Question to the IFR Pilots Out There

[Cecil E. Chapman]

For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of ACTUAL
IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get my
instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at the
latest.

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com

[Windecks]

Prior to my checkride, 5hrs actual, including half a dozen (missed)
approaches to near 0/0 conditions on the Monterey coast. Get all the actual
dual time you can, both before and after getting the ticket..

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
.. .
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
> At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of
ACTUAL
> IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get
my
> instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at
the
> latest.
>
> --
> --
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
> "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> We are alive in the air with this miracle
> that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
>
> - Cecil Day Lewis-
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
.. .
| For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
| IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
|
| At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of
ACTUAL
| IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get
my
| instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at
the
| latest.
|

I had 7.4 hours, some of which I got while working on my private pilot
certificate. However, I accumulated some 280 hours while working on
instrument rating.

[Dan Truesdell]

I had about 42 hours of IFR time when I got my ticket. About 5 of those
hours were actual. Easy to do in New England in the spring when I did
most of my training. No approaches in the soup though, but I did find,
on a night training flight after my IFR ticket, that a good hood (I use
the Hood Lam) coupled with night approaches in a relatively dark area
may as well be actual (with the obvious exception of being able to cheat
over the panel and see the approach lights).

Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
> At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of ACTUAL
> IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get my
> instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at the
> latest.
>


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[Jon Woellhaf]

1.7 actual and 593 total (slow learner).

Jon

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
.. .
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Cecil E. Chapman > wrote:
>For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
>IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

I'm only at 21.2 dual toward my instrument, and 4.3 is in IMC. In the
Pacific Northwest we should have the opportunity to do a lot of the
remaining work in IMC. I thought I might finish in 40 hours, but I
made the mistake of fixing my ADF, so now I'll have to be able to do
a passable NDB approach. :)

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Robert Moore]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote

> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours
> of actual IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

"Zero"...same as all the other Naval Aviators designated that
summer in Kingsville, TX. As a confidence building maneuver,
it is probably a nice thing to have for general aviation pilots
whose instrument training is not all that intensive to start
with, but it is not essential to the "learning" process.

Bob Moore
Flight Instructor, Airplanes-Instrument Airplane

[Cecil E. Chapman]

> certificate. However, I accumulated some 280 hours while working on
> instrument rating.


{me in my best 'Scooby Doo' voice] "Ruh Ro!"

Please tell me that is unique hour total for one reason or another, 'cause I
was kind of figuring (hoping) that I would finish my IR around 60 or 70
hours (I already have both the cross-country and 10+hours of cross-country
towards my instrument rating - I have about 262.8 hours or so, total,,, so
far....)

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com
"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
> .. .
> | For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of
actual
> | IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
> |
> | At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of
> ACTUAL
> | IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get
> my
> | instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at
> the
> | latest.
> |
>
> I had 7.4 hours, some of which I got while working on my private pilot
>
>

[Maule Driver]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
.. .
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
Between 2 and 3. They included some approaches but were mostly enroute.

You can't get enough. I think a good thing is, assuming you get your
certificate at the height of personal proficiency, get some actual solo.
The decision process changes and the realities of planning a flight that you
actually fly sinks in. If personal IFR flying is what you intend to do,
developing your personal procedures, decision processes, cockpit
organization, etc is important. I just never really did all that until I
had my ticket. And it's nice to do that solo or only with a
trusted/trusting passenger the first times out.

As far as flying with someone else. I didn't really get the chance to fly
some left seat actual with an experienced pilot other than my CFI. I'm sure
I should. But the couple of flights I did as a passenger with an
experienced pilot were priceless. After doing it myself, then seeing someone
else do it. Just learned so much...

[john smith]

Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

31.5 hours with 2.8 actual. Of that hours, 11.0 hours were simulator.

[ArtP]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 00:51:59 GMT, "Cecil E. Chapman"
> wrote:

>For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
>IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

01.0 actual
36.0 simulated
14.2 PCATD

[Barry]

>For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
>IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

4.4 actual
39.9 simulated
0.7 ground trainer

Barry

[EDR]

31.5 hours total instrument training time
11.0 hours simutlator (1983, before computers)
2.8 hours actual
38 approaches (simulator and flight)

[Kobra]

Cecil,

I had 8 when I got my ticket. My DE said don't even think of going out
alone until you have about 15 or 20. I think that's sound advise for "hard"
IMC. But I flew IFR alone a few times with 1000 to 1500' ceilings and 5
miles visibility. It wasn't too hard, but my plane has an autopilot with
altitude hold and the Garmin 295 was programmed with the route and that made
for better situational awareness.

Kobra





"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
.. .
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
> At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of
ACTUAL
> IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get
my
> instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at
the
> latest.
>
> --
> --
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
> "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> We are alive in the air with this miracle
> that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
>
> - Cecil Day Lewis-
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com
>
>

[Stan Gosnell]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in
:

> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many
> hours of actual IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

Zero. The Army didn't go into actual IMC in TH-13 (Bell 47)
helicopters. And we didn't do all that much actual IFR in UH1s,
either. After I got out, I spent about 15 years flying VFR
only. After transitioning into IFR medium helicopters, I've
done a lot of it. ILS approaches to 1/4 mile aren't that
uncommon. Don't worry about the amount of actual you get - I
think it's easier to fly in the clouds than under the hood. I
just took a checkride, and seeing the ground around the edges,
plus the sun flickering through the rotor blades onto the
bottom of the hood, made me work harder than I would on a normal
approach to minimums. Just practice all you can, and you'll be
fine.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Tom S.]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
.. .
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
> At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of
ACTUAL
> IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get
my
> instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at
the
> latest.
>

Well, next in the week or so I'll hit my 2000th hour. I've got 830 hrs
Instrument time of which 42.5 are actual IMC.

But then, I've never flown east of the Mississippi, only out here in the
clear air of the west.

Seems like most pilots flying predominately in the west get only about 5% of
their time as "actual", so my figures at least are right on target.

[Tom S.]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
.. .
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

When I got my ticket it was 2.1 and that was by running to catch it before
the crud burned off in the morning :~)

[Hilton]

Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

Cecil,

Give you CFI a call early tomorrow:

KMRY 150525Z 150606 12005KT P6SM VCSH SCT025 BKN050
FM0900 VRB03KT P6SM SCT030 BKN050
FM1600 30008KT P6SM SCT030 BKN050 PROB30 1824 5SM -RA BKN030
FM0100 18005KT 5SM -RA BR BKN020=

KMRY 150454Z AUTO 15004KT 10SM FEW024 OVC075 11/11 A3015 RMK AO2 SLP222
T01110106

KOAK 150525Z 150606 19005KT P6SM VCSH SCT024 BKN050
FM0900 22008KT P6SM VCSH SCT025 BKN050
FM1200 18007KT P6SM VCSH BKN040
FM1600 18010KT P6SM -SHRA BKN035
TEMPO 1822 3SM -RA BR BKN015
FM0000 16012KT 5SM -RA BR BKN020=

KOAK 150553Z 13005KT 10SM FEW021 SCT032 BKN090 12/11 A3015 RMK AO2
RAB0455E25 SLP209 P0002 60002 T01170106 10133 20111 51009

KSFO 150525Z 150606 17005KT P6SM VCSH FEW025 SCT035 BKN050
FM1000 26005KT P6SM SCT025 BKN050
FM1600 18010KT P6SM -SHRA BKN035
TEMPO 1822 3SM RA BR BKN015
FM0200 16010KT 5SM -RA BR BKN020=

KSFO 150556Z 17005KT 10SM FEW026 SCT035 12/11 A3014 RMK AO2 SLP205 60001
T01170111 10139 20117 51009

KSJC 150525Z 150606 13005KT P6SM VCSH FEW030 BKN060
FM1000 VRB05KT P6SM SCT030 BKN050
FM1200 16006KT P6SM SCT030 BKN050 PROB30 1723 5SM -RA BKN030
FM0000 16008KT 5SM -RA BR SCT020 BKN035=

KSJC 150553Z 17004KT 10SM SCT065 11/10 A3015 RMK AO2 SLP210 P0001 60001
T01110100 10128 20111 51011

KSNS 150525Z 150606 17003KT P6SM VCSH SCT025 BKN035
FM0900 VRB03KT P6SM SCT030 BKN050
FM1600 30008KT P6SM SCT030 BKN050 PROB30 1824 5SM -RA BKN030
FM0100 13010KT 5SM -RA BR BKN020=

Hilton

[C J Campbell]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
om...
| > certificate. However, I accumulated some 280 hours while working on
| > instrument rating.
|
|
| {me in my best 'Scooby Doo' voice] "Ruh Ro!"
|
| Please tell me that is unique hour total for one reason or another, 'cause
I
| was kind of figuring (hoping) that I would finish my IR around 60 or 70
| hours (I already have both the cross-country and 10+hours of cross-country
| towards my instrument rating - I have about 262.8 hours or so, total,,, so
| far....)
|

I am a slow learner, meaning it took me a long time to figure out that
Sierra Academy was milking me. Also, I owned my own airplane and flew it on
numerous trips.

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 06:00:30 GMT, "Hilton" >
wrote:

>Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
>> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
>> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
Between 10 and 12

Roger (K8RI)
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

[Dan Thompson]

Reminds me of the time I flew into Carlsbad NM one day when the field was
IFR. Shot the ILS.
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthWest/CNM_ir3.pdf
The controllers were clearly out of practice and rusty in handling actual
IFR operations, and overwhelmed by the workload of two airplanes approaching
the airport at the same time. I had to prompt them a couple of times to get
the next vector. Turns out that on average they only get a few hours of IMC
a year out there.

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of
actual
> > IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
> >
> > At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of
> ACTUAL
> > IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get
> my
> > instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at
> the
> > latest.
> >
>
> Well, next in the week or so I'll hit my 2000th hour. I've got 830 hrs
> Instrument time of which 42.5 are actual IMC.
>
> But then, I've never flown east of the Mississippi, only out here in the
> clear air of the west.
>
> Seems like most pilots flying predominately in the west get only about 5%
of
> their time as "actual", so my figures at least are right on target.
>
>

[Cecil E. Chapman]

Oh... it's gonna be 'beautiful' (in an IFR kinda way <grin>).

Only two problems with an otherwise beautiful plan:

My instructor isn't available on weekends.

I'm still in the middle of a stupid cold, actually it's starting to feel
like it's just about done with me.

Thank you for the thought, though!!!

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com
"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
> > For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of
actual
> > IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
> Cecil,
>
> Give you CFI a call early tomorrow:
>
> KMRY 150525Z 150606 12005KT P6SM VCSH SCT025 BKN050
> FM0900 VRB03KT P6SM SCT030 BKN050
> FM1600 30008KT P6SM SCT030 BKN050 PROB30 1824 5SM -RA BKN030
> FM0100 18005KT 5SM -RA BR BKN020=
>
> KMRY 150454Z AUTO 15004KT 10SM FEW024 OVC075 11/11 A3015 RMK AO2 SLP222
> T01110106
>
> KOAK 150525Z 150606 19005KT P6SM VCSH SCT024 BKN050
> FM0900 22008KT P6SM VCSH SCT025 BKN050
> FM1200 18007KT P6SM VCSH BKN040
> FM1600 18010KT P6SM -SHRA BKN035
> TEMPO 1822 3SM -RA BR BKN015
> FM0000 16012KT 5SM -RA BR BKN020=
>
> KOAK 150553Z 13005KT 10SM FEW021 SCT032 BKN090 12/11 A3015 RMK AO2
> RAB0455E25 SLP209 P0002 60002 T01170106 10133 20111 51009
>
> KSFO 150525Z 150606 17005KT P6SM VCSH FEW025 SCT035 BKN050
> FM1000 26005KT P6SM SCT025 BKN050
> FM1600 18010KT P6SM -SHRA BKN035
> TEMPO 1822 3SM RA BR BKN015
> FM0200 16010KT 5SM -RA BR BKN020=
>
> KSFO 150556Z 17005KT 10SM FEW026 SCT035 12/11 A3014 RMK AO2 SLP205 60001
> T01170111 10139 20117 51009
>
> KSJC 150525Z 150606 13005KT P6SM VCSH FEW030 BKN060
> FM1000 VRB05KT P6SM SCT030 BKN050
> FM1200 16006KT P6SM SCT030 BKN050 PROB30 1723 5SM -RA BKN030
> FM0000 16008KT 5SM -RA BR SCT020 BKN035=
>
> KSJC 150553Z 17004KT 10SM SCT065 11/10 A3015 RMK AO2 SLP210 P0001 60001
> T01110100 10128 20111 51011
>
> KSNS 150525Z 150606 17003KT P6SM VCSH SCT025 BKN035
> FM0900 VRB03KT P6SM SCT030 BKN050
> FM1600 30008KT P6SM SCT030 BKN050 PROB30 1824 5SM -RA BKN030
> FM0100 13010KT 5SM -RA BR BKN020=
>
> Hilton
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Cecil E.
Chapman" > wrote:

> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of
> actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>

1.5 actual
29.0 simulated
12.5 simulator
174.5 Total time.

--
Bob Noel

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
> At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of ACTUAL
> IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get my
> instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at the
> latest.
>

I probably had only an hour or so as well when I got my license. That
first flight in the clouds was REAL interesting ... but it went OK and
began the gradual process of building confidence and real proficiency in
the system. My very first IFR flight was into Logan ... figured might
as well jump in with both feet!

Actually, I found Logan pretty GA friendly.

Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Ben Jackson wrote:
> In article >,
> Cecil E. Chapman > wrote:
>
>>For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
>>IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
>
> I'm only at 21.2 dual toward my instrument, and 4.3 is in IMC. In the
> Pacific Northwest we should have the opportunity to do a lot of the
> remaining work in IMC. I thought I might finish in 40 hours, but I
> made the mistake of fixing my ADF, so now I'll have to be able to do
> a passable NDB approach. :)
>

I thought the same in the northeast, but most of my instrument
instruction took place in the winter. Got lots of night flying time,
but little time in the clouds as they mostly contain icing conditions in
the winter around here.


Matt

[Snowbird]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message >...
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
> At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of ACTUAL
> IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get my
> instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at the
> latest.

About 12, roughly evenly split between training and personal flights.
About 18 approaches.

Isn't the Bay area supposed to be great for "harmless" IMC, good for
flying actual approaches?

Actual is good to get but I wouldn't sweat the lack too much. If
you're training at night when you're tired, it's easier.

You can always ask your CFI or an experienced IFR pilot to go with
you, after your rating.

Cheers,
Sydney

[James Blakely]

I had 0.6 hours. Like you, I was hoping for more.


"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
.. .
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
> At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of
ACTUAL
> IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get
my
> instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at
the
> latest.
>
> --
> --
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
> "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> We are alive in the air with this miracle
> that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
>
> - Cecil Day Lewis-
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com
>
>

[Snowbird]

"Kobra" > wrote in message >...

> I had 8 when I got my ticket. My DE said don't even think of going out
> alone until you have about 15 or 20. I think that's sound advise for "hard"
> IMC.

Any particular reason for that advice?

Myself, I think the number in the logbook is just a number.

What really matters is how current and proficient you are that day.

> But I flew IFR alone a few times with 1000 to 1500' ceilings and 5
> miles visibility.

Well, FWIW, I started flying actual IMC with my husband as PIC when
I was about 20 hrs along working on my IR (for the first time). We
discussed it with my then-CFI, he thought it was a good idea provided
we didn't do "hard" IMC (ie low approaches). (I'm not recommending
this, BTW, just telling a story).

So then when it was my leg, and the forecast for our destination
wasn't too dismal (say, 1000 ft to 1500 ft ceilings) I'd fly.

During that time I think I shot about 10 approaches, 6
to minimums.

There have been other situations where my husband was flying with
forcasts of 1500 ft ceilings, only to watch the runway disappear
under us on the GPS moving map(400-500 ft mins) with never a glimpse
of ground. We shot the nearest ILS (70 miles away) and saw the
approach lights at 300 ft.

On my checkride, the DE asked what were my opinions on personal
minimums. I told her the truth: I'd prefer to set out with a
forecast of 1000, 1500 ft or so, but if I didn't feel current
and proficient enough to shoot an ILS down to minimums we weren't
going because that's just what's happened a number of times.

I also told her it's not an FAA thing, but I always want to know
where's the nearest stable VMC, and do we have fuel to get there
at maximum range? if the answer is "no" I start thinking "emergency"
because that's what we're one failure away from.

FWIW,
Sydney

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
.. .
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

About four. Due to peripheral cues under the hood, I found basic attitude
control more challenging in IMC. It didn't take long to acclimate, but I
wouldn't have wanted to go through the first few minutes of the adjustment
without an instructor.

I'd suggest getting however much dual IMC time you need to fly comfortably
before trying it on your own. But there's no reason to delay the rating
itself, even if you have no IMC practice.

--Gary

[Tom S.]

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
.com...
> Reminds me of the time I flew into Carlsbad NM one day when the field was
> IFR. Shot the ILS.
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthWest/CNM_ir3.pdf
> The controllers were clearly out of practice and rusty in handling actual
> IFR operations, and overwhelmed by the workload of two airplanes
approaching
> the airport at the same time. I had to prompt them a couple of times to
get
> the next vector. Turns out that on average they only get a few hours of
IMC
> a year out there.
>

If the tower closes at night, that might be so; most rain out west is night
time thunderstorms.

[S Narayan]

3.2 hrs actual
47 hrs total

Trained in the San Francisco Bay area out of Livermore, CA.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/snarayan/aviation/ifr.html

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
.. .
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
> At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of
ACTUAL
> IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get
my
> instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at
the
> latest.
>
> --
> --
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
> "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> We are alive in the air with this miracle
> that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
>
> - Cecil Day Lewis-
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com
>
>

[Kobra]

> > My DE said don't even think of going out
> > alone until you have about 15 or 20. I think that's sound advise for
"hard"
> > IMC.
>
> Any particular reason for that advice?
>

Snowbird,

Not sure how he came up with that number, but let's face it, one should have
*some* hours in actual conditions before venturing out alone in the clouds
and soup. I'm sure it varies person to person, but I think we all can
agree that 0 hours in actual IMC is not a good time to start out solo. How
about one...two...three...? Who knows? But someone, somewhere even if it's
yourself has to set a minimum number as a reference and it should be based
on experience and history.

In my examiner's opinion and experience he feels that 10 hours is the
minimum needed experience in actual IMC for an average pilot to become
familiar and comfortable enough with instrument conditions to venture out
alone.

I think it depends on the weather conditions as we both talked about. 1000
to 1500' ceilings with 4 or 5 miles visibility is a comfortable starting
point with minimal experience.

I've found some within this group with something we were all trained in
during our private, instrument and commercial training that is dangerous.
And that is the *Macho* personality trait. The "..who needs actual IMC
time? I was prudently trained and confident and if you were too you'd be
out there flying in the soup like me!" or the "...I don't need no stinking
GPS or Autopilot! That sissy-ass $hit is for wimps and losers and if you
were a real pilot like me you'd pull those @#$%ing things right out."

I hope we are all conservative when it comes to flying in IMC and we start
out slow and build our experience, skill and confidence patiently and
safely.

Kobra

[Jim]

Ditto here. 60hrs initial instrument experience, only about 2 in actual,
but about 40 night hrs
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> I thought the same in the northeast, but most of my instrument
> instruction took place in the winter. Got lots of night flying time,
> but little time in the clouds as they mostly contain icing conditions in
> the winter around here.
>
>
> Matt
>

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Kobra wrote:
>>>My DE said don't even think of going out
>>>alone until you have about 15 or 20. I think that's sound advise for
>>
> "hard"
>
>>>IMC.
>>
>>Any particular reason for that advice?
>>
>
>
> Snowbird,
>
> Not sure how he came up with that number, but let's face it, one should have
> *some* hours in actual conditions before venturing out alone in the clouds
> and soup. I'm sure it varies person to person, but I think we all can
> agree that 0 hours in actual IMC is not a good time to start out solo. How
> about one...two...three...? Who knows? But someone, somewhere even if it's
> yourself has to set a minimum number as a reference and it should be based
> on experience and history.
>
> In my examiner's opinion and experience he feels that 10 hours is the
> minimum needed experience in actual IMC for an average pilot to become
> familiar and comfortable enough with instrument conditions to venture out
> alone.
>
> I think it depends on the weather conditions as we both talked about. 1000
> to 1500' ceilings with 4 or 5 miles visibility is a comfortable starting
> point with minimal experience.
>
> I've found some within this group with something we were all trained in
> during our private, instrument and commercial training that is dangerous.
> And that is the *Macho* personality trait. The "..who needs actual IMC
> time? I was prudently trained and confident and if you were too you'd be
> out there flying in the soup like me!" or the "...I don't need no stinking
> GPS or Autopilot! That sissy-ass $hit is for wimps and losers and if you
> were a real pilot like me you'd pull those @#$%ing things right out."
>
> I hope we are all conservative when it comes to flying in IMC and we start
> out slow and build our experience, skill and confidence patiently and
> safely.

I don't think having some arbitrary number of hours makes much
difference. I think the more important issue is how you begin to use
your new ticket. I've seen a number of authors of IFR books provide
something like this:

1. Start by taking off from an airport with VMC conditions, climb
through a fairly thin cloud layer to VMC conditions on top and then land
at an airport with VMC.

2. Take off in VMC, fly enroute in a thin layer, land in VMC.

3. Take off in IMC, fly enroute in IMC, but land in VMC.

4. Take off in ICM, fly enroute in IMC, land in "easy" IMC.

5. Repeat 4 gradually working closer to an approach in minimums and
adding in worse weather enroute.


Matt

[Kobra]

>I've seen a number of authors of IFR books provide
> something like this:
>
> 1. Start by taking off from an airport with VMC conditions, climb
> through a fairly thin cloud layer to VMC conditions on top and then land
> at an airport with VMC.
>
> 2. Take off in VMC, fly enroute in a thin layer, land in VMC.
>
> 3. Take off in IMC, fly enroute in IMC, but land in VMC.
>
> 4. Take off in ICM, fly enroute in IMC, land in "easy" IMC.
>
> 5. Repeat 4 gradually working closer to an approach in minimums and
> adding in worse weather enroute.

Couldn't agree more Matt.

Kobra

[Tim J]

If the DE thinks you can't fly IMC, then why the hell would he/she give you
a rating? The practical test is supposed to check to see if you can go fly
it. The personal minima stuff is scary to me. If you can't go out and fly
to minimums, then something is wrong.

I know that is not a popular way of thinking and supposedly "unsafe" or
whatever is the politically correct term, but if you can't fly to the
standards expected, why get the rating?

The DE can't put on the certificate that the holder is only allowed to do
vector approaches or 1000' ceilings...

I just don't get it.




"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
>
> > > My DE said don't even think of going out
> > > alone until you have about 15 or 20. I think that's sound advise for
> "hard"
> > > IMC.
> >
> > Any particular reason for that advice?
> >
>
> Snowbird,
>
> Not sure how he came up with that number, but let's face it, one should
have
> *some* hours in actual conditions before venturing out alone in the clouds
> and soup. I'm sure it varies person to person, but I think we all can
> agree that 0 hours in actual IMC is not a good time to start out solo.
How
> about one...two...three...? Who knows? But someone, somewhere even if
it's
> yourself has to set a minimum number as a reference and it should be based
> on experience and history.
>
> In my examiner's opinion and experience he feels that 10 hours is the
> minimum needed experience in actual IMC for an average pilot to become
> familiar and comfortable enough with instrument conditions to venture out
> alone.
>
> I think it depends on the weather conditions as we both talked about.
1000
> to 1500' ceilings with 4 or 5 miles visibility is a comfortable starting
> point with minimal experience.
>
> I've found some within this group with something we were all trained in
> during our private, instrument and commercial training that is dangerous.
> And that is the *Macho* personality trait. The "..who needs actual IMC
> time? I was prudently trained and confident and if you were too you'd be
> out there flying in the soup like me!" or the "...I don't need no
stinking
> GPS or Autopilot! That sissy-ass $hit is for wimps and losers and if you
> were a real pilot like me you'd pull those @#$%ing things right out."
>
> I hope we are all conservative when it comes to flying in IMC and we start
> out slow and build our experience, skill and confidence patiently and
> safely.
>
> Kobra
>
>
>

[EDR]

I don't think it is so much an issue of having your instructor along as
it is having a second person in the cockpit with you to assist you with
the chores when conditions get bad. Having someone do simple things
such as pull out the necessary approach plates, tune the radios, and
copy clearances and weather help immensely. Single pilot IFR in hard
weather is tough, even with an autopilot.

[vincent p. norris]

>> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours
>> of actual IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
>"Zero"...same as all the other Naval Aviators designated that
>summer in Kingsville, TX.

Bob, did you get a "White Card" when you got your wings?

Back in 1951, we didn't get one till we had accumulated some actual
imc time. I don't recall how much, but I had been in a squadron at
Cherry Point for awhile before I got one.

vince norris

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tim J wrote:
> If the DE thinks you can't fly IMC, then why the hell would he/she give you
> a rating? The practical test is supposed to check to see if you can go fly
> it. The personal minima stuff is scary to me. If you can't go out and fly
> to minimums, then something is wrong.

Sorry, but no test can cover every eventuality. And there is a lot of
difference between being minimally competent (basically a freshly minted
instrument pilot) and being a confident, proficient, expert instrument
pilot. I didn't kill myself on my first real instrument flight alone,
but I was very nervous, wandered off course and altitude several times
during the first 30 minutes of the flight (mainly while trying to copy a
full route amendment and get the GPS reprogrammed - thanks NY Center!).
I never felt in danger of losing control, but I sure wasn't smooth,
calm and confident. A year later, I could simultaneously maintain
altitude within 20', talk with ATC, reprogram the GPS and carry on a
conversation with a passenger - and this was in a non A/P Skylane. It
really isn't any different than the difference between a 16 year-old
with a brand new driver's license and a person who has driven for 20
years. You simply get better and more capable with practice and after
having experienced many hours or years of various adverse situations.


> I know that is not a popular way of thinking and supposedly "unsafe" or
> whatever is the politically correct term, but if you can't fly to the
> standards expected, why get the rating?

The standards are minimums. Look at them again ... they allow amazingly
wide tolerances on altitudes, headings, ILS needle deflection, etc. A
proficient instrument pilot will fly much tighter than the PTS standard
requires.


> The DE can't put on the certificate that the holder is only allowed to do
> vector approaches or 1000' ceilings...
>
> I just don't get it.

That's unfortunate ... that you don't get it, I mean.


Matt

[Tim]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Tim J wrote:
> > If the DE thinks you can't fly IMC, then why the hell would he/she give
you
> > a rating? The practical test is supposed to check to see if you can go
fly
> > it. The personal minima stuff is scary to me. If you can't go out and
fly
> > to minimums, then something is wrong.
>
> Sorry, but no test can cover every eventuality. And there is a lot of
> difference between being minimally competent (basically a freshly minted
> instrument pilot) and being a confident, proficient, expert instrument
> pilot.

Then the training was lacking. Two acquaintances just took their
checkrides. The DE did all the communicating, spent about 5 minutes on the
oral, partial panel was a few turns at standard rate (not even timed). The
exam was a joke. (apparently the DE is so booked he has to rush through
them all to collect all the checks) No wonder some DEs tell "freshly
minted" instrument rated pilots not to go out and fly in IMC.

>I didn't kill myself on my first real instrument flight alone,
> but I was very nervous, wandered off course and altitude several times
> during the first 30 minutes of the flight (mainly while trying to copy a
> full route amendment and get the GPS reprogrammed - thanks NY Center!).
> I never felt in danger of losing control, but I sure wasn't smooth,
> calm and confident. A year later, I could simultaneously maintain
> altitude within 20', talk with ATC, reprogram the GPS and carry on a
> conversation with a passenger - and this was in a non A/P Skylane. It
> really isn't any different than the difference between a 16 year-old
> with a brand new driver's license and a person who has driven for 20
> years.

I also contend that the driving tests are a bit too relaxed and many people
who have driving licenses should not have them.

> You simply get better and more capable with practice and after
> having experienced many hours or years of various adverse situations.
>

Agreed - and perhaps more should be done in TRAINING, not after you get a
rating that the examiner said you shouldn't use. Why should I not be able
to fly an approach to minimums from the very first day I get my rating?


> > I know that is not a popular way of thinking and supposedly "unsafe" or
> > whatever is the politically correct term, but if you can't fly to the
> > standards expected, why get the rating?
>
> The standards are minimums. Look at them again ...

I know what the standards are and I don't need to look at them again. If
you can't safely fly an IFR flight and an ILS approach to minimums (or any
other approach) then you shouldn't have gotten the rating. Period.

No one here was talking about being exactly on altitude and reprogramming a
GPS and talking to a passenger and copying a clearance - the issue I think
was that a DE said he shouldn't go out and exercise the priveleges that he
just gave. My point is that the DE should not have given the rating then.
What kind of message does that send?

> they allow amazingly
> wide tolerances on altitudes, headings, ILS needle deflection, etc. A
> proficient instrument pilot will fly much tighter than the PTS standard
> requires.
>
>
> > The DE can't put on the certificate that the holder is only allowed to
do
> > vector approaches or 1000' ceilings...
> >
> > I just don't get it.
>
> That's unfortunate ... that you don't get it, I mean.

I just don't understand how the popular viewpoint can be defended. (Again,
I am not talking about getting better with experience - clearly that is what
will happen, but why is it unsafe to fly like you were trained to fly, and
tested?) The only thing I can think of is that the training wasn't adequate
and the testing wasn't adequate.

I don't understand why an examiner would say that a person shouldn't be
flying actual when he just PASSED him. I understand a DE can't run through
everything, but the training certainly should have.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

>there is a lot of
> difference between being minimally competent (basically a freshly minted
> instrument pilot) and being a confident, proficient, expert instrument
> pilot.

sure. but if the freshly minted instrument pilot isn't good enough
for IMC, then the minimum test standards aren't good enough.

--
Bob Noel

[Jeremy Lew]

I was fortunate to have actual for essentially the whole of my first dual
cross country. We were in the soup from about 2 minutes after takeoff until
we broke out at 50 ft. above minimums. It was also an LDA circle-to-land
approach. All I can say is that I'm glad I didn't experience those three
things for the first time on my own!

Right now, I'm at 4.5 actual, 12.7 hood, 7 simulator, ~135 total time.

Jeremy

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
.. .
> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
> At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of
ACTUAL
> IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get
my
> instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at
the
> latest.
>
> --
> --
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
> "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> We are alive in the air with this miracle
> that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
>
> - Cecil Day Lewis-
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com
>
>

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tim wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Tim J wrote:
>>
>>>If the DE thinks you can't fly IMC, then why the hell would he/she give
>>
> you
>
>>>a rating? The practical test is supposed to check to see if you can go
>>
> fly
>
>>>it. The personal minima stuff is scary to me. If you can't go out and
>>
> fly
>
>>>to minimums, then something is wrong.
>>
>>Sorry, but no test can cover every eventuality. And there is a lot of
>>difference between being minimally competent (basically a freshly minted
>>instrument pilot) and being a confident, proficient, expert instrument
>>pilot.
>
>
> Then the training was lacking.

Baloney. Training and capability and confidence learned through
experience are two different things entirely. I don't care if we are
talking about flying, driving, or a profession, the training/education
are just the beginning. Practice and experience beyond that is what
makes you a good driver, pilot, doctor, engineer or whatever. If you
really don't know the difference here, then I feel really sorry for you.


> Two acquaintances just took their
> checkrides. The DE did all the communicating, spent about 5 minutes on the
> oral, partial panel was a few turns at standard rate (not even timed). The
> exam was a joke. (apparently the DE is so booked he has to rush through
> them all to collect all the checks) No wonder some DEs tell "freshly
> minted" instrument rated pilots not to go out and fly in IMC.

That's unfortunate. My instrument test was nearly 3 hours long, about
1.5 on the ground and 1.5 in the air. I passed, but wouldn't launch
into low IFR to an airport reporting minimums at that point in my
instrument flying career.


>>I didn't kill myself on my first real instrument flight alone,
>>but I was very nervous, wandered off course and altitude several times
>>during the first 30 minutes of the flight (mainly while trying to copy a
>>full route amendment and get the GPS reprogrammed - thanks NY Center!).
>> I never felt in danger of losing control, but I sure wasn't smooth,
>>calm and confident. A year later, I could simultaneously maintain
>>altitude within 20', talk with ATC, reprogram the GPS and carry on a
>>conversation with a passenger - and this was in a non A/P Skylane. It
>>really isn't any different than the difference between a 16 year-old
>>with a brand new driver's license and a person who has driven for 20
>>years.
>
>
> I also contend that the driving tests are a bit too relaxed and many people
> who have driving licenses should not have them.

I agree, but no amount of training or test rigor will ever make a new
driver as capably as one with many years of experience.


>>You simply get better and more capable with practice and after
>>having experienced many hours or years of various adverse situations.
>>
>
>
> Agreed - and perhaps more should be done in TRAINING, not after you get a
> rating that the examiner said you shouldn't use. Why should I not be able
> to fly an approach to minimums from the very first day I get my rating?

There are many levels of "using" of an instrument rating. The
regulations have to cover all pilots of all levels of experience.
Suggesting that a rookie instrument pilot not exercise the full range of
the privileges of his/her license is very prudent.

As to your question: would you want a doctor who had just graduated from
medical school perform his/her first
quadruple bypass on you without a more experienced surgeon in the
operating room?

>>>I know that is not a popular way of thinking and supposedly "unsafe" or
>>>whatever is the politically correct term, but if you can't fly to the
>>>standards expected, why get the rating?
>>
>>The standards are minimums. Look at them again ...
>
>
> I know what the standards are and I don't need to look at them again. If
> you can't safely fly an IFR flight and an ILS approach to minimums (or any
> other approach) then you shouldn't have gotten the rating. Period.
>
> No one here was talking about being exactly on altitude and reprogramming a
> GPS and talking to a passenger and copying a clearance - the issue I think
> was that a DE said he shouldn't go out and exercise the priveleges that he
> just gave. My point is that the DE should not have given the rating then.
> What kind of message does that send?
>
>
>>they allow amazingly
>>wide tolerances on altitudes, headings, ILS needle deflection, etc. A
>>proficient instrument pilot will fly much tighter than the PTS standard
>>requires.
>>
>>
>>
>>>The DE can't put on the certificate that the holder is only allowed to
>>
> do
>
>>>vector approaches or 1000' ceilings...
>>>
>>>I just don't get it.
>>
>>That's unfortunate ... that you don't get it, I mean.
>
>
> I just don't understand how the popular viewpoint can be defended. (Again,
> I am not talking about getting better with experience - clearly that is what
> will happen, but why is it unsafe to fly like you were trained to fly, and
> tested?) The only thing I can think of is that the training wasn't adequate
> and the testing wasn't adequate.
>
> I don't understand why an examiner would say that a person shouldn't be
> flying actual when he just PASSED him. I understand a DE can't run through
> everything, but the training certainly should have.

That simply isn't practical. I'm an engineer by training, but my four
years in school hardly prepared me for EVERYTHING I'd encounter as an
engineer. Same is true for flying. Training and certification testing
is only intended to get one to a point where they are competent to
function at a minimum standard and able to progress from there.

I'm a licensed professional engineer. I specialized in communications
and digital systems. I can legally stamp plans for a power system. I
would be crazy to do so given that I have had little education in power
systems and no experience designing them. What is legal and what is
smart/prudent, are two different things.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>
>>there is a lot of
>>difference between being minimally competent (basically a freshly minted
>>instrument pilot) and being a confident, proficient, expert instrument
>>pilot.
>
>
> sure. but if the freshly minted instrument pilot isn't good enough
> for IMC, then the minimum test standards aren't good enough.
>

Define what "IMC" is? And how do you test for all aspects of IMC in a
test that lasts less than a month?


Matt

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> I don't think having some arbitrary number of hours makes much
> difference. I think the more important issue is how you begin to use
> your new ticket. I've seen a number of authors of IFR books provide
> something like this:
>
> 1. Start by taking off from an airport with VMC conditions, climb
> through a fairly thin cloud layer to VMC conditions on top and then land
> at an airport with VMC.
>
> 2. Take off in VMC, fly enroute in a thin layer, land in VMC.
>
> 3. Take off in IMC, fly enroute in IMC, but land in VMC.
>
> 4. Take off in ICM, fly enroute in IMC, land in "easy" IMC.
>
> 5. Repeat 4 gradually working closer to an approach in minimums and
> adding in worse weather enroute.

I don't quite understand the theory behind this advice. I do agree that IMC
is harder than hood flying, because the latter provides peripheral cues as
to changes in attitude. For that reason, I made sure to have adequate dual
practice in IMC before trying it on my own.

On the other hand, once basic attitude flying in IMC becomes comfortable, it
doesn't strike me that flying an approach to minimums in IMC is then any
harder than doing it under the hood. And since doing it reliably under the
hood is a required part of instrument training, I don't really see why
pilots shouldn't fly single-pilot IMC to minimums soon after flying
single-pilot IMC at all.

But I readily admit there could be good reasons that don't occur to me. If
so, I'd like to hear them.

--Gary

> Matt
>

[Cecil E. Chapman]

> Isn't the Bay area supposed to be great for "harmless" IMC, good for
> flying actual approaches?

You're right. When I was working on my basic ticket it would be all over
the place, now that I want some of it to be there (for my instrument
training) it is nowhere to be found. Today would have been great for some
real IMC, unfortunately I'm getting over a cold and besides my instructor
doesn't work weekends.

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com

[Peter R.]

Cecil E. Chapman wrote:

> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

I am based in the Northeast US and worked towards my instrument rating
last winter. We are located downwind of Lake Ontario, so lake effect
snow made up a lot of my IMC while training. I had 18 hours of actual
IMC of about 50 hours towards the rating.

Interesting sidebar: A new instructor joined our flight school after
recently moving into the area from the southwest US. I was told that
this instructor has 0 hours of actual IMC. Not sure how someone can
teach when they have no experience in it.

--
Peter

[Tim]

> >
> >
> > Then the training was lacking.
>
> Baloney. Training and capability and confidence learned through
> experience are two different things entirely. I don't care if we are
> talking about flying, driving, or a profession, the training/education
> are just the beginning. Practice and experience beyond that is what
> makes you a good driver, pilot, doctor, engineer or whatever. If you
> really don't know the difference here, then I feel really sorry for you.

No need to feel sorry for me. I already conceded that experience will make
you better. What you have still not convinced me of is that after I get my
rating I should be "prudent" and not actually fly to the standards I was
training at and took the practical? You are confusing two different
issues. What I would like someone to explain is why a person who just
passed the practical should not be able to file a plan, fly in actual and
complete an approach to minimums. I argue that if they can't then:

1. Their training was insufficient
2. The examiner did not do their job

On your own without an instructor is no way to "learn" how to do an approach
to minimums. (I can not figure out how else you get to that point on your
own, since it seems that you are arguing that a person's training did not
prepare them to make a flight in IMC and land after doing an approach to
minimums)


> > Two acquaintances just took their
> > checkrides. The DE did all the communicating, spent about 5 minutes on
the
> > oral, partial panel was a few turns at standard rate (not even timed).
The
> > exam was a joke. (apparently the DE is so booked he has to rush through
> > them all to collect all the checks) No wonder some DEs tell "freshly
> > minted" instrument rated pilots not to go out and fly in IMC.
>
> That's unfortunate. My instrument test was nearly 3 hours long, about
> 1.5 on the ground and 1.5 in the air. I passed, but wouldn't launch
> into low IFR to an airport reporting minimums at that point in my
> instrument flying career.
>

Damn right it is unfortunate. Why wouldn't you have?

> >
> > I also contend that the driving tests are a bit too relaxed and many
people
> > who have driving licenses should not have them.
>
> I agree, but no amount of training or test rigor will ever make a new
> driver as capably as one with many years of experience.
>
>

I had already agreed to that. The point is that after the test you should
be expected to fly in IMC on your own and make an approach at minimums -
after all that is what you trained and tested for.

I will make it clear again - I am not arguing that a person who just passed
his practical is going to be a wunderkind and be able to fly better or has
better habits or is more capable than one who has been flying for years.


> There are many levels of "using" of an instrument rating. The
> regulations have to cover all pilots of all levels of experience.
> Suggesting that a rookie instrument pilot not exercise the full range of
> the privileges of his/her license is very prudent.

No - it hides the fact that the training and testing could have been
inadequate. I understand some people don't want to fly to minimums all the
time or only want to break through ceilings on their way up and down, but
the the bottom line is that the rating says you should be able to fly IMC
and do approaches. Not just some of them or part of the flight in IMC, but
the whole deal.

>
> As to your question: would you want a doctor who had just graduated from
> medical school perform his/her first
> quadruple bypass on you without a more experienced surgeon in the
> operating room?

Totally different and your example is not even close in so many ways.


> >
> > I just don't understand how the popular viewpoint can be defended.
(Again,
> > I am not talking about getting better with experience - clearly that is
what
> > will happen, but why is it unsafe to fly like you were trained to fly,
and
> > tested?) The only thing I can think of is that the training wasn't
adequate
> > and the testing wasn't adequate.
> >
> > I don't understand why an examiner would say that a person shouldn't be
> > flying actual when he just PASSED him. I understand a DE can't run
through
> > everything, but the training certainly should have.
>
> That simply isn't practical. I'm an engineer by training, but my four
> years in school hardly prepared me for EVERYTHING I'd encounter as an
> engineer. Same is true for flying. Training and certification testing
> is only intended to get one to a point where they are competent to
> function at a minimum standard and able to progress from there.
>

Yes - and to me that means that you should be able to launch into IMC and do
approaches with no problem.

What isn't practical? Making a student fly an approach to minimums during
the test and expecting them to do it correcty? The training certainly
should have allowed and ensured that the student flew in IMC or simulated
and did approaches to minimums.


> I'm a licensed professional engineer. I specialized in communications
> and digital systems. I can legally stamp plans for a power system. I
> would be crazy to do so given that I have had little education in power
> systems and no experience designing them. What is legal and what is
> smart/prudent, are two different things.


I don't see what this has to do with flying IFR. I expect that if I get a
rating that I am competent enough to use it.

>
>
> Matt
>

[Cecil E. Chapman]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
> Interesting sidebar: A new instructor joined our flight school after
> recently moving into the area from the southwest US. I was told that
> this instructor has 0 hours of actual IMC. Not sure how someone can
> teach when they have no experience in it.

I'm not surprised at all. I remember reading an AOPA magazine article
mentioning the very same thing. While a few replies to my original thread
didn't seem to think it was an issue that one only had hood time - my
limited experience with real IMC begs me to differ. As you said, with the
hood or foggles on you are still aware of a peripheral 'outside', however
when you are in real IMC the experience is quite different, especially
seeing the quick movement of the cloud texture past your side windows in
your peripheral view.

Don't laugh, but on my first IMC experience as I was approaching the clouds
at my altitude with my CFII on the right; I had this nagging feeling that we
would 'hit' the cloud as if it was a solid object.. Of course, one
logically knows this is not so, but I do remember experiencing the
irrational 'concern' as we were approaching the cloud bank on my first time.

My fondest hope is to get as much real IMC as I can on the road to my
instrument ticket.

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com

[Jeff]

I had 2 hours of actual before I got my ticket, reason was my instructor had me
stay in the clouds for the entire flight one time, when we got out of the
clouds, he would tell me to ask for a different altitude so we could get back in
them.

Now that I have my ticket, I file IFR all the time, but the amount of time being
only on instruments is next to none and the only time you can log as actual is
that time when your navigating on instruments only. For the most part, its hard
to stay in the clouds, the only time I am in actual is when taking off or
landing so its only a few minutes. once your above the clouds your not in
instruments anymore.

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote:

> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
> At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of ACTUAL
> IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get my
> instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at the
> latest.
>
> --
> --
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
> "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> We are alive in the air with this miracle
> that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
>
> - Cecil Day Lewis-
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com

[Jeff]

I think some people tend to log actual when they are not suppose to.
How often do you stay in the clouds? once you can see again, your not in actual
and cant log it.

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote:

> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
> At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of ACTUAL
> IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get my
> instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at the
> latest.
>
> --
> --
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
> "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> We are alive in the air with this miracle
> that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
>
> - Cecil Day Lewis-
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com

[Jeff]

the instrument ticket is priceless, 2 days ago I took my plane up for the first
time in a month (it had been in the shop getting new avionics installed)
went only about 40 miles out to the MMM VOR, when I turned around to head back,
the city was covered by low clouds and what looked like fog on the ground, I
thought I could go under it, but as I got closer it did not look do'able.

I was talking to nellis approach because I was entering class B, told them I
didnt think I could make it in without a clearence, they gave it to me and away
I went.
technically, it was not VFR, I did not actually go through any clouds, but I
skimmed them so I could not log it as actual. but once below the layer and I was
able to see the airport, I canceled IFR and did the visual approach.

You can see the las vegas valley in this picture and the fog, kinda sucked I
couldnt login as actual even tho it was not VFR.
http://216.158.136.206/newplane/clouds/image3.html

Here is the cloud I almost got to fly through :)
http://216.158.136.206/newplane/clouds/image2.html


Jeff

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote:

> For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
> IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
>
> At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of ACTUAL
> IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get my
> instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at the
> latest.
>
> --
> --
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
> "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> We are alive in the air with this miracle
> that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
>
> - Cecil Day Lewis-
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> >>there is a lot of
> >>difference between being minimally competent (basically a freshly
> >>minted
> >>instrument pilot) and being a confident, proficient, expert instrument
> >>pilot.
> >
> > sure. but if the freshly minted instrument pilot isn't good enough
> > for IMC, then the minimum test standards aren't good enough.
>
> Define what "IMC" is? And how do you test for all aspects of IMC in a
> test that lasts less than a month?

You know the definition of IMC. What I'm trying to point out is
that minimum test standards are, by definition, good enough. If
you don't think so, then feel free to change the minimum standard.

btw - more challenging than testing skill is testing judgement.
I hope we both agree that good judgement is a heck of a lot more
important than skill.

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> >>Sorry, but no test can cover every eventuality. And there is a lot of
> >>difference between being minimally competent (basically a freshly
> >>minted
> >>instrument pilot) and being a confident, proficient, expert instrument
> >>pilot.
> >
> > Then the training was lacking.
>
> Baloney. Training and capability and confidence learned through
> experience are two different things entirely. I don't care if we are
> talking about flying, driving, or a profession, the training/education
> are just the beginning. Practice and experience beyond that is what
> makes you a good driver, pilot, doctor, engineer or whatever. If you
> really don't know the difference here, then I feel really sorry for you.

you forgot to include good judgement.

[snip]
>
> That simply isn't practical. I'm an engineer by training, but my four
> years in school hardly prepared me for EVERYTHING I'd encounter as an
> engineer. Same is true for flying. Training and certification testing
> is only intended to get one to a point where they are competent to
> function at a minimum standard and able to progress from there.
>
> I'm a licensed professional engineer. I specialized in communications
> and digital systems. I can legally stamp plans for a power system. I
> would be crazy to do so given that I have had little education in power
> systems and no experience designing them. What is legal and what is
> smart/prudent, are two different things.

more accurately, they are not necessarily the same.

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Cecil E.
Chapman" > wrote:

> I'm not surprised at all. I remember reading an AOPA magazine article
> mentioning the very same thing. While a few replies to my original
> thread
> didn't seem to think it was an issue that one only had hood time - my
> limited experience with real IMC begs me to differ. As you said, with
> the
> hood or foggles on you are still aware of a peripheral 'outside', however
> when you are in real IMC the experience is quite different, especially
> seeing the quick movement of the cloud texture past your side windows in
> your peripheral view.

another fun aspect of IMC is needing to transition from looking
outside to looking inside to looking outside to looking inside
as you fly in and out of the clouds. Hard to simulate.

--
Bob Noel

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Gary L. Drescher wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I don't think having some arbitrary number of hours makes much
>>difference. I think the more important issue is how you begin to use
>>your new ticket. I've seen a number of authors of IFR books provide
>>something like this:
>>
>>1. Start by taking off from an airport with VMC conditions, climb
>>through a fairly thin cloud layer to VMC conditions on top and then land
>>at an airport with VMC.
>>
>>2. Take off in VMC, fly enroute in a thin layer, land in VMC.
>>
>>3. Take off in IMC, fly enroute in IMC, but land in VMC.
>>
>>4. Take off in ICM, fly enroute in IMC, land in "easy" IMC.
>>
>>5. Repeat 4 gradually working closer to an approach in minimums and
>>adding in worse weather enroute.
>
>
> I don't quite understand the theory behind this advice. I do agree that IMC
> is harder than hood flying, because the latter provides peripheral cues as
> to changes in attitude. For that reason, I made sure to have adequate dual
> practice in IMC before trying it on my own.

Because flying in the real world tends to get more involved that flying
in a training environment. I flew a lot at night after a full day at
work. This helped induce a fatique factor, but it still is nothing like
shooting an approach at the end of a four hour flight, all in IMC with
no autopilot. Very hard to realistically simulate that in training.


> On the other hand, once basic attitude flying in IMC becomes comfortable, it
> doesn't strike me that flying an approach to minimums in IMC is then any
> harder than doing it under the hood. And since doing it reliably under the
> hood is a required part of instrument training, I don't really see why
> pilots shouldn't fly single-pilot IMC to minimums soon after flying
> single-pilot IMC at all.

I don't think it is any harder in actual, generally. The key point is
"IMC becomes comfortable." I found my comfort level increased long
after I got my ticket. I thought I was reasonably comfortable the day I
passed my flight ride, but I wasn't.


> But I readily admit there could be good reasons that don't occur to me. If
> so, I'd like to hear them.

Some pilots may be able to shoot to minimums the next day. I think I
could have, but I wouldn't have unless I had to. It is nice to have the
confidence of having shot a few real approaches to something above
minimums a few times to really ensure you have the system down pat.

Many surgeons train on cadavers and now even with computer simulation.
They technically are qualified to then operate on a live person.
However, sometimes things go wrong with live people that don't go wrong
with cadavers. Similar things are true in instrument flying. Your
training simply can't cover everything, unless you want to spend 500
hours in training.

And did you get 100 on your written? I was close, I missed one
question. The last I knew, only 70 was required to pass. What if a key
thing you missed wasn't caught during your training or oral? This might
be the piece you need to know on a dark and stormy night when things
start to go wrong. As your experience builds, some of these gaps get
filled in. That is why, up to a point, the safety record improves with
experience level of the pilot ... until cockiness, over confidence and
complacency sets in....


Matt

[Cecil E. Chapman]

Thanks for the reply!

BTW, great photos,, do you have anymore on-line?

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com
"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> the instrument ticket is priceless, 2 days ago I took my plane up for the
first
> time in a month (it had been in the shop getting new avionics installed)
> went only about 40 miles out to the MMM VOR, when I turned around to head
back,
> the city was covered by low clouds and what looked like fog on the ground,
I
> thought I could go under it, but as I got closer it did not look do'able.
>
> I was talking to nellis approach because I was entering class B, told them
I
> didnt think I could make it in without a clearence, they gave it to me and
away
> I went.
> technically, it was not VFR, I did not actually go through any clouds, but
I
> skimmed them so I could not log it as actual. but once below the layer and
I was
> able to see the airport, I canceled IFR and did the visual approach.
>
> You can see the las vegas valley in this picture and the fog, kinda sucked
I
> couldnt login as actual even tho it was not VFR.
> http://216.158.136.206/newplane/clouds/image3.html
>
> Here is the cloud I almost got to fly through :)
> http://216.158.136.206/newplane/clouds/image2.html
>
>
> Jeff
>
> "Cecil E. Chapman" wrote:
>
> > For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of
actual
> > IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
> >
> > At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of
ACTUAL
> > IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get
my
> > instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at
the
> > latest.
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Good Flights!
> >
> > Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> > PP-ASEL
> >
> > "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> > We are alive in the air with this miracle
> > that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> >
> > - Cecil Day Lewis-
> >
> > Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com
>

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tim wrote:
>>>
>>>Then the training was lacking.
>>
>>Baloney. Training and capability and confidence learned through
>>experience are two different things entirely. I don't care if we are
>>talking about flying, driving, or a profession, the training/education
>>are just the beginning. Practice and experience beyond that is what
>>makes you a good driver, pilot, doctor, engineer or whatever. If you
>>really don't know the difference here, then I feel really sorry for you.
>
>
> No need to feel sorry for me. I already conceded that experience will make
> you better. What you have still not convinced me of is that after I get my
> rating I should be "prudent" and not actually fly to the standards I was
> training at and took the practical? You are confusing two different
> issues. What I would like someone to explain is why a person who just
> passed the practical should not be able to file a plan, fly in actual and
> complete an approach to minimums. I argue that if they can't then:

If you feel that you can fly to the edge of the envelope (fully utilize
everything legally available to you in IMC conditions) at day one, what
is left to gain from experience? I'm not being facetrious here, I'm
really curious as to what value you feel that experience will bring?
Generally, it brings additional capabilities beyond what you had at the
start. But since you can't legally fly in worse weather after 500 hours
than you can after 0 hours (I'm talking post rating here), what is left
to gain from your experience?


> On your own without an instructor is no way to "learn" how to do an approach
> to minimums. (I can not figure out how else you get to that point on your
> own, since it seems that you are arguing that a person's training did not
> prepare them to make a flight in IMC and land after doing an approach to
> minimums)

I don't think anyone is claiming that you need to learn to do the
approach. It is a question of precision, confidence, and the ability to
handle the unforeseen that comes with experience. I believe any new
insrument pilot should have the knowledge to fly an approach to
minimums. They shouldn't need to learn anything from a "mechanical"
perspective. That isn't what experience usually brings. It is the
ability to recognize and deal with the non-mechanical aspects (fatique,
etc.) that occur in real flying much more so than during training.


>>That's unfortunate. My instrument test was nearly 3 hours long, about
>>1.5 on the ground and 1.5 in the air. I passed, but wouldn't launch
>>into low IFR to an airport reporting minimums at that point in my
>>instrument flying career.
>>
>
>
> Damn right it is unfortunate. Why wouldn't you have?

Because doing things in a simulated environment isn't the same as doing
things for real. I've learned this in many aspects of my personal and
professional life. If I'd had the occasion to fly several approaches to
minimums in actual during my training, then I'd have felt differently.
I simply chose to explore the areas incrementally where I'd not had the
chance to explore them "for real" during training.


> I had already agreed to that. The point is that after the test you should
> be expected to fly in IMC on your own and make an approach at minimums -
> after all that is what you trained and tested for.
>
> I will make it clear again - I am not arguing that a person who just passed
> his practical is going to be a wunderkind and be able to fly better or has
> better habits or is more capable than one who has been flying for years.

What capbilities will you be able to use after experience than you could
the day you got your rating? You can't arbitrarily fly to an MDA or DH
lower than what is published, just because you are now a better pilot.


>>As to your question: would you want a doctor who had just graduated from
>>medical school perform his/her first
>>quadruple bypass on you without a more experienced surgeon in the
>>operating room?
>
>
> Totally different and your example is not even close in so many ways.

Such as?


Matt

[Hilton]

Bob Noel wrote:
> another fun aspect of IMC is needing to transition from looking
> outside to looking inside to looking outside to looking inside
> as you fly in and out of the clouds. Hard to simulate.

Sometime flying IFR in VMC can be more difficult. In VMC, you now have to
look outside about 90% of the time, while in the clouds you could devote
100% of your time inside. When I flew with a friend of mine soon after
getting his IR, I had to ensure that he looked outside when outside a
cloud - definitely higher workload. Unfortunately, this is something the
hood cannot simulate, and in fact, encourages the bad habit.

Hilton

[Robert Moore]

vincent p. norris > wrote

> Bob, did you get a "White Card" when you got your wings?

I don't remember Vince, but I do remember flying "solo"
cross countries IFR in the S-2F while at Kingsville.
John Cuddy, another NAVCAD, and I set-out from Kingsville
to Pensacola and immediately looked for a cloud to fly
in since neither of us had ever been in a cloud before.
Maybe is was a special dispensation from the "white card"
requirement.

Bob Moore

[Snowbird]

"Kobra" > wrote in message >...

> Not sure how he came up with that number, but let's face it, one should have
> *some* hours in actual conditions before venturing out alone in the clouds
> and soup.

Well, IMO single pilot IFR is always tough. It's certainly never a
bad idea to ask someone competent to go with you (another IR pilot
or a CFI).

I think probably how much experience is needed depends on the
individual, and how comfortable they are. I know I started flying
in clouds as a passenger, with my husband, and the first few flights
I durn near took the arm rest off the rented plane. At some point
when I started my own IR, that went away, but I can't say exactly
when. Then sometime afterward I remember a flight where I was
in solid clouds for about an hour and it was a knife-fight for
the whole time because I felt dizzy and like I was tumbling backwards
the whole time. It was pretty bumpy, and I must have had some water
in my inner ear from a week of swimming in the Bahamas or something.

I guess I'd have to agree that it's prudent to have someone more
experienced along if you've never seen the inside of a cloud at
all, just in case. And if there's something about it that makes
you uncomfortable, then I would agree it's good to fly with someone
else until you work through it.

I do know people that have never had any discomfort at all about
clouds, though. They are natural instrument pilots where I'm very
much a visual pilot and instrument flying does not come easy to me
but took a lot of remedial CFI beating. So I wouldn't project my
feelings onto someone else.

Also for me at least, instrument skills are a real 'use it or lose
it' phenomenon. So it's currency and proficiency (in the real, not
the FAA sense) which most concern me.

> In my examiner's opinion and experience he feels that 10 hours is the
> minimum needed experience in actual IMC for an average pilot to become
> familiar and comfortable enough with instrument conditions to venture out
> alone.

I guess my point is that I don't feel any arbitrary number has
any real meaning.

I feel there are three factors:
1) how comfortable or uncomfortable you personally feel flying
in clouds, once you've tried it
2) how current and proficient you are
3) what kind of IMC you're facing

Maybe you have 30 hrs flying in IMC, but you haven't shot an
approach in a month and you find that for you, about 10 days
is the "magic number" you need to stay sharp. Does it make
sense for you to go? Maybe --- if your destination has a
good forecast and there's pretty ironclad VFR within range
as a backup plan.

OTOH if you have two hours in IMC, but they were yesterday
shooting ILS down to 300 and 1 with no problems, I think you're
in pretty good shape for a carefully-planned trip in the clouds.
What I mean by carefully planned is, I think it makes most sense
to have higher standards for fuel reserve and for having really
good wx w/in comfortable range at first.

I know when DH was a newly minted instrument pilot, we flew
some trips that were perfectly legal and scare the socks off me
now to think about. Stuff where the nearest VFR was two states
away. God looks after fools sometimes.

Just my opinion of course.

> I think it depends on the weather conditions as we both talked about. 1000
> to 1500' ceilings with 4 or 5 miles visibility is a comfortable starting
> point with minimal experience.

Well, just remember IME you can have that forecast when you set out,
but the weather doesn't read the forecast. Be prepared to fly what
you find.

> or the "...I don't need no stinking
> GPS or Autopilot! That sissy-ass $hit is for wimps and losers and if you
> were a real pilot like me you'd pull those @#$%ing things right out."

ROTFLMAO!

> I hope we are all conservative when it comes to flying in IMC and we start
> out slow and build our experience, skill and confidence patiently and
> safely.

Absolutely! I think my point is, I'd bank more on currency and
proficiency than on some absolute number. 10 hrs in actual a year
ago might not do you as much good as 1 hr last week, KWIM?

It sounds to me like you have a sensible approach to easing into
it, finding IMC enroute to a VFR destination at first and so
forth.

Good luck,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message news:<WcCtb.209285$Fm2.205149@attbi_s04>...

> I don't quite understand the theory behind this advice. I do agree that IMC
> is harder than hood flying, because the latter provides peripheral cues as
> to changes in attitude. For that reason, I made sure to have adequate dual
> practice in IMC before trying it on my own.

> On the other hand, once basic attitude flying in IMC becomes comfortable, it
> doesn't strike me that flying an approach to minimums in IMC is then any
> harder than doing it under the hood. And since doing it reliably under the
> hood is a required part of instrument training, I don't really see why
> pilots shouldn't fly single-pilot IMC to minimums soon after flying
> single-pilot IMC at all.

Gary,

Probably the hardest and most dangerous part of IFR flight in IMC
is the transition to visual once you break out on approach.

This isn't usually well-taught under the hood. Your safety pilot
tells you "look up" and the airport is there.

It's my understanding the pros fly strictly "monitored" approaches
where the pilot flying stays on the instruments and the pilot not
flying watches for visual cues and announces the visual transition.

We do this too, when we have two pilots up front.

When you're on your own, it's different. You have to learn to
bring the outside world into your scan at first as just one more
instrument while flying to tight tolerances.

The smaller the margin for error (ie the closer the approach
is to minimums) the harder this is at first.

It makes perfect sense to me that one should practice this
skill at first with higher minimums.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Tim]

>
> If you feel that you can fly to the edge of the envelope (fully utilize
> everything legally available to you in IMC conditions) at day one, what
> is left to gain from experience? I'm not being facetrious (sic) here, I'm
> really curious as to what value you feel that experience will bring?
> Generally, it brings additional capabilities beyond what you had at the
> start. But since you can't legally fly in worse weather after 500 hours
> than you can after 0 hours (I'm talking post rating here), what is left
> to gain from your experience?

What "edge of the envelope?" We are only talking about legal flying and
nothing that wasn't covered in training. The approach minimums give plenty
of safety if they are flown right and my training has given me all I need to
fly IMC safely. Apparently there are those out there who don't think that
is true. I question the training in that case. (And the DE who passed
them)

Once again, I never said experience is not a good thing or that you will not
get better, however, the bottom line is, you should be able to fly IMC and
do an approach to minimums on the day you take your checkride (if the DE
isn't testing that and if you weren't doing that in training, then something
is definitely wrong) Please don't say it is not practical to do an approach
to minimums during training or on a practical.

Why do you keep bringing the argument back to experience? That is not
relevant. The fact is, one should be able to fly to the standards and
safely fly IMC with an approach after you are properly trained.

>
> I don't think anyone is claiming that you need to learn to do the
> approach. It is a question of precision, confidence, and the ability to
> handle the unforeseen that comes with experience. I believe any new
> insrument pilot should have the knowledge to fly an approach to
> minimums. They shouldn't need to learn anything from a "mechanical"
> perspective. That isn't what experience usually brings. It is the
> ability to recognize and deal with the non-mechanical aspects (fatique,
> etc.) that occur in real flying much more so than during training.
>

If you don't have the confidence after training and passing the practical,
then sure, don't fly, but I would consider the quality of the training and
the practical then.


>
> >>As to your question: would you want a doctor who had just graduated from
> >>medical school perform his/her first
> >>quadruple bypass on you without a more experienced surgeon in the
> >>operating room?
> >
> >
> > Totally different and your example is not even close in so many ways.
>
> Such as?
>
>
Just graduating from medical school does not qualify one to do a bypass.
We are talking about flying, not surgery. On the other hand, by
definition, passing the practical means you are qualified to fly IFR. A
single doctor doing a bypass is not likely from my limited knowledge of
medicine. I am open to examples, but this one doesn't do anything for your
argument. (neither does the P.E. one)

You have still not given a reason why a recent IFR pilot shouldn't be able
to fly what he was trained to do and what the DE said he could do. All your
arguments talk about experience years afterwards and about professional
engineers and doctors.

It appears that after this many postings neither of us is going to change
views, nor does it appear that you will answer the question about why it is
not good for a pilot to (foolishly, according to some) fly IMC and do
approaches to minimums as soon as he gets the rating. Perhaps it is best to
let it lie.

[Robert Moore]

(Snowbird) wrote

> It's my understanding the pros fly strictly "monitored"
> approaches where the pilot flying stays on the instruments and
> the pilot not flying watches for visual cues and announces the
> visual transition.

There are two other versions of this used by various airlines.

One in which the pilot flying the approach is glued to the
instruments...never looks out...and is prepared for the missed
approach...and the other pilot looks for visual cues, takes the
controls and executes the landing if visual cues permit.

Second, the one we used at PanAm. Approaching minimums, the pilot
flying the approach adjusts his scan to include the outside and
if seeing the required cues, executes the landing while the pilot
not flying is glued to the instruments to make call-outs and look
for deviations from the desired flight path.

Bob Moore

[Jeff]

yes I have quite a few, one set is from doing the ILS into chino, ca. , I didnt
know my wife was taking them but she took them all the way down the glideslope,
visibility was like a mile.
pictures and some video clips I made are here
http://216.158.136.206/newplane/index.html


"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote:

> Thanks for the reply!
>
> BTW, great photos,, do you have anymore on-line?
>
> --
> --
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> PP-ASEL
>
> "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> We are alive in the air with this miracle
> that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
>
> - Cecil Day Lewis-
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com
> "Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> > the instrument ticket is priceless, 2 days ago I took my plane up for the
> first
> > time in a month (it had been in the shop getting new avionics installed)
> > went only about 40 miles out to the MMM VOR, when I turned around to head
> back,
> > the city was covered by low clouds and what looked like fog on the ground,
> I
> > thought I could go under it, but as I got closer it did not look do'able.
> >
> > I was talking to nellis approach because I was entering class B, told them
> I
> > didnt think I could make it in without a clearence, they gave it to me and
> away
> > I went.
> > technically, it was not VFR, I did not actually go through any clouds, but
> I
> > skimmed them so I could not log it as actual. but once below the layer and
> I was
> > able to see the airport, I canceled IFR and did the visual approach.
> >
> > You can see the las vegas valley in this picture and the fog, kinda sucked
> I
> > couldnt login as actual even tho it was not VFR.
> > http://216.158.136.206/newplane/clouds/image3.html
> >
> > Here is the cloud I almost got to fly through :)
> > http://216.158.136.206/newplane/clouds/image2.html
> >
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > "Cecil E. Chapman" wrote:
> >
> > > For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of
> actual
> > > IMC did you have when you got your ticket.
> > >
> > > At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of
> ACTUAL
> > > IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get
> my
> > > instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at
> the
> > > latest.
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Good Flights!
> > >
> > > Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
> > > PP-ASEL
> > >
> > > "We who fly do so for the love of flying.
> > > We are alive in the air with this miracle
> > > that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> > >
> > > - Cecil Day Lewis-
> > >
> > > Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com
> >

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> I think some people tend to log actual when they are not suppose to.
> How often do you stay in the clouds? once you can see again, your not in
actual
> and cant log it.
>

"In clouds" only, or in the clear (VFR) "on top"? Both are flight without
reference to ground or other cues. Kinda ambiguous, huh?

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Robert Moore wrote:
> vincent p. norris > wrote
>
>
>>Bob, did you get a "White Card" when you got your wings?
>
>
> I don't remember Vince, but I do remember flying "solo"
> cross countries IFR in the S-2F while at Kingsville.
> John Cuddy, another NAVCAD, and I set-out from Kingsville
> to Pensacola and immediately looked for a cloud to fly
> in since neither of us had ever been in a cloud before.
> Maybe is was a special dispensation from the "white card"
> requirement.
>
> Bob Moore

For the non-Naval aviators among us, what is a white card?

Matt

[Jeff]

if your on top, you still have a horizon, you can fly legal VFR over the top,
without seeing the ground. But for VFR, you need a clear spot to decend through.
For instruments, you can decend through the cloud, at that point your solely on
instruments and you can log that portion of it.
requirements are to be solely on instruments for it to be logged as actual.

Jeff

"Tom S." wrote:

> "Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> > I think some people tend to log actual when they are not suppose to.
> > How often do you stay in the clouds? once you can see again, your not in
> actual
> > and cant log it.
> >
>
> "In clouds" only, or in the clear (VFR) "on top"? Both are flight without
> reference to ground or other cues. Kinda ambiguous, huh?

[Tom S.]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Bob Noel wrote:
> > another fun aspect of IMC is needing to transition from looking
> > outside to looking inside to looking outside to looking inside
> > as you fly in and out of the clouds. Hard to simulate.
>
> Sometime flying IFR in VMC can be more difficult. In VMC, you now have to
> look outside about 90% of the time, while in the clouds you could devote
> 100% of your time inside. When I flew with a friend of mine soon after
> getting his IR, I had to ensure that he looked outside when outside a
> cloud - definitely higher workload. Unfortunately, this is something the
> hood cannot simulate, and in fact, encourages the bad habit.
>

Also, VFR on top can be quite deceiving if the cloud tops are not flat, but
rather sloped instead.

[Tom S.]

"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> if your on top, you still have a horizon, you can fly legal VFR over the
top,
> without seeing the ground. But for VFR, you need a clear spot to decend
through.
> For instruments, you can decend through the cloud, at that point your
solely on
> instruments and you can log that portion of it.

Yes, I know.

> requirements are to be solely on instruments for it to be logged as
actual.
>
> Jeff

See my other post about deceiving cloud tops. (not flat).

>
> "Tom S." wrote:
>
> > "Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> > > I think some people tend to log actual when they are not suppose to.
> > > How often do you stay in the clouds? once you can see again, your not
in
> > actual
> > > and cant log it.
> > >
> >
> > "In clouds" only, or in the clear (VFR) "on top"? Both are flight
without
> > reference to ground or other cues. Kinda ambiguous, huh?
>

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tim wrote:
>>If you feel that you can fly to the edge of the envelope (fully utilize
>>everything legally available to you in IMC conditions) at day one, what
>>is left to gain from experience? I'm not being facetrious (sic) here, I'm
>>really curious as to what value you feel that experience will bring?
>>Generally, it brings additional capabilities beyond what you had at the
>>start. But since you can't legally fly in worse weather after 500 hours
>>than you can after 0 hours (I'm talking post rating here), what is left
>>to gain from your experience?
>
>
> What "edge of the envelope?" We are only talking about legal flying and
> nothing that wasn't covered in training. The approach minimums give plenty
> of safety if they are flown right and my training has given me all I need to
> fly IMC safely. Apparently there are those out there who don't think that
> is true. I question the training in that case. (And the DE who passed
> them)
>
> Once again, I never said experience is not a good thing or that you will not
> get better, however, the bottom line is, you should be able to fly IMC and
> do an approach to minimums on the day you take your checkride (if the DE
> isn't testing that and if you weren't doing that in training, then something
> is definitely wrong) Please don't say it is not practical to do an approach
> to minimums during training or on a practical.

It is practical to do a simulated approach to minimums during training
and the practical test. It may be practical do an approach to minimums
in actual during training, but it may also not be. I flew for many
months getting my rating and never had conditions that were really close
to minimums. They were either much higher or too bad to fly due to
icing, ground fog, etc.

I think Sydney gave a good reason just a message or two ago.
Transitioning to visual in a real approach isn't nice and binary like
flipping up a view limiting device is.

You've got me curious now, how much IFR and IMC experience do you have?
Where did you train?


> Why do you keep bringing the argument back to experience? That is not
> relevant. The fact is, one should be able to fly to the standards and
> safely fly IMC with an approach after you are properly trained.

Because experience and judgement are always relevent to safe aviation.
Being able to fly a simulated approach to minimums with an instructor or
examiner in the right seat isn't nearly the same as flying a real
approach to minimums by yourself at the end of a long flight. If you
really think it is, then I honestly have to question just how much
flying you've done in IMC. Care to say?


>>I don't think anyone is claiming that you need to learn to do the
>>approach. It is a question of precision, confidence, and the ability to
>>handle the unforeseen that comes with experience. I believe any new
>>insrument pilot should have the knowledge to fly an approach to
>>minimums. They shouldn't need to learn anything from a "mechanical"
>>perspective. That isn't what experience usually brings. It is the
>>ability to recognize and deal with the non-mechanical aspects (fatique,
>>etc.) that occur in real flying much more so than during training.
>>
>
>
> If you don't have the confidence after training and passing the practical,
> then sure, don't fly, but I would consider the quality of the training and
> the practical then.

That's your prerogative.



>>>>As to your question: would you want a doctor who had just graduated from
>>>>medical school perform his/her first
>>>>quadruple bypass on you without a more experienced surgeon in the
>>>>operating room?
>>>
>>>
>>>Totally different and your example is not even close in so many ways.
>>
>>Such as?
>>
>>
>
> Just graduating from medical school does not qualify one to do a bypass.
> We are talking about flying, not surgery. On the other hand, by
> definition, passing the practical means you are qualified to fly IFR. A
> single doctor doing a bypass is not likely from my limited knowledge of
> medicine. I am open to examples, but this one doesn't do anything for your
> argument. (neither does the P.E. one)
>
> You have still not given a reason why a recent IFR pilot shouldn't be able
> to fly what he was trained to do and what the DE said he could do. All your
> arguments talk about experience years afterwards and about professional
> engineers and doctors.

I've given several. You choose not to accept them, but that doesn't
mean they haven't been presented. To recap:

1. An approach in actual isn't the same as, and is more difficult than,
a simulated approach. Often the controllers are busier when every
airplane is flying the approach, communications is more active, etc.

2. The stress is higher on your first approach solo than with another
pilot in the right seat. Stress often causes you to miss small things
such as an altimeter setting, etc.

3. Sydney's reason that the transition to visual is more difficult in
actual than in simulation.

4. You often are more fatigued at the end of a real IFR flight than a
simulated one.


> It appears that after this many postings neither of us is going to change
> views, nor does it appear that you will answer the question about why it is
> not good for a pilot to (foolishly, according to some) fly IMC and do
> approaches to minimums as soon as he gets the rating. Perhaps it is best to
> let it lie.

As I mentioned earlier, it is well documented that less experienced
pilots have higher accident rates than more experienced pilots. A more
experienced pilot simply has more reserve/margin at 200' on a bumpy ILS
than does a freshly minted pilot flying his first approach in actual.
Starting out with higher personally imposed minimums gives the new pilot
a margin of safety more in line with what an experienced pilot would
have at minimums. This makes it more likely that the new pilot will
live long enough to have the same safety margin at minimums as the
experienced pilot.

Even after probably 100 hours in actual and dozens of approaches into
some of the busiest airports in the northeast, I still avoid approaches
to minimums in some cases such as:

1. At the end of a flight of more than a couple hours, especially if at
night after a long day of work away from home.

2. If I'm just not feeling sharp. Some days I can fly an ILS like I'm
on rails and some days I'm just not as sharp. Same with landings. Some
days I can grease several in a row and some days I can't buy a greaser.
I can usually tell enroute just how sharp I am on a given day (how
well I hold altitude and heading for example) as I never flew with an
autopilot. If I don't feel sharp, I'll add some cushion above what the
FAA requires.

As others have mentioned, judgement is the hallmark of a safe and
experienced pilot. Saying, "I was trained to do X, therefore no reason
I shouldn't always go out and do X" is simply not, IMO, a sign of a
pilot with good judgement. End of my story. :-)


Matt

[Jeff]

Just read it, thats the good thing about auto pilots, they keep you nice and
level and on course. I consider my auto pilot one of the most important things
in my plane.

You know, I think some night flying should be considered actual IFR for the fact
that while flying at night you do (I do) most of your flying by the instruments.

"Tom S." wrote:

> See my other post about deceiving cloud tops. (not flat).
>

[John R. Copeland]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message =
...
> Robert Moore wrote:
> > vincent p. norris > wrote
> >=20
> >=20
> >>Bob, did you get a "White Card" when you got your wings?
> >=20
> >=20
> > I don't remember Vince, but I do remember flying "solo"=20
> > cross countries IFR in the S-2F while at Kingsville.
> > John Cuddy, another NAVCAD, and I set-out from Kingsville
> > to Pensacola and immediately looked for a cloud to fly
> > in since neither of us had ever been in a cloud before.
> > Maybe is was a special dispensation from the "white card"
> > requirement.
> >=20
> > Bob Moore
>=20
> For the non-Naval aviators among us, what is a white card?
>=20
> Matt
>=20

I don't know about the white card, but I always heard about the blue =
card.
It had a hole punched into it, so you could see the sky through it.
If the sky color matched the card color, it was safe to fly.
---JRC---

[Matthew S. Whiting]

John R. Copeland wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Robert Moore wrote:
>>
>>>vincent p. norris > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bob, did you get a "White Card" when you got your wings?
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't remember Vince, but I do remember flying "solo"
>>>cross countries IFR in the S-2F while at Kingsville.
>>>John Cuddy, another NAVCAD, and I set-out from Kingsville
>>>to Pensacola and immediately looked for a cloud to fly
>>>in since neither of us had ever been in a cloud before.
>>>Maybe is was a special dispensation from the "white card"
>>>requirement.
>>>
>>>Bob Moore
>>
>>For the non-Naval aviators among us, what is a white card?
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> I don't know about the white card, but I always heard about the blue card.
> It had a hole punched into it, so you could see the sky through it.
> If the sky color matched the card color, it was safe to fly.
> ---JRC---
>

:-) Got it!

Matt

[Robert Moore]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote

> For the non-Naval aviators among us, what is a white card?

The Navy had two levels of instrument rating, white card and
green card. They both permitted pilots to operate to standard
approach minimums (100' and 1/4 mile for GCAs (PAR)). The main
difference was T.O. minimums. A white card pilot required at
least LDG minimums for T.O. and a release from either SQD OPS
(via the daily flight sked) or BASE OPS if away from home.
A green card pilot had no T.O. minimums and was authorized to
release himself anytime, anywhere. The Air Force had a problem
with this last item since (at that time) all of their pilots
required a release from Base OPS and a green card Naval Aviator
would just sign his own release and launch 0/0.
Bear in mind, that these were peacetime, non-combat operations.
I have forgotten just what the regulation required, but to be issued
a green card, one would normally have a thousand or so hours PIC.
It has been pointed out in this forum before that every Private
Pilot with an Instrument Rating can T.O. 0/0 with no restriction,
true, but not in a multimillion dollar plane owned by the U.S.
Government. :-)

Bob Moore
P-2V VP-21 1959-1962
P-3B VP-46 1965-1967

[vincent p. norris]

>I have forgotten just what the regulation required, but to be issued
>a green card, one would normally have a thousand or so hours PIC.

In the early 1950s, at least at Cherry Point, 2,000 hours were
required. I can recall that, because I would have qualified had it
been 1,000, but got out before I reached 2,000.

I recall also that some guys who were qualified refused a Green Card
because, they thought, the day would come when a skipper might try to
pressure them into making a flight when they would rather not, and
then find ways to make them regret it if they refused.

vince norris

[[email protected]]

Cecil E. Chapman > wrote:
: For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
: IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

: At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of ACTUAL
: IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get my
: instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at the
: latest.

I just finished my checkride about 6 weeks ago. At the time, I
went out of my way to choose my cross-countries with the instructor to
where it was "perfect IFR training" weather.... 3000-5000' AGL scattered
stuff. In the end, did most of my two cross-countries in actual with the
instructor. He also had me do 1.4 hours of actual for my private a year
earlier. At the time of the checkride:

Actual: 9.3
Simulated: 32
X-C: 115
Total: 250

Since the ticked, did two trips IFR. One trip enroute IMC for
about 1 hour, VMC departure and destination. Second departed IFR 1000'
from Milwaukee, got to almost VMC by Indiana (2 hours later after stinkin'
Chicago reroute) to shoot SCT 1500'/5mi.

Still not overly confident (especially because of ice this time of
year). I feel I could definately do a bit lower/harder, but certainly not
going to head out into it intentionally.

FWIW
-Cory
--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Doug]

We have something like that, only ours is called "white knuckle"
instead of "white card". It's for landing in a "white out".

Robert Moore > wrote in message >...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote
>
> > For the non-Naval aviators among us, what is a white card?
>
> The Navy had two levels of instrument rating, white card and
> green card. They both permitted pilots to operate to standard
> approach minimums (100' and 1/4 mile for GCAs (PAR)). The main
> difference was T.O. minimums. A white card pilot required at
> least LDG minimums for T.O. and a release from either SQD OPS
> (via the daily flight sked) or BASE OPS if away from home.
> A green card pilot had no T.O. minimums and was authorized to
> release himself anytime, anywhere. The Air Force had a problem
> with this last item since (at that time) all of their pilots
> required a release from Base OPS and a green card Naval Aviator
> would just sign his own release and launch 0/0.
> Bear in mind, that these were peacetime, non-combat operations.
> I have forgotten just what the regulation required, but to be issued
> a green card, one would normally have a thousand or so hours PIC.
> It has been pointed out in this forum before that every Private
> Pilot with an Instrument Rating can T.O. 0/0 with no restriction,
> true, but not in a multimillion dollar plane owned by the U.S.
> Government. :-)
>
> Bob Moore
> P-2V VP-21 1959-1962
> P-3B VP-46 1965-1967

[Stan Gosnell]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in
:

> If you feel that you can fly to the edge of the envelope
> (fully utilize everything legally available to you in IMC
> conditions) at day one, what is left to gain from
> experience? I'm not being facetrious here, I'm really
> curious as to what value you feel that experience will
> bring? Generally, it brings additional capabilities beyond
> what you had at the start. But since you can't legally fly
> in worse weather after 500 hours than you can after 0 hours
> (I'm talking post rating here), what is left to gain from
> your experience?
>
Judgment. Good judgment comes from exercising bad judgment.
After you fly for awhile, you learn when to go and when not to.
But if you aren't trained to fly an approach to minimums, then
you got cheated in your training.

> I don't think anyone is claiming that you need to learn to
> do the approach. It is a question of precision,
> confidence, and the ability to handle the unforeseen that
> comes with experience. I believe any new insrument pilot
> should have the knowledge to fly an approach to minimums.
> They shouldn't need to learn anything from a "mechanical"
> perspective. That isn't what experience usually brings.
> It is the ability to recognize and deal with the
> non-mechanical aspects (fatique, etc.) that occur in real
> flying much more so than during training.
>
In other words, judgment.

> What capbilities will you be able to use after experience
> than you could the day you got your rating? You can't
> arbitrarily fly to an MDA or DH lower than what is
> published, just because you are now a better pilot.
>
The published DH or MDA is published at that altitude for a
reason. Brand new pilots have to be able to fly to it safely,
as well as experienced pilots who are fatigued to exhaustion,
along with every other instrument pilot.

I keep seeing pilots who say they won't fly approaches to
minimums, but I've never had that luxury. As soon as I finished
flight school, I was expected to fly approaches to minimums,
with the visibility minimums half of published. I still do that
regularly. If you're just out flying for fun, you can set your
own minimums, but if you're going to do it for a living, you'd
better be ready to take off with barely legal weather both at
the destination and the departure point. If you don't think you
can handle weather that's at minimums, then you shouldn't be
flying in weather at all. If your competence is so low that you
can't fly an approach to minimums, then you're likely to kill
yourself before you get there, even if the weather is better
than minimums. Look at the NTSB reports, & you'll see lots of
barely competent instrument pilots who killed themselves and
their friends and families. Instrument flying isn't for
everyone, but if you want to do it, you'd better be good at it,
and if you aren't good enough, you shouldn't have been passed on
the checkride.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Snowbird]

"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message >...
> > Isn't the Bay area supposed to be great for "harmless" IMC, good for
> > flying actual approaches?

> You're right. When I was working on my basic ticket it would be all over
> the place, now that I want some of it to be there (for my instrument
> training) it is nowhere to be found.

ROTFL! Yeah, it works that way, doesn't it! I remember standing
on a ramp next to DH (that's d___ husband in this context) and his
instrument instructor. They'd rushed to the airport for a perfect
IMC morning -- only to find that as they got their clearance, the
clouds almost literally rolled back and the sun poured down. I'd
really never seen anything like it. It was almost like watching a
time-lapse movie, only it was real time.

The CFI turned to DH and said "this would never happen if you were
a student pilot"

I think that all student pilots should make a pact with an instrument
student who has the same instructor. They can both book a flight at
the same time, that way one of them ought to be happy :)

Cheers,
Sydney

[Stan Gosnell]

(Snowbird) wrote in
om:

> Probably the hardest and most dangerous part of IFR flight
> in IMC is the transition to visual once you break out on
> approach.
>
> This isn't usually well-taught under the hood. Your safety
> pilot tells you "look up" and the airport is there.

IMO the safest way to fly single-pilot approaches is to do it
this way as closely as you can. Fly the approach to the MAP,
then look up. If you aren't VMC, execute the missed. If you
are, then go visual and land. In a spam-can on an ILS or most
straight-in non-precision approaches, you have lots of runway
left to land on. For circling approaches, you may need to peek
a little before the MAP in order to set up for landing, and for
this reason circling approaches have higher minimums, and are
much more dangerous than straight-in approaches.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Stan Gosnell wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>If you feel that you can fly to the edge of the envelope
>>(fully utilize everything legally available to you in IMC
>>conditions) at day one, what is left to gain from
>>experience? I'm not being facetrious here, I'm really
>>curious as to what value you feel that experience will
>>bring? Generally, it brings additional capabilities beyond
>>what you had at the start. But since you can't legally fly
>>in worse weather after 500 hours than you can after 0 hours
>>(I'm talking post rating here), what is left to gain from
>>your experience?
>>
>
> Judgment. Good judgment comes from exercising bad judgment.
> After you fly for awhile, you learn when to go and when not to.
> But if you aren't trained to fly an approach to minimums, then
> you got cheated in your training.

I consider going out on your first solo IFR flight in IMC and flying an
approach to minimums to be a sign of poor judgement. :-)


Matt

[Snowbird]

Stan Gosnell <me@work> wrote in message >...
> (Snowbird) wrote in
> om:
> > Probably the hardest and most dangerous part of IFR flight
> > in IMC is the transition to visual once you break out on
> > approach.

> > This isn't usually well-taught under the hood. Your safety
> > pilot tells you "look up" and the airport is there.

> IMO the safest way to fly single-pilot approaches is to do it
> this way as closely as you can. Fly the approach to the MAP,
> then look up. If you aren't VMC, execute the missed. If you
> are, then go visual and land. In a spam-can on an ILS or most
> straight-in non-precision approaches, you have lots of runway
> left to land on.

Stan,

Perhaps I don't understand this advice, or its practical application,
but it doesn't sound realistic to me.

Let's not worry about circling approaches for now, but just take
(for example) a typical non-precision GPS approach heading into
a typical rural midwestern airport with a 3,000 - 3,500 ft runway.

The MAP is usually the end of the runway. If I fly to the MAP
and look up, the runway will be harder to see because it's about
to go underneath me, and no way can I complete a reasonable
straight-in landing.

OTOH, if I fly to MDA in the typical "dive and drive" method, I
may be 2+ miles from the MAP and unable to see the runway yet.
If I start sneaking in peaks, I may catch it from about a mile
away and be able to power back and land.

Could you explain how to apply your advice here?

Thanks!
Sydney

[Kobra]

Stan,

>As soon as I finished flight school, I was expected to fly approaches to
minimums, with the visibility minimums half of published. I still do that
regularly.

Was this done alone or with a copilot? Where you the copilot? Who
"expected" you to do this? That sounds like the external pressure scenario
that we were warned about and the "half of published" visibility sounds
illegal. Asking, not telling.

Kobra


"Stan Gosnell" <me@work> wrote in message
...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in
> :
>
> > If you feel that you can fly to the edge of the envelope
> > (fully utilize everything legally available to you in IMC
> > conditions) at day one, what is left to gain from
> > experience? I'm not being facetrious here, I'm really
> > curious as to what value you feel that experience will
> > bring? Generally, it brings additional capabilities beyond
> > what you had at the start. But since you can't legally fly
> > in worse weather after 500 hours than you can after 0 hours
> > (I'm talking post rating here), what is left to gain from
> > your experience?
> >
> Judgment. Good judgment comes from exercising bad judgment.
> After you fly for awhile, you learn when to go and when not to.
> But if you aren't trained to fly an approach to minimums, then
> you got cheated in your training.
>
> > I don't think anyone is claiming that you need to learn to
> > do the approach. It is a question of precision,
> > confidence, and the ability to handle the unforeseen that
> > comes with experience. I believe any new insrument pilot
> > should have the knowledge to fly an approach to minimums.
> > They shouldn't need to learn anything from a "mechanical"
> > perspective. That isn't what experience usually brings.
> > It is the ability to recognize and deal with the
> > non-mechanical aspects (fatique, etc.) that occur in real
> > flying much more so than during training.
> >
> In other words, judgment.
>
> > What capbilities will you be able to use after experience
> > than you could the day you got your rating? You can't
> > arbitrarily fly to an MDA or DH lower than what is
> > published, just because you are now a better pilot.
> >
> The published DH or MDA is published at that altitude for a
> reason. Brand new pilots have to be able to fly to it safely,
> as well as experienced pilots who are fatigued to exhaustion,
> along with every other instrument pilot.
>
> I keep seeing pilots who say they won't fly approaches to
> minimums, but I've never had that luxury. As soon as I finished
> flight school, I was expected to fly approaches to minimums,
> with the visibility minimums half of published. I still do that
> regularly. If you're just out flying for fun, you can set your
> own minimums, but if you're going to do it for a living, you'd
> better be ready to take off with barely legal weather both at
> the destination and the departure point. If you don't think you
> can handle weather that's at minimums, then you shouldn't be
> flying in weather at all. If your competence is so low that you
> can't fly an approach to minimums, then you're likely to kill
> yourself before you get there, even if the weather is better
> than minimums. Look at the NTSB reports, & you'll see lots of
> barely competent instrument pilots who killed themselves and
> their friends and families. Instrument flying isn't for
> everyone, but if you want to do it, you'd better be good at it,
> and if you aren't good enough, you shouldn't have been passed on
> the checkride.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Stan

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Snowbird > wrote:
>Stan Gosnell <me@work> wrote in message
>...
>
>> IMO the safest way to fly single-pilot approaches is to do it
>> this way as closely as you can. Fly the approach to the MAP,
>> then look up.
>
>The MAP is usually the end of the runway. If I fly to the MAP
>and look up, the runway will be harder to see because it's about
>to go underneath me, and no way can I complete a reasonable
>straight-in landing.

And if it's not straight in, it's even harder. There's a VOR approach
to UAO that arrives at a 90 degree angle to the runway. If you look up
at the MAP and you've executed the approach perfectly you are right at
the center of the runway and have a few seconds to see it (less in a
low wing). The first time I did this at night it freaked me out, because
I didn't think I could have spotted it without coaching from my CFII
(who was looking at it the whole way, of course). Then I realized that
if I had been in IMC and broken out when I completed the last stepdown
I would have had plenty of time to see it.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Roger Halstead]

On 17 Nov 2003 08:58:59 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

>Stan Gosnell <me@work> wrote in message >...
>> (Snowbird) wrote in
>> om:
>> > Probably the hardest and most dangerous part of IFR flight
>> > in IMC is the transition to visual once you break out on
>> > approach.
>
>> > This isn't usually well-taught under the hood. Your safety
>> > pilot tells you "look up" and the airport is there.
<snip>
My safety pilot is there for one reason...safety. To look out for
traffic and keep me advised. They do not make the decision when to
look outside.

>
>OTOH, if I fly to MDA in the typical "dive and drive" method, I
>may be 2+ miles from the MAP and unable to see the runway yet.
>If I start sneaking in peaks, I may catch it from about a mile
>away and be able to power back and land.

I fly a practice VOR the same was as I do in real life (IRL).
I do the step down when appropriate and then fly it to minimums before
looking. IE. I go down to MDA and don't peak until I'm within a mile
of the airport. I figure if I don't see the runway from a mile out I
wouldn't be able to land any way. I do not fly the approach all the
way to the MAP before peaking, *Unless* I'm doing lots of approaches
and have no intention of landing. OTOH I fly every approach as if it
were going to end in a missed.

There are those rare times when you'd not see the airport until the
MAP but I contend that if you don't catch a glimpse until the MAP you
are not likely to be able to land any way (depending on the size of
the airport). With our longest runway being 3800 feet, if I don't see
the airport until the MAP while at MDA I am unlikely to be able to
land.

Even the circle to land is in doubt if you don't see the airport until
the MAP. You are not permitted to descend until within 30 degrees of
the desired runway and in this scenario the majority of the circle to
land is likely to be in and out of the clouds, which legally means a
missed.

Yes, I could pull the power, go into a steep slip and land with plenty
of runway left, but I'd have over half the runway behind me and the
FAA says we are supposed to make the landing in a "normal" attitude.
Hence if I don't see the airport until the MAP I fully intend on going
missed and then flying the ILS at MBS which is only and extra 11 miles
for my ride.

OTOH, I have seen a day or two where it was below minimums until just
prior to the MAP and the airport was out in the clear. Two planes
coming in. The first landed, and the second had to go missed and over
to MBS which was VFR. I've also seen it legal VFR within two to three
miles of the airport when the airport was below minimums.

To me, flying the approach all the way to the MAP is a good exercise
in confidence building, but IRL I'd already be calling Approach for
MBS telling them I was going to be paying them a visit by the time I
reached the MAP if I had not seen the airport.

I'm not at all bashful about bringing in the power and doing a good
circle to land while staying within a mile, but not if I'm going to be
pushing the legal limits. I'm not too proud to say, "this is not for
me, lets go to MBS"...or where ever.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>Could you explain how to apply your advice here?
>
>Thanks!
>Sydney

[vincent p. norris]

On 16 Nov 2003 18:13:38 -0800, (Doug)
wrote:

>We have something like that, only ours is called "white knuckle"
>instead of "white card". It's for landing in a "white out".

You're in Alaska?

[Stan Gosnell]

"Kobra" > wrote in
:

> Stan,
>
>>As soon as I finished flight school, I was expected to fly
>>approaches to
> minimums, with the visibility minimums half of published.
> I still do that regularly.
>
> Was this done alone or with a copilot? Where you the
> copilot? Who "expected" you to do this? That sounds like
> the external pressure scenario that we were warned about
> and the "half of published" visibility sounds illegal.
> Asking, not telling.

Usually with a copilot, but not necessarily. The U.S. Army was
who was expecting me to do it. Now it's my employer.
Helicopters can usually cut the published visibility in half,
and it's completely legal. My ops specs permit reducing the
published visibility by half, but never below 1/4 mile. Same
thing for the military, IIRC, although it's been a long time
since I wore a green uniform. In a pinch, we did GCA's to very
little visibility.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Stan Gosnell]

(Snowbird) wrote in
om:

> Perhaps I don't understand this advice, or its practical
> application, but it doesn't sound realistic to me.
>
> Let's not worry about circling approaches for now, but just
> take (for example) a typical non-precision GPS approach
> heading into a typical rural midwestern airport with a
> 3,000 - 3,500 ft runway.
>
> The MAP is usually the end of the runway. If I fly to the
> MAP and look up, the runway will be harder to see because
> it's about to go underneath me, and no way can I complete a
> reasonable straight-in landing.

If the MAP is the runway end, then I agree you need to look up
before then, perhaps 1/2 mile or so. The approach plate tells
you where the MAP is, of course, and judgment is always
necessary.

> OTOH, if I fly to MDA in the typical "dive and drive"
> method, I may be 2+ miles from the MAP and unable to see
> the runway yet. If I start sneaking in peaks, I may catch
> it from about a mile away and be able to power back and
> land.

I don't like the 'dive and drive' method. A constant rate of
descent, which will get you to MDA between a mile and 1/2 mile
is safer, IMO. This means you just descend at ~500'/min, if
everything is set up correctly, in a stabilized descent, and at
MDA you level off & then take a look. I don't mean to say that
you should never look out early, but if the weather is right at
minimums, you're safer to fly a stabilized approach to arrive at
MDA within a mile of the MAP, and then just descend to the
runway if you're in visual conditions. Getting down early,
going visual, then scud-running for a couple or 5 miles is more
dangerous, IMO. Again, judgment is required at all times.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Kobra]

> Usually with a copilot, but not necessarily. The U.S. Army was
> who was expecting me to do it.

Ok, this makes more sense. I couldn't imagine a civilian aviation company
to expect this with paying passengers in an airplane.


Now it's my employer.
> Helicopters can usually cut the published visibility in half,
> and it's completely legal.

Thanks for the info. I didn't know this about rotary wing aircraft. Seems
to make sense though.

Kobra

[Teacherjh]

>>
What capbilities will you be able to use after experience than you could
the day you got your rating? You can't arbitrarily fly to an MDA or DH
lower than what is published, just because you are now a better pilot.
<<

You'll be able to fly them in worse (i.e. bumpier) conditions.
You'll be able to decide better whether or not to fly them at all.
You'll be able to fly them after more fatigue.
You'll be able to deal with more "unscheduled events" as you fly them.
You'll be less likely to make an error as you fly t hem, as you become more
practiced.

Many other things, you get the point.

But whatever level of flying is deemed "adequate", that is the minimum
standard. If you meet that standard, then you should be able to do those
things it embodies.

Jose

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