procedures to minimums
without help?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke > wrote:
: > It's all about building confidence, and having someone to
: > hold the plane for a minute while you collect your
: > charts/plates/frequencies/weather
: > briefing/wits would be a nice safety-net to task saturation. I
: > believe most people
: > call them "auto-pilots," but my plane is not so equipped... :)

: What are you going to do when you don't have that? Don't get me wrong,
: I'm a firm believer that a good autopilot reduces the risk of
: single-pilot IFR operations - I use mine extensively - but what if it
: dies? Shouldn't you be able to hand fly the procedures to minimums
: without help?
: --
: Dan
: C172RG at BFM

I agree completely. Perhaps my statement was poorly written so as to be
misunderstood. My plane does not have an autopilot, nor do I believe it makes sense
to add one (can't polish a turd... PA-28-180 isn't a hard IFR machine). If one has an
autopilot, I belive that the transition to single-pilot IFR might be a bit easier,
since you can let George fly while you collect yourself/charts/wits/etc. Just during
the initial learning and confidence-building stage it could be useful as a
"backup".... You'd still better be able to do it all by hand, though. Autopilots are
good if used as a tool, but I think lots of people depend on them.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

One thing I do on an approach. I write down the minimum descent
altitude on a sticky and put it on my panel. I cannot go below that.
At 50' above that altitude, I start looking for the runway. It is all
too easy to just blow throught the MDA (DH) and keep coming down.
Important to guard against that.

Wizard of Draws > wrote in message >...
> Today was the first time I've ever been established on approach, in actual.
> A bit unnerving if I say so myself. Partly because it's been a month since
> I've been able to fly.
> We (another instrument pilot and I) started down into La Grange (KLGC) after
> we were cleared for the approach and had to intercept the localizer while
> still in the clouds. I over-banked a bit at first. We only had to descend
> through about 2000' of cloud deck, but it sure felt like a lot more. We
> broke out at ~1500' AGL, a little to the right of the localizer and above
> the slope.
>
> I think it will be a lot more hours before I attempt any single pilot IFR.

> wrote:
> My plane does not have an autopilot, nor do I believe it
> makes sense to add one (can't polish a turd...
> PA-28-180 isn't a hard IFR machine).

Whoa! What's wrong with flying hard IFR in a PA-28-180? I fly "hard IFR"
(not sure what your definition is) in a 172RG; it does just fine. A
Cherokee 180 should do just as well - unless you're talking about doing it
in the mountains...?

> If one has an autopilot, I belive that the transition to single-pilot IFR
might be a bit easier,
> since you can let George fly while you collect yourself/charts/wits/etc.

No question. The first thing I had installed in my airplane when I bought
it was a 2-axis, rate-based autopilot, but not just for "training wheels"
purposes. I still use it on every approach, unless I'm practicing hand
flying.

> Just during the initial learning and confidence-building stage it could
> be useful as a "backup".... You'd still better be able to do it all by
> hand, though. Autopilots are good if used as a tool, but I think lots
> of people depend on them.

Yep.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Doug" wrote:
> It is all too easy to just blow throught the MDA (DH)
> and keep coming down. Important to guard against that.

Very good point.

We bought one of those altitude bugs for our Cherokee 180. Sticks right to
the face of the altimeter & has a red tick for DH/MDA, yellow arc for
200-100 feet above, and green tick for 500 feet above. Works for VFR, too.
Put red tick at field elevation. At $60 some bucks, they're kinda pricey,
but pretty handy.


"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
> One thing I do on an approach. I write down the minimum descent
> altitude on a sticky and put it on my panel. I cannot go below that.
> At 50' above that altitude, I start looking for the runway. It is all
> too easy to just blow throught the MDA (DH) and keep coming down.
> Important to guard against that.
>
> Wizard of Draws > wrote in message
>...
> > Today was the first time I've ever been established on approach, in
actual.
> > A bit unnerving if I say so myself. Partly because it's been a month
since
> > I've been able to fly.
> > We (another instrument pilot and I) started down into La Grange (KLGC)
after
> > we were cleared for the approach and had to intercept the localizer
while
> > still in the clouds. I over-banked a bit at first. We only had to
descend
> > through about 2000' of cloud deck, but it sure felt like a lot more. We
> > broke out at ~1500' AGL, a little to the right of the localizer and
above
> > the slope.
> >
> > I think it will be a lot more hours before I attempt any single pilot
IFR.

Dan Luke wrote:

> Whoa! What's wrong with flying hard IFR in a PA-28-180? I fly "hard IFR"
> (not sure what your definition is) in a 172RG; it does just fine. A
> Cherokee 180 should do just as well - unless you're talking about doing it
> in the mountains...?

In fact, a fixed-gear plane like a Cherokee or Skyhawk is safer for IFR in
many ways. Take a look at the NTSB reports and try to find a *single* case
of a fixed-gear plane crashing after a vacuum pump failure in IMC while
flying IFR over the past 10 or 20 years. My Warrior II, with its slow
approach speed, high drag, sluggish roll rate and lack of any overbanking
tendency, makes a very easy IFR platform for a relatively inexperienced
pilot, even in very unpleasant conditions (including some severe turbulence
last summer).

>>Just during the initial learning and confidence-building stage it could
>>be useful as a "backup".... You'd still better be able to do it all by
>>hand, though. Autopilots are good if used as a tool, but I think lots
>>of people depend on them.
>
> Yep.

I wouldn't mind one, but it's not at the top of the list. If I move up to a
retract, though, it will be on my need-to-have list.


All the best,


David

On 10/13/04 5:35 PM, in article
, "Doug"
> wrote:

> One thing I do on an approach. I write down the minimum descent
> altitude on a sticky and put it on my panel. I cannot go below that.
> At 50' above that altitude, I start looking for the runway. It is all
> too easy to just blow throught the MDA (DH) and keep coming down.
> Important to guard against that.
>

Good idea, I'll do that.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

In article > you wrote:
: > wrote:
: > My plane does not have an autopilot, nor do I believe it
: > makes sense to add one (can't polish a turd...
: > PA-28-180 isn't a hard IFR machine).

: Whoa! What's wrong with flying hard IFR in a PA-28-180? I fly "hard IFR"
: (not sure what your definition is) in a 172RG; it does just fine. A
: Cherokee 180 should do just as well - unless you're talking about doing it
: in the mountains...?

My usual trip here in SW VA is to head up to the flatlands (OH, IL, WI)...
that requires going over some 6000 MEA mountains. Not huge, but high enough to get a
good temperature drop in the winter. That basically means IMC between Nov-Mar is
serious icing consideration. I'm not saying that a high-end trainer (PA-28-180, 172RG
seem to fit in that category) can't slog around for hours in hard IMC, but it has to
be benign enough IMC. They just generally don't have enough power to deal with any
ice, or equipment to deal with EMBED TSRA in the summertime.


: > If one has an autopilot, I belive that the transition to single-pilot IFR
: might be a bit easier,
: > since you can let George fly while you collect yourself/charts/wits/etc.

: No question. The first thing I had installed in my airplane when I bought
: it was a 2-axis, rate-based autopilot, but not just for "training wheels"
: purposes. I still use it on every approach, unless I'm practicing hand
: flying.

That's where I'm at... Not seeing the need to fork out the cash for an
autopilot, but it would be nice to have as "backup training wheels" just in case you
need to think a moment in single-pilot IMC. For the most part, I enjoy hand-flying in
the soup... just don't get to do enough.

-Cory




--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:

> My usual trip here in SW VA is to head up to the flatlands (OH, IL, WI)...
> that requires going over some 6000 MEA mountains. Not huge, but high enough to get a
> good temperature drop in the winter. That basically means IMC between Nov-Mar is
> serious icing consideration. I'm not saying that a high-end trainer (PA-28-180, 172RG
> seem to fit in that category) can't slog around for hours in hard IMC, but it has to
> be benign enough IMC. They just generally don't have enough power to deal with any
> ice, or equipment to deal with EMBED TSRA in the summertime.

I agree that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot fly in all IMC conditions, but I
don't agree that a high-performance plane without support for known icing
should be flying in much IMC that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot already handle.

Of course it's essential to have a way to detect embedded CB in real time
(not just through an uplink) if you're flying in IMC, but that's not a
function of the plane's power -- a low-powered plane like a Cherokee or
Skyhawk can have a Stormscope or Strikefinder just as easily as a Seneca or
Cessna 206.

As for icing, I agree that extra power can give you a bit more escape time
as well as the option of climbing (for a few minutes, anyway), but I think
it's easily overshadowed by other considerations. I don't mind flying in
cloud in my 160 hp Warrior around the freezing point when I have warmer air
or good VMC below me (still above MEA), but I cannot imagine doing that
while flying over mountains in a plane without certified deicing equipment,
no matter how powerful my engine.


All the best,


David

David Megginson > wrote:
: I agree that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot fly in all IMC conditions, but I
: don't agree that a high-performance plane without support for known icing
: should be flying in much IMC that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot already handle.

True enough. Range and speed (headwind considerations) might be one minor
thing. Having a slippery plane can be a liability in IMC though... especially without
an autopilot. Fixed-pitch prop gives you a nice aural warning, "Hey stupid, your pitch
is wrong!"

: Of course it's essential to have a way to detect embedded CB in real time
: (not just through an uplink) if you're flying in IMC, but that's not a
: function of the plane's power -- a low-powered plane like a Cherokee or
: Skyhawk can have a Stormscope or Strikefinder just as easily as a Seneca or
: Cessna 206.

Yes, but it doesn't make sense to have $20k worth of avionics in a $35k
airframe. When you're talking about a Six or 206, the $20k fits better with the $100k
airframe. Once again, not worth polishing a turd (not that people don't do it). I
know a guy who just recently completely rewired the panel (including TWO brand new
Garmin 430's), electric AI, new interior, and new paint jobs after some major airframe
repair (lots of rivets).... IN A CESSNA 150! Not worth the expense of making a serious
IFR machine (weather detection, autopilot) in something that's not worth it.

: As for icing, I agree that extra power can give you a bit more escape time
: as well as the option of climbing (for a few minutes, anyway), but I think
: it's easily overshadowed by other considerations. I don't mind flying in
: cloud in my 160 hp Warrior around the freezing point when I have warmer air
: or good VMC below me (still above MEA), but I cannot imagine doing that
: while flying over mountains in a plane without certified deicing equipment,
: no matter how powerful my engine.

True enough. I think it'd be fairly careless to go slog in the sub-freezing
soup expecting the extra HP to pull you up and out... unless you run Jet-A. Trouble
with higher MEA's is you don't have options over the mountains, and it's generally cold
enough. I got my first solo icing (first was with my instructor for PPL!) coming back
IMC over WV at 9000' last fall. I wasn't too worried since I knew it was above
freezing below, but when it's not you've got limited options.

-Cory
--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

David Megginson > wrote
> I agree that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot fly in all IMC conditions, but I
> don't agree that a high-performance plane without support for known icing
> should be flying in much IMC that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot already handle.

Tell you what. Fly in some icing conditions in a Skyhawk or Cherokee
class airplane. Then fly in similar conditions in some thing with
50%-100% more power and the same number of seats. Then tell me about
it.

Having had both experiences, I'm here to tell you that it's VERY
different. The extra ponies give you way more in the way of options.
They give you the option of climbing on top. They give you a power
cushion on the descent - there's a huge difference between an airplane
that needs 20" MAP to stay afloat and one that can do it on 15. There
is a huge difference between an airplane that struggles to maintain
9,000 ft with trace ice on the wings and one that can cruise on up to
13,000 while carrying half an inch of rime.

Note that neither airplane has any business REMAINING in icing
conditions - but more power gives you dramatically more options to
escape. Neither is 100%, but there is a huge difference.

Michael

wrote:

> Yes, but it doesn't make sense to have $20k worth of avionics in a $35k
> airframe. When you're talking about a Six or 206, the $20k fits better with the $100k
> airframe.

It's not quite that bad. A new Stormscope installed was about USD 8K when I
checked last spring; the used one I ended up putting in my Warrior was about
USD 2.5K plus installation (about USD 1.8K). It's cheap enough that it's a
worthwhile investment even for an entry-level IFR plane. Now, if you're
asking whether I'd put a Garmin 530, a two-axis autopilot, traffic avoidance
systems, etc. in a USD 55K plane, you'd find that you and I agree.


All the best,


David

Michael wrote:

>>I agree that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot fly in all IMC conditions, but I
>>don't agree that a high-performance plane without support for known icing
>>should be flying in much IMC that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot already handle.
>
> Tell you what. Fly in some icing conditions in a Skyhawk or Cherokee
> class airplane. Then fly in similar conditions in some thing with
> 50%-100% more power and the same number of seats. Then tell me about
> it.

Sure, I'd be thrilled to have more horsepower when I'm flying in possible
icing conditions -- the question is whether I'd be willing to fly in even
worse conditions than I would in my Warrior just because I had more
horsepower. Personally, I'd want lots of other escapes either way -- I have
trouble imagining that I'd cancel fewer flights just because I had a 240 hp
engine.

The one situation I can think of where it would make a big difference is
flying in the mountains out west (which I don't do) -- I'd be nervous flying
IFR in even remotely-possible icing conditions in a 160 hp or 180 hp plane.


All the best,


David

David Megginson > wrote
> Personally, I'd want lots of other escapes either way -- I have
> trouble imagining that I'd cancel fewer flights just because I had a 240 hp
> engine.

Given what I've seen of winter flying, I think the problem is with
your imagination :).

Seriously - any time you stick your nose into the clouds in
subfreezing temperatures, you are accepting SOME risk of ice taking
you down. Legalities aside, you have to decide how much risk you are
comfortable with. But having made that decision - realize that danger
is relative, and inexperience can be a magnifying glass (to quote
Lindbergh).

Having encountered ice both in low powered airplanes (Tomahawk,
TriPacer) and in my 320-hp Twin Comanche (comparison not direct - the
150-hp TriPacer was 2000 gross; the 320-hp Twin Comanche is 3600
gross, so the power loading difference is significant but not as
dramatic as the raw numbers might suggest), I can tell you with
absolute certainty that there is a DRAMATIC difference in the options
available. And so yes, I believe understanding of that difference
(which, unfortunately, only comes with experience) would indeed cause
you to cancel fewer flights with the bigger engine while maintaining
the same (non-zero) tolerance for risk.

Of course there is more to it than just power - I would be far less
comfortable in icing conditions in a Tiger than in a Cherokee 180,
even though the power is the same. Aerodynamic design counts for
something as well. But the basic idea is that there are differences
in the way different airplanes handle ice accumulation, and those
differences are significant. There are those who would believe that
unless you're in a known-ice Navajo, you might as well be in a
Cherokee - but that is simply not true. More power gives you more
options to escape.

Of course if your tolerance for icing risk is zero, this all goes out
the window. But in that case, the instrument rating is worthless in
half the US for half the year, and I imagine it's only worse in
Canada.

> The one situation I can think of where it would make a big difference is
> flying in the mountains out west (which I don't do) -- I'd be nervous flying
> IFR in even remotely-possible icing conditions in a 160 hp or 180 hp plane.

Or VFR over the top, for that matter. Those ice-laden clouds below
you can come up to get you. Guess how I know...

I'll give you another situation - you have a low overcast layer, bases
about 1500, tops to 5000 or so. With plenty of ponies, you can put
the plane level at full power under the bases, accelerate to as far as
she will go, zoom up, and in about three minutes you are on top -
carrying some ice, but now you're in the sunshine and that ice will
come off. Try that trick with a Cherokee...

Michael

I'm a bit skewed on avionics, since I do the installation and shop around. All
I have for a benchmark is going from *NOTHING* in the panel to a full King digital IFR
stack for about $4.5k TOTAL (less my install time). I know that's a gross exception
to the normal costs, but adding a single somewhat-optional item for $4.3k sounds
rather expensive by comparison. Usually going early enough in the day will get you by
anything that you can avoid with a stormscope, I'd think.

-Cory

David
Megginson > wrote:
: wrote:

: > Yes, but it doesn't make sense to have $20k worth of avionics in a $35k
: > airframe. When you're talking about a Six or 206, the $20k fits better with the $100k
: > airframe.

: It's not quite that bad. A new Stormscope installed was about USD 8K when I
: checked last spring; the used one I ended up putting in my Warrior was about
: USD 2.5K plus installation (about USD 1.8K). It's cheap enough that it's a
: worthwhile investment even for an entry-level IFR plane. Now, if you're
: asking whether I'd put a Garmin 530, a two-axis autopilot, traffic avoidance
: systems, etc. in a USD 55K plane, you'd find that you and I agree.


: All the best,


: David

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Michael wrote (massively snipped):

>>Personally, I'd want lots of other escapes either way -- I have
>>trouble imagining that I'd cancel fewer flights just because I had a 240 hp
>>engine.
>
> Given what I've seen of winter flying, I think the problem is with
> your imagination :).

Fair enough -- we all have different ideas of risk. For example, I'm
comfortable flying single-pilot IFR at night (without an AP in my plane),
and am willing to do circling approaches, but I won't fly circling
approaches in low IMC at night. Some might say that I'm nuts to fly SP-IFR
without an autopilot, and others might say I'm overly cautious in avoiding
night circling approaches -- we have to respect each others' personal limits
as long as they're reasonable.

> Or VFR over the top, for that matter. Those ice-laden clouds below
> you can come up to get you. Guess how I know...

Good point -- in that case, the extra horsepower might save me a diversion.
It's not a safety issue in that case (I always have the choice of turning
around rather than flying into the clouds), but it does save the trip. Of
course, a turbocharged engine and an oxygen bottle would be an even bigger
benefit.

> I'll give you another situation - you have a low overcast layer, bases
> about 1500, tops to 5000 or so. With plenty of ponies, you can put
> the plane level at full power under the bases, accelerate to as far as
> she will go, zoom up, and in about three minutes you are on top -
> carrying some ice, but now you're in the sunshine and that ice will
> come off. Try that trick with a Cherokee...

With only me on board, I might manage it in five minutes if I didn't pick up
too much ice, but fully loaded, I agree, it would be more like 10 minutes
even in the best circumstances and quite likely not at all if the plane iced
up too badly. Then again, my airframe icing tolerance is exactly zero -- at
the first trace, I change altitude (all I've had to do so far) or turn back
or land. As soon as I saw any ice in the clouds I'd be on my way back down
again, even with a fast plane.

There are some alternatives, though -- one is to do a shuttle climb
(climbing hold) within a few miles of the airport. If you succeed in
topping out the clouds without picking up ice, you continue on your way; if
you accumulate a lot of ice suddenly, you're within a couple of minutes of
the runway.


All the best,


David

David Megginson > wrote
> > Or VFR over the top, for that matter. Those ice-laden clouds below
> > you can come up to get you. Guess how I know...
>
> Good point -- in that case, the extra horsepower might save me a diversion.

No - it could save you an emergency. You can be flying over the top,
doing fine - and then the tops rise faster than you can climb. If
your ice avoidance strategy is staying on top, and you can't manage AT
LEAST a solid 500 fpm climb to outclimb rising clouds, you don't have
much of a strategy. BTDT.

> With only me on board, I might manage it in five minutes if I didn't pick up
> too much ice, but fully loaded, I agree, it would be more like 10 minutes
> even in the best circumstances and quite likely not at all if the plane iced
> up too badly. Then again, my airframe icing tolerance is exactly zero -- at
> the first trace, I change altitude (all I've had to do so far) or turn back
> or land. As soon as I saw any ice in the clouds I'd be on my way back down
> again, even with a fast plane.

You may not have that option - if it's below the MIA, you would need
to shoot an approach. Having extra horsepower makes a big difference
there too - it gives you time to get down in a controlled manner.

If the bases are above the MIA, why risk the ice at all? Just go VFR.

Yes, there are situation where the bases are above MIA where you are,
but you need to climb to get where you are going. Now we're back to
dealing with mountains, and see above about clouds climbing up to get
you.

> There are some alternatives, though -- one is to do a shuttle climb
> (climbing hold) within a few miles of the airport. If you succeed in
> topping out the clouds without picking up ice, you continue on your way; if
> you accumulate a lot of ice suddenly, you're within a couple of minutes of
> the runway.

No, you're NOT within a couple of minutes of the runway - not unless
the bases are reasonably high (above MIA, anyway). It's one thing to
fly below MIA under the bases when you can see what's ahead of you,
another thing entirely to try and descend out of the clouds, below the
MIA, not on an approach, and likely with your windshield iced over.
But without the big engine to carry you through the approach, that's
exactly what you might wind up doing - thus increasing the risk.

Michael

Michael wrote:

> No - it could save you an emergency. You can be flying over the top,
> doing fine - and then the tops rise faster than you can climb. If
> your ice avoidance strategy is staying on top, and you can't manage AT
> LEAST a solid 500 fpm climb to outclimb rising clouds, you don't have
> much of a strategy. BTDT.

Cloud tops don't generally rise at 500 fpm, except maybe in an unusually
powerful developing CB (if even then), and you cannot top that without a
turbine engine and pressurized cabin anyway -- the clouds only seem to rise
because you're moving forward; turn around and they're not rising any more.
That's a diversion, not an emergency, unless you're cutting it close on fuel.

> You may not have that option - if it's below the MIA, you would need
> to shoot an approach. Having extra horsepower makes a big difference
> there too - it gives you time to get down in a controlled manner.
>
> If the bases are above the MIA, why risk the ice at all? Just go VFR.
>
> Yes, there are situation where the bases are above MIA where you are,
> but you need to climb to get where you are going. Now we're back to
> dealing with mountains, and see above about clouds climbing up to get
> you.

Not just mountains -- even big hills can cause trouble with a 3,000 ft
ceiling. There's also the issue of IMC along the route, like the
lake-effect muck that usually sits over Watertown and Syracuse.


All the best,


David

"David Megginson" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> Cloud tops don't generally rise at 500 fpm, except maybe in an =
unusually=20
> powerful developing CB (if even then), and you cannot top that without =
a=20
> turbine engine and pressurized cabin anyway -- the clouds only seem to =
rise=20
> because you're moving forward; turn around and they're not rising any =
more.=20
> =20
>=20
> David

In summertime, it certainly does NOT take an "unusually powerful =
developing
CB" to have tops rising faster than 500 fpm.
However, since the topic is really concerned with ice and cold-weather =
flying,
your answer is appropriate in context. No harm, no foul.
---JRC---

> wrote:
> I'm not saying that a high-end trainer (PA-28-180, 172RG
> seem to fit in that category) can't slog around for hours in hard IMC,
> but it has to
> be benign enough IMC. They just generally don't have enough power to
> deal with any
> ice,

Agree.

> or equipment to deal with EMBED TSRA in the summertime.

What equipment do you need for that that a Cherokee 180 couldn't carry?
I have satellite NEXRAD + lightning that lets me deal with embedded TS
just fine.

> : No question. The first thing I had installed in my airplane when I
> bought
> : it was a 2-axis, rate-based autopilot, but not just for "training
> wheels"
> : purposes. I still use it on every approach, unless I'm practicing
> hand
> : flying.
>
> That's where I'm at... Not seeing the need to fork out the cash
> for an
> autopilot, but it would be nice to have as "backup training wheels"
> just in case you
> need to think a moment in single-pilot IMC.

I have a little different philosophy about this: I believe you should
use everything you've got. The autopilot has the same status as the AI
as far as I'm concerned: it requires proficency to use properly. That
case where you "need to think a moment in single-pilot IMC" is not the
time to make a mistake setting the autopilot.

> For the most part, I enjoy hand-flying in
> the soup... just don't get to do enough.

Some pilots seem to be a lot more relaxed than I am in IMC: I get
paranoid. I'm always expecting trouble - instruments, engine,
whatever -so I use the AP because it reduces the task load and improves
my overall awareness.

This is really why there are two pilots in an airliner, not just to have
a backup in case one dies. It's one of the reasons airline flying is so
safe. I try to follow their example to the extent my equipment allows.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke > wrote:
: What equipment do you need for that that a Cherokee 180 couldn't carry?
: I have satellite NEXRAD + lightning that lets me deal with embedded TS
: just fine.

Not that it wouldn't carry, but for the most part just doesn't make financial
sense to add it.

: I have a little different philosophy about this: I believe you should
: use everything you've got. The autopilot has the same status as the AI
: as far as I'm concerned: it requires proficency to use properly. That
: case where you "need to think a moment in single-pilot IMC" is not the
: time to make a mistake setting the autopilot.

I wasn't suggesting not using it until you need it, and I agree that you need
to be familiar with it. It's the pilots (VFR or non-current/comfortable IFR) pilots
that say things like, "I just needed to punch through a layer, so I just put the
autopilot on to climb through it." Those kinda auto-pilot-IMC'ers make me shudder.

: > For the most part, I enjoy hand-flying in
: > the soup... just don't get to do enough.

: Some pilots seem to be a lot more relaxed than I am in IMC: I get
: paranoid. I'm always expecting trouble - instruments, engine,
: whatever -so I use the AP because it reduces the task load and improves
: my overall awareness.

I wouldn't say "relaxed" is correct, but I consider any IMC time additional
training. Since most of IFR is combating task saturation, I think hand-flying while
*also* trying to expand your scan, keep tabs on weather, etc, is good practice. Since
you won't have any problems >95% of the time, that means when the chips are down that
few other percent of the time, you'll have CPU cycles to deal with it.

-Cory


************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

David Megginson > wrote
> Cloud tops don't generally rise at 500 fpm, except maybe in an unusually
> powerful developing CB (if even then), and you cannot top that without a
> turbine engine and pressurized cabin anyway -- the clouds only seem to rise
> because you're moving forward; turn around and they're not rising any more.

Yeah, I used to think so too. I turned around. It didn't help. The
clouds kept rising. But you're welcome to disbelieve me if you like -
you'll find out eventually.

> Not just mountains -- even big hills can cause trouble with a 3,000 ft
> ceiling. There's also the issue of IMC along the route, like the
> lake-effect muck that usually sits over Watertown and Syracuse.

Yes, there are situation where this is the case. And there are plenty
more situations where the bases are below the MIA, and climbing into
the soup in a low-powered airplane means rolling the dice on coming
out the bottom at a random spot rather than on an approach. Of course
it's a roll of the dice in ANY airplane - severe icing will bring down
anything - but the less excess power you have available, the worse the
odds are.

Michael