IFR rating?

[Bob Martin]

I'm debating whether to try for my IFR rating in the spring. I won't
have the time or money to start till then, but that's not the point.

The big question is, is it worth it right now? The only flying I
really do is cruising around, mild aerobatics, some formation stuff,
and occasionally a trip to the neighboring states. An IFR ticket
would be a "nice to have" but I don't think I'd really be able to make
use of it--our plane isn't IFR equipped, and probably won't be for the
forseeable future.

Any suggestions?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bob Martin wrote:
>
> Any suggestions?

My 2c. If you have the time and money to get the rating now and even suspect that you
will be able to use it in future, get it now. I procrastinated and found that later,
my job didn't leave me the time. There were quite a few trips made by car as a result
of that and one or two flights that were more nerve-racking than they would have been
with an IFR rating.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[John Gaquin]

"Bob Martin" > wrote in message

> I'm debating whether to try for my IFR rating in the spring. .
>
> The big question is, is it worth it right now? The only flying I
> really do is cruising around, mild aerobatics, some formation stuff,
> and occasionally a trip to the neighboring states.

First, alter your attitude! You said above "..I'm debating whether to try
for my IFR rating.." That should read "..I'm debating whether to *get* my
IFR rating.."

Additional training is almost always worth the effort, depending on what you
want out of it. Always remember, an Instrument Rating does not teach you to
fly in bad weather -- it teaches you to fly in low[er] visibility.

That said, an instrument rating will train you to navigate and operate the
airplane with a greater degree of precision, and will give you a more
detailed understanding of the air traffic system, and how you fit into the
flow of things, even when operating visually. All in all, this is not a bad
thing.

JG

[Bill Denton]

A question, if I may...

Bob Martin stated: "I don't think I'd really be able to make
use of it--our plane isn't IFR equipped, and probably won't be for the
foreseeable future."

While he didn't directly indicate if he flew a plane he owned, a club plane,
or something similar, I gathered there was some sort of "ownership"
involved.

Assuming this is the only airplane he regularly flies, and that it is not
IFR equipped, would he not have a problem maintaining currency?

While your advice makes sense under most circumstances, given this
particular situation might he not be better off waiting until he has the
need or his airplane is upgraded?




"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bob Martin wrote:
> >
> > Any suggestions?
>
> My 2c. If you have the time and money to get the rating now and even
suspect that you
> will be able to use it in future, get it now. I procrastinated and found
that later,
> my job didn't leave me the time. There were quite a few trips made by car
as a result
> of that and one or two flights that were more nerve-racking than they
would have been
> with an IFR rating.
>
> George Patterson
> If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Maule Driver]

I definitely go for it. It is probably the toughest and most rewarding
rating you'll get. Consider it a training exercise. Independent of whether
you are able to directly use it or remain current, you will realize many
benefits. Understanding 'the system' is a tremendous help when VFR. More
precise flight and navigation (different from acro and formation) is another
benefit.

I went and got my multi just to get some additional training in an area
where I *never* expect to fly. It was partially subsidized so I went ahead
and did it. Doesn't teach a lot that spills over to other areas but it was
a good training exercise none the less.


"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm debating whether to try for my IFR rating in the spring. I won't
> have the time or money to start till then, but that's not the point.
>
> The big question is, is it worth it right now? The only flying I
> really do is cruising around, mild aerobatics, some formation stuff,
> and occasionally a trip to the neighboring states. An IFR ticket
> would be a "nice to have" but I don't think I'd really be able to make
> use of it--our plane isn't IFR equipped, and probably won't be for the
> forseeable future.
>
> Any suggestions?

[gatt]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message

> My 2c. If you have the time and money to get the rating now and even
suspect that you
> will be able to use it in future, get it now. I procrastinated and found
that later,
> my job didn't leave me the time.

I started IFR this spring after having my PP/SEL for about ten years. The
most rewarding and interesting flying I've done yet. Even if I didn't
finish the rating (which I will), the things I've learned in the last month
have made me vastly more comfortable in the cockpit. Sure makes VFR seem
easy!

-c

[James Blakely]

My suggestion would be to skip the rating unless you're going to really use
it. I got my IFR about 2 years ago and have really only needed it a few
times. It takes a lot of time and money to stay proficient in IFR even
after you have the rating.

For enjoyment flying, IFR is not needed.


"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm debating whether to try for my IFR rating in the spring. I won't
> have the time or money to start till then, but that's not the point.
>
> The big question is, is it worth it right now? The only flying I
> really do is cruising around, mild aerobatics, some formation stuff,
> and occasionally a trip to the neighboring states. An IFR ticket
> would be a "nice to have" but I don't think I'd really be able to make
> use of it--our plane isn't IFR equipped, and probably won't be for the
> forseeable future.
>
> Any suggestions?

[Jeff]

I did not see anything wrong with his attitude, "try" can mean many things from
trying to get the time off from work to trying to get the finances together for
it.

there tends to be a trend amoungst some people to focus on words and not the
question in general.

John Gaquin wrote:

> "Bob Martin" > wrote in message
>
> > I'm debating whether to try for my IFR rating in the spring. .
> >
> > The big question is, is it worth it right now? The only flying I
> > really do is cruising around, mild aerobatics, some formation stuff,
> > and occasionally a trip to the neighboring states.
>
> First, alter your attitude! You said above "..I'm debating whether to try
> for my IFR rating.." That should read "..I'm debating whether to *get* my
> IFR rating.."
>
> Additional training is almost always worth the effort, depending on what you
> want out of it. Always remember, an Instrument Rating does not teach you to
> fly in bad weather -- it teaches you to fly in low[er] visibility.
>
> That said, an instrument rating will train you to navigate and operate the
> airplane with a greater degree of precision, and will give you a more
> detailed understanding of the air traffic system, and how you fit into the
> flow of things, even when operating visually. All in all, this is not a bad
> thing.
>
> JG

[Jeff]

Bob,
my suggestion is if its a rating you think you may want, start working on
the written exam portion, once you pass the test, its good for 2 years, so
you have 2 years to finish the rating before you wouldhave to take test
again. Also the written will put you ahead of the game because you will
already know the charts and other things you will need for the flying
portion.



Bob Martin wrote:

> I'm debating whether to try for my IFR rating in the spring. I won't
> have the time or money to start till then, but that's not the point.
>
> The big question is, is it worth it right now? The only flying I
> really do is cruising around, mild aerobatics, some formation stuff,
> and occasionally a trip to the neighboring states. An IFR ticket
> would be a "nice to have" but I don't think I'd really be able to make
> use of it--our plane isn't IFR equipped, and probably won't be for the
> forseeable future.
>
> Any suggestions?

[Bob Gardner]

Just an anecdote which may or may not affect your decision; the
circumstances are not parallel: I once gave a private checkride to a fairly
well off business owner, so well off that he had two planes on leaseback to
the FBO I worked for...a Cherokee Six and a Seneca. Obviously, the Six had
more instrumentation than your proposed plane. When he needed to travel in
instrument conditions, he had me fly the plane. Years later, when I ran an
AST-300 simulator business (I know, I know, it was a Flight Training
Device), I tried to talk him into at least getting a couple of hours in the
AST-300. "No, no...I do not have an instrument rating because I will never
use it! If I need to fly in those conditons I will hire a pilot." Note that
I was not trying to talk him into getting the rating, just to get an hour or
so of instrument instruction because it had been so long since his private
checkride. You can anticipate the end of the story...he was on the west side
of Puget Sound, the ceiling was low, it was after dark, and his daughter was
having a birthday party on the east side of Puget Sound. They found the
wreckage the next morning in a junkyard, where searchers had missed it
because of all the other white, metal things like refrigerators lying
around. Would a couple of hours of sim time taught him to keep the airplane
right side up while climbing through a layer to VFR conditions? Who can say?
But I always think of him when someone says "Oh, no...I will never fly in
instrument conditions so I don't need the training."

Bob Gardner

"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm debating whether to try for my IFR rating in the spring. I won't
> have the time or money to start till then, but that's not the point.
>
> The big question is, is it worth it right now? The only flying I
> really do is cruising around, mild aerobatics, some formation stuff,
> and occasionally a trip to the neighboring states. An IFR ticket
> would be a "nice to have" but I don't think I'd really be able to make
> use of it--our plane isn't IFR equipped, and probably won't be for the
> forseeable future.
>
> Any suggestions?

[Jay Honeck]

> I started IFR this spring after having my PP/SEL for about ten years. The
> most rewarding and interesting flying I've done yet. Even if I didn't
> finish the rating (which I will), the things I've learned in the last
month
> have made me vastly more comfortable in the cockpit. Sure makes VFR seem
> easy!

Agreed, it's good training. VFR flying becomes soooo much easier after 20
hours or so under the hood.

That said, I have not finished up my IR, even though I've got all the flying
requirements and was signed off to take the flight test. (I haven't taken
the written, yet.)

Why? Because (a) I simply don't have time right now to study, and (b) I
don't believe that I would use the rating enough to stay proficient enough
to be safe.

I've flown for almost 10 years, and almost 900 hours, VFR. Throw in another
500 hours with Mary as PIC during that period. There have been some times
when I wished I had the rating, but -- more often than not -- when I've been
grounded due to weather, an IFR rating wouldn't have helped. My plane is
simply not capable of handling ice, snow or thunderstorms -- and that covers
95% of the times I've been on the ground, cursing the weather gods...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Martin]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message >...
> A question, if I may...
>
> Bob Martin stated: "I don't think I'd really be able to make
> use of it--our plane isn't IFR equipped, and probably won't be for the
> foreseeable future."
>
> While he didn't directly indicate if he flew a plane he owned, a club plane,
> or something similar, I gathered there was some sort of "ownership"
> involved.

Yes... it's my dad's plane; an RV-6 whose only additional instruments
beyond minimum for VFR are a turn indicator, nav radio (built-in VOR
display; actually part of a nav/com radio), g-meter, and Garmin 196.
There's just an empty hole where the AI goes. I usually fly every 2-3
weeks (when I'm home for a weekend) or when I get longer stretches
(like this summer; I'll be commuting to school instead of living on
campus).

Also, when I said "try" for it, I meant that I didn't know if I'd be
able to get it in four months (ie, over spring semester). I can't
start earlier or go later since I'd have to go back down to Savannah
for work, and I definately can't afford it there. My private took me
about a year (though only 42 hours) between weather, work, school,
9/11, and money. And the only reason I'm considering it now is that
the flying club at Georgia Tech is much cheaper than any FBO or school
I've seen, both for aircraft rental and for instructor time.
Something like $60 for a 172, or $78 for a 172RG. "Advanced
instruction" is $23.

[tony]

It's worth remembering that in order for an Instrument Rating to be used, you
need to meet recent experience requirements. It's not like riding a bicycle,
where once learned, it's automatic.

Unless you're going to file IFR and fly in the clouds, I strongly suggest you
invest in hood time so you can get out of trouble should you find yourself in
IFR conditions. I think, unless you are flying 150 hours a year or so, you'd
likely not be current.

Having said that, I can tell you that SEL flying, especially at night, under
IFR is a heck of a lot easier than VFR, regardless of condtions. I mean, think
of this, coming into your tower controlled home base, being cleared for an ILS
approach which probably means, unless it's a dreaded 'circle to land' a
straight in from 5 or 6 miles.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> Assuming this is the only airplane he regularly flies, and that it is not
> IFR equipped, would he not have a problem maintaining currency?

Absolutely - in fact, I'd say it would be darn near impossible to stay current. But
it will be a lot easier to regain currency at a later time than to get the rating at
a later time.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Mike Rapoport]

Jay,

A little advice...If you aren't going to get an instrument rating, don't
curse the weather gods. You are just asking for trouble.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:L6Bjc.54148$_L6.4226739@attbi_s53...
> I've flown for almost 10 years, and almost 900 hours, VFR. Throw in
another
> 500 hours with Mary as PIC during that period. There have been some times
> when I wished I had the rating, but -- more often than not -- when I've
been
> grounded due to weather, an IFR rating wouldn't have helped. My plane is
> simply not capable of handling ice, snow or thunderstorms -- and that
covers
> 95% of the times I've been on the ground, cursing the weather gods...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[John Gaquin]

"Jeff" > wrote in message

> I did not see anything wrong with his attitude, "try" can mean many things
from

<sigh>

Send me your address. I'll send you an entire carton of nits. Free. You
can pick at them in your spare time.

[Jeff]

yes you seem to have allot of "nits", thank you for the offer tho, but I will
leave those to you.

John Gaquin wrote:

> "Jeff" > wrote in message
>
> > I did not see anything wrong with his attitude, "try" can mean many things
> from
>
> <sigh>
>
> Send me your address. I'll send you an entire carton of nits. Free. You
> can pick at them in your spare time.

[SKYKING195]

>just to get an hour or
>so of instrument instruction because it had been so long since his private
>checkride

I just had an hour of instrument hood time this week for the Wings program. (
First time doing the wings program) It was a great experience. What a challenge
for a VFR pilot.. I would like to pursue an IFR rating. I can see where it
would make you a better and safer pilot, even if you don't use it right away.
The instructor covered the AI and the DG later in the hour, and I had to make
climbing turns to headings using compass, turn and bank, airspeed and VSI only
to make it even more interesting.

Mitch
Luscombe 8A

[Bob Gardner]

That was the point of my rambling anecdote...get some serious instrument
training, whether or not you intend to go on to the rating. The hood time
for the private really doesn't prepare a pilot for the situations s/he is
likely to encounter.

Bob Gardner

"tony" > wrote in message
...
> It's worth remembering that in order for an Instrument Rating to be used,
you
> need to meet recent experience requirements. It's not like riding a
bicycle,
> where once learned, it's automatic.
>
> Unless you're going to file IFR and fly in the clouds, I strongly suggest
you
> invest in hood time so you can get out of trouble should you find yourself
in
> IFR conditions. I think, unless you are flying 150 hours a year or so,
you'd
> likely not be current.
>
> Having said that, I can tell you that SEL flying, especially at night,
under
> IFR is a heck of a lot easier than VFR, regardless of condtions. I mean,
think
> of this, coming into your tower controlled home base, being cleared for an
ILS
> approach which probably means, unless it's a dreaded 'circle to land' a
> straight in from 5 or 6 miles.
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

(SKYKING195) wrote in message >...
> >just to get an hour or
> >so of instrument instruction because it had been so long since his private
> >checkride
>
> I just had an hour of instrument hood time this week for the Wings program. (
> First time doing the wings program) It was a great experience. What a challenge
> for a VFR pilot.. I would like to pursue an IFR rating. I can see where it
> would make you a better and safer pilot, even if you don't use it right away.
> The instructor covered the AI and the DG later in the hour, and I had to make
> climbing turns to headings using compass, turn and bank, airspeed and VSI only
> to make it even more interesting.

If you don't use it right away it will go away very quickly. If you
want to be an instrument pilot you must fly in IMC. You can't just
keep the rating in your back pocket "just in case".

-Robert

[Journeyman]

In article <L6Bjc.54148$_L6.4226739@attbi_s53>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I've flown for almost 10 years, and almost 900 hours, VFR. Throw in another
> 500 hours with Mary as PIC during that period. There have been some times
> when I wished I had the rating, but -- more often than not -- when I've been
> grounded due to weather, an IFR rating wouldn't have helped. My plane is
> simply not capable of handling ice, snow or thunderstorms -- and that covers
> 95% of the times I've been on the ground, cursing the weather gods...

Okay. I think that's probably true for most places. When I decided to go
for my instrument rating, I was living on the Puget Sound, and all I needed
from the rating was to climb a few thousand feet to get above the marine layer
into clear and 1e6-mile visibility.

Here on the other Sound, coming home from FL last month (with my new plane!),
the trip was 95% VMC, but I couldn't have done it without the instrument rating.

That said, while the rating does have its utility, it definitely makes the
go/nogo decision harder, not easier.


Morris

[Roger Halstead]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:48:17 -0500, Journeyman
> wrote:

>In article <L6Bjc.54148$_L6.4226739@attbi_s53>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> I've flown for almost 10 years, and almost 900 hours, VFR. Throw in another
>> 500 hours with Mary as PIC during that period. There have been some times
>> when I wished I had the rating, but -- more often than not -- when I've been
>> grounded due to weather, an IFR rating wouldn't have helped. My plane is
>> simply not capable of handling ice, snow or thunderstorms -- and that covers
>> 95% of the times I've been on the ground, cursing the weather gods...
>
>Okay. I think that's probably true for most places. When I decided to go
>for my instrument rating, I was living on the Puget Sound, and all I needed
>from the rating was to climb a few thousand feet to get above the marine layer
>into clear and 1e6-mile visibility.
>
>Here on the other Sound, coming home from FL last month (with my new plane!),
>the trip was 95% VMC, but I couldn't have done it without the instrument rating.
>
>That said, while the rating does have its utility, it definitely makes the
>go/nogo decision harder, not easier.

It's certainly a longggg way from a blank check, but it adds greatly
to the utility of the plane and like you, it allows me to make quite a
few flights that I'd not otherwise be able to try.

I'd be a lot more comfortable with a nice big MFD with both a strike
finder output, weather RADAR displayed via satellite, AND GPS, but I
try to be careful and avoid those areas where "things" are happening.

As far as getting the rating it makes the applicant practice flying at
a precision not required for the PPL and it makes the pilot far more
conscious of the weather and what it will probably be doing well after
you reach the destination. It also reinforces the "have a way out"
type of thinking not normally present in VFR only flying.

To me it doesn't make the go/no go decision more difficult, but it may
require much more input that for VFR on many occasions.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>Morris

[tony]

>
>>> I've flown for almost 10 years, and almost 900 hours, VFR. Throw in
>another
>>> 500 hours with Mary as PIC during that period. There have been some times
>>> when I wished I had the rating, but -- more often than not -- when I've
>been
>>> grounded due to weather, an IFR rating wouldn't have helped. My plane is
>>> simply not capable of handling ice, snow or thunderstorms -- and that
>covers
>>> 95% of the times I've been on the ground, cursing the weather gods...
>>
>>Okay. I think that's probably true for most places. When I decided to go
>>for my instrument rating, I was living on the Puget Sound, and all I needed
>>from the rating was to climb a few thousand feet to get above the marine
>layer
>>into clear and 1e6-mile visibility.
>>
>>Here on the other Sound, coming home from FL last month (with my new
>plane!),
>>the trip was 95% VMC, but I couldn't have done it without the instrument
>rating.
>>
>>That said, while the rating does have its utility, it definitely makes the
>>go/nogo decision harder, not easier.
>

My personal experience is that IFR is better. I'm rated, and I had owned a
Mooney based in eastern MA, and used it mostly for business travel. About 10%
of my planned trips were cancelled because oof icing, thunder storms, no solid
gold alternate, things like that. The 90% of the trips I did make were a LOT
more comfortable under IFR, even though maybe only 20 to 30% involved actual
IMC. Some of those could have been done VFR, but who wants to fly VFR in 3 mile
vis, or less than 3000 feet for 3 or 4 hours. It's much nicer being in the
soup, having Center tell you about traffic, getting long straight in approaches
to major airports ("cleared ILS to runway 26" is so nice to hear when you're
westbound after 3 hours flight), not having to sweat termanl control zones and
the like. It makes the airplane a lot more efficient.

Then there's flying at night. Even if the weather guessers promise CAVU, flying
IFR at night is prudent adn I think much safer.

So, my experience in the northeast at least is that IFR increases the
likelihood of making a planned trip from the 60 to 70 percent range to the 90
percent range in a reasonably equipt SEL airplane. I also like to think it
increases safety quite a lot.

I just glanced through my pilot's log book -- looks like about 20% of the
flights I've logged show actual instrument conditions.

That's one SEL pilot's experience -- it may be typical for someone flying in
the Northeast.

[Journeyman]

In article >, Roger Halstead wrote:
>>
>>That said, while the rating does have its utility, it definitely makes the
>>go/nogo decision harder, not easier.
>
> It's certainly a longggg way from a blank check, but it adds greatly
> to the utility of the plane and like you, it allows me to make quite a
> few flights that I'd not otherwise be able to try.
....
> To me it doesn't make the go/no go decision more difficult, but it may
> require much more input that for VFR on many occasions.

Different way of saying the same thing? On an obviously VFR day,
going is a no-brainer. On an obviously IFR day (without the rating),
nogo is a no-brainer (modulo those who *gasp* run the scud).
When it's IFR, you need to think about a lot more things.

It goes from (usually) an obvious yes/no to a continuum. At what
point do you decide it's a nogo?


Morris

[tony]

>
>> It's certainly a longggg way from a blank check, but it adds greatly
>> to the utility of the plane and like you, it allows me to make quite a
>> few flights that I'd not otherwise be able to try.
>...
>> To me it doesn't make the go/no go decision more difficult, but it may
>> require much more input that for VFR on many occasions.
>
>Different way of saying the same thing? On an obviously VFR day,
>going is a no-brainer. On an obviously IFR day (without the rating),
>nogo is a no-brainer (modulo those who *gasp* run the scud).
>When it's IFR, you need to think about a lot more things.
>
>It goes from (usually) an obvious yes/no to a continuum. At what
>point do you decide it's a nogo?
>
>
>Morris
>
If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above your
personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't you go?

IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR.

The undlying assumption is that the PIC is both current, competent, and
confident, of course. If you haven't shot an approach or two to minimums, even
under the hood, in the past few weeks, your personal minimums should be a lot
greater than the published ones.

[Peter Duniho]

"tony" > wrote in message
...
> If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above your
> personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
> thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't you
go?
>
> IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR.

IMHO, the go/no-go decision is being made constantly, not just before
takeoff.

I agree with those who say that the instrument rating makes the
decision-making more complicated. I don't see this as necessarily a bad
thing, but it is the price of the increased utility. Basically, when flying
IFR there are more potential ways to run into flight hazards you can't see
or predict than when VFR, at least in a typically-equipped four-seater
piston airplane that most of us are flying.

Forecast above minimums? Great...forecasts can be wrong and you won't find
out until you get there and try to fly the approach. "Solid gold
alternate"? What's that? In flying, there are no guarantees. No imbedded
thunderstorms? Well, I guess if you have radar and/or a lightning detector,
you could know this. Most of us don't. No icing? Impossible to know for
sure until you fly through. No unusual turbulence reported? Past
performance is no guarantee of future returns and when flying IMC, you have
fewer clues to hint at the possibility, since you can't see visual signs of
wind conditions.

When flying day VFR, you can see outside the airplane and avoid most weather
conditions that would be a problem. Not all people do, of course, and you
still have wind to deal with. But even with wind, for the observant pilot
there are plenty of clues. Night VFR is harder, but with conservative
decision-making and proper planning, you can avoid flying into clouds, and
you can visually avoid the rest of the stuff that might cause a problem.

When flying IFR, real IFR that is, you are consistently in situations in
which it's impossible to know for sure what hazards are present until you
personally are in the area of the potential hazard. With extremely
conservative decision making it's possible to avoid these issues, but then
the utility of IFR rating becomes only slightly better than the VFR rating.
Hardly worth the effort. Some real work needs to be put into the decision
making to ensure you avoid these problems while still getting the usefulness
of the instrument rating it offers.

Bottom line: for VFR go/no-go the decision matrix is much simpler than that
found for IFR flights. To me, a more complicated decision matrix means more
complicated decision making.

Pete

[tony]

>
>> IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR.
>
>IMHO, the go/no-go decision is being made constantly, not just before
>takeoff.


Of course -- most often the night before in my case, based on weather
expectations.

>I agree with those who say that the instrument rating makes the
>decision-making more complicated. I don't see this as necessarily a bad
>thing, but it is the price of the increased utility. Basically, when flying
>IFR there are more potential ways to run into flight hazards you can't see
>or predict than when VFR, at least in a typically-equipped four-seater
>piston airplane that most of us are flying.
>
I fly an Mooney 201 that I keep in top condition, Even so I've had some in
flight failures -- vacuum pump in one case, alternator in the other, in actual
IMC conditions. Training has everything to do with handling such events, they
were hardly emergencies. As an aside, I like to keep my ADF tuned to a strong
station in the direction I'm flying, that works as a backup to the DG.


>Forecast above minimums? Great...forecasts can be wrong and you won't find
>out until you get there and try to fly the approach.


Oh come on. If the weather is slow moving and the forecast is for 1000 feet
ceiling 4 hours from now and there's an ILS with 200 feet minimums, you're
going to cancel the flight?

>Solid gold alternate" What's that?

Yeah -- my bird has 6 comfortable hours of endurance -- 8 if I go high and
lean. If my destination is 2..5 hours west, and my home base is in good weather
and it's expected to stay that way for the next half day, that's pretty golden.
BTW, if conditons are changing faster than expected, well that's what flight
service is for, you should know that and change your plans as needed. I had
unplanned RONs more than once on multiday cross countries because a weather
system brewed up some unforecasted nasties a couple of hours into a 5 hour
flight.



What's that? In flying, there are no guarantees. No imbedded
>thunderstorms? Well, I guess if you have radar and/or a lightning detector,
>you could know this. Most of us don't. No icing? Impossible to know for
>sure until you fly through.

I tend to depend on knowing where the freezing level is and pilot reports.
Mooneys don't carry ice all that well.


I have no problems with prudent pilots deciding the conditions are not to their
liking and staying on the ground. I consider myself prudent, but probably fly
in conditons you'd choose not to, and that's OK for both of us. I happen to
like hard IFR, love the feeling of looking up at minimums and seeing the runway
a half mile in front of me -- that's the happy surprise -- almost as much as I
like looking up and seeing nothing but black or grey -- that's what I expect
whenever I fly an approach, that way I know what the missed approach is going
to be and expect to fly it.

I will admit if the engine quits I'd rather be in VFR at 11,500 feet, but that
is a gamble I do take. I do everything I know how to to avoid that kind of
failure, and that's the single biggest worry about flying in hard IFR I have.

Having said all of that, I can tell you, even flying to advance my business as
I do, I probably about 5% of my flights after I get to the airport. (Equipment
problems, WX is worse than expected -- never leave if I can't get back in)

Would you agree, different strokes?

[Richard Kaplan]

"tony" > wrote in message
...
> If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above your
> personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
> thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't you
go?

There are many variations on all these issues.

Are you current in the exact airplane? In that model? Is low IMC weather
forecast and if so is it forecast locally or over a wide range?

Is there a front causing the weather and if so what would be the consequence
if the front slowed down or sped up?

If an approach is required, will wind permit this to be straight-in or
circling? If circling, have you done that recently?

What if there is no solid-gold alternate and the weather is forecast to be
800-2 everywhere within your airplane's range -- would that be easier or
harder than if your alternate is forecast to 200 - 1/2 with a 3000-10
alternate?

The possibilities are endless.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Peter Duniho]

"tony" > wrote in message
...
> >IMHO, the go/no-go decision is being made constantly, not just before
> >takeoff.
>
> Of course -- most often the night before in my case, based on weather
> expectations.

That's not what I meant. The go/no-go decision is constantly reevaluated
even after takeoff, all the way to landing.

> [...] Would you agree, different strokes?

Honestly, I have no idea what most of your post was trying to say. I didn't
say anything about engine or equipment failures at all, yet you seemed to
think that was an important point in your response. As far as the forecast
goes, you say "I consider myself prudent, but probably fly in conditons
you'd choose not to, and that's OK for both of us", which clearly misses my
point. The more challenging the weather you choose to fly in, the MORE
difficult the decision making becomes. You seem to be claiming it makes it
easier, which is mind-boggling to me.

I have no idea how, given what you wrote in your post, how you come to the
conclusion that IFR decision making is easier than VFR.

Pete

[Teacherjh]

>>
I have no idea how, given what you wrote in your post, how you come to the
conclusion that IFR decision making is easier than VFR.
<<

The difficulty of a go/no-go decision rests on a balance between pilot/plane
capabilities, and weather conditions. An experienced IFR pilot in a capable
plane will have a real easy time making a decision about flying in VFR, whereas
a newly minted pilot in a tomahawk might still be squirrely about some
conditions, though he may still choose to go. However, the experienced IFR
pilot can also find conditions which will squirrel him out.

It's not VFR vs IFR. It's "how close are these conditions to the ones you and
the plane are capable of", both in terms of handling the conditions themselves,
and the available outs.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 2 May 2004 08:09:08 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"tony" > wrote in message
...
>> If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above your
>> personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
>> thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't you
>go?
>>
>> IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR.
>
>IMHO, the go/no-go decision is being made constantly, not just before
>takeoff.
>
>I agree with those who say that the instrument rating makes the
>decision-making more complicated. I don't see this as necessarily a bad

I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
to consider.

OTOH there really is only three things to consider, in both VFR and
IFR.
The airplanes capabilities, your capabilities, and minimums.

You set your minimums and THEN check (and don't cheat or reset any
minimums just because conditions are only a little worse)

Ice? Go/no go
Thunderstorms? Go/no go
Turbulence? go/no go
Wind? Go/no go
Visibility? VFR the whole route Go/no go.
IFR Origin, destination, and
alternate if applicable Go/no go

My rule: Origin, route, and destination =>my minimums
Alternate MUST be VFR AND there must be good VFR well within the range
of the aircraft plus reserves.

VFR, I'm quite willing to depart in marginal IF actual VFR (good VFR)
is near and I will head for a destination that is IMC IF it is
scheduled to be VMC before I get there AND there is good VMC nearby.
So, for me, to fly VFR in these conditions I have more to do to keep
track of the weather. Some times a lot more. OTOH I usually have the
option of filing if things look like they are deteriorating, or
changing faster than expected. Normally I'd file in the first place
as I find it easier in those circumstances. Currently that is not an
option until I get back out, do some practice and take a competency
check. We've been having weather that can make a competency check
into a real IFR flight for most of its duration too. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
> to consider.

IMHO that's exactly why it's more complicated. "More things to consider"
directly translates into "more complicated".

Maybe other people have a different definition of "complicated", but for me,
the conclusion comes directly from my own definition of "complicated".
Having more things to consider, by definition, means that the decision
making is more complicated.

Pete

[tony]

>
>> I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
>> to consider.
>
>IMHO that's exactly why it's more complicated. "More things to consider"
>directly translates into "more complicated".
>
>Maybe other people have a different definition of "complicated", but for me,
>the conclusion comes directly from my own definition of "complicated".
>Having more things to consider, by definition, means that the decision
>making is more complicated.
>
>Pete
>
I suppose one could look at it that way. The problem I had for the 200 hours I
was not rated for IFR was trying to guess weather the weather guessers were
right when they promised 3000 feet and 5 miles for the next couple of days
before I'd start out on a weekend trip. The 'window of opportunity' for making
a flight has been much wider the 3300 hours I've logged since then. FWIF, I
log about 150 hours a year, and a buddy and I do an hour's profiencey check
every two or three months to each other (those are brutal: "It's your
airplane" we tell each other after doing everything we can to screw up the
other's inner ear while wearing a hood, he pilot has his head down.)

That may be the difference between my attitude and some others: I get to fly a
high performance airplane, a Mooney 201, that I know very well, and I do it
fairly often. It (and my bladder) has long legs: I usually file 5.5 hours of
fuel on board and 150 kts. My log book shows about 20% of my flight time is
actual IMC, and that's probably typical for someone who flys 80% of his time on
business and is based on the east coast.

It also probably means my definition of 'complicated' may be different than
yours. I usually have a reasonable sense of weather conditions for the eastern
third of the country where I do most of my flying. I'll have gotten a weather
briefing the night before a planned trip, and another before I file: life gets
complicated for me if the initial weather forecast is better than my personal
equirements and the later one shows the system is getting more intense than
initially forecast.

I'm lucky in that I get to fly quite a lot -- most of it paid for by my
company. I remember having to fly actual missed approaches only 5 times
because conditions dropped below my personal minimums, so I may be more
conservative than my contributions to this thread suggest.

[Journeyman]

In article >, Roger Halstead wrote:
>>I agree with those who say that the instrument rating makes the
>>decision-making more complicated. I don't see this as necessarily a bad
>
> I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
> to consider.

That's a definition of complexity.

I deal with complexity in my day job (software) and have some (mostly
stolen) insights about software complexity and how to manage it. None
of it applies to aviation, but I can recognize complexity when I see it
at least 2 out of 3 times. :-)

As far as the decision-making goes, you need to compare apples to
apples. ISTR being saturated just holding the airplane straight and
level. Eventually, you develop the subroutines to fly the plane
without getting saturated. Add talking on the radio. Throw in a
couple of extra controls (gear lever, prop, cowl flaps), and it's
like starting over.

Roy Smith once posted that he knew he had his instrument rating nailed
when he was able to discuss baseball scores with his instructor while
shooting an ILS (not to debate the merits of a sterile cockpit at that
phase of flight). Not because the ILS becomes less demanding, but
because you develop the subroutines to deal with it more effectively.
IOW, when you fly, there's a point at which you get saturated. With
training and experience you learn to push back that saturation point
(and perhaps how to shed load as you approach it).

Just because you've developed the experience to manage the added
complexity of the decision-making, doesn't mean it isn't inherently
more complex than VFR decision making.

Sure, there's no-brainer yes, no-brainer let's go IFR (say, climbing
through a low marine layer into clear and 1e6), and there's obvious
no-go weather (say, Hurricane Andrew). The point at which yes and no
converges is where things become more complex.


Morris

[Journeyman]

In article >, tony wrote:
>>
> If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above your
> personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
> thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't you go?

Strawman. It's an easy go decision in this case. It's harder when
things are pushing your minima, where the weather might become worse
than forecast, where you might be flying over rough terrain, where your
routing is over land but ATC might vector you over water.


> IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR.

Okay. IFR can simplify flight planning and navigation, but we're
talking about the go/nogo decision making process. More things
to consider. Go/nogo is less obvious as go point and nogo point
converge. Clearly, even for IFR, there're obvious gos and obvious
nogos. Furthermore, what might be an obvious IFR go might be an
obvious VFR nogo.

Point is, with more things to consider and the added utility of
the instrument rating, the go/nogo decision isn't as simple in the
general case.


Morris

[Mike Rapoport]

"Journeyman" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, tony
wrote:
> >>
> > If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above
your
> > personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
> > thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't
you go?
>
> Strawman. It's an easy go decision in this case. It's harder when
> things are pushing your minima, where the weather might become worse
> than forecast, where you might be flying over rough terrain, where your
> routing is over land but ATC might vector you over water.
>
>
> > IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR.
>
> Okay. IFR can simplify flight planning and navigation, but we're
> talking about the go/nogo decision making process. More things
> to consider. Go/nogo is less obvious as go point and nogo point
> converge. Clearly, even for IFR, there're obvious gos and obvious
> nogos. Furthermore, what might be an obvious IFR go might be an
> obvious VFR nogo.
>
> Point is, with more things to consider and the added utility of
> the instrument rating, the go/nogo decision isn't as simple in the
> general case.
>
>
> Morris

I would disagree. Having an instrument rating just moves the actual no-go
point farther to the right. I don't see why the no-go decision would get
harder. The only difference an instrument rating makes is to reduce the
*required* visibility and ceiling. You don't *have* to change your personal
minimia. When I earned my instrument rating, I lived in SoCal and flew a
Turbo Lance. The instrument rating allowed me to depart from Santa Monica
with the typical morning marine layer and it allowed me to be more
comfortable at night, particularly over unlighted terrain. I didn't use the
rating to fly approaches to minimia or weave around embeded CBs. When I
moved to the mountains the IFR rating again helped me at night but I had no
illusions about flying in IMC at the 16,000' MEAs. To fly IMC over the
mountains required more and better equipment, not more skills.

In short, I think the average pilot stays within his/her comfort range
whether they have an instrument rating or not. The instrument rating just
provides a few more flyable days each month. This leads to a few less
unexpected hotel stays and perhaps a couple fewer missed work days each
year.

Mike
MU-2

[tony]

>
>> If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above your
>> personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
>> thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't you
>go?
>
>Strawman. It's an easy go decision in this case. It's harder when
>things are pushing your minima, where the weather might become worse
>than forecast, where you might be flying over rough terrain, where your
>routing is over land but ATC might vector you over water.
>
>
>> IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR.
>
>Okay. IFR can simplify flight planning and navigation, but we're
>talking about the go/nogo decision making process. More things
>to consider. Go/nogo is less obvious as go point and nogo point
>converge. Clearly, even for IFR, there're obvious gos and obvious
>nogos. Furthermore, what might be an obvious IFR go might be an
>obvious VFR nogo.
>
>Point is, with more things to consider and the added utility of
>the instrument rating, the go/nogo decision isn't as simple in the
>general case.


Maybe the problem I'm having is, as a fairly high time pilot, the decision
making has gotten almost automatic. I see the difference this way: deciding to
go in marginal VFR conditions is at best dicy. If the forecast seems stable,
just maybe vis will be better than 3 or 4 miles (but I HATE marginal VFR, with
me and other pilots stumbling around under a 1500 foot overcast in limited
visibility, that scares the in vivo processed food out of me). OTOH, frankly,
it's very rare for weather in the Eastern part of the country to be below my
personal IFR minimums, so so long as icing seems not likely, there are no
imbedded thunderstorms, and I'm happy with the forecast and how well it's
holding up, it's going to be "Good Morning ground, it's Mooney 201 whatever,
instruments to Rochester, I have information Alpha, ready to taxi."

But it remains a different strokes issue -- I have no arguement at all with
those whose decision making process is different. The discussion is an
opportunity to share insights, and I may leaarn or relearn something.

[Teacherjh]

>>
It's harder when
things are pushing your minima, where the weather might become worse
than forecast, where you might be flying over rough terrain, where your
routing is over land but ATC might vector you over water.
<<

Except for ATC vectoring, the same is true IFR or VFR. Just that a VFR pilot's
personal minima might be higher. But near your personal minima the decision is
harder.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 2 May 2004 22:48:52 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>> I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
>> to consider.
>
>IMHO that's exactly why it's more complicated. "More things to consider"
>directly translates into "more complicated".

To me that's why the "decision is more simple.
>
>Maybe other people have a different definition of "complicated", but for me,
>the conclusion comes directly from my own definition of "complicated".
>Having more things to consider, by definition, means that the decision
>making is more complicated.

To me making a decision on 6 clear cut definitions is much more simple
than on 3 or 4 that tend to get into gray areas (although they
shouldn't)

Each to me are strictly go/no go decisions.

The question was on making the go/no go decision.



>
>Pete
>

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 3 May 2004 06:25:33 -0500, Journeyman
> wrote:

>
>In article >, Roger Halstead wrote:
>>>I agree with those who say that the instrument rating makes the
>>>decision-making more complicated. I don't see this as necessarily a bad
>>
>> I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
>> to consider.
>
>That's a definition of complexity.
>
>I deal with complexity in my day job (software) and have some (mostly
>stolen) insights about software complexity and how to manage it. None
>of it applies to aviation, but I can recognize complexity when I see it
>at least 2 out of 3 times. :-)
>
>As far as the decision-making goes, you need to compare apples to
>apples. ISTR being saturated just holding the airplane straight and
>level. Eventually, you develop the subroutines to fly the plane
>without getting saturated. Add talking on the radio. Throw in a
>couple of extra controls (gear lever, prop, cowl flaps), and it's
>like starting over.

OK, no one was asking about flying IFR Vs VRF. The question was simply
the no/no go decision. Certainly flying in IMC is more complex than
flying in VMC.

>
>Roy Smith once posted that he knew he had his instrument rating nailed
>when he was able to discuss baseball scores with his instructor while
>shooting an ILS (not to debate the merits of a sterile cockpit at that
>phase of flight). Not because the ILS becomes less demanding, but
>because you develop the subroutines to deal with it more effectively.
>IOW, when you fly, there's a point at which you get saturated. With
>training and experience you learn to push back that saturation point
>(and perhaps how to shed load as you approach it).

Again, has nothing to do with the original question.

>
>Just because you've developed the experience to manage the added
>complexity of the decision-making, doesn't mean it isn't inherently
>more complex than VFR decision making.

Now you are making the decisions in the air, not the go/no go.

>
>Sure, there's no-brainer yes, no-brainer let's go IFR (say, climbing
>through a low marine layer into clear and 1e6), and there's obvious
>no-go weather (say, Hurricane Andrew). The point at which yes and no
>converges is where things become more complex.

Each decision is a simple, straight forward yes, or no answer... is it
above or below my minimums and the pilot should have a minimum for
every stage of the flight. IF the pilot is honest, and does not bend
ANY of those minimums because one is only a little below while the
others are fine it is a simple decision.

If any one of the answers to "Is it below my minimums?" comes back a
yes then the flight should be a no go.

If you compare the information needed to make that decision for each
stage of the flight there are only a few differences and again they
are pretty much cut-and dried. We are not talking about the ongoing
decision making process "in flight" once the go decision has been
made. Nor are we comparing the difficulty of VFR Vs IFR flight.

Flight in IMC requires more precision, more multitasking, better radio
skills, more precision flight planning in all stages including fuel
management but that is irrelevant to the original question, except for
the question, "am I proficient enough to make the flight?"
Considering we are making the go/no go decision and the pilot is
current that should be a given.

Once you have gathered the information it still boils down to a yes,
or no for each stage of flight. (before you even file the flight plan)
although if any times has passed prior to take off a re-evaluation is
in order just as it would be for VFR.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>
>Morris

[Teacherjh]

>>
Certainly flying in IMC is more complex than
flying in VMC.
<<

Well, uh, not always. There is benign IMC and harrowing VMC. Of course IMC
can be harrowing if you are not IFR rated, but that's a different kettle of
oranges.

>>
the pilot should have a minimum for
every stage of the flight.
<<

I'm not sure I agree with this either. Personal minima are a guide, but either
don't take everything into account, or are cumbersomely complex. The key is
not to be tempted into a go by cheating. Benign 600-2 everywhere is more
problematic than 200 - 1/2 at the destination, but 1400 - 3 everywhere else.
A firm 400-2 personal minimum would scrub a perfectly doable flight, and allow
a flight that could get you into trouble.

>>
Flight in IMC requires more precision[...] t but that is irrelevant to the
original question, except for
the question, "am I proficient enough to make the flight?"
<<

I suppose the more proficient one is, the more things cease to be an automatic
no-go. There are more things to consider when the decision is harder. So, by
one definition, it is "more complex" to decide. But with more proficiency,
there is more ability to handle the greater complexity in decision making. So,
although it may be "more complex", it may not be "harder to decide".

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> To me making a decision on 6 clear cut definitions is much more simple
> than on 3 or 4 that tend to get into gray areas (although they
> shouldn't)

I'm not familiar with the "6 clear cut definitions" of which you speak.
When I make go/no-go decisions, whether for IFR or VFR, there are always
gray areas. The only time the decision making is trivial is when the
weather is perfectly beautiful, or when the weather is absolutely
horrendous. There's a lot of room in between for IFR and VFR flight both.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> >Just because you've developed the experience to manage the added
> >complexity of the decision-making, doesn't mean it isn't inherently
> >more complex than VFR decision making.
>
> Now you are making the decisions in the air, not the go/no go.

Again, this is a semantic disagreement. However, it's my opinion that
throughout the flight, one is always making the decision of whether to
proceed. This is every bit as much a go/no-go decision as the one made
prior to takeoff, and I continue to call it a go/no-go decision.

Obviously your semantics are different, but you should know that not
everyone agrees or uses with your definitions.

As for the rest of your comments about minimums (I assume you're talking
about personal minimums, and not approach minimums), any minimums you can
apply to IFR flight, you can apply to VFR flight. Conversely, if you think
you have a fuzzy situation for VFR flight where it's impossible to apply a
strict minimum, that same kind of situation exists for IFR flight.

The two types of flight are only different with respect to the particulars.
They involve essentially the same kind of decision making, except that there
are more variables for IFR flight (which is what makes the decision more
complicated, IMHO).

Pete

[tony]

>
>> [...]
>> >Just because you've developed the experience to manage the added
>> >complexity of the decision-making, doesn't mean it isn't inherently
>> >more complex than VFR decision making.
>>
>> Now you are making the decisions in the air, not the go/no go.
>
>Again, this is a semantic disagreement. However, it's my opinion that
>throughout the flight, one is always making the decision of whether to
>proceed. This is every bit as much a go/no-go decision as the one made
>prior to takeoff, and I continue to call it a go/no-go decision.
>
>Obviously your semantics are different, but you should know that not
>everyone agrees or uses with your definitions.
>
>As for the rest of your comments about minimums (I assume you're talking
>about personal minimums, and not approach minimums), any minimums you can
>apply to IFR flight, you can apply to VFR flight. Conversely, if you think
>you have a fuzzy situation for VFR flight where it's impossible to apply a
>strict minimum, that same kind of situation exists for IFR flight.
>
>The two types of flight are only different with respect to the particulars.
>They involve essentially the same kind of decision making, except that there
>are more variables for IFR flight (which is what makes the decision more
>complicated, IMHO).
>
The point you make about in-flight decision making may have been overlooked
throughout most of this thread, but it's an important one. I'd suggest
especially those of us who fly the longer legged beasts, where 4 hour enroute
legs might be not that unusual, that it's especially important to be alert
for things that move your flight into the 'do not continue' category. One that
may be overlooked too often (at least I have, more than once) is continuing
when the PIC shouldn't. It's easy to get really sleepy at 11 000 feet at night,
and most SELs at least will not take too kindly to the pilot nodding off.

AJW

[Stefan]

tony wrote:
....
> especially those of us who fly the longer legged beasts, where 4 hour enroute
....
> It's easy to get really sleepy at 11 000 feet at night,

11 000 ft at night for 4 hours is a situation where a pilot should
definitely use oxygen, regardless the legal situation.

Stefan

[tony]

>
>> especially those of us who fly the longer legged beasts, where 4 hour
>enroute
>...
>> It's easy to get really sleepy at 11 000 feet at night,
>
>11 000 ft at night for 4 hours is a situation where a pilot should
>definitely use oxygen, regardless the legal situation.
>
>Stefan
>
My first instinct is to say (and I do believe) it depends on the pilot's
condition, but there's little doubt using O2 about 10,000 feet is usually a
good idea.

Sure makes sipping a martini difficult, though.

AJW

[David Megginson]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> The two types of flight are only different with respect to the particulars.
> They involve essentially the same kind of decision making, except that there
> are more variables for IFR flight (which is what makes the decision more
> complicated, IMHO).

Flying VFR, I have to consider my personal condition, the aircraft's
airworthiness, weather, facilities, airspace, and NOTAMs; flying VFR, I have
to consider my personal condition, the aircraft's airworthiness, weather,
facilities, airspace, and NOTAMs.

If there's any extra complexity, it's a matter of quality, not quantity --
minor snags might leave my aircraft airworthy for VFR but not IFR, for
example, and I have to consider the weather above the ceiling as well as
below it.

Personally, I prefer IFR for cross-country flights, because it leaves me
with more options -- I can climb up above the clouds (or just into them) to
get a better wind and avoid all the VFR traffic down below 3000 ft, and I
don't have to start zigzagging around low scattered clouds. On the other
hand, I love VFR for just putting along at 2,000 ft AGL, following rivers,
roads, or railroads from town to town.


All the best,


David

[Journeyman]

In article et>, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>> Point is, with more things to consider and the added utility of
>> the instrument rating, the go/nogo decision isn't as simple in the
>> general case.
>
> I would disagree. Having an instrument rating just moves the actual no-go
> point farther to the right. I don't see why the no-go decision would get
> harder.

I understand your point, and I'm willing to agree to disagree.

For me personally, I found that it wasn't just a matter of pushing the
decision point. A VFR-only go/nogo decision was far more black and
white than IFR. One data point. Others provide their own data.

Put it another way, IFR gives you more options than VFR, but it also
gives you more ways to get yourself into trouble. You you analyze
that to get the added utility the instrument rating provides is up
to you. I say more things to consider == more complex == harder.


Morris

[Journeyman]

In article >, Roger Halstead wrote:
>>without getting saturated. Add talking on the radio. Throw in a

>>couple of extra controls (gear lever, prop, cowl flaps), and it's
>>like starting over.
>
> OK, no one was asking about flying IFR Vs VRF. The question was simply
> the no/no go decision. Certainly flying in IMC is more complex than
> flying in VMC.

You're missing my point. These things are more complex, but as we
practice them, they get easier to handle. I say they are inherently
complex but our capacity to handle the complexity improves so there's
less effort, so it seems easier.

Same thing with the go/nogo decision. IFR is inherently more complex
than VFR, even if you've been doing it long enough not to feel the
complexity.


>>when he was able to discuss baseball scores with his instructor while
>>shooting an ILS (not to debate the merits of a sterile cockpit at that
>
> Again, has nothing to do with the original question.

Still trying to illustrate the point: it's complex, even if it seems
less so when we've done it for a while.


> Each decision is a simple, straight forward yes, or no answer... is it
> above or below my minimums and the pilot should have a minimum for
> every stage of the flight. IF the pilot is honest, and does not bend
> ANY of those minimums because one is only a little below while the
> others are fine it is a simple decision.

Here's the fundemental point of disagreement. I'm not a believer in
hard and fast minima. Ultimately, the go/nogo decision answers the
question, "can this flight be done safely?". For me, arbitrary
minima don't help, since on any given day, I might change my minima
depending on how sharp I'm feeling, how current I'm feeling, the nature
of the weather conditions, duration of the flight, alternate choices,
available equipment.

Would you raise your minima for longer flights when fatigue is likely
to become a factor? How much? Simple answer? I don't think so, but
others are free to disagree.


Morris

[David Megginson]

Journeyman wrote:

> I understand your point, and I'm willing to agree to disagree.

(I'm not the person who made the original point.) That's good -- the Usenet
would be a boring place if everyone agreed.

> For me personally, I found that it wasn't just a matter of pushing the
> decision point. A VFR-only go/nogo decision was far more black and
> white than IFR. One data point. Others provide their own data.

So which of these points do you not consider when you are planning a VFR flight?

- your condition
- the aircraft's condition
- the weather
- facilities (such as airports and navaids)
- airspace
- NOTAMs


All the best,


David

[Peter Duniho]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...
> [...]
> So which of these points do you not consider when you are planning a VFR
flight?
>
> - your condition
> - the aircraft's condition
> - the weather
> - facilities (such as airports and navaids)
> - airspace
> - NOTAMs

Heh heh...maybe you didn't intend it as a straw man, but it's coming apart
at the seams right now.

How does "the weather" rate just a single lone mention? There are lots of
things involved with "the weather" that simply aren't a consideration for
VFR flight. Because other components of "the weather" will prevent you from
ever running into them.

When I plan a flight, the item you simply call "the weather" looks something
like this for VFR:
- winds
- visibility
- ceiling

Thunderstorms are an issue, but they are easily avoided when flying VFR.
They aren't part of the go/no-go decision unless there's a line of them
creating winds, low ceilings, or visibility issues (and usually, all of the
above), in which case they are covered by the existing items.

For IFR, there are additional items in addition to the VFR items:
- freezing level
- cloud tops
- thunderstorms

Thunderstorms are MUCH more of an issue flying IFR, because there's no way
to avoid them. Once you're in the cloud, you're at the whim of your
routing. Rather than being something to be aware of and avoid during the
flight, they become a reason to not make the flight at all. That is, they
are part of the go/no-go decision in and of themselves, but only for IFR
flight.

This is a simplistic look at my preflight decision making, but I hope it
illustrates what I'm trying to say. At the very least, it should show you
why I think your single mention of "the weather" as if it's the same for IFR
and VFR just doesn't make sense.

Pete

[David Megginson]

Peter Duniho wrote:

>>So which of these points do you not consider when you are planning a VFR
>> flight?
>
>>- your condition
>>- the aircraft's condition
>>- the weather
>>- facilities (such as airports and navaids)
>>- airspace
>>- NOTAMs
>
> How does "the weather" rate just a single lone mention? There are lots of
> things involved with "the weather" that simply aren't a consideration for
> VFR flight. Because other components of "the weather" will prevent you from
> ever running into them.

Choose a level of abstraction: the aircraft's condition is at least as
complex as the weather, for example, and requires as much time and
consideration. In fact, I can break a single step like "check the engine,"
down into a posting so long that no one but the most pathetic antisocial
shut-in will bother reading all the way to the end.

> Thunderstorms are MUCH more of an issue flying IFR, because there's no way
> to avoid them.

Flying in IMC is a no-go with even occasional CB or TCU forecast along the
route, unless you have a Stormscope or Strikefinder on board; even then, you
don't want to launch into numerous CB or TCU, not to mention a squall line.
On the other hand, that stuff is a danger VFR as well, and any VFR pilot
who doesn't spend time looking at convective activity before flying probably
doesn't deserve her or his license: you still have to consider how likely it
is that you'll be able to see the rain and lightning in time, given the
ceiling and vis.


All the best,


David

[Peter Duniho]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
> Choose a level of abstraction: the aircraft's condition is at least as
> complex as the weather, for example, and requires as much time and
> consideration.

True, but so what? Those things don't change depending on whether the
flight is IFR or VFR, and so are irrelevant to this discussion (other than
instrumentation required for IFR flight, of course).

My point is not that the other elements can not be further refined, but that
your list trivially ignores the differences between IFR and VFR decision
making by hiding those differences in a single, vague item.

> Flying in IMC is a no-go with even occasional CB or TCU forecast along the
> route, unless you have a Stormscope or Strikefinder on board; even then,
you
> don't want to launch into numerous CB or TCU, not to mention a squall
line.

That's mostly what I said. Though, in truth, "occasional CB" is most
certainly NOT an automatic no-go for IFR flight, even without a Stormscope
or Strikefinder. Lots of cumulonimbus clouds are completely benign, and
there are elements to the weather forecast that let you know when they are
and when they aren't.

Even widely scattered thunderstorms aren't an automatic no-go. It depends
on the terrain, your route, time of day, and what's on the weather station
radar already.

You certainly can simplify your life by deciding that anytime the forecast
mentions cumulonimbus clouds, you stay on the ground. But that's the sort
of thing that greatly reduces the utility of the instrument rating. If
you'll recall, very early in my comments along this thread, I specifically
differentiated between pilots who actually use their instrument rating, and
those that don't really gain any significant utility through the rating.

> On the other hand, that stuff is a danger VFR as well, and any VFR pilot
> who doesn't spend time looking at convective activity before flying
probably
> doesn't deserve her or his license: you still have to consider how likely
it
> is that you'll be able to see the rain and lightning in time, given the
> ceiling and vis.

But it's not a go/no-go decision issue. VFR, I want to know where
thunderstorms are, so that I can avoid them. But if the thunderstorms cause
me to cancel the flight, it's because there's something else (like reduced
visibility, high winds or turbulence, low ceilings, or all of the above).
The simple presence of a thunderstorm doesn't cause the flight to be
canceled, and is not part of what I'd call the "go/no-go decision".

Contrasting to the IFR decision making, where the exact nature of the
forecast, predicted thunderstorms, existing conditions, air stability and
the like are all important, when flying VFR all that's really important is
that you can see well enough to maintain a wide berth from any existing
thunderstorms and to know when they block your path of flight completely
(i.e. there's no detour to take you around). It's much more cut and dried
than for IFR flight.

Pete

[David Megginson]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> You certainly can simplify your life by deciding that anytime the forecast
> mentions cumulonimbus clouds, you stay on the ground. But that's the sort
> of thing that greatly reduces the utility of the instrument rating. If
> you'll recall, very early in my comments along this thread, I specifically
> differentiated between pilots who actually use their instrument rating, and
> those that don't really gain any significant utility through the rating.

That's why I've been having a Stormscope installed in my plane. I do not
feel that I can responsibly fly through IMC when there's a forecast chance
of embedded CB -- it's playing Russian roulette with my passenger's lives,
and mine.

I was recently reading an accident report from a few years ago when ATC
vectored an entire family in a Cessna 210 (if I recall correctly) over
Quebec right into a thunderstorm that didn't show up on ATC's radar. The
plane broke up in flight. The pilot was an airline pilot flying his family
to Prince Edward Island for their summer vacation, so he probably knew all
the tricks about CB, but didn't, unfortunately, have a Stormscope,
Strikefinder, or weather radar on board to back up his hunches and ATC's
radar returns.

> But it's not a go/no-go decision issue. VFR, I want to know where
> thunderstorms are, so that I can avoid them. But if the thunderstorms cause
> me to cancel the flight, it's because there's something else (like reduced
> visibility, high winds or turbulence, low ceilings, or all of the above).

That sounds pretty complicated to me -- at least as complicated as IFR
flight planning. As you wrote, you have to consider several different
weather-related factors together before you can decide (visibility,
convection, ceiling, winds, and turbulence). The exact way that you combine
them -- and the conclusion you come up with -- may be different for VFR, but
it's the same kind of thing.

> Contrasting to the IFR decision making, where the exact nature of the
> forecast, predicted thunderstorms, existing conditions, air stability and
> the like are all important, when flying VFR all that's really important is
> that you can see well enough to maintain a wide berth from any existing
> thunderstorms and to know when they block your path of flight completely
> (i.e. there's no detour to take you around). It's much more cut and dried
> than for IFR flight.

Hmm. What about when the forecast says good visibility, but the dewpoint
spread in the METARs along the way suggests that the ceiling is going to
come down hard? Is the morning lake fog going to stay over your destination
airport longer than expected, given the prevailing winds? What about flying
in light drizzle, studying the forecast to assure yourself that the
temperature at your altitude will be far enough above freezing (and will
those large droplets be supercooled or not?). It seems that there's a lot
to worry about for VFR pilots as well.


All the best,


David

[Peter Duniho]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...
> [...] It seems that there's a lot
> to worry about for VFR pilots as well.

I never said there wasn't, and I feel I made it perfectly clear that I was
simplifying both the VFR and IFR cases for the sake of illustration.

I don't mind when someone just disagrees with my subjective views, or is
having a hard time with the methods I might use to convey my point (after
all, one needs to communicate the point, even if it's the correct one). But
when someone simply ignores what I've already said in an attempt to rebut
what I've said, I fail to see the point in the discussion at that point.
There's no hope for productive interaction.

Pete

[Nathan Young]

On 27 Apr 2004 06:50:06 -0700, (Bob Martin)
wrote:

>I'm debating whether to try for my IFR rating in the spring. I won't
>have the time or money to start till then, but that's not the point.
>
>The big question is, is it worth it right now? The only flying I
>really do is cruising around, mild aerobatics, some formation stuff,
>and occasionally a trip to the neighboring states. An IFR ticket
>would be a "nice to have" but I don't think I'd really be able to make
>use of it--our plane isn't IFR equipped, and probably won't be for the
>forseeable future.

If you do not have access to an IFR plane, and don't see one in your
near future, I'd hold off on the rating.

Having said that, I have had my IR for about 2.5 years (10yrs flying)
and find it extremely valuable. Realistically, in a non-deiced
single, it only adds a few extra flights each year that would
otherwise have been no-go situations. However, I find a huge benefit
in the comfort factor added to VFR flight. Not having to worry about
getting stuck on top, or worrying about lowering cloud decks forcing
scud running is great.

-Nathan

[David Megginson]

Nathan Young wrote:

> Having said that, I have had my IR for about 2.5 years (10yrs flying)
> and find it extremely valuable. Realistically, in a non-deiced
> single, it only adds a few extra flights each year that would
> otherwise have been no-go situations.

That will depend, obviously, on where you live and whether you're willing to
scud-run at 1,000 ft AGL or lower in MVFR, like the old-timers do (the ones
who are still alive, anyway).

An IR is probably not that useful out in big sky country, but where I fly
(central Canada and NE U.S.), it figures into more than half of my longer
cross-country trips and has saved me a couple of cancelled trips and several
nights' hotel accommodation in the first ten months. Typically, I need only
to climb a few thousand feet through a low overcast or broken stratus or
stratocumulus layer, but sometimes I end up doing an entire flight in IMC.
Only occasionally do I end up with a low approach at my destination.

> However, I find a huge benefit
> in the comfort factor added to VFR flight. Not having to worry about
> getting stuck on top, or worrying about lowering cloud decks forcing
> scud running is great.

Agreed.


All the best,


David

[Gary Drescher]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
> Nathan Young wrote:
>
> > Having said that, I have had my IR for about 2.5 years (10yrs flying)
> > and find it extremely valuable. Realistically, in a non-deiced
> > single, it only adds a few extra flights each year that would
> > otherwise have been no-go situations.
>
> That will depend, obviously, on where you live and whether you're willing
to
> scud-run at 1,000 ft AGL or lower in MVFR, like the old-timers do (the
ones
> who are still alive, anyway).
>
> An IR is probably not that useful out in big sky country, but where I fly
> (central Canada and NE U.S.), it figures into more than half of my longer
> cross-country trips and has saved me a couple of cancelled trips and
several
> nights' hotel accommodation in the first ten months. Typically, I need
only
> to climb a few thousand feet through a low overcast or broken stratus or
> stratocumulus layer, but sometimes I end up doing an entire flight in IMC.

Same here, flying in the NE. I make several flights a year that are
partially or largely in IMC; a few VFR flights that would not have been
comfortable without an IFR option if weather deteriorated; and occasionally
a VFR flight with unexpected IMC at my destination, requiring a pop-up
clearance to approach and land instead of aborting. Also, an instrument
rating is required for Angel Flight missions (even flying VFR).

I use Microsoft Flight Simulator to help maintain my proficiency. Four times
a year (usually around April and October), I fly a few local approaches on a
LIFR day to be sure my official currency does not lapse (much of our summer
IMC is unflyable due to embedded CBs, and winter IMC is unflyable due to
icing). That combination, plus my occasional IMC XCs, works well for me. I
seldom need to practice with an instructor or safety pilot.

--Gary

[Mike Rapoport]

"Journeyman" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article et>, Mike
Rapoport wrote:
> >
> >> Point is, with more things to consider and the added utility of
> >> the instrument rating, the go/nogo decision isn't as simple in the
> >> general case.
> >
> > I would disagree. Having an instrument rating just moves the actual
no-go
> > point farther to the right. I don't see why the no-go decision would
get
> > harder.
>
> I understand your point, and I'm willing to agree to disagree.
>
> For me personally, I found that it wasn't just a matter of pushing the
> decision point. A VFR-only go/nogo decision was far more black and
> white than IFR. One data point. Others provide their own data.
>
> Put it another way, IFR gives you more options than VFR, but it also
> gives you more ways to get yourself into trouble. You you analyze
> that to get the added utility the instrument rating provides is up
> to you. I say more things to consider == more complex == harder.
>
>
> Morris

I also agree to disagree. The difficulty of thedecision making process is
an individual thing. My perspective is that things have to go "more wrong"
to endanger an IFR flight than a VFR one. The occurance of weather than can
endanger an IFR flight in a light GA single is rarer than the reduced
visibility that endangers a VFR flight. Just my opinion.

Mike
MU-2