Practice IMC in real IMC

[gregscheetah]

Hello,

I want to practice maneuvers, descending turns and basic manual
maneuvering in IMC conditions. Is it possible to get ATC to assign you
a 'practice area' in real IMC environment? Say a block of airspace
like they do for aerobatics? Of course I would first do this with a
CFII.
Previous all my maneuvering in the clouds has been during real
approaches close to the ground. All of my IFR flying is single pilot.
I have had a few cases when alone I have had to make the procedure turn
reversal and descend at the same time and I was definitely
uncomfortable with the smoothness of the descending turn. I would
focus on bank angle and descent rate and I would pass through the
bearing, or I would allow the bank rate to go beyond standard rate.
Nothing significant, 10 degrees on bearing and maybe 10 deg on bank
angle, no loss of control or serious deviations. Everything would work
out OK, but I was not comfortable and it was not acceptable performance
for me. I have since limited maneuvers in IMC to either turning, or
descending, but not both. This works well, but I know that sometime I
will get to do both again. Most of my approaches are either VOR or
NDB. ILS approaches are a piece of cake.
I can do it perfectly (well, acceptable and without error) under the
hood. I just finished a 3 hour run with a CFII under the hood and
everything was perfect. There is something different about maneuvering
in the clouds.
I know I could get a CFII in actual conditions with close to min
ceilings, and practice maneuvers during the approach, but that doesn't
sound smart to me. I don't care how good the CFII is, loss of control
in IMC at 800 feet above the ground is going to be ugly. I want to
practice with a bunch of air below me.
Of course I fly perfectly with the AP enabled :)

Thanks,
Greg

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gregscheetah" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I want to practice maneuvers, descending turns and basic manual
> maneuvering in IMC conditions. Is it possible to get ATC to assign you
> a 'practice area' in real IMC environment? Say a block of airspace
> like they do for aerobatics? Of course I would first do this with a
> CFII.
>

Sure. You'll get a chunk of airspace defined by a block altitude and
maximum distance from some fix or VOR radials. Your CFII may have already
done this.

[Robert Chambers]

You might be able to get a block altitude assigned for use like that but
I'd get the number of the TRACON you'd be using and call someone up
there and ask how best to proceed before filing and getting in the soup.

Cloud flying is different, a peek is work a thousand crosschecks, you
are forced to be honest when you're in the soup, even your peripheral
cues disappear.

gregscheetah wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I want to practice maneuvers, descending turns and basic manual
> maneuvering in IMC conditions. Is it possible to get ATC to assign you
> a 'practice area' in real IMC environment? Say a block of airspace
> like they do for aerobatics? Of course I would first do this with a
> CFII.
> Previous all my maneuvering in the clouds has been during real
> approaches close to the ground. All of my IFR flying is single pilot.
> I have had a few cases when alone I have had to make the procedure turn
> reversal and descend at the same time and I was definitely
> uncomfortable with the smoothness of the descending turn. I would
> focus on bank angle and descent rate and I would pass through the
> bearing, or I would allow the bank rate to go beyond standard rate.
> Nothing significant, 10 degrees on bearing and maybe 10 deg on bank
> angle, no loss of control or serious deviations. Everything would work
> out OK, but I was not comfortable and it was not acceptable performance
> for me. I have since limited maneuvers in IMC to either turning, or
> descending, but not both. This works well, but I know that sometime I
> will get to do both again. Most of my approaches are either VOR or
> NDB. ILS approaches are a piece of cake.
> I can do it perfectly (well, acceptable and without error) under the
> hood. I just finished a 3 hour run with a CFII under the hood and
> everything was perfect. There is something different about maneuvering
> in the clouds.
> I know I could get a CFII in actual conditions with close to min
> ceilings, and practice maneuvers during the approach, but that doesn't
> sound smart to me. I don't care how good the CFII is, loss of control
> in IMC at 800 feet above the ground is going to be ugly. I want to
> practice with a bunch of air below me.
> Of course I fly perfectly with the AP enabled :)
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Robert Chambers wrote:
> Cloud flying is different, a peek is work a thousand crosschecks, you
> are forced to be honest when you're in the soup, even your peripheral
> cues disappear.


Pretty much everyone will tell you it's actually easier to fly in clouds than
under the hood. I assume it's because you have the normal scope of vision
within the cockpit compared to the very limited view under the hood. So, while
you still can't see the horizon, you can see the radios, compass, instruments,
etc in the same view.

Then of course there's the added motivation. This is one video game you can't
afford to lose.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "gregscheetah" > said:
>I want to practice maneuvers, descending turns and basic manual
>maneuvering in IMC conditions. Is it possible to get ATC to assign you
>a 'practice area' in real IMC environment? Say a block of airspace
>like they do for aerobatics? Of course I would first do this with a
>CFII.

My CFII would request a hold at the local holding fix, and then request a
block altitude. As long as you stayed on the correct side of the hold,
ATC are remarkably tolerant of what you do - stalls, unusual attitude
recovery, climbs and descents at a given speed, climbs and descents at a
given rate, etc. You're already doing constant rate turns in the hold, so
do them partial panel and time them.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I'm a Darwinian carnivore. I only eat things that weren't fit enough
to prevent their being killed.
-- Mike Sphar

[Robert M. Gary]

Unusual attitude recovery and stalls are probably things I would not do
in IMC.

-Robert, CFI

[Jim Macklin]

I would find out what areas are used by Center for such
purposes and ask for a "block altitude for maneuvers" but
I'd be sure you have a high ceiling so you can recover if a
real problem happens. The military has ejection seats and
they use them on occasion.

I've done this on several occasions. Center will often a
lot you a big block, if you're planning on doing unusual
attitudes, better have as block from the MEA up to your
starting altitude, Center expects you will stay above lower
traffic.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Dane Spearing" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN >
wrote:
| >Then of course there's the added motivation. This is one
video game
| >you can't afford to lose.
|
| Heh. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who considers
flying in IMC
| to be a form of "extreme videogaming". :) It's a hella
lotta fun, but
| you only get one guy, and you can't put another quarter in
the machine
| and get a replay if you screw up.
|
| -- Dane

[Roy Smith]

gregscheetah > wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I want to practice maneuvers, descending turns and basic manual
>maneuvering in IMC conditions. Is it possible to get ATC to assign you
>a 'practice area' in real IMC environment?

Absolutely. Ask for something like, "Request permission to maneuver
within 5 miles of XXX, between 3000 and 4000".

Whether you get it or not depends on how much traffic there is. As
long as there's no conflicting traffic, ATC should be able to approve
a block. The controller will want to know for how long you'll need
the block.

Make sure you ask for something you can comply with, i.e. a DME radius
around a VOR/DME, or a radius around any en-route fix if you've got
DME. And keep in mind that an IFR clearance is a serious thing; if
you're cleared to maneuver within 5 miles of XXX, you damn well better
make sure you stay within that circle.

[Peter R.]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> Unusual attitude recovery and stalls are probably things I would not do
> in IMC.

One one instrument proficiency check a few years ago, I had a CFII not only
ask me to perform stalls, but also to make two steep turns, all while
flying on an IFR flight plan in IMC.

--
Peter

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> That is theoretically possible, but not common in airspace that is at
> all busy.
>

Of course not.


>
> I do most of my instruction in Houston Approach airspace,
> and find that the practical way to accomplish this is to request a hold
> at an intersection or VOR and a block altitude for the hold. Usually
> that request can be accomodated as long as the intersection or VOR
> isn't a fix on the active DP or STAR, and once there nobody really
> cares what maneuvers you perform within the protected holding airspace.
>

Same thing.

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> Unusual attitude recovery and stalls are probably things I would not do
>> in IMC.
>
> One one instrument proficiency check a few years ago, I had a CFII not
> only
> ask me to perform stalls, but also to make two steep turns, all while
> flying on an IFR flight plan in IMC.
>
I take it you dumped that guy?

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Unusual attitude recovery and stalls are probably things I would not do
>>>in IMC.
>>
>>One one instrument proficiency check a few years ago, I had a CFII not
>>only
>>ask me to perform stalls, but also to make two steep turns, all while
>>flying on an IFR flight plan in IMC.
>>
>
> I take it you dumped that guy?
>
>

Why?

Matt

[Robert M. Gary]

> One one instrument proficiency check a few years ago, I had a CFII not only
> ask me to perform stalls, but also to make two steep turns, all while
> flying on an IFR flight plan in IMC

Seems a bit like asking a student to practice spins on his turn from
base to final. Some things seem better to practice simulated. In my
aircraft the plane rolls over about 30 degrees in the stall and has a
pretty good nose down attitude. I wouldn't be excited to do that in
IMC.

-Roberts

[Doug]

Did he have you practice Controlled Flight Into Terrain also?

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>One one instrument proficiency check a few years ago, I had a CFII not only
>>ask me to perform stalls, but also to make two steep turns, all while
>>flying on an IFR flight plan in IMC
>
>
> Seems a bit like asking a student to practice spins on his turn from
> base to final. Some things seem better to practice simulated. In my
> aircraft the plane rolls over about 30 degrees in the stall and has a
> pretty good nose down attitude. I wouldn't be excited to do that in
> IMC.

I actually recover from stalls better under the hood than I do visually.
A stall feels much less dramatic to me when I can't see out and I tend
to respond faster and smoother than when stalling visually. I would
have no fear doing stalls in IMC with a competent instructor along.
Same with steep turns. I always fly them better under the hood than
visually.


Matt

[Andrew Sarangan]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, "gregscheetah" > said:
> >I want to practice maneuvers, descending turns and basic manual
> >maneuvering in IMC conditions. Is it possible to get ATC to assign you
> >a 'practice area' in real IMC environment? Say a block of airspace
> >like they do for aerobatics? Of course I would first do this with a
> >CFII.
>
> My CFII would request a hold at the local holding fix, and then request a
> block altitude. As long as you stayed on the correct side of the hold,
> ATC are remarkably tolerant of what you do - stalls, unusual attitude
> recovery, climbs and descents at a given speed, climbs and descents at a
> given rate, etc. You're already doing constant rate turns in the hold, so
> do them partial panel and time them.
>
>

I am not sure if I like that idea of turning a holding pattern into a
maneuvering exercise. A hold is a clearly defined maneuver even though
ATC may be tolerant to deviations.

Why not simply tell ATC that you need some airspace to do some
maneuvering and be done with?

[Robert M. Gary]

> Did he have you practice Controlled Flight Into Terrain also?

Do landings count?

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
: > Did he have you practice Controlled Flight Into Terrain also?

: Do landings count?

Touche!

--

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

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

wrote:
> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>>> Did he have you practice Controlled Flight Into Terrain also?
>
>> Do landings count?
>
> Touche!


How hard do you touche?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>Did he have you practice Controlled Flight Into Terrain also?
>
>
> Do landings count?
>

Were you under control at the time of ... uh, impact? :-)


Matt

[[email protected]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN > wrote:
: >
: > Touche!


: How hard do you touche?

BOOOO! Get off the stage!

:)




--

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
m...
> wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>>>> Did he have you practice Controlled Flight Into Terrain also?
>>
>>> Do landings count?
>>
>> Touche!
>
>
> How hard do you touche?
>

Depends if your doing a touche and go.

[gregscheetah]

Thanks for everyones response to my question.
I would add a note about the practice of stalls and unusual attitude
recovery in IMC.
I work in the Oil and Gas industry on Catalytic Cracking units. If
something goes wrong it is serious (usually only in $, but sometimes
lives)
However almost nothing ever goes wrong. And when it does, it is almost
always because TWO things went wrong. Therefore we never test one
thing going wrong, because we never know when the other thing might
also go wrong.
Imagine practicing stalls in IMC at the moment your vacuum system
fails? Or steep turns?
Not for me - but others have a high risk tolerance.
Thanks for everyones response.

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>One one instrument proficiency check a few years ago, I had a CFII not
>>>only
>>>ask me to perform stalls, but also to make two steep turns, all while
>>>flying on an IFR flight plan in IMC
>>
>>
>> Seems a bit like asking a student to practice spins on his turn from
>> base to final. Some things seem better to practice simulated. In my
>> aircraft the plane rolls over about 30 degrees in the stall and has a
>> pretty good nose down attitude. I wouldn't be excited to do that in
>> IMC.
>
> I actually recover from stalls better under the hood than I do visually. A
> stall feels much less dramatic to me when I can't see out and I tend to
> respond faster and smoother than when stalling visually. I would have no
> fear doing stalls in IMC with a competent instructor along.

Alas, one of the most (if not THE MOST) common forms of death in flying.

Steep turns in IMC is lunacy.

In IMC I'd rather follow the flight director and mine limits bank angles to
about 20 degrees.

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
>
>> Pretty much everyone will tell you it's actually easier to fly in clouds
>> than
>> under the hood.
>
> Not me. :) I think actual is harder due to the misleading visual clues
> of
> the clouds,

Sounds like you're letting your focus wander if you're looking out long
enough to pick up cues like that. (?)

[Peter R.]

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> Sounds like you're letting your focus wander if you're looking out long
> enough to pick up cues like that. (?)

Nah, just accumulating a lot of IMC experience as of late where the scan is
starting to become second nature, rather than demand every last brain cycle
like it did when I was a student.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> I take it you dumped that guy?

Nope. He's a 10,000 hour, gray-haired ATP with a lot of experience to
share and a very good teacher. I would imagine he only hands out tasks
such as these if he has confidence in the instrument pilot taking the IPC.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

Doug > wrote:

> Did he have you practice Controlled Flight Into Terrain also?

<rimshot>

You've been a great crowd! Thank you all and good night.

--
Peter

[Dave S]

Michael wrote:
>>Sure. You'll get a chunk of airspace defined by a block altitude and
>>maximum distance from some fix or VOR radials.
>
>
> That is theoretically possible, but not common in airspace that is at
> all busy. I do most of my instruction in Houston Approach airspace,

It was not uncommon at all in the evenings for Continental Express
(ExpressJet in this case) to fly off to beaumont and request a chunk of
airspace for them to perform maneuvers and training under an IFR
clearance. Not just a hold, but sometimes an entire quadrant with a 5k
foot chunk of airspace. Granted this was late night, but it was doable.

Dave

[CloudyIFR]

Greg,

Do you have an instrument rating attached to your pilot's
certificate?

Thanks
CloudyIFR

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
[Who also said:]

> Nah, just accumulating a lot of IMC experience as of late where the scan
> is
> starting to become second nature, rather than demand every last brain
> cycle
> like it did when I was a student.

>> I take it you dumped that guy?
>
> Nope. He's a 10,000 hour, gray-haired ATP with a lot of experience to
> share and a very good teacher. I would imagine he only hands out tasks
> such as these if he has confidence in the instrument pilot taking the IPC.
>

Yeah, you eastern seaboard folks...

Out here in the West, it's not unusual to find a 2,000 hour pilot with less
than 40 hrs IMC time.

[Peter R.]

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> Out here in the West, it's not unusual to find a 2,000 hour pilot with less
> than 40 hrs IMC time.

I agree, but you all certainly have your daily challenges there as well,
such as mountain flying and density altitude.

My family is having a reunion/vacation at a resort in Avon, Colorado, in
July. There is a towered airport west of Avon and I was considering flying
the Bonanza from NY to this airport. However, the fact that I would have
to go over the front range to fly into this airport leaves me with two
options: 1) Don't fly or 2) Leave a few days early and take a mountain
flying course in Denver.

I might take option (2), but this would depend on my business schedule.


--
Peter

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Peter R. wrote:
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
> Nah, just accumulating a lot of IMC experience as of late where the scan is
> starting to become second nature, rather than demand every last brain cycle
> like it did when I was a student.


Back in my freight hauling days, I can remember reading the Charlotte Disturber
while flying hard IFR with no autopilot. Shifting my focus between the newpaper
and the instruments wasn't all that tough, but flipping pages was a real bitch.

Couldn't do it today. Back then I was flying twice daily Monday through Friday.
Now I'm lucky to fly once a month.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Jim Macklin]

Years ago, when I was training for my instrument at Oak
Grove Airport (Ft. Worth) my instructor was giving me
vectors and altitude changes. I did not notice that he had
changed the altimeter setting. He had me doing turns and
descents...the next things I knew, we landed the 172 with
the hood still on my head. It was really an instrument
landing.



> wrote in message
...
| Robert M. Gary > wrote:
| : > Did he have you practice Controlled Flight Into
Terrain also?
|
| : Do landings count?
|
| Touche!
|
| --
|
|
************************************************** ***********************
| * Cory Papenfuss
*
| * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student
*
| * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
*
|
************************************************** ***********************
|

[Everett M. Greene]

Roy Smith > writes:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> > "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote
> > > wrote:
> > >> Robert M. Gary > wrote:

> > >>>> Did he have you practice Controlled Flight Into Terrain also?
> > >>
> > >>> Do landings count?
> > >>
> > >> Touche!
> > >
> > > How hard do you touche?
> >
> > Depends if your doing a touche and go.
>
> Can we please bring this thread to a full stop?

Into everyone's life a little nonsense must fall.

[gregscheetah]

Yes,

Greg

[Matt Whiting]

gregscheetah wrote:
> Thanks for everyones response to my question.
> I would add a note about the practice of stalls and unusual attitude
> recovery in IMC.
> I work in the Oil and Gas industry on Catalytic Cracking units. If
> something goes wrong it is serious (usually only in $, but sometimes
> lives)
> However almost nothing ever goes wrong. And when it does, it is almost
> always because TWO things went wrong. Therefore we never test one
> thing going wrong, because we never know when the other thing might
> also go wrong.
> Imagine practicing stalls in IMC at the moment your vacuum system
> fails? Or steep turns?
> Not for me - but others have a high risk tolerance.
> Thanks for everyones response.
>

Don't you practice partial panel recovery from unusual attitudes? I'll
argue that if you aren't proficient at this you shouldn't be flying in
IMC at all, let alone doing stalls and steep turns.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>>One one instrument proficiency check a few years ago, I had a CFII not
>>>>only
>>>>ask me to perform stalls, but also to make two steep turns, all while
>>>>flying on an IFR flight plan in IMC
>>>
>>>
>>>Seems a bit like asking a student to practice spins on his turn from
>>>base to final. Some things seem better to practice simulated. In my
>>>aircraft the plane rolls over about 30 degrees in the stall and has a
>>>pretty good nose down attitude. I wouldn't be excited to do that in
>>>IMC.
>>
>>I actually recover from stalls better under the hood than I do visually. A
>>stall feels much less dramatic to me when I can't see out and I tend to
>>respond faster and smoother than when stalling visually. I would have no
>>fear doing stalls in IMC with a competent instructor along.
>
>
> Alas, one of the most (if not THE MOST) common forms of death in flying.

Do you have even a shred of evidence to back up this claim?


> Steep turns in IMC is lunacy.

Sure is, if you don't know how to fly on the gauges.


> In IMC I'd rather follow the flight director and mine limits bank angles to
> about 20 degrees.

You probably wouldn't be save in IMC without your flight director so I
think you are exercising good judgement.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> Peter R. wrote:
>
>>Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>Nah, just accumulating a lot of IMC experience as of late where the scan is
>>starting to become second nature, rather than demand every last brain cycle
>>like it did when I was a student.
>
>
>
> Back in my freight hauling days, I can remember reading the Charlotte Disturber
> while flying hard IFR with no autopilot. Shifting my focus between the newpaper
> and the instruments wasn't all that tough, but flipping pages was a real bitch.
>
> Couldn't do it today. Back then I was flying twice daily Monday through Friday.
> Now I'm lucky to fly once a month.

I never flew as much as you, but I once did fly a fair amount of IMC and
got to the point that I actually got bored flying down the ILS. Now I'm
busy most all of the approach and constantly wondering what I forgot to
do! :-)

Matt

[Robert M. Gary]

Its funny. In Mexico when you get an IFR clearance they always first
ask you if you're instrument rated. I'd love to know what story is
behind that.

-Robert

[Roger]

On 23 Mar 2006 06:38:39 -0800, "gregscheetah" >
wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I want to practice maneuvers, descending turns and basic manual
>maneuvering in IMC conditions. Is it possible to get ATC to assign you
>a 'practice area' in real IMC environment? Say a block of airspace
>like they do for aerobatics? Of course I would first do this with a
>CFII.
>Previous all my maneuvering in the clouds has been during real
>approaches close to the ground. All of my IFR flying is single pilot.
>I have had a few cases when alone I have had to make the procedure turn
>reversal and descend at the same time and I was definitely
>uncomfortable with the smoothness of the descending turn. I would

Work on the scan until your are comfortable with it. This kind of
maneuver I'd do with a safety pilot until you can nail the turns and
altitude.

>focus on bank angle and descent rate and I would pass through the
>bearing, or I would allow the bank rate to go beyond standard rate.
>Nothing significant, 10 degrees on bearing and maybe 10 deg on bank
>angle, no loss of control or serious deviations. Everything would work

About a month (give or take) before I took my check ride my instructor
took me out for over two hours of nothing but partial panel with only
one radio and no DME. We did *timed* climbing and descending turns to
predetermined altitudes and headings. He'd give me a heading of say
090 at 3000 and once stabilized it was "climbing left turn to 180 at
4000. I had to calculate the time to climb and then figure the rate
of turn. (or conversely the time to turn and then rate of climb). I
was expected to hit the heading and altitude at the same time.
Of course to make it interesting he sometimes would have me intercept
an radial inbound, out bound, or just a heading. Things like descend
and intercept the 300 degree radial inbound on a 30 degree angle at
3000. Of course we might intercept from the left one time and the
right the next.

And no, I didn't get to use a calculator.<:-))

Naturally it was one of those warm days with thermals and about a 15
knot, 90 degree cross wind.

OF course the NDB holding pattern that started at 7000 with descents
of 500 or 1000 feet per circuit down to the approach at 2400, followed
by the published approach, followed by the published missed, then back
up to 3000, intercept the VOR-A into 3BS outbound, procedure turn, 3
or 4 circuits of the holding pattern still partial panel and one nav
radio.

At the end of that I was pretty well rung out, but I had no more
problems with climbing or descending turns.



>out OK, but I was not comfortable and it was not acceptable performance
>for me. I have since limited maneuvers in IMC to either turning, or
>descending, but not both. This works well, but I know that sometime I

You'll get used to them with practice.

>will get to do both again. Most of my approaches are either VOR or
>NDB. ILS approaches are a piece of cake.
>I can do it perfectly (well, acceptable and without error) under the
>hood. I just finished a 3 hour run with a CFII under the hood and
>everything was perfect. There is something different about maneuvering
>in the clouds.

Only attitude. I find it easier in the clouds with the exception of
small cumulus where you end up with flicker. Typically *most* rides
are smoother in the clouds than they were under the hood and in
sunshine. There were a couple of notable and memorable exceptions.

>I know I could get a CFII in actual conditions with close to min
>ceilings, and practice maneuvers during the approach, but that doesn't
>sound smart to me. I don't care how good the CFII is, loss of control
>in IMC at 800 feet above the ground is going to be ugly. I want to
>practice with a bunch of air below me.

Certainly you want to get so you can do the maneuvers well before
getting down to minimums, but it sounds to me like you are too
concerned. By that I do not mean don't be concerned. Get proficient
and *comfortable*. My instructor had me flying full, published
approaches with procedure turns and holds right down to minimums in
IMC to the point where my first flight on my own after getting the
rating was right down to minimums with much of the area below
minimums. Had I had to go missed on the VOR I'd have gone over to MBS
for the ILS. Barring that I had enough gas to get me back to
reasonably good weather with VFR conditions under the clouds. The
point is, I was comfortable under those conditions. To me that flight
was no different than any of the training flights down to minimums.
OTOH I readily admit that I am not currently proficient enough to do
that kind of flying.

>Of course I fly perfectly with the AP enabled :)

If you have a good AP most of your IMC flying will be with it on, just
don't become dependent on it.

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

[Roger]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:41:14 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article . com>,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> Its funny. In Mexico when you get an IFR clearance they always first
>> ask you if you're instrument rated. I'd love to know what story is
>> behind that.

More than a few times here state side, I've head some one come on and
ask to air file with the response being, "Are you qualified". You can
be rated without being qualified.

OTOH, I've been shooting approaches when the weather was near the
limits for VFR. As the clouds came down I simply stated we were going
to have to file if we shot any more approaches as the ceiling was
coming down to low to stay VMC. The usual response was, Stand by,
stay clear the clouds until we get your clearance. As soon as the
clearance came though it got a lot simpler.

If you've been out with a non rated safety pilot, it's really good
experience for them. They get to see the limits of VFR and what it's
like to go actual IMC, but well above minimums (unless it goes down
really fast). I have to remember that the DP on the ILS is 200 AGL
but MDA on the VOR-A to my home field is about 500 AGL.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>> -Robert
>
>If you're not instrument rated, they read the clearance to you real slow so
>it's easier to copy.

Hey! I've had to ask for more than one repeat from some of those
controllers who sound like they've been practicing to take up
auctioneering.<:-))

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
>> Out here in the West, it's not unusual to find a 2,000 hour pilot with
>> less
>> than 40 hrs IMC time.
>
> I agree, but you all certainly have your daily challenges there as well,
> such as mountain flying and density altitude.
>
> My family is having a reunion/vacation at a resort in Avon, Colorado, in
> July. There is a towered airport west of Avon and I was considering
> flying
> the Bonanza from NY to this airport. However, the fact that I would have
> to go over the front range to fly into this airport leaves me with two
> options: 1) Don't fly or 2) Leave a few days early and take a mountain
> flying course in Denver.

You'd best fly into Eagle County, about 15 miles west of Avon. It's a real
nice airport but one that all the celebrities use that have homes in Vail
(i.e. expensive fuel, tie downs). NTL, it's in a big wide valley, so it's an
easy approach/departure.

Instead of Option #1, fly into Jeffco (on the west side of Denver) and take
a rental car. You'd appreciate the drive, on I-70, of about 90 miles to
Avon, through the Eisenhower Tunnel, over Vail Pass.

>
> I might take option (2), but this would depend on my business schedule.

The flight from Denver to Eagle is over terrain that runs over 14,000 feet.
AIR, you have a TN'd Bonanza, so that should not be too any trouble except
your would want to start out right after sunrise to avoid the thermals.

You'll be about 80nm from me here in Montrose. Stop in and I'll take you out
to Ouray, (35 miles south of here on the "Million Dollar Highway") some of
the most spectacular scenery you'll ever see.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>>>One one instrument proficiency check a few years ago, I had a CFII not
>>>>>only
>>>>>ask me to perform stalls, but also to make two steep turns, all while
>>>>>flying on an IFR flight plan in IMC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Seems a bit like asking a student to practice spins on his turn from
>>>>base to final. Some things seem better to practice simulated. In my
>>>>aircraft the plane rolls over about 30 degrees in the stall and has a
>>>>pretty good nose down attitude. I wouldn't be excited to do that in
>>>>IMC.
>>>
>>>I actually recover from stalls better under the hood than I do visually.
>>>A stall feels much less dramatic to me when I can't see out and I tend to
>>>respond faster and smoother than when stalling visually. I would have no
>>>fear doing stalls in IMC with a competent instructor along.
>>
>>
>> Alas, one of the most (if not THE MOST) common forms of death in flying.
>
> Do you have even a shred of evidence to back up this claim?

Read the stats on IFR pilots that crash while maneauverig in IMC. Second
only to VFR flight into IMC. Why do you supose that is?
>
>
>> Steep turns in IMC is lunacy.
>
> Sure is, if you don't know how to fly on the gauges.

Yeah...all those guys that crash, including multi-thousand hour jocks, just
incompetent as hell.

>
>
>> In IMC I'd rather follow the flight director and mine limits bank angles
>> to about 20 degrees.
>
> You probably wouldn't be save in IMC without your flight director so I
> think you are exercising good judgement.

You are really full of crap (putting it mildly). You're one of those
brick-brains that give GA a bad reputation, the worst of which is justified.

You pompous idiot...smarter that ASF and the other organizations and more
goddamn arrogant than the fools we deride.

Okay, you overgrown punk, get the last word in like you usually do in your
typical adolescent manner.

[Matt Barrow]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> Its funny. In Mexico when you get an IFR clearance they always first
>> ask you if you're instrument rated. I'd love to know what story is
>> behind that.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> If you're not instrument rated, they read the clearance to you real slow
> so
> it's easier to copy.

And if you don't speak Spanish, do they talk louder?

[kgruber]

I've taken IFR 135 check rides from the FAA here in the NW. We used to do
the complete stall series and unusual attitudes IMC. This was in a BE200. It
used to be that the FAA had pilots working there. Now they're just a bunch
of paper pushers.

Karl
ATP CFI ETC


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I actually recover from stalls better under the hood than I do visually.
>
> That's fine. However in my professional opinion as a CFI, it is not
> safe. I'm not going to go around and tell other CFIs what to do, but
> that's my opinion.
>
> -Robert, CFI
>

[kgruber]

">> You probably wouldn't be save in IMC without your flight director so I
>> think you are exercising good judgement.
>
> You are really full of crap (putting it mildly). You're one of those
> brick-brains that give GA a bad reputation, the worst of which is
> justified.
>
> You pompous idiot...smarter that ASF and the other organizations and more
> goddamn arrogant than the fools we deride.
>
> Okay, you overgrown punk, get the last word in like you usually do in your
> typical adolescent manner.
>

Drinking AGAIN tonight matt? You really need to put a check mark in the "Do
you have visions of self grandeur" box on your next medical.

Karl
ATP CFI ETC
"Curator"N185KG

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>One one instrument proficiency check a few years ago, I had a CFII not
>>>>>>only
>>>>>>ask me to perform stalls, but also to make two steep turns, all while
>>>>>>flying on an IFR flight plan in IMC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Seems a bit like asking a student to practice spins on his turn from
>>>>>base to final. Some things seem better to practice simulated. In my
>>>>>aircraft the plane rolls over about 30 degrees in the stall and has a
>>>>>pretty good nose down attitude. I wouldn't be excited to do that in
>>>>>IMC.
>>>>
>>>>I actually recover from stalls better under the hood than I do visually.
>>>>A stall feels much less dramatic to me when I can't see out and I tend to
>>>>respond faster and smoother than when stalling visually. I would have no
>>>>fear doing stalls in IMC with a competent instructor along.
>>>
>>>
>>>Alas, one of the most (if not THE MOST) common forms of death in flying.
>>
>>Do you have even a shred of evidence to back up this claim?
>
>
> Read the stats on IFR pilots that crash while maneauverig in IMC. Second
> only to VFR flight into IMC. Why do you supose that is?

Manuevering in IMC with an instructor for practice? I've rarely read of
an accident in this situation.



>>>Steep turns in IMC is lunacy.
>>
>>Sure is, if you don't know how to fly on the gauges.
>
>
> Yeah...all those guys that crash, including multi-thousand hour jocks, just
> incompetent as hell.

Never made any comment about folks that crashed. I was commenting about
practicing steep turns in IMC with an instructor. That was the topic of
the thread last I checked.


>>>In IMC I'd rather follow the flight director and mine limits bank angles
>>>to about 20 degrees.
>>
>>You probably wouldn't be save in IMC without your flight director so I
>>think you are exercising good judgement.
>
>
> You are really full of crap (putting it mildly). You're one of those
> brick-brains that give GA a bad reputation, the worst of which is justified.
>
> You pompous idiot...smarter that ASF and the other organizations and more
> goddamn arrogant than the fools we deride.

Is this the best you can do?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

kgruber wrote:

> I've taken IFR 135 check rides from the FAA here in the NW. We used to do
> the complete stall series and unusual attitudes IMC. This was in a BE200. It
> used to be that the FAA had pilots working there. Now they're just a bunch
> of paper pushers.

Wow, Matt Barrow, sic 'em. :-)

Yes, I think failing to practice things (and test them) in as real an
environment as safely possible is a mistake. Now, I'm not talking Vmc
demonstrations in a light twin at lift-off, but practicing stalls and
steep turns in IMC, with an instructor, at a safe altitude is hardly
reckless aviating.


Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"kgruber" > wrote in message
...
>
> ">> You probably wouldn't be save in IMC without your flight director so I
>>> think you are exercising good judgement.
>>
>> You are really full of crap (putting it mildly). You're one of those
>> brick-brains that give GA a bad reputation, the worst of which is
>> justified.
>>
>> You pompous idiot...smarter that ASF and the other organizations and more
>> goddamn arrogant than the fools we deride.
>>
>> Okay, you overgrown punk, get the last word in like you usually do in
>> your typical adolescent manner.
>>
>
> Drinking AGAIN tonight matt? You really need to put a check mark in the
> "Do you have visions of self grandeur" box on your next medical.

Let's see: I'm uncomfortable doing unusual attitude recovery in IMC. The
accident record shows this to be probably the top killer of IR pilots. So
tell me how that equates to "visions of self grandeur" instead of something
more the opposite, such as "not pushing ones luck"?

Stick to your day job.

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
>> I take it you dumped that guy?
>
> Nope. He's a 10,000 hour, gray-haired ATP with a lot of experience to
> share and a very good teacher. I would imagine he only hands out tasks
> such as these if he has confidence in the instrument pilot taking the IPC.

Or he's showing you what HE can do. The air carriers have been training
these in simulators for years...for a reason.

Recall the discussion here several months ago regarding teaching "spin
recovery versus spin avoidance".

The air carriers have been training these in simulators for years...for a
reason.

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "kgruber" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>">> You probably wouldn't be save in IMC without your flight director so I
>>
>>>>think you are exercising good judgement.
>>>
>>>You are really full of crap (putting it mildly). You're one of those
>>>brick-brains that give GA a bad reputation, the worst of which is
>>>justified.
>>>
>>>You pompous idiot...smarter that ASF and the other organizations and more
>>>goddamn arrogant than the fools we deride.
>>>
>>>Okay, you overgrown punk, get the last word in like you usually do in
>>>your typical adolescent manner.
>>>
>>
>>Drinking AGAIN tonight matt? You really need to put a check mark in the
>>"Do you have visions of self grandeur" box on your next medical.
>
>
> Let's see: I'm uncomfortable doing unusual attitude recovery in IMC. The
> accident record shows this to be probably the top killer of IR pilots. So
> tell me how that equates to "visions of self grandeur" instead of something
> more the opposite, such as "not pushing ones luck"?

That fact that you are uncomfortable doesn't mean that it is dangerous
or that others shouldn't do it. And I've seen no data that suggests
that practicing in IMC with an instructor is a top killer of IR pilots.
Personally, I think the reason that pilots lose it in IMC on "real"
flights is because they don't practice flying maneuvers enough in real IMC.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I take it you dumped that guy?
>>
>>Nope. He's a 10,000 hour, gray-haired ATP with a lot of experience to
>>share and a very good teacher. I would imagine he only hands out tasks
>>such as these if he has confidence in the instrument pilot taking the IPC.
>
>
> Or he's showing you what HE can do. The air carriers have been training
> these in simulators for years...for a reason.

True, and the reason is that it costs way too much to practice in a real
airliner.


> Recall the discussion here several months ago regarding teaching "spin
> recovery versus spin avoidance".
>
> The air carriers have been training these in simulators for years...for a
> reason.

Yes, see above. Also, many airliners aren't recoverable from a spin so
practicing spins in them would be ill advised.


Matt

[Jose]

> Let's see: I'm uncomfortable doing unusual attitude recovery in IMC. The
> accident record shows this to be probably the top killer of IR pilots.

I think this is a simpleminded use of statistics, and suggest (avec
caveat) that an examination of -why- it is the top killer (if in fact it
is; I don't know this) would be called for. I speculate:

1: the unusual attitude came as a surprise,
2: it came as a result of an instrument failure (such as vacuum) and
subsequent lack of partial panel chops,
3: it came about single pilot
4: the pilot was not sharp at recovery (or even IMC skills)
and/or
5: it came about with a low ceiling, allowing no room for VFR recovery.

Practicing unusual attitude recovery, deliberately, in IMC, with a high
ceiling, and with a CFII, would address all of these conditions except
instrument failure. That last condition could be addressed by checking
the gauges prior to each entry.

Actually =doing= the maneuvers, even a this way, does entail some risk,
but the benefit is increased IFR sharpness and skills, which translates
into overall safer IFR flying.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:36:59 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Let's see: I'm uncomfortable doing unusual attitude recovery in IMC. The

For practice I think it's an unnecessary added risk and really adds
nothing that you can't do under the hood.

>> accident record shows this to be probably the top killer of IR pilots.

I'm not so sure about that, but I don't know.

>
>I think this is a simpleminded use of statistics, and suggest (avec
>caveat) that an examination of -why- it is the top killer (if in fact it
>is; I don't know this) would be called for. I speculate:
>
>1: the unusual attitude came as a surprise,

Many things can come as surprises, but the only way an unusual
attitude should come as a surprise is either extreme turbulence, or
lack of attention.

On one of my early flights as a student in IMC, I ended up in an
unusual attitude. ( I let the bank in a descending turn get too steep
and away we went) The instructor never said a word. He just sat there
and waited for me to recover which I did. Certainly he would have
taken over had things (or I) appeared to be coming unglued, but it was
little different than a VFR recovery. You do have to learn that both
the DG and AI are quite likely to be unreliable during and for a
little while after an unusual attitude recovery.

>2: it came as a result of an instrument failure (such as vacuum) and

Vacuum failures can catch even experienced pilots as the AI very
slooooly rolls over and plays dead. Slow enough that the pilot has a
tendency to follow it unless his/her instrument scan catches it right
away. You'd think it'd be easy to catch, but if you are bouncing
around with the resultant erratic instruments bounces as well, the
failure may be pronounced before the differences in the scan become
pronounced enough to spot. Still, although it may result in the
necessity of an unusual attitude recovery, with altitude it should be
relatively easy.

>subsequent lack of partial panel chops,

That is important.

>3: it came about single pilot

It should not be much of a problem for a *proficient* pilot. Notice I
didn't say current.

>4: the pilot was not sharp at recovery (or even IMC skills)
>and/or

Which was my case.

>5: it came about with a low ceiling, allowing no room for VFR recovery.

We had lots of altitude.

>
>Practicing unusual attitude recovery, deliberately, in IMC, with a high
>ceiling, and with a CFII, would address all of these conditions except
>instrument failure. That last condition could be addressed by checking
>the gauges prior to each entry.

Actually... that is probably a no. It is quite easy to cause the gyros
to tumble in an unusual attitude, or recovery. You don't have to roll
much beyond 60 degrees for that to happen. I've been 90 degreed by
the weather quite a few times and it usually takes the AI and DG a bit
to recover. I always figure an unusual attitude recovery IMC or under
the hood is going to be partial panel as those are the only
instruments at that time I really trust even if my scan does tell me
they all agree.

>
>Actually =doing= the maneuvers, even a this way, does entail some risk,
>but the benefit is increased IFR sharpness and skills, which translates
>into overall safer IFR flying.

Most of this can be done under the hood with an instructor, or safety
pilot who is intimately familiar with the airplane and its
requirements and is probably a lot safer. I'd not want to be doing
unusual attitude recovery in IMC unless I was very proficient and I
tend to be pretty laid back and am very familiar with my plane and
just how far it can go before complaining or trying to bite back..

I really don't see much of an advantage to actually doing stalls and
unusual attitude recovery in IMC compared to under the hood. Besides
if the worst does happen and your screw up under the hood there should
be someone in the right seat who can help.

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

[Jose]

> Most of this can be done under the hood with an instructor, or safety
> pilot who is intimately familiar with the airplane and its
> requirements and is probably a lot safer.

It's different in the clag. Hoodwork is helpful, but actual can be an
eye-opener.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:36:59 GMT, Jose >
> wrote:
>
>>> Let's see: I'm uncomfortable doing unusual attitude recovery in IMC. The
>
> For practice I think it's an unnecessary added risk and really adds
> nothing that you can't do under the hood.
>
>>> accident record shows this to be probably the top killer of IR pilots.
>
> I'm not so sure about that, but I don't know.

In combining the latest Nall Report (which does more to report by aircraft
type) and the data from the ASF's Beech Safety Report (which is more a
comparison of Beech models but also of IR vs non-IR pilots), it _appears_
the biggest killer of IR pilots is flight into thunderstorms during IMC and
loss of control while maneauvering in IMC (combined factors???...I'm not a
statistician, nor a "****house lawyer" :~) ).

I'd be intereted in seeing a report that sifts the data out more directly
than trying to extrapolate multiple sources.

<snip>

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Roger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:36:59 GMT, Jose >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Let's see: I'm uncomfortable doing unusual attitude recovery in IMC. The
>>
>>For practice I think it's an unnecessary added risk and really adds
>>nothing that you can't do under the hood.
>>
>>
>>>>accident record shows this to be probably the top killer of IR pilots.
>>
>>I'm not so sure about that, but I don't know.
>
>
> In combining the latest Nall Report (which does more to report by aircraft
> type) and the data from the ASF's Beech Safety Report (which is more a
> comparison of Beech models but also of IR vs non-IR pilots), it _appears_
> the biggest killer of IR pilots is flight into thunderstorms during IMC and
> loss of control while maneauvering in IMC (combined factors???...I'm not a
> statistician, nor a "****house lawyer" :~) ).


Which has nothing to do with the point being discussed which was
PRACTICE maneuvers with an instructor. I'd argue that if we did more
practice in actual we'd have fewer accidents in actual. Although,
flying into a thunderstorm is as much an error in judgement as it is a
measure of flying ability.


> I'd be intereted in seeing a report that sifts the data out more directly
> than trying to extrapolate multiple sources.

I agree. I've never seen such data, unfortunately.

Matt

[Judah]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in
:

> Robert Chambers wrote:
>> Cloud flying is different, a peek is work a thousand crosschecks, you
>> are forced to be honest when you're in the soup, even your peripheral
>> cues disappear.
>
>
> Pretty much everyone will tell you it's actually easier to fly in
> clouds than under the hood. I assume it's because you have the normal
> scope of vision within the cockpit compared to the very limited view
> under the hood. So, while you still can't see the horizon, you can
> see the radios, compass, instruments, etc in the same view.
>
> Then of course there's the added motivation. This is one video game
> you can't afford to lose.


I don't know if I agree completely...

It's much harder to keep your scan going when you want so badly to look out
the window at the beautiful cloud formations!

[Jose]

> It's much harder to keep your scan going when you want so badly to look out
> the window at the beautiful cloud formations!

If you can see beautiful cloud formations, your eyeballs had better be
focused on the HDPD(*) in front of you. Aluminum is everywhere!

*High Definition Plexiglass Display
Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 05:28:32 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Most of this can be done under the hood with an instructor, or safety
>> pilot who is intimately familiar with the airplane and its
>> requirements and is probably a lot safer.
>
>It's different in the clag. Hoodwork is helpful, but actual can be an
>eye-opener.

Yah, it's *usually* a lot easier in the soup than under the hood.
You don't get as many distractions and false clues at to attitude with
maybe the exception of flicker vertigo.

My instructor had me flying in actual right down to minimums to the
point my first solo trip after getting the rating was right down to
minimums. I was expecting I'd have to go over and shoot the ILS at
MBS as most of the area was down to about 200 feet, but about 3 mile
sout it opened up like flying down a inverted canyon about 2 miles
wide, about 4 long, and about 600 high. (MDA is about 500 AGL)

I was far more proficient then than I am now. I need to go spend some
time under the hood and take an IPC refresher.

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

>
>Jose

[Roger]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 07:13:37 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:36:59 GMT, Jose >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Let's see: I'm uncomfortable doing unusual attitude recovery in IMC. The
>>
>> For practice I think it's an unnecessary added risk and really adds
>> nothing that you can't do under the hood.
>>
>>>> accident record shows this to be probably the top killer of IR pilots.
>>
>> I'm not so sure about that, but I don't know.
>
>In combining the latest Nall Report (which does more to report by aircraft
>type) and the data from the ASF's Beech Safety Report (which is more a
>comparison of Beech models but also of IR vs non-IR pilots), it _appears_

It should be interesting once there are more SR-22s out there.
The Bo and Debonair (basically same airplane) are deceptively slippery
when you look at the light wing loading, but slippery they are. You
really need to be on your toes all the time and even more so when on
instruments. That's one of the reasons you seldom see a Bo without a
good autopilot that's flown in IMC.

With the nose down that thing will accelerate to Vne in just a few
seconds even though it has a lighter wing loading than some Cherokees.
Now take a SR-22 which is very slippery and I believe has a higher
wing loading and things can go down that slippery slope in a hurry.

>the biggest killer of IR pilots is flight into thunderstorms during IMC and

Another reason to upgrade to a nice glass panel with satellite RADAR?

>loss of control while maneauvering in IMC (combined factors???...I'm not a

I think if you fly into a thunderstorm the problems with maneuvering
are a given. <:-)) OTOH I've been 90 degreed in the clouds and it was
not much more than a big "bump". However any time you pass into
unusually attitudes it's time to keep at least one eye on the TC in
addition to the AI. Keep little airplane in the TC level and the ball
in the center. Low airspeed, get the nose down to the proper attitude.
High airspeed, power off and *ease* the nose up.

OTOH it seems that "inadvertent" flight into IMC is pretty hard on
instrument rated pilots too. Still, we probably never hear about the
ones who survive.

Be it in IMC or under the hood the key is practice and personally I
would prefer to the unusual attitudes with some one in the right seat
who can see.

>statistician, nor a "****house lawyer" :~) ).

statistics can mean most anything depending on how a study is
conducted and presented. If you don't know the parameters for the
study then the results don't mean a whole lot.

>
>I'd be intereted in seeing a report that sifts the data out more directly
>than trying to extrapolate multiple sources.

And there are so many variables. Time in make and model, total time,
time in the clouds, make and model of aircraft, pilot's attitude
(which is almost impossible to get) Compare high performance retracts
to fixed gear that are not high performance.

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