Safe, Single-Pilot IFR generalities

[Greg Farris]

Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the "meat
and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
points as generalities. How many agree with these :

1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night
2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
performance
3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
preference for dual alrternators.
4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
know where it is
5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
night or close to minimums

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Greg Farris >
wrote:

> Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
> Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the "meat
> and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
> points as generalities. How many agree with these :
>
> 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night

no.

> 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
> performance

depends on the reason for the MEA.


> 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
> preference for dual alrternators.

no

> 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
> know where it is

no


> 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
> night or close to minimums

depends


I guess I have a different definition of safe.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Michael 182]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
> Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the "meat
> and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
> points as generalities. How many agree with these :
>

I assume IFR means flying in IMC, so...

> 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night

I agree. I'd also add no IFR over the Rockies, since I live here.

> 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
> performance

Not twin rated, but this seems reasonable.

> 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
> preference for dual alrternators.

I have a standby vacuum system, but the bigger issue is recognizing the
failure and using the backup. It is not automatic. Redundant electrical
would be great, I don't have it, and I fly a lot of SE, SP IFR. Something to
consider...

> 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
> know where it is

Usually, but not a trip canceler.

> 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
> night or close to minimums

Absolutely. In fact, if it is near minimums I will usually go out of my way
to find an ILS.


Michael

[Gary Drescher]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
> Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the "meat
> and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
> points as generalities. How many agree with these :
>
> 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night

I have yet to do that (in my 18 hours of IMC so far), but I'd be willing to
if my destination airport (and plenty of potential alternates along the way)
has a precision approach and the visibility below the ceiling is good.

> 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
> performance

No ME for me.

> 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
> preference for dual alrternators.

The planes I fly in IMC usually have standby vacuum (but just one
alternator). I practice no-gyro approaches on my PC sim to stay proficient.

> 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
> know where it is

Usually, but not always (I'm ok with widespread, calm, not-too-low IMC and
my handheld VOR/LOC for backup).

> 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
> night or close to minimums

Absolutely, at least at my present level of experience.

--Gary

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Greg Farris
>
> wrote:
>
> > Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
> > Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the "meat
> > and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
> > points as generalities. How many agree with these :
> >
> > 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night
>
> no.
>
> > 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
> > performance
>
> depends on the reason for the MEA.
>
>
> > 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
> > preference for dual alrternators.
>
> no
>
> > 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
> > know where it is
>
> no
>
>
> > 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
> > night or close to minimums
>
> depends
>
>
> I guess I have a different definition of safe.

Your's is more like AOPA Safety Foundation's.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa05.pdf (Single Pilot IFR)

[Jose]

> How many agree with these : (snipped)

Yes, I agree, the remaining IFR flights are likely to be safer. But you
are trading safety for utility when you fly IMC in the first place.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Judah]

Greg Farris > wrote in
:

> Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
> Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the
> "meat and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple
> of points as generalities. How many agree with these :
>
> 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night

I'm not sure I understand this. Assuming you have a decent portable
light system in your flightbag - I carry a ring of red and green LED
lights in my bag, along with a larger green flashlight, a white
flashlight, and several green glow sticks, and keep at least one either
roped around my neck or my wrist when flying at night - IMC or not.
Enroute IFR/IMC at night seems fine. S-P approach to minimums at night
is a different story... But I don't even think there's all that much
difference between flying through soup at 3000' when the top of the
white stuff outside your window is light by the sun or the moon. Either
way, most of it will be lit by your strobes and landing light... :)

> 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's
> SE performance

Makes sense, but no ME.

> 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
> preference for dual alrternators.

Agreed.

> 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
> know where it is

Kinda agreed. Always know your out. Not sure "real" VFR is necessary
though. An airport with 800-1000' ceilings and 5+ mi visibility is
probably enough for us guys in the flat NorthEast. Even if it means
flying an extra hour or more out of the way (assuming you will have the
fuel for it). Of course, I also carry a handheld radio with CDI and
spare batteries, so if I have some sort of catastrophic electronics
failure, I can still navigate IFR to find my way...

> 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
> night or close to minimums

I don't really get the risk here. If you break out on a non-precision
approach and can circle to land, you are probably within 200' of VFR
pattern altitude anyway, and it's just doesn't seem like that big of a
risk. Actually, a precision Circle to land, which I think will create
more like a 500' - 600' pattern, seems more risky. But at 800', if you
lose sight of the runway while circling, even if you dip a bit on your
way up on the missed, you've got a lot of room to dip before hitting the
ground...

Admittedly, I also fly planes that have excellent avionics - IFR
approved moving map GPSes and autopilots, so perhaps I am slightly more
aggressive because of that. Admittedly, without the excellent avionics
and autopilot, I might be much more conservative about flying S-P IFR.

[Roy Smith]

Greg Farris > wrote:
> Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
> Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the "meat
> and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
> points as generalities. How many agree with these :
>
> 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night

I agree that single-pilot IFR is hard, and doing it at night is harder, but
I don't see the single-engine connection. If the fear is not being able to
find an emergency landing spot, then the rule should be "No single-engine
at night". If the fear is pilot task overload, then the rule should be "no
single-pilot IMC at night".

> 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
> performance

Again, I don't see the connection here. Presumably this means it's OK to
fly single-pilot, single-engine IFR at those same altitudes?

> 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
> preference for dual alrternators.

This is a good rule. I'll admit I break it.

> 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
> know where it is.

An excellent rule.

> 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
> night or close to minimums

No argument there.

[Roy Smith]

Judah > wrote:
> But I don't even think there's all that much
> difference between flying through soup at 3000' when the top of the
> white stuff outside your window is light by the sun or the moon.

The difference (in my mind, and with my 40-something eyes) is that it's
harder to see stuff in the cockpit at night. Every task from instrument
scan, to reading a chart, to tuning a radio, to copying an in-flight
reroute becomes more difficult.

Task overload is insidious. It's taking you a little longer than usual to
find the right approach plate and get the radios set up, but you're still
keeping up so it's not a big deal. Then the controller tells you they just
switched runways, fly direct to some waypoint you've never heard of, expect
some different approach, contact the next controller on 123.45, etc, etc,
and suddenly you realize you're way behind. Maybe during the day you would
have been able to keep up, but at night the added workload of having to do
everything by flashlight sent you down the tubes.

There's also a lot more in the way of visual illusions at night. I've
broken out plenty of times and spotted what I thought was the approach
lights, only to realize it was a nearby highway.

[Michelle P]

Greg,
if you are just starting flying I agree. If you have experience I would
consider and have done most of these.
I have yet to fly a Multi-engine aircraft over terrain that is higher
that the SE service ceiling. Although I do fly single pilot ME at night
in IMC. Experience is the key to succeeding at all of these.
Michelle ATP SE, COM ME.

Greg Farris wrote:

>Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
>Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the "meat
>and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
>points as generalities. How many agree with these :
>
>1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night
>2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
>performance
>3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
>preference for dual alrternators.
>4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
>know where it is
>5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
>night or close to minimums
>
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Judah,

> But I don't even think there's all that much
> difference between flying through soup at 3000' when the top of the
> white stuff outside your window is light by the sun or the moon.
>

The statistics (as interpreted over and over again by Richard Collins)
are violently against your statement...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Greg,

your list is missing something important: autopilots. Here in Germany,
single-pilot IFR is only allowed with a two-axis autopilot. Although
that might be considered over-regulation, the basic underlying
assumption makes sense.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter R.]

Greg Farris > wrote:

> 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night

I personally do not agree with this one, but I understand and respect
everyone's personal minimums.

My aircraft is meticulously maintained with a 200 hr since rebuilt engine
and it is equipped with dual alternators, two attitude indicators (one
electric and one vacuum), and an autopilot. Additionally, I wear a
red/white LED light strapped to my head at night, I have two LED
flashlights in the cockpit, and I carry a McMurdo FastFind Plus PLB.

Being that I fly a lot of Angel Flight missions in the Northeast, I
encounter night IMC often.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Maule Driver]

Greg Farris wrote:
> Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
> Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the "meat
> and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
> points as generalities. How many agree with these :
>
> 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night
Too broad. There's night and there's NIGHT. For example, starting a
flight in daylight and ending with some night enroute into a familiar
area with familiar approaches, in benign weather, in my plane - that's
night-lite. Night departure into a low ceiling with breakout at
minimums at the destination - NO. In fact, night departures into low
ceilings are off my SE/SP list.
> 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
> preference for dual alrternators.
Dual vac - a good idea. A vac failure light - equally important. I
have a strong preference for a Pilatus...
> 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
> know where it is
Having an out is critical. Figuring it out during pre-flight planning
is crucial and sometimes an eye-opener.
> 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
> night or close to minimums
You don't circle until you are VMC. Not sure what this is. Avoiding
circles at night - good idea but it depends.
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> The difference (in my mind, and with my 40-something eyes) is that it's
> harder to see stuff in the cockpit at night. Every task from instrument
> scan, to reading a chart, to tuning a radio, to copying an in-flight
> reroute becomes more difficult.

That's a good point. It wasn't until I had about 25 hours of night VFR
experience that I decided I could be comfortable with some night IMC.

--Gary

[Michael]

> The difference (in my mind, and with my 40-something eyes) is that it's
> harder to see stuff in the cockpit at night. Every task from instrument
> scan, to reading a chart, to tuning a radio, to copying an in-flight
> reroute becomes more difficult.

My eyes are not quite 40, but I have much the same problem in most
airplanes. However, most GA airplanes do not have anything resembling
an adequate lighting system.

Clue time - if you need a flashlight to perform ANY task in the
cockpit, your lighting is inadequate. A flashlight is an emergency
backup, not for normal inflight use.

I don't worry about single pilot night IFR in my airplane, because it
has an adequate lighting system. Someone, somewhere along the way, did
most of what was required and I filled in the rest. That includes
pilot and copilot overhead map lights with yoke-mounted actuation
switches - so you can keep flying the plane while reading the map. It
also includes panel lighting for all the instruments and overhead
lights forward and aft - each with independent switches. The only time
I use a flashlight in the plane is for startup, so as not to run down
the battery.

Once adequate lighting is in place, there's really no issue. However,
as I mentioned before, most GA airplanes do not have adequate lighting.
I've never seen a rental that did. On the other hand, I think you're
pretty much taking your life in your hands flying a rental night-IMC
anyway.

Michael

[Michael]

> Yes, I agree, the remaining IFR flights are likely to be safer.

I'm not sure I even agree with that. IFR flying is a perishable skill,
and the limitations imposed will certainly cause one to make fewer
flights. Unless these are replaced with practice/training flights (and
very few people have that kind of discipline) the resulting reduction
in proficiency may well offset the reduction in exposure.

The loss of utility, however, is quite certain.

Michael

[Peter R.]

Michael > wrote:

> Clue time - if you need a flashlight to perform ANY task in the
> cockpit, your lighting is inadequate. A flashlight is an emergency
> backup, not for normal inflight use.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "adequate." The Bonanza I fly
has overhead map lights that do an excellent job lighting up the cabin, but
I do not to use them to brief or follow an approach plate due to the night
vision damage these lights cause. Rather, I use the red of my red/white
LED light that straps to my head.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Michael]

>> 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night
>I agree that single-pilot IFR is hard, and doing it at night is harder, but
>I don't see the single-engine connection. If the fear is not being able to
>find an emergency landing spot, then the rule should be "No single-engine
>at night". If the fear is pilot task overload, then the rule should be "no
>single-pilot IMC at night".

What Roy said (though I'm not sure single-pilot IFR is appreciably
harder at night in a properly lit cockpit - but if you're doing it by
flashlight, no argument from me). As stated, the rule really doesn't
make sense.

>> 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
>> performance
> Again, I don't see the connection here. Presumably this means it's OK to
> fly single-pilot, single-engine IFR at those same altitudes?

Which, of course, is silly. In the twin, you actully have a lot more
options and a lot more time to think. A twin above the SE ceiling
won't climb, but it won't descend very quickly. The difference is
striking - a single with an engine failure at 8000 will be descending
about 800 fpm; a light twin will be more like 100 fpm. Way better
chance of making it to someplace landable.

>> 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
>> preference for dual alrternators.
>This is a good rule. I'll admit I break it.

A dual vacuum source won't back up a dying gyro (and I've seen as many
gyro failures as I've seen vacuum source failures). So now we need
dual AI's and dual vacuum. Well, it so happens I do have such a setup
in my airplane. Also dual generators with solid state regulators.

Is it necessary? I think it depends on the pilot and the airplane.
For someone who flies a lot of IFR and trains seriously, probably not -
but that's exactly the person most likely to have such a setup. For a
solid and stable airplane like a Cherokee, I think it's overkill. For
a Bonanza, a really good idea. But is it more important than flying
instruments regularly? I don't think so. Given that resources are
finite, I think recurrent training is a better investment than
installing this stuff. In other words - it sounds like a good rule in
theory, but it probably isn't in practice.

>> 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
>> know where it is.
> An excellent rule.

I think it's another one of those rules that sounds great in theory.
If you can plan your flight to do that, it's great. Certainly if there
is VFR weather in range, you ought to know where it is to keep your
options open in case anything really bad happens. But what if that
rule substantially reduces the amount of IFR flying you do? Is the
loss of proficiency going to offset the reduced exposure?

>> 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
>> night or close to minimums
> No argument there.

And no way will you be based at my home field and fly enough IFR to
remain proficient. We don't have ANY straight-in approaches. Both the
NDB and the GPS have a FAC of 025, and the only runway is 9-27.

So the answer is to move to a different field, right? One further from
home. And inevitably, fly less. And once again - will the reduction
in exposure be offset by the loss of proficiency?

For all these rules, I would substitute this one: Decide what you're
going to do, and then make sure you have the training you need to do
it.

Michael

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Greg,
>
>your list is missing something important: autopilots. Here in Germany,
>single-pilot IFR is only allowed with a two-axis autopilot. Although
>that might be considered over-regulation, the basic underlying
>assumption makes sense.
>
>--
>Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Good point -
And the ommission was indeed my own, and not the author cited.
He did stress the use of an autopilot - at least in busy areas. He seems
to feel it's your call in non-congested areas, but in any busy
environment you are asking for overload to fly SP-IFR without it.

G Faris

[Stubby]

Roy Smith wrote:

> Judah > wrote:
>
>>But I don't even think there's all that much
>>difference between flying through soup at 3000' when the top of the
>>white stuff outside your window is light by the sun or the moon.
>
>
> The difference (in my mind, and with my 40-something eyes) is that it's
> harder to see stuff in the cockpit at night. Every task from instrument
> scan, to reading a chart, to tuning a radio, to copying an in-flight
> reroute becomes more difficult.
>
> Task overload is insidious. It's taking you a little longer than usual to
> find the right approach plate and get the radios set up, but you're still
> keeping up so it's not a big deal. Then the controller tells you they just
> switched runways, fly direct to some waypoint you've never heard of, expect
> some different approach, contact the next controller on 123.45, etc, etc,
> and suddenly you realize you're way behind. Maybe during the day you would
> have been able to keep up, but at night the added workload of having to do
> everything by flashlight sent you down the tubes.
>
> There's also a lot more in the way of visual illusions at night. I've
> broken out plenty of times and spotted what I thought was the approach
> lights, only to realize it was a nearby highway.

About 10 years ago I read an article (sorry, no citation) that said
aging decreases the ability to cope with multiple, parallel activities.
I believe that's what we're talking about when we say "task
overload". Certainly training and experience teaches us to cope and I
hope old folks at least remain trainable.

[Robert M. Gary]

Wow, I've done all those (except #2).
The important thing to remember is that "safety" is not an absolute.
Pilots need to start thinking in terms of risk management and not "safe
vs. not safe"

-Robert

[Jose]

>>Yes, I agree, the remaining IFR flights are likely to be safer.

> I'm not sure I even agree with that. IFR flying is a perishable skill,
> and the limitations imposed will certainly cause one to make fewer
> flights.

Now that you bring this to my attention, you are right. In fact it's
one of the things I harp on occasionally. I retract (that part of) my
statement. The remaining IFR flights may well not be safer.

Of course, usenet will never be the same. :)

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Judah,
>
>> But I don't even think there's all that much
>> difference between flying through soup at 3000' when the top of the
>> white stuff outside your window is light by the sun or the moon.
>>
>
>The statistics (as interpreted over and over again by Richard Collins)
>are violently against your statement...
>

Yes, Richard Collins continually shows us the statistical prejudice
against night flight - even VFR, but particularly IFR - and makes it
clear that if we were to fly more hours at night we would have many more
accidents - often fatal ones too. Yet he flies IFR at night - even hard
IFR routinely, so he must feel that, with experience, it is safe to do
alone.

OK - the guy has a few hours under his belt :-)

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>>
>> 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night
>
>I agree that single-pilot IFR is hard, and doing it at night is harder, but
>I don't see the single-engine connection. If the fear is not being able to
>find an emergency landing spot, then the rule should be "No single-engine
>at night". If the fear is pilot task overload, then the rule should be "no
>single-pilot IMC at night".

Perhaps he means if you lose your power and control your descent rate only to
break out at 500AGL, you don't have time to look for a landing spot. In night
VFR, you will usually be contact with greater reserves, sometimes with a
moon, and generally have much greater margins to deal with this. The
work overload factor may enter into his reasoning here as well, though I
connot speak for him.

>
>> 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
>> performance
>
>Again, I don't see the connection here. Presumably this means it's OK to
>fly single-pilot, single-engine IFR at those same altitudes?
>

I'm somewhat with you on this. It seems that a lot of ME rules tend to hold
ME operations to a standard we were simply willing to wash over in SE ops.
But then, the whole multi-engine equation is skewed anyway - Collins has
shown us that a power loss in a ME environment is statistically more
dangerous than the same thing in a sigle - which blows the whole ME reasoning
apart at the seams.

There seems to be a committment level involmved in ME ops - at least in light
twins, with marginal SE performance. If the pilot does everything right, the
second engine is a life saver in case of a power failure. Since we know that
most of the time (something like 80%) the pilot fails to maintain these
standards, the ME environment becomes more dangerous than the single would
have been with the same engine failure. Even a bad landing in a field is
often survivable, while a loss of control SE in a twin is usually not. So we
all have to assume we're among the 20% who are going to get it right!

Some countries do not allow IFR at night in SE aircraft. The way the
statistics point, you could almost argue they should not allow Multi-IFR at
night - or at least require certain SE performance standards (much better
than most light twins) for multi-IFR, day or night.

G Faris

[Matt Barrow]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Wow, I've done all those (except #2).

And what was that?

Don't you love people that talk to themselves?


--
"At a time when our entire country
is banding together and facing down
individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful
example, showing us all what is possible
when we work together, believe
in each other, and sacrifice for the
greater good." -
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, D-MASS., in a statement read
onto the Congressional Record, praising the New
England Patriots and declaring us all to be in
an American war against individualism. --
Quoted in America's 1st Freedom magazine, April, 2002

[John Clonts]

>And no way will you be based at my home field and fly enough IFR to
>remain proficient. We don't have ANY straight-in approaches. Both the
>NDB and the GPS have a FAC of 025, and the only runway is 9-27.

Why is that, anyway? Airspace issues? I can see why they wouldn't
have one from the east into EYQ because of IAH, etc-- but why not have
a GPS approach straight in to 9? Sugarland shouldn't be much of an
issue there, right?
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Scott Moore]

Greg Farris wrote:
> Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
> Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the "meat
> and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
> points as generalities. How many agree with these :
>
> 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night

I would never get any IFR time if I didn't. Seriously, I don't see your issue.
It really comes down to if you are going to be safer contacting the ground
on engine out in the dark with or without fog. I'd say its unlikely that
its a significant disadvantage over the (already admittedly dangerous)
engine out with night VFR.

> 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
> performance

Don't have a multi, so can't comment.

> 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
> preference for dual alrternators.

Pretty much don't agree. I am moving away from vac stuff to electric,
its more reliable. The next step is to get rid of the vac horizon.
And people make a big deal about a single alternator, but it is not
true that it is single point of fail. It is also backed up by the
battery. In any case, the vac and the electric back each other up.
It comes back to if having the attitude go out kills you, even if
you have a backup for that. It seems to me that an electric attitude
that flags itself for problems is the best you can do here.

> 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
> know where it is

Nice. Not always possible, but nice.

> 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
> night or close to minimums
>

Agree. I don't do circling anything, except for my instructor. But
I fly needles and lines, and I don't feel comfortable any other way.

[xyzzy]

Michael wrote:

>>>1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night
>>
>>I agree that single-pilot IFR is hard, and doing it at night is harder, but
>>I don't see the single-engine connection. If the fear is not being able to
>>find an emergency landing spot, then the rule should be "No single-engine
>>at night". If the fear is pilot task overload, then the rule should be "no
>>single-pilot IMC at night".
>
>
> What Roy said (though I'm not sure single-pilot IFR is appreciably
> harder at night in a properly lit cockpit - but if you're doing it by
> flashlight, no argument from me). As stated, the rule really doesn't
> make sense.
>
>
>>>2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
>>>performance
>>
>>Again, I don't see the connection here. Presumably this means it's OK to
>>fly single-pilot, single-engine IFR at those same altitudes?
>
>
> Which, of course, is silly. In the twin, you actully have a lot more
> options and a lot more time to think. A twin above the SE ceiling
> won't climb, but it won't descend very quickly. The difference is
> striking - a single with an engine failure at 8000 will be descending
> about 800 fpm; a light twin will be more like 100 fpm. Way better
> chance of making it to someplace landable.
>
>
>>>3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
>>>preference for dual alrternators.
>>
>>This is a good rule. I'll admit I break it.
>
>
> A dual vacuum source won't back up a dying gyro (and I've seen as many
> gyro failures as I've seen vacuum source failures). So now we need
> dual AI's and dual vacuum. Well, it so happens I do have such a setup
> in my airplane. Also dual generators with solid state regulators.
>
> Is it necessary? I think it depends on the pilot and the airplane.
> For someone who flies a lot of IFR and trains seriously, probably not -
> but that's exactly the person most likely to have such a setup. For a
> solid and stable airplane like a Cherokee, I think it's overkill. For
> a Bonanza, a really good idea. But is it more important than flying
> instruments regularly? I don't think so. Given that resources are
> finite, I think recurrent training is a better investment than
> installing this stuff. In other words - it sounds like a good rule in
> theory, but it probably isn't in practice.
>
>
>>>4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
>>>know where it is.
>>
>>An excellent rule.
>
>
> I think it's another one of those rules that sounds great in theory.
> If you can plan your flight to do that, it's great. Certainly if there
> is VFR weather in range, you ought to know where it is to keep your
> options open in case anything really bad happens. But what if that
> rule substantially reduces the amount of IFR flying you do? Is the
> loss of proficiency going to offset the reduced exposure?
>
>
>>>5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
>>>night or close to minimums
>>
>>No argument there.
>
>
> And no way will you be based at my home field and fly enough IFR to
> remain proficient. We don't have ANY straight-in approaches. Both the
> NDB and the GPS have a FAC of 025, and the only runway is 9-27.
>

Well some approaches are more circling than others. A circling approach
which is only 10-20 degrees off the straight-in, or even one that puts
you into what is similar to a VFR downwind entry may not be as bad as,
say, doing an ILS 9 circle to land 27. (This is MO as an instrument
student, not an experienced instrument pilot).

[Maule Driver]

That's interesting. I have post lamps on all the instruments. I use a
combination of clip on goosenecks for pilot and co-pilot(backup). I use
a strap-on headlamp on too. And I have 1 to 3 additional flashlights
in the bag along with a eyeglass case full of spare batteries.

I have an overhead cabin lamp but almost never use it. It's both too
good and not good enough. It kills my night vision but isn't good
enough to use for map reading.

In fact, my headlamp is my main light. It moves where I'm looking, it
has 3 distinct lighting levels and colors, it gives me what I want, when
I want it, without killing my night vision. I've almost stopped using
my goosenecks.

Fact is, I try to do as little night flying as possible - VFR or IFR.
My 50-some eyesight isn't getting any better but more important, I just
become more risk averse as time marches on.

But I'm still willing to do night SE/SP IFR in many situations. It
helps that I'm flying a slow, simple, stable plane that only I fly.

Michael wrote:
>
> My eyes are not quite 40, but I have much the same problem in most
> airplanes. However, most GA airplanes do not have anything resembling
> an adequate lighting system.
>
> Clue time - if you need a flashlight to perform ANY task in the
> cockpit, your lighting is inadequate. A flashlight is an emergency
> backup, not for normal inflight use.
>
> I don't worry about single pilot night IFR in my airplane, because it
> has an adequate lighting system. Someone, somewhere along the way, did
> most of what was required and I filled in the rest. That includes
> pilot and copilot overhead map lights with yoke-mounted actuation
> switches - so you can keep flying the plane while reading the map. It
> also includes panel lighting for all the instruments and overhead
> lights forward and aft - each with independent switches. The only time
> I use a flashlight in the plane is for startup, so as not to run down
> the battery.
>
> Once adequate lighting is in place, there's really no issue. However,
> as I mentioned before, most GA airplanes do not have adequate lighting.
> I've never seen a rental that did. On the other hand, I think you're
> pretty much taking your life in your hands flying a rental night-IMC
> anyway.
>
> Michael
>

[Dan Luke]

I've been a bad, bad boy.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[A Lieberman]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:58:31 +0200, Greg Farris wrote:
> These tips do not represent the "meat
> and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
> points as generalities. How many agree with these :
>
> 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night

Disagree. Plane does not care if it's night or day, IMC or VFR. Important
thing is currency and maintenance of the plane you fly. I did 2 1/2 hour
solid IMC at night, and actually for me, found it easier then VMC in
complete dark. Nav lights give a comforting glow inside the clouds, so
it's not "pitch black".

> 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
> performance

Don't know since I am not ME rated.

> 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
> preference for dual alrternators.

Disagree. Keep the plane maintained, and you should be fine. Things happen
granted, but why fly if you expect the on the what if in a million comes
up.

> 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
> know where it is

Disagree. Get a big ole stationary low pressure and you won't fly. What's
the purpose of getting an IFR ticket if you are not going to use it. I
don't think it's wise to launch when everything around you is at minimums,
but to expect VFR within range of the plane, I disagree with that. The
reason I say it's not wise to launch if everybody is reporting minimums, is
that the weather *could* worsen

> 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
> night or close to minimums

Disagree. My 2 1/2 hour night IMC flight terminated in a circle to
approach where ceilings were 1300. Minimums were 900. Nothing more
magical then descending, descending, and descending, and poof, out of the
ceiling the city lights come to life. Again, plane doesn't care whether
it's IMC or VMC, still need to fly the plane.

Fortunately, I had an instructor who took me down to ILS and circle to
approach minimums. The first time I went out on my own, ceilings were at
1000 and I loved every minute of it, since I had before done an approach
right down to ILS minimums. So, safety limits are relative to one's
experience.

Allen

[Greg Farris]

In article om>,
says...
On the other hand, I think you're
>pretty much taking your life in your hands flying a rental night-IMC
>anyway.
>


These days it's easy to rent a 172SP. OK, you're in slow company, but
they're well appointed for night flying, VFR or IFR.

[Michael]

> Why is that, anyway? Airspace issues?

Pretty much. We're so close to IAH that either the FAC will take us
into IAH approach airspace, or the miss will. We have no RCO on the
field, so the airspace would have to be protected for an awful long
time. Nobody will buy off. Thus the FAC is 025, with a turn on the
miss back to the IAF, and that way we can operate.

On top of that, the prevailing winds favor 9 and there is no circling
North of the field. Visualize this - landing on 9 in min vis means
flying an angled entry to a right upwind flown over or to the right of
the runway, then right crosswind, downwind, base, and final. It's
about the ugliest circle there is. At night, you get an additional
degree of difficulty - the lights are dim bulbs in mason jars, they are
not at the edges of the pavement, and in fact they are not even
centered on the centerline.

You would think we would have night and IFR crashes left and right, but
we don't. In fact, I'm not sure we ever have. We have plenty of
crashes, but it's almost always CFI's from the flight schools
(sometimes with a student, sometimes not) crashing in day-VMC.

Michael

[Michael]

> I suppose it depends on your definition of "adequate." The Bonanza I fly
> has overhead map lights that do an excellent job lighting up the cabin, but
> I do not to use them to brief or follow an approach plate due to the night
> vision damage these lights cause.

And in my opinion, that makes them inadequate - for all the reasons Roy
mentioned. There is no reason those map lights should not have a red
filter. Ot two bulbs - red and bright - switch selectable. If you
have to juggle flashlights, turn your head to look at a plate rather
than just glance (vertigo city, IMO), and otherwise compensate for a
lighting system that doesn't actually allow you to see at night, then
your workload goes up - and single pilot IFR in IMC workload is already
high. Can you do it? Probably, but can you do it consistently 100
times out of 100?

It's OK to have an emergency procedure that only gives a 99% success
rate. Odds are you will never use it, so the overall odds of using it
an having it fail are tiny. I don't think it's OK to have a normal
procedure that only works 99% of the time. If you fly any significant
amount of night-IMC, it's going to bite you.

That is why I consider no vacuum backup acceptable, but a lighting
system that requires juggling flashlights unacceptable. How many
vacuum pump failures have you seen? I've seen two in 1500+ hours of
dry pump operation (wet pumps pretty much don't fail). Thus between
the low likelihood of the event, and the high likelihood (for a
proficient pilot) of handling the event, it's no big deal. The
flashlight juggling happens on EVERY night flight you make in an
improperly equipped airplane. Now what's harder - partial panel IFR in
day-IMC (or night-IMC in well lit cabin), or full panel IFR in
night-IMC in an airplane where you have to juggle flashlights?

Michael

[Michael]

> And people make a big deal about a single alternator, but it is not
> true that it is single point of fail. It is also backed up by the
> battery.

Right, the single point failure is not the single alternator - it is
the single battery contactor. If that fails (or the battery cooks
itself) the alternator ALSO goes off line - because it needs battery
power to excite the field and won't self-excite. Most light twin
electrical systems feature two alternators - which isn't any better,
because the battery/master contactor still exist as point failures.
Most generator-driven light twins have paralelling relatys, which, in
the event of some kinds of failures, will cook the system. A truly
redundant (no single point failures) electrical system is a very rare
thing in light GA. That's why all-electric airplanes scare me unless
they have independent buses and multiple batteries.

> It seems to me that an electric attitude
> that flags itself for problems is the best you can do here.

No such animal in GA, I'm afraid. You can buy one that flags loss of
power (be it vacuum, pressure, or electric) but that's not the most
common mode of failure for the AI - generally it is the gyro mechanism
(brushes, bearings, etc) that fails.

Ultimately, the only solution is dual independent power sources
(neither alternators nor generators with a paralelling relay qualify)
and dual attitude gyros. For example, one vacuum and one electric
attitude gyro is a great choice. Few GA airplanes have that.

Michael

[Roy Smith]

Michael > wrote:
>> Why is that, anyway? Airspace issues?
>
>Pretty much. We're so close to IAH that either the FAC will take us
>into IAH approach airspace, or the miss will.

You're at EYQ, right? Airnav says it's 16 miles from IAH to EYQ.
It's hard to imagine they couldn't design a straight-in approach to at
least one end of 9/27 that didn't interfere if they wanted to.

The fact that they're up to GPS-G and NDB-F must mean they've tried a
few different variations over the years :-)

[Greg Farris]

In article m>,
says...
>

>Ultimately, the only solution is dual independent power sources
>(neither alternators nor generators with a paralelling relay qualify)
>and dual attitude gyros. For example, one vacuum and one electric
>attitude gyro is a great choice. Few GA airplanes have that.
>


More and more do (because more and more have glass primary systems) -
but the backup is often a tiny job way off by your right hand somewhere.
I've seen some panels with two separate AI's, separate power sources,
and both right there in front of you. I like that - not only do you have
it where you need it when you need it, but you'll also detect the
failure immediately, because you'll see the discrepancy. One of the
nasty parts of AI failures in IMC is that it fails slowly, and by the
time you realize it's cooked, you're heading into the trees at low mach
speeds.

[Dan Luke]

"Michael" wrote:
> You would think we would have night and IFR crashes left and right,
> but
> we don't. In fact, I'm not sure we ever have.

Maybe because you're the only one crazy enough to fly the approach to
minimums there.

Seriously: how much low-IMC traffic comes into Weiser?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Peter R.]

Michael > wrote:

> It's OK to have an emergency procedure that only gives a 99% success
> rate.

Assuming the Bonanza had this fancy, *adequete* lighting system, what are
the odds that the bulb of this system wouldn't burn out the moment you
flicked it on? 1 out of a 100, perhaps?

I'll put more faith in an LED headlamp any day.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter R.]

"Peter R." > wrote:

> Assuming the Bonanza had this fancy, *adequete* lighting system, what are
> the odds that the bulb of this system wouldn't burn out the moment you
> flicked it on? 1 out of a 100, perhaps?

Whoops, the hypothetical doesn't match the odds. Try again:

What are the odds that the bulb of this system *would* burn out the moment
you flicked it on? 1 out of a 100?

There... that's better.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:

> What are the odds that the bulb of this system *would* burn out the moment
> you flicked it on? 1 out of a 100?

I'm pretty sure that bulbs have a better MTBF than that. I know I'm probably
(no pun) jinxing my airplane, but I haven't replaced a bulb in my airplane
in over ten years. The one exception is the landing light that I've replaced
once because of a cracked lens - the light still worked.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Greg Farris]

Many thanks to those who contributed their experience and opinions to the
discussion.

With regard to the author cited, Larry Bartlett, and his video refresher
course, I would recommend this series.It does not contain in-flight videos,
it's all classroom and blackboard (which the author masters quite well). It
also is not a basic IFR training course, and by no means pretends to cover
all the textbook training for IFR - but as a refresher course, with a
distinct point of view, expressed by a seasoned instructor, I find it
engaging and informative. Recommended, even if somewhat pricey (mine, from
Sporty's was over $100 for three tapes).

G Faris

[Mike Rapoport]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
> Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the "meat
> and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
> points as generalities. How many agree with these :
>
> 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night

Personal choice. The chances of successfully landing at night after an
engine failure are not that different IMC or VMC.

> 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
> performance

This is pretty stupid. It ignores the fact that if the aircraft is at the
MEA and loses an engine (and MEA is above its SE ceiling) that the aircraft
will travel hundreds of miles before reaching the SE ceiling. It will also
reach it absolute SE ceiling which is much higher than the SE service
ceiling in the manual. It also ignores the fact that no piston twin and few
turboprops have enough single engine climb gradient to reach the MEA before
hitting something. In other words, it doesn't make much difference what
the SE service ceiling is.

> 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
> preference for dual alrternators.

Personal choice.

> 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
> know where it is

Not practical a lot of times.

> 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
> night or close to minimums

This is pretty stupid too. There are lots of approaches where the MDA is
not much different than pattern altitude.

The reality is that even the simplest airplane with no redundant systems is
far more reliable that the pilot flying it.

Mike
MU-2

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>
>"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>> Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
>> Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the "meat
>> and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
>> points as generalities. How many agree with these :
>>
>> 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night
>
>Personal choice. The chances of successfully landing at night after an
>engine failure are not that different IMC or VMC.
>
>> 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
>> performance
>
>This is pretty stupid. It ignores the fact that if the aircraft is at the
>MEA and loses an engine (and MEA is above its SE ceiling) that the aircraft
>will travel hundreds of miles before reaching the SE ceiling. It will also
>reach it absolute SE ceiling which is much higher than the SE service
>ceiling in the manual. It also ignores the fact that no piston twin and few
>turboprops have enough single engine climb gradient to reach the MEA before
>hitting something. In other words, it doesn't make much difference what
>the SE service ceiling is.
>
>> 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
>> preference for dual alrternators.
>
>Personal choice.
>
>> 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
>> know where it is
>
>Not practical a lot of times.
>
>> 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
>> night or close to minimums
>
>This is pretty stupid too. There are lots of approaches where the MDA is
>not much different than pattern altitude.
>
>The reality is that even the simplest airplane with no redundant systems is
>far more reliable that the pilot flying it.
>
>Mike
>MU-2


His comments were specifically aimed though at "typical" GA aircraft - singles
and light twins, not twin turboprops. Several of your comments are equally
valid for eaither realm, of course, but things like "keep IFR within range"
could be of less concern to you, because of the comfort you can take in the
performance of your machine.

G Faris
>
>

[Julian Scarfe]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...

>> 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
>> performance
>
> This is pretty stupid. It ignores the fact that if the aircraft is at the
> MEA and loses an engine (and MEA is above its SE ceiling) that the
> aircraft will travel hundreds of miles before reaching the SE ceiling. It
> will also reach it absolute SE ceiling which is much higher than the SE
> service ceiling in the manual. It also ignores the fact that no piston
> twin and few turboprops have enough single engine climb gradient to reach
> the MEA before hitting something. In other words, it doesn't make much
> difference what the SE service ceiling is.

The Single-Pilot bit puzzles me too. Surely this is a performance issue.
Does it really take two pilots to work out whether you're going to hit the
mountain or not?

Julian

[Richard Kaplan]

I think a backup electric AI is more important than dual vaccum sources.

I think a battery GPS is a highly desirable item; if you have one, dual
alternators become much less important.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Jimmy B.]

Julian Scarfe wrote:
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>
>>>2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
>>>performance
>>
>>This is pretty stupid. It ignores the fact that if the aircraft is at the
>>MEA and loses an engine (and MEA is above its SE ceiling) that the
>>aircraft will travel hundreds of miles before reaching the SE ceiling. It
>>will also reach it absolute SE ceiling which is much higher than the SE
>>service ceiling in the manual. It also ignores the fact that no piston
>>twin and few turboprops have enough single engine climb gradient to reach
>>the MEA before hitting something. In other words, it doesn't make much
>>difference what the SE service ceiling is.
>
>
> The Single-Pilot bit puzzles me too. Surely this is a performance issue.
> Does it really take two pilots to work out whether you're going to hit the
> mountain or not?
>
> Julian
>
>
This reminds me of the "Far Side" cartoon showing two pilots discussing
why there is a mountain goat in the clouds.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>
>>
>>"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>>> Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
>>> Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the "meat
>>> and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
>>> points as generalities. How many agree with these :
>>>
>>> 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night
>>
>>Personal choice. The chances of successfully landing at night after an
>>engine failure are not that different IMC or VMC.
>>
>>> 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
>>> performance
>>
>>This is pretty stupid. It ignores the fact that if the aircraft is at the
>>MEA and loses an engine (and MEA is above its SE ceiling) that the
>>aircraft
>>will travel hundreds of miles before reaching the SE ceiling. It will
>>also
>>reach it absolute SE ceiling which is much higher than the SE service
>>ceiling in the manual. It also ignores the fact that no piston twin and
>>few
>>turboprops have enough single engine climb gradient to reach the MEA
>>before
>>hitting something. In other words, it doesn't make much difference what
>>the SE service ceiling is.
>>
>>> 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
>>> preference for dual alrternators.
>>
>>Personal choice.
>>
>>> 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
>>> know where it is
>>
>>Not practical a lot of times.
>>
>>> 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
>>> night or close to minimums
>>
>>This is pretty stupid too. There are lots of approaches where the MDA is
>>not much different than pattern altitude.
>>
>>The reality is that even the simplest airplane with no redundant systems
>>is
>>far more reliable that the pilot flying it.
>>
>>Mike
>>MU-2
>
>
> His comments were specifically aimed though at "typical" GA aircraft -
> singles
> and light twins, not twin turboprops. Several of your comments are equally
> valid for eaither realm, of course, but things like "keep IFR within
> range"
> could be of less concern to you, because of the comfort you can take in
> the
> performance of your machine.
>
> G Faris

I look at it from the point of view that if there is a meaningful chance
that I will have to divert to somewhere with VFR weather then I wouldn't
launch into IMC in the first place. Basically he is saying that you won't
be able to fly IMC at some point in the flight but you are going to depend
on flying IMC (to get to the VFR). .That doesn't mean that I don't want a
"real" alternate where I can count on getting in but if that alternate needs
to be VFR then either the pilot or the airplane is not up to flying IMC in
the first place.

The no single pilot, single engine prohibition similiarly doesn't make
sense. What good would having two pilots do if the (single) engine quit?

His comments on multi simply don't make sense either. If you can't control
a multi in the event of an engine loss then it doesn't make any difference
whether it is VMC or IMC, you shouldn't be flying a multi. If you can
control the airplane on one engine then there is no senario where you would
be better off in a single after one engine fails.

Last week I went to McCall for a mountain flying school (which was really
great BTW) and I had to fly the Helio in IMC for the first time. It was
pouring rain to the point that water was coming out the vents. I was
uncomfortable for the IMC duration of the flight (which was 90%) but none of
the "rules" or strategies espoused in this book would have made things any
better although I would probably have been even more uncomfortable at night.

I think that every pilot has to decide for himself and his passengers what
constitutes acceptable risk and that there is no formula or set of rules
that is better than any other.

Mike
MU-2

[Robert M. Gary]

I agree. Sportys has a new batch of electric back up AIs for an amazing
price.

Richard Kaplan wrote:
> I think a backup electric AI is more important than dual vaccum sources.
>
> I think a battery GPS is a highly desirable item; if you have one, dual
> alternators become much less important.
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan
>
> www.flyimc.com

[Michael]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Michael" wrote:
> > You would think we would have night and IFR crashes left and right,
> > but
> > we don't. In fact, I'm not sure we ever have.
>
> Maybe because you're the only one crazy enough to fly the approach to
> minimums there.

That may not be far from the truth.

> Seriously: how much low-IMC traffic comes into Weiser?

Well, we have about a dozen private twins (mostly Barons, but also a
Cessna 340 and a couple of Twin Comanches) on the field, and quite a
few high end singles (Cessna 210, Bonanzas, a Turbo Viking) as well.
Most of these are routinely flown IFR in IMC.

But when you look at the hardcore IFR operators (the guys whose leading
edges are taped up or beat up), most of them are airline or military
trained, or trained by airline/military types. There are also a couple
I trained. I don't think the flight schools (or the people they
train)do any low-IMC approaches into Weiser, and I suspect if they did
the carnage would be spectacular.

Michael

[Michael]

> Assuming the Bonanza had this fancy, *adequete* lighting system, what are
> the odds that the bulb of this system wouldn't burn out the moment you
> flicked it on? 1 out of a 100, perhaps?

Not even close. I believe I've replaced ONE bulb (the gear down light)
on my PA-30 in the 900 hours I've had it. Light bulbs have a very long
MTBF, especially DC bulbs.

> I'll put more faith in an LED headlamp any day.

A whiskey compass and venturi-driven T&S are also way more reliable
than the usual complement of vacuum pump, AI, and HI - but we don't fly
IFR that way, even though it is possible (and was done - needle, ball,
and alcohol survives in the pilot vernacular to this day) because the
workload is too high. We keep it in reserve strictly as an emergency
procedure.

Also - what is to keep you from using the LED's in the fixed lighting
system? The entire system can be attached with velcro and plugged into
the cigarette lighter socket if you so choose (not that most mechanics
have a problem approving light installations as minor mods).

An adequate lighting system is NOT fancy. It's simple. It's set up to
light everything you need lit - without moving your head or killing
your night vision.

Michael

[Michael]

> You're at EYQ, right? Airnav says it's 16 miles from IAH to EYQ.

Yes on both counts.

> It's hard to imagine they couldn't design a straight-in approach to at
> least one end of 9/27 that didn't interfere if they wanted to.

No, unfortunately it's not hard to imagine at all. Start by assuming
"they" are typical of civil servants in terms of both competence and
motivation, and it's quite easy.

> The fact that they're up to GPS-G and NDB-F must mean they've tried a
> few different variations over the years :-)

There's a history to that. In the beginning, there was just the NDB.
Then came the GPS overlay. Then the two approaches were split, and the
GPS got a real IAF and a hold in lieu. In all that time, the FAC was
always 025.

Michael

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael" > wrote in message...
>
> > It's hard to imagine they couldn't design a straight-in approach to at
> > least one end of 9/27 that didn't interfere if they wanted to.
>
> No, unfortunately it's not hard to imagine at all. Start by assuming
> "they" are typical of civil servants in terms of both competence and
> motivation, and it's quite easy.

You assume they're 'servants'; they assume they're 'masters'. :~(

[Roy Smith]

"Michael" > wrote:
> Light bulbs have a very long MTBF, especially DC bulbs.

Depends how you run them. If you're trying to get the most illumination
for a given electrical power, you run them at full rated voltage and get a
relatively short lifetime. On the other hand, if you run them at less than
rated voltage, you get much lower conversion efficiency, but also much
longer lifetime. I'm guessing that most panel lighting bulbs are run this
way.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>"Michael" > wrote:
>> Light bulbs have a very long MTBF, especially DC bulbs.
>
>Depends how you run them. If you're trying to get the most illumination
>for a given electrical power, you run them at full rated voltage and get a
>relatively short lifetime. On the other hand, if you run them at less than
>rated voltage, you get much lower conversion efficiency, but also much
>longer lifetime. I'm guessing that most panel lighting bulbs are run this
>way.


Unless it's a rental - and you find that all the panel lights are full-on
during the day for nobody knows how long. The plane hasn't flown at night for
over a month, but has logged 80h in daylight during that time. There are no
spare bulbs in the plane, and obviously the FBO won't replace them unless
they are actually burnt out.

[Peter R.]

Michael > wrote:

> Not even close. I believe I've replaced ONE bulb (the gear down light)
> on my PA-30 in the 900 hours I've had it. Light bulbs have a very long
> MTBF, especially DC bulbs.

Ok, so perhaps I overestimated the failure rate just a little. :)



--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Roy Smith]

Greg Farris > wrote:
>In article >,
>says...
>>
>>
>>"Michael" > wrote:
>>> Light bulbs have a very long MTBF, especially DC bulbs.
>>
>>Depends how you run them. If you're trying to get the most illumination
>>for a given electrical power, you run them at full rated voltage and get a
>>relatively short lifetime. On the other hand, if you run them at less than
>>rated voltage, you get much lower conversion efficiency, but also much
>>longer lifetime. I'm guessing that most panel lighting bulbs are run this
>>way.
>
>
>Unless it's a rental - and you find that all the panel lights are full-on
>during the day for nobody knows how long. The plane hasn't flown at night for
>over a month, but has logged 80h in daylight during that time. There are no
>spare bulbs in the plane, and obviously the FBO won't replace them unless
>they are actually burnt out.

Yeah, but even with the knob turned to full brightness, they're
probably not running at the voltage the bulbs are rated for.

[Michael]

> Ok, so perhaps I overestimated the failure rate just a little. :)

OK, but let's say you didn't. If bulbs burned out that often, we would
all have a package of spares in the plane. You would check the lights
prior to takeoff, and replace any that failed. If one failed in
flight, then you would go back to the flashlight - which would now be
an emergency, not a normal procedure. As an emergency procedure,
flying by flashlight is fine.

Michael

[Michael]

> I look at it from the point of view that if there is a meaningful chance
> that I will have to divert to somewhere with VFR weather then I wouldn't
> launch into IMC in the first place. Basically he is saying that you won't
> be able to fly IMC at some point in the flight but you are going to depend
> on flying IMC (to get to the VFR).

Not necessarily. What he IS saying is that he may retain the
capability to fly IMC enroute, but not the capability to shoot an
approach. Now let's consider how this may happen.

IMO the biggest issue is an electrical failure that would leave you
able to fly enroute IMC (by dead reckoning if nothing else) since the
gyros are vacuum, but unable to shoot an approach. This was a real
issue before the handheld GPS, since few light aircraft have truly
redundant electrical systems. I have a handheld GPS with its own
batteries on a yoke mount. In a pinch, I can use it to shoot an
overlay VOR or NDB approach (I practice doing this) and I consider it a
no-go item on flights where I lack the range to reach VFR, despite the
fact that my electrical system is more redundant than most - I still
have only one electrical bus.

> That doesn't mean that I don't want a
> "real" alternate where I can count on getting in but if that alternate needs
> to be VFR then either the pilot or the airplane is not up to flying IMC in
> the first place.

By that definition, no single or light twin was up to flying IMC before
handheld nav became available. In my experience, electrical failures
are far more common than engine failures.

Having said that, the REAL reason for the rule is the sad reality that
all too many pilots of complex singles are not able to hand-fly a
partial panel approach, and all too many pilots of light twins are not
able to fly a single engine approach. These pilots need to have VFR in
range, so that they can fly there in the event of vacuum/engine
failure. You could argue that these pilots are not up to flying IMC in
the first place, and I would even agree with you, but you can't look at
the accident history and claim there are not many of them.

Michael