IFR just 5.4% of the time

[Jay Honeck]

As I sit on the ground, on a day off, not flying due to (yet more)
ice, I thought I'd share these interesting results with the group...

Pilots are always surprised when I tell them that Mary and I have
traveled the country extensively by light plane for 12 years, all
VFR. While it's true that we have to be flexible, my experience has
been that it is rare, indeed, that we must cancel a flight due to IFR
conditions that we would have flown in our Pathfinder (a Piper
Cherokee 235), even with the rating.

Many people have questioned the validity of our experience, wondering
if we scud-run everywhere, or are simply not telling the truth. Well,
in a strange twist of fate, a friend of mine recently completed a
study of ASOS observations from 2002 - 2004 here in Iowa City. His
primary goal was to determine prevailing wind direction while IFR
conditions existed, but he inadvertently turned up some interesting
data that supports my informal observations.

During that two year period, he looked at ~33,000 recorded hourly
observations at KIOW. Just 1765 of those observations were IFR, or
5.4%.

Now, of course, there were an unknown number of marginal VFR
conditions in the data set, but these results pretty well confirm my
(non-scientific) observation that showed us canceling just a handful
of flights each year due to weather, and a truly tiny set that were
canceled due to "soft IFR" conditions that we would feel safe flying
Atlas in. Most of our IFR weather in Iowa City is due to icing, fog,
or thunderstorms, meaning that we're not about to challenge Mother
Nature in a Piper Spam Can anyway.

What does this mean? A few conclusions:

1. VFR conditions prevail roughly 95% of the time, even here in the
rough-and-tumble Midwest.
2. VFR cross country flying can be safely done, with the right
attitude, even in marginal equipment like most of us fly.
3. Obtaining the instrument rating is an excellent exercise, and makes
you a much more precise (and thus proficient) pilot, but unless you're
moving up to heavier metal, it won't help you much.
4. This explains why just half of all pilots have pursued the
instrument rating, and why a very small percentage of instrument rated
pilots are current or proficient. There simply isn't much need for
it, unless you're flying on a schedule, in rated equipment.

My purpose in sharing this is not to belittle those who have obtained
the instrument rating. On the contrary, I am a much better pilot
thanks to the instrument training I have obtained, and intend to
finish up the rating when we have finished the hotel remodeling.

However, I no long harbor the notion that an IR is going to help us
fly more, or longer, or more regularly -- at least not until we can
afford something like a Pilatus.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

On 2/28/2007 12:08:47 PM, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

> Most of our IFR weather in Iowa City is due to icing, fog,
> or thunderstorms, meaning that we're not about to challenge Mother
> Nature in a Piper Spam Can anyway.

Is this your informal observation or that of a weather researcher?


--
Peter

[Jim B]

> -- at least not until we can
> afford something like a Pilatus.

Let me know when you're ready for a PC-12. We'll partner with ya ;)
Jim

[Jay Honeck]

> > Most of our IFR weather in Iowa City is due to icing, fog,
> > or thunderstorms, meaning that we're not about to challenge Mother
> > Nature in a Piper Spam Can anyway.
>
> Is this your informal observation or that of a weather researcher?

Well, I took a few meteorology classes in college... ;-)

No, that's my informal observations, after living here for 9+ years
and spending waaay too much time at the airport...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Let me know when you're ready for a PC-12. We'll partner with ya ;)
> Jim

The cool thing is, a PC-12 is so fast that a multi-state partnership
would actually WORK!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim B]

And haul BOTH our families! :)
Jim

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
s.com...
> > Let me know when you're ready for a PC-12. We'll partner with ya ;)
> > Jim
>
> The cool thing is, a PC-12 is so fast that a multi-state partnership
> would actually WORK!
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Gene Seibel]

On Feb 28, 11:08 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> As I sit on the ground, on a day off, not flying due to (yet more)
> ice, I thought I'd share these interesting results with the group...
>
> Pilots are always surprised when I tell them that Mary and I have
> traveled the country extensively by light plane for 12 years, all
> VFR. While it's true that we have to be flexible, my experience has
> been that it is rare, indeed, that we must cancel a flight due to IFR
> conditions that we would have flown in our Pathfinder (a Piper
> Cherokee 235), even with the rating.

As another VFR pilot I am not surprised.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Jose]

Point made, and it coincides with my observation that most of my IFR
flying ends up in visual conditions.

> Just 1765 of those observations were IFR, or 5.4%.

That's at one airport. To complete a =flight= VFR, both airports have
to be VFR, and so does the intervening space. The further apart the
airports are, the more chance for IFR conditions, but also the more
opportunities to go around them.

> and a truly tiny set that were
> canceled due to "soft IFR" conditions that we
> would feel safe flying Atlas in.

What conditions are those? Sounds like you would be comfortable making
up your own rules. Would you be comfortable letting everyone make up
their own rules?

> However, I no long harbor the notion that an IR is going to help us
> fly more, or longer, or more regularly -- at least not until we can
> afford something like a Pilatus.

That is probably true for your style of flying. (flexible as to time
and destination)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> As another VFR pilot I am not surprised.

I know you're not, Gene -- but you're the exception. You've flown
more cross-country VFR flights than any active pilot I know.

One thing I think the IR *does* give many pilots is the confidence
boost they needed to launch on a truly cross-country flight. The fact
that their enhanced weather-handling ability is largely illusory
(again, unless they're flying a Pilatus) is irrelevant -- the rating
gives them the extra confidence necessary to launch themselves into
the unknown.

"Oz didn't give nuthin' to the Tin Man, that he didn't already
have..."

My observation is that most pilots rarely leave their home state.
Many local pilots rarely leave a five-county area.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > and a truly tiny set that were
> > canceled due to "soft IFR" conditions that we
> > would feel safe flying Atlas in.
>
> What conditions are those? Sounds like you would be comfortable making
> up your own rules. Would you be comfortable letting everyone make up
> their own rules?

Ah, I guess that wasn't clear. That line should read:

"...that were canceled due to 'soft IFR' conditions that we would feel
safe flying Atlas in IF WE HAD THE INSTRUMENT RATING."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

Well, I have just obtained my IR last summer, my experience is limited
but already overwhelmingly positive. Here's why:

> 1. VFR conditions prevail roughly 95% of the time, even here in the
> rough-and-tumble Midwest.

Numbers are lower here in northern Europe, but they are still way above
50 percent. However, that's only partly relevant. The reason: As a
pilot, you don't care about the average. You care about a specific day -
the one day you wanna go. Someone better at math than myself will tell
you exactly what that does to the chances of having VFR weather if you
select not any one day out of 365 but "next Sunday". It changes the odds
mightily! That's not all.

> 2. VFR cross country flying can be safely done, with the right
> attitude, even in marginal equipment like most of us fly.

Well, sure. my experience with the IR however is that you go with so
much more confidence, with so much less fretting about the weather. A
typical IFR flight may be 10 percent in clouds. in the morning, there
are some wisps hanging low in the vicinity. VFR, I'd have to fret about
whether there will come more, whether fog moves in. IFR, i couldn't care
less. And so goes the flight. It's just so much more relaxing from the
first planning stages.

> 3. Obtaining the instrument rating is an excellent exercise, and makes
> you a much more precise (and thus proficient) pilot, but unless you're
> moving up to heavier metal, it won't help you much.

That's just plain wrong. It helps a lot.

> 4. This explains why just half of all pilots have pursued the
> instrument rating, and why a very small percentage of instrument rated
> pilots are current or proficient.

And the numbers for that can be found where?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:08:46 -0800, Jay Honeck wrote:

> Now, of course, there were an unknown number of marginal VFR conditions in
> the data set, but these results pretty well confirm my (non-scientific)
> observation that showed us canceling just a handful of flights each year
> due to weather, and a truly tiny set that were canceled due to "soft IFR"
> conditions that we would feel safe flying Atlas in.

In fact, this does no such thing. That soft IFR could be 94% given the
data you've provided.

Can/would your friend provide the raw data? It would be very interesting
to actually determine the percentages of MVFR, SIFR, IFR, and LIFR. I'm
tempted to see if I can access that same data at the local ASOS.

This would be a fun little analysis, and I don't think the program to do
this would be more than a few minutes of work (the hardest part
possibly being parsing the data, depending upon the format in which it is
provided).

It would also be terrific if he could provide the means whereby he
acquired the data. That might be reusable at other airports.

This could be fun, and we've enough people here that we could get the data
for a lot of different airports.

- Andrew

[Jay Honeck]

> > 4. This explains why just half of all pilots have pursued the
> > instrument rating, and why a very small percentage of instrument rated
> > pilots are current or proficient.
>
> And the numbers for that can be found where?

First, Thomas, let me congratulate you on the civil tone of your
response. It's quite pleasant, thank you!

The low number of current/proficient IFR pilots has been discussed by
Richard Collins in Flying magazine (I don't remember the source of his
data, sorry), and it's backed up by my personal observations. After
five years of catering to pilots at the hotel, of being our AOPA
Airport Support Network Volunteer, and of running our airport advocacy
group, "Friends of Iowa City Airport", I know one helluva lot of
pilots -- and I can count just TWO that are both current and
proficient instrument pilots.

(Remember, I'm restricting this to Spam-can pilots like us. Obviously
our commercially rated pilot guests are a different breed
altogether...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> This could be fun, and we've enough people here that we could get the data
> for a lot of different airports.

Whew! Clearly your idea of "fun" differs from mine, Andrew -- but
I'll see what I can find out...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> "...that were canceled due to 'soft IFR' conditions that we would feel
> safe flying Atlas in IF WE HAD THE INSTRUMENT RATING."

Ok. Big difference. :)

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 28, 9:08 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> 3. Obtaining the instrument rating is an excellent exercise, and makes
> you a much more precise (and thus proficient) pilot, but unless you're
> moving up to heavier metal, it won't help you much.

I'm not sure that's true. The instrument rating provides a higher
level or reliability in your family travel. Flying to the coast for
the weekend VFR may mean having to sit around until noon until the
weather clears and having to leave before dark. Even though the % of
days that are IFR are low, its the day that you are stuck on the
ground that affects you.
I've only had to cancel a very small number of trips because the IFR
was not duable (usually ice). However, I've had lots of trips that
would have been canceled VFR but 0.1 hours of IFR made the trip work.

-Robert, CFII

[Jim B]

I agree with Andrew, I'd love to be able to download historic ASOS
observations for any airport. Even for non-computer programers, a few
minutes parsing with a spread sheet program could yield all kinds of
interesting things!

Jay, please let us know how your friend obtained the data.
Thanks
Jim

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > This could be fun, and we've enough people here that we could get the
data
> > for a lot of different airports.
>
> Whew! Clearly your idea of "fun" differs from mine, Andrew -- but
> I'll see what I can find out...
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Peter R.]

On 2/28/2007 1:01:29 PM, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

> and I can count just TWO that are both current and
> proficient instrument pilots.

Did you count me into that mix? I met you last summer. :) Flying IFR twice
per week since I met you, I am definitely both current and proficient.

--
Peter

[Thomas Borchert]

Robert,

> I've only had to cancel a very small number of trips because the IFR
> was not duable (usually ice). However, I've had lots of trips that
> would have been canceled VFR but 0.1 hours of IFR made the trip work.
>

Exactly. Plus, you just don't have to fret weather decisions as much.
All this doesn't mean at all you're flying in clouds for hours or
approaches to the minimums.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> First, Thomas, let me congratulate you on the civil tone of your
> response. It's quite pleasant, thank you!

And now you expect me to congratulate you on being condescending and
arrogant without any provocation and totally out of the blue? Why on
earth are you doing that? It could have been an interesting discussion.
Sad...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter R.]

On 2/28/2007 1:40:04 PM, "Jim B" wrote:

> I agree with Andrew, I'd love to be able to download historic ASOS
> observations for any airport. Even for non-computer programers, a few
> minutes parsing with a spread sheet program could yield all kinds of
> interesting things!

You might be able to get some information from the METAR archive websites.
Here's one that includes all stations within a US state going back to 1998:

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/sa_parse-u.html

Or, by individual airport:

http://www.uswx.com/us/stn/?code=c&n=1440&stn=kdpa

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

On 2/28/2007 12:08:47 PM, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

> However, I no long harbor the notion that an IR is going to help us
> fly more, or longer, or more regularly -- at least not until we can
> afford something like a Pilatus.

Now that I have several hundred hours since my instrument rating, I would
never trade it in for a VFR-only rating.

As someone who uses my Bonanza to commute weekly to work and to carry Angel
Flight patients at least monthly, I can attest to the power of an instrument
rating, at least when speaking of flying in the Northeast US.

In the end, it all boils down to where you are based, where you fly often,
and if you have a reason to be at your destination. From the weather I have
seen there, I agree that an IFR rating for those based out of an Arizona
airport would be difficult to maintain without a lot of safety
pilot/under-the-hood type flights.

--
Peter

[Jim B]

Thanks Peter!
I've used some of the historic weather websites in the past to "predict"
what the weather may be like during a specific week or month that I had
planned on visiting. Of course, this all has to be taken with a grain of
salt or a voluminous amount of additional weather data!

Interesting side note: My last long cross country trip departed Feb 10 KSTE
(Wisconsin) -KEYW (Key West, FL) Depart KEYW Feb 16 - KSTE 19 hours
hobbs, 1 hour actual IFR = 5.26% IFR. However there were IFR days before,
during, and after.
Jim

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> As I sit on the ground, on a day off, not flying due to (yet more)
> ice, I thought I'd share these interesting results with the group...
>
> Pilots are always surprised when I tell them that Mary and I have
> traveled the country extensively by light plane for 12 years, all
> VFR. While it's true that we have to be flexible, my experience has
> been that it is rare, indeed, that we must cancel a flight due to IFR
> conditions that we would have flown in our Pathfinder (a Piper
> Cherokee 235), even with the rating.
>
> Many people have questioned the validity of our experience, wondering
> if we scud-run everywhere, or are simply not telling the truth. Well,
> in a strange twist of fate, a friend of mine recently completed a
> study of ASOS observations from 2002 - 2004 here in Iowa City. His
> primary goal was to determine prevailing wind direction while IFR
> conditions existed, but he inadvertently turned up some interesting
> data that supports my informal observations.
>
> During that two year period, he looked at ~33,000 recorded hourly
> observations at KIOW. Just 1765 of those observations were IFR, or
> 5.4%.
>
> Now, of course, there were an unknown number of marginal VFR
> conditions in the data set, but these results pretty well confirm my
> (non-scientific) observation that showed us canceling just a handful
> of flights each year due to weather, and a truly tiny set that were
> canceled due to "soft IFR" conditions that we would feel safe flying
> Atlas in. Most of our IFR weather in Iowa City is due to icing, fog,
> or thunderstorms, meaning that we're not about to challenge Mother
> Nature in a Piper Spam Can anyway.
>
> What does this mean? A few conclusions:
>
> 1. VFR conditions prevail roughly 95% of the time, even here in the
> rough-and-tumble Midwest.
<<<big snip>>>
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

If you're a fun flyer, maybe work for yourself, and don't have a hard and
fast schedule you need to follow, being VFR only ain't a bad thing. On the
other hand, if you need to get somewhere on a schedule, and get back on
schedule, VFR only doesn't get it done.

Your stats showed only 5% or thereabouts IFR weather. Fair enough. So, 5% of
the time, you won't be able to get in or out due to IFR conditions. I'd
venture that there is another 5% where marginal VFR exists and you wouldn't
venture too far from home in those conditions. So, now we're at a 10% no-go
rate.

Extrapolate that to a destination location, which would be no-go 10% of the
time, and you're down to an 80% "go" probability, assuming there isn't
something nasty between here and there. If the X/C is of any distance, there
is probably at least a 5% chance that there is weather bad enough that you
wouldn't cross it VFR. So, now we're down to a 75% chance of launching on a
cross country trip.

The return trip a day or three later has the same weather odds, so if you
multiply the 75% chance of a good trip out by a 75% chance of a good trip
back, the odds of meeting a schedule on a round trip X/C are about 56%...

Time of year and where you are based play a large role here. Presumably if
you live in Arizona you don't see much IFR. On the other hand, on the East
side of the Mississippi, the winter can bring days and even weeks of
marginal weather, and the spring and summer bring fronts and convective
activity that isn't to be trifled with.

KB
(A VFR only pilot with a VFR only airplane...)

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 28, 10:54 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > I've only had to cancel a very small number of trips because the IFR
> > was not duable (usually ice). However, I've had lots of trips that
> > would have been canceled VFR but 0.1 hours of IFR made the trip work.
>
> Exactly. Plus, you just don't have to fret weather decisions as much.
> All this doesn't mean at all you're flying in clouds for hours or
> approaches to the minimums.

Very true. The VFR pilot stresses about his trip before hand more
often. The IFR rating is worth it even if it just means you are more
confident the trip will go as scheduled.

-Robert

[JB]

Interesting observations and discussion. I am instrument rated but my
other partner is not. We live and fly up and down the East Coast from
the DC area. He has flown several times down to the Bahamas and back
VFR in our Warrior. For such a long trip I have commented on his
"luck" in making it thru several times without getting grounded. But
maybe its some of those VFR - IFR percentages Jay mentions. I've
never tried to run the comparative stats here.

All I know is that a) when I really want to get somewhere because I
have reservations in some hotel or because I'm visiting family on some
holiday, I don't want to take a chance that the stats will work
against me. And b) as others have noted, I am a MUCH better pilot
than I was before I went thru the instrument training.

Despite what the weather stats may say, I am still a firm believer in
the saying "Having a VFR ticket makes flying fun. Having an IFR
ticket makes it practical."

--Jeff

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:57:15 -0500, Peter R. wrote:


> You might be able to get some information from the METAR archive websites.
> Here's one that includes all stations within a US state going back to
> 1998:
>
> http://vortex.plymouth.edu/sa_parse-u.html

Can anyone see a way to get a range of reports from this? I suppose I
could write a little script to query this for each observation over a
block of time, but that seems impolite.

> Or, by individual airport:
>
> http://www.uswx.com/us/stn/?code=c&n=1440&stn=kdpa

This gives a maximum of a few days (1440 observations), as far as I can
see. Can anyone see a way to get past that?

Thanks...
- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:03:14 -0800, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> This could be fun, and we've enough people here that we could get the
>> data for a lot of different airports.
>
> Whew! Clearly your idea of "fun" differs from mine, Andrew

Probably. But then, I'm IRed and current <laugh>.

-- but I'll
> see what I can find out...

Thanks...

Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:26:17 -0800, Robert M. Gary wrote:

>> Exactly. Plus, you just don't have to fret weather decisions as much.

Depending upon how you mean this, I'm not sure I agree. I look at the
weather just as much as a VFR pilot. I just look at it a little
differently.

In a way, being VFR-only is *less* work. "Nope, I cannot fly in that" is
a quicker decision than for someone that IFRs.

[...]

> The IFR rating is worth it even if it just means you are more confident
> the trip will go as scheduled.

As long as one doesn't expect it to yield certainty, I agree with this.

I recall a funny realization when I learned to drive. I was excited to be
able to get places far more quickly than I could by bike. But, once I was
driving, I was immediately even more frustrated by the travel time needed
to get from A to B.

I realized that I'd unconsciously expected travel time to drop to zero.

I also remember being stuck under a ridiculous cloud once, pre-IR. It was
just barely illegal to t/o and fly the perhaps mile or less to get clear
of it (and would have been legal has the airport had no approach {8^).
Everywhere around us was clear sky.

Even the cloud was embarrassed.

- Andrew

[Peter R.]

On 2/28/2007 2:16:48 PM, "Jim B" wrote:

> Interesting side note: My last long cross country trip departed Feb 10 KSTE
> (Wisconsin) -KEYW (Key West, FL) Depart KEYW Feb 16 - KSTE 19 hours
> hobbs, 1 hour actual IFR = 5.26% IFR. However there were IFR days before,
> during, and after.

In contrast, my last long IFR flight was the second week of January this
year, from Buffalo, NY, to Miami, FL, for a business meeting on a Thursday
and back again the following Saturday. About 15 hours total time. The first
day I was actual IMC for the entire first leg of 3.5 hours, with an approach
to minimums at my fuel stop in Tennessee (thanks to a nasty storm off to the
east over North Carolina), and 2.5 hours of the second leg.

On the return trip I estimate being in IMC probably 2 hours of the total 7
hours. This works out to IMC about 53% of the total trip.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

On 2/28/2007 2:45:53 PM, Andrew Gideon wrote:

> This gives a maximum of a few days (1440 observations), as far as I can
> see. Can anyone see a way to get past that?

Did you overtype the 1440 with another number, say 5000, and then click the
"Get OBS" button?

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

On 2/28/2007 3:10:04 PM, "Peter R." wrote:

>
> Did you overtype the 1440 with another number, say 5000, and then click the
> "Get OBS" button?

Disregard. I had failed to see that it would replace whatever I typed in with
1440, as if that is the limit.

--
Peter

[Jim B]

I tried 20,000 and it defaulted to 1440
Jim

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 2/28/2007 2:45:53 PM, Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> > This gives a maximum of a few days (1440 observations), as far as I can
> > see. Can anyone see a way to get past that?
>
> Did you overtype the 1440 with another number, say 5000, and then click
the
> "Get OBS" button?
>
> --
> Peter

[Jim B]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> I realized that I'd unconsciously expected travel time to drop to zero.

Ahhh.... the famous "Greed for Speed" disease! This happens when we step up
to faster airplanes also! :) After sitting 3-4 hours in the Aztec, my wife
always teases me that she want's a VLJ so we can get places faster. My
response is always "You find a way to pay for it, fuel it, insure it, and
maintain it, and I'll fly it." That usually slows her down.

One thing we've learned by running "dream numbers" is how truly expensive it
becomes if you want to fly faster than 200ktas with a full fuel payload of
over 1000 lbs.

Jim

[Tony]

For what it's worth, flying out of KBED (Hanscom Field, near Boston),
my log book shows 31% of my total time in IMC. These flights were
mostly done for business reasons (yeah, and I held board of directors
meetings by looking in a mirror) and so were on a schedule mostly
established before a reliable forcast for the ETD was available.
("Yeah, Jake, I'll fly into Rochester next Tuesday, let's plan on
meeting about 11 that morning").

It's also true that about 10%of those trips were cancelled ("Hey Jake,
there are embedded thunderstorms between here and there, let's
postpone the meeting until tomorrow.")

A further truth: it is a rare cross country flight, and I can't
remember the last nighttime flight, that I did not fly under IFR. It's
simply a LOT easier to do it that way.




On Feb 28, 12:08 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> As I sit on the ground, on a day off, not flying due to (yet more)
> ice, I thought I'd share these interesting results with the group...
>
> Pilots are always surprised when I tell them that Mary and I have
> traveled the country extensively by light plane for 12 years, all
> VFR. While it's true that we have to be flexible, my experience has
> been that it is rare, indeed, that we must cancel a flight due to IFR
> conditions that we would have flown in our Pathfinder (a Piper
> Cherokee 235), even with the rating.
>
> Many people have questioned the validity of our experience, wondering
> if we scud-run everywhere, or are simply not telling the truth. Well,
> in a strange twist of fate, a friend of mine recently completed a
> study of ASOS observations from 2002 - 2004 here in Iowa City. His
> primary goal was to determine prevailing wind direction while IFR
> conditions existed, but he inadvertently turned up some interesting
> data that supports my informal observations.
>
> During that two year period, he looked at ~33,000 recorded hourly
> observations at KIOW. Just 1765 of those observations were IFR, or
> 5.4%.
>
> Now, of course, there were an unknown number of marginal VFR
> conditions in the data set, but these results pretty well confirm my
> (non-scientific) observation that showed us canceling just a handful
> of flights each year due to weather, and a truly tiny set that were
> canceled due to "soft IFR" conditions that we would feel safe flying
> Atlas in. Most of our IFR weather in Iowa City is due to icing, fog,
> or thunderstorms, meaning that we're not about to challenge Mother
> Nature in a Piper Spam Can anyway.
>
> What does this mean? A few conclusions:
>
> 1. VFR conditions prevail roughly 95% of the time, even here in the
> rough-and-tumble Midwest.
> 2. VFR cross country flying can be safely done, with the right
> attitude, even in marginal equipment like most of us fly.
> 3. Obtaining the instrument rating is an excellent exercise, and makes
> you a much more precise (and thus proficient) pilot, but unless you're
> moving up to heavier metal, it won't help you much.
> 4. This explains why just half of all pilots have pursued the
> instrument rating, and why a very small percentage of instrument rated
> pilots are current or proficient. There simply isn't much need for
> it, unless you're flying on a schedule, in rated equipment.
>
> My purpose in sharing this is not to belittle those who have obtained
> the instrument rating. On the contrary, I am a much better pilot
> thanks to the instrument training I have obtained, and intend to
> finish up the rating when we have finished the hotel remodeling.
>
> However, I no long harbor the notion that an IR is going to help us
> fly more, or longer, or more regularly -- at least not until we can
> afford something like a Pilatus.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > First, Thomas, let me congratulate you on the civil tone of your
> > response. It's quite pleasant, thank you!
>
> And now you expect me to congratulate you on being condescending and
> arrogant without any provocation and totally out of the blue? Why on
> earth are you doing that? It could have been an interesting discussion.
> Sad...

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. Your method of posting is usually
so confrontational that I truly was thankful that you had restricted
your remarks and opinions to aviation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Exactly. Plus, you just don't have to fret weather decisions as much.

That's really the reason for the IR, in my opinion. It's not that
you'll actually fly a whole lot more, but you'll not worry about those
clouds building "over there" as much. In the end, that is why Mary
and I will eventually get the rating.

Of course, your confidence level should be directly related to your
currency and proficiency. If my observations prove anything, it's
that most instrument-rated private pilots don't use the rating enough
to be proficient.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> On the other hand, on the East
> side of the Mississippi, the winter can bring days and even weeks of
> marginal weather, and the spring and summer bring fronts and convective
> activity that isn't to be trifled with.

While your stats may be correct (although my experiences don't bear
them out) what you are not factoring in is the number of days out of
those IFR 5.4% when conditions would stop me from flying **even if I
were instrument rated **, because of my aircraft.

Here in the Midwest, a very large number of the crap-weather days
would preclude flying in Atlas, regardless of rating.

Today is a perfect example. It's actually been mostly VFR here all
day, with periods of "soft" IFR sprinkled in -- but nothing less than
a King Air is flying, because of ice.

Doesn't matter of your the Ace of the Base -- if you're flying a
Cherokee in February, you're gonna be sitting on the ground a lot.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > and I can count just TWO that are both current and
> > proficient instrument pilots.
>
> Did you count me into that mix? I met you last summer. :) Flying IFR twice
> per week since I met you, I am definitely both current and proficient.

Yep.

(Of course, I tell that to *everyone*... ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Kyle Boatright" > writes:

> > What does this mean? A few conclusions:
> > 1. VFR conditions prevail roughly 95% of the time, even here in the
> > rough-and-tumble Midwest.
>
> Your stats showed only 5% or thereabouts IFR weather. Fair enough. So, 5% of
> the time, you won't be able to get in or out due to IFR conditions. I'd
> venture that there is another 5% where marginal VFR exists and you wouldn't
> venture too far from home in those conditions. So, now we're at a 10% no-go
> rate. [...]

Interesting calculations. One extra factor to consider. Chances are
that that 5% figure was calculated on a 24-hour basis, when instead it
would be appropriate to weight it for the daylight or nearly-daylight
hours, when more flying is likely to take place.

- FChE

[Peter R.]

On 2/28/2007 4:00:54 PM, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> > and I can count just TWO that are both current and
>> > proficient instrument pilots.
>>
>> Did you count me into that mix? I met you last summer. :) Flying IFR twice
>> per week since I met you, I am definitely both current and proficient.
>
> Yep.

So you only know one other IFR-rated pilot out of your "helluv a lot of
pilots" group who is both current and proficient? I find that difficult to
believe.

--
Peter

[Bob Noel]

In article m>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > As another VFR pilot I am not surprised.
>
> I know you're not, Gene -- but you're the exception. You've flown
> more cross-country VFR flights than any active pilot I know.
>
> One thing I think the IR *does* give many pilots is the confidence
> boost they needed to launch on a truly cross-country flight.

A current instrument rated pilot also has more safety margin when
flying in less than CAVU. When I'm current (in a practical way, not
just FAA recent experience), I have more options than you do
(if we ignore the fact that Atlas can fly a bit higher and faster than
my cherokee).

> The fact
> that their enhanced weather-handling ability is largely illusory
> (again, unless they're flying a Pilatus) is irrelevant --

say what? You think me and my cherokee can't handle IMC?
IMC isn't just ice and thunderstorms.

I guess the northeast gets more IMC days than Iowa.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[M[_1_]]

I heard that the corn oil STC is about to be approved on the PC-12.
Corn oil is about $1/gallon cheaper than Jet-A in Iowa, right?

:-))


On Feb 28, 9:27 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>
> The cool thing is, a PC-12 is so fast that a multi-state partnership
> would actually WORK!
>

[Peter R.]

On 2/28/2007 4:39:47 PM, "Jim B" wrote:

> Right now I'm confident that I'm proficient in all areas of departure,
> climb, cruise, decent, and arrival procedures and also proficient to shoot
> most precision and non precision approaches down to minimums in non
> mountainous terrain, both in radar and non radar environments.

Wait a minute... you know Jay, too, so you are the second of the two
instrument-rated pilots he knows. That means there are no pilots in Iowa City
who are proficient and current. :)

--
Peter

[Jim B]

I always say currency is black and white while proficiency is always grey.
A current instrument pilot must be aware of his level of proficiency.

Right now I'm confident that I'm proficient in all areas of departure,
climb, cruise, decent, and arrival procedures and also proficient to shoot
most precision and non precision approaches down to minimums in non
mountainous terrain, both in radar and non radar environments. Some times I
don't feel confident that I am as proficient as that, and when not, my
weather minimums go up, my landing airports get more runways and better
services, and the entire flight's acceptable level of complexity goes down.

Many times an IR will give you more options, but with those options comes an
increased responsibility to know your current level of ability and
proficiency.

Jim

[Jim B]

Lol! I know nothing :)
Jim

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:


> 1. VFR conditions prevail roughly 95% of the time, even here in the
> rough-and-tumble Midwest.

Rough and tumble? You were joking, right? The weather in the northeast
is much worse then the midwest.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> As I sit on the ground, on a day off, not flying due to (yet more)
> ice, I thought I'd share these interesting results with the group...

Here is my way of looking at it. I've flown 421.2 hours since getting
my instrument rating. Of that, 23.9 was simulated instrument for
training so I'll exclude that. A lot was local flying, but I don't have
any easy way to exclude that so I won't, but that would change the
numbers even further.

I have flown 95.7 hours of actual. So the percentage of my flights that
were in actual is 95.7/397.3 = 24%. And these are mostly flights I
couldn't have made VFR. The percentage would be even higher if I was
counting only my cross country flight time, but that would take a while
to figure. Even so, 24% is a significant increase in dispatch rate.
And trust me, when I was flying on business, it seemed that the bad
weather always occurred on a day I needed to be at a meeting 500 miles away!

So, I think in the northeast your 9% rate is way too low. And it is
probably way too high for the southwest!


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>4. This explains why just half of all pilots have pursued the
>>>instrument rating, and why a very small percentage of instrument rated
>>>pilots are current or proficient.
>>
>>And the numbers for that can be found where?
>
>
> First, Thomas, let me congratulate you on the civil tone of your
> response. It's quite pleasant, thank you!
>
> The low number of current/proficient IFR pilots has been discussed by
> Richard Collins in Flying magazine (I don't remember the source of his
> data, sorry), and it's backed up by my personal observations. After
> five years of catering to pilots at the hotel, of being our AOPA
> Airport Support Network Volunteer, and of running our airport advocacy
> group, "Friends of Iowa City Airport", I know one helluva lot of
> pilots -- and I can count just TWO that are both current and
> proficient instrument pilots.

I think that is somewhat unique to your location. Where I live, a
1,000' ceiling above the airport barely clears some of the nearby
mountains. So, while you could fly all over Iowa with 1,000', I
couldn't get out of the pattern. I'm exaggerating just slightly, but a
1.000' ceiling above ELM isn't very comfortable for flying out of the
vicinity of the airport.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jim B wrote:

> I always say currency is black and white while proficiency is always grey.
> A current instrument pilot must be aware of his level of proficiency.
>
> Right now I'm confident that I'm proficient in all areas of departure,
> climb, cruise, decent, and arrival procedures and also proficient to shoot
> most precision and non precision approaches down to minimums in non
> mountainous terrain, both in radar and non radar environments. Some times I
> don't feel confident that I am as proficient as that, and when not, my
> weather minimums go up, my landing airports get more runways and better
> services, and the entire flight's acceptable level of complexity goes down.
>
> Many times an IR will give you more options, but with those options comes an
> increased responsibility to know your current level of ability and
> proficiency.
>
> Jim
>
>

I agree. I'm current. I'm proficient, other than GPS and NDB
approaches. However, I'm not as skilled as I'd like to be and as I was
when I owned an airplane and flew IFR in IMC and into large airports
(PHL, BOS, BWI, etc.) on a regular basis. I'd not feel real comfortable
flying into a busy airport in IMC at the moment, but flying into a small
airport wouldn't be a problem.

I used to get bored flying an ILS as the Skylane was so slow I thought
I'd never get to the ground. Now, I still have to concentrate to make
sure I'm staying ahead of the airplane. I'm safe, but I'm not at the
level where I can almost fly an approach subconciously.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Peter R. wrote:

> On 2/28/2007 4:39:47 PM, "Jim B" wrote:
>
>
>>Right now I'm confident that I'm proficient in all areas of departure,
>>climb, cruise, decent, and arrival procedures and also proficient to shoot
>>most precision and non precision approaches down to minimums in non
>>mountainous terrain, both in radar and non radar environments.
>
>
> Wait a minute... you know Jay, too, so you are the second of the two
> instrument-rated pilots he knows. That means there are no pilots in Iowa City
> who are proficient and current. :)
>

With their weather and flat land, there is no need to be current and
proficient! :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
>>I've only had to cancel a very small number of trips because the IFR
>>was not duable (usually ice). However, I've had lots of trips that
>>would have been canceled VFR but 0.1 hours of IFR made the trip work.
>>
>
>
> Exactly. Plus, you just don't have to fret weather decisions as much.
> All this doesn't mean at all you're flying in clouds for hours or
> approaches to the minimums.
>

Then again, it may! I flew my niece back to college one day (from ELM
to SGH) when the entire east coast was socked in. The ceilings were
300-600 feet the entire trip which took nearly 4 hours on the way out
and 2.5 on the way back. And the clouds were solid to 20,000 feet. I
flew out at 8,000 if memory serves and back at 7,000 and I could barely
see the wingtips the entire flight. It was smooth as silk however. An
easy IFR flight that would have not been possible VFR. The alternative
was 9 hours of driving...


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Peter R. wrote:

> On 2/28/2007 12:08:47 PM, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>
>>However, I no long harbor the notion that an IR is going to help us
>>fly more, or longer, or more regularly -- at least not until we can
>>afford something like a Pilatus.
>
>
> Now that I have several hundred hours since my instrument rating, I would
> never trade it in for a VFR-only rating.
>
> As someone who uses my Bonanza to commute weekly to work and to carry Angel
> Flight patients at least monthly, I can attest to the power of an instrument
> rating, at least when speaking of flying in the Northeast US.
>
> In the end, it all boils down to where you are based, where you fly often,
> and if you have a reason to be at your destination. From the weather I have
> seen there, I agree that an IFR rating for those based out of an Arizona
> airport would be difficult to maintain without a lot of safety
> pilot/under-the-hood type flights.
>

I agree, Peter, you and I aren't in Kansas ... er, Iowa, anymore! :-)

Matt

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

After having lived and flown in both regions, I'd say the weather is much
worse in the Midwest. The extremes of temperature are much greater in the
Midwest, and the winds tend to be a lot stronger.

Icing- ever fly over Lake Michigan? Much worse than the lift over the
Adirondacks and Green Mountains. Thunderstorms?- When was the last time New
Hampshire had a tornado?

Subjectively, I'd say the weather in the Midwest is a lot more challenging
than in the Northeast.

On the original thread, having the IFR rating just provides the extra
comfort level- why scud run when you can pop through a few thousand feet of
clouds to CAVU on top?

Besides, doing all of the approaches, especially with the VNAV and LDP
approaches, is fun. Tracking an NDB course outbound with a howling
quartering tail wind can be real fun- then do it at night in IMC with some
turbulence. It's all fun.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote

> I guess the northeast gets more IMC days than Iowa.

WithOUT a DOUbt! <g>

I _"think"_ it might have something to do with that big cold pond just to
the east of you! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Alan Gerber]

Jose > wrote:
> That's at one airport. To complete a =flight= VFR, both airports have
> to be VFR, and so does the intervening space.

And so does the forecast, from departure through scheduled return.

> What conditions are those? Sounds like you would be comfortable making
> up your own rules. Would you be comfortable letting everyone make up
> their own rules?

Well, this isn't what you were asking (and Jay's response clarified his
intent), but, yes, well all make up our own rules. They're called
"personal minimums", and we all have them. They do have to be at or above
the FAA's minima, of course ...

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> That's really the reason for the IR, in my opinion. It's not that
> you'll actually fly a whole lot more, but you'll not worry about those
> clouds building "over there" as much. In the end, that is why Mary
> and I will eventually get the rating.

I agree fully! Especially in the less capable planes we fly, that's the
way to look at IFR, IMHO.

> Of course, your confidence level should be directly related to your
> currency and proficiency. If my observations prove anything, it's
> that most instrument-rated private pilots don't use the rating enough
> to be proficient.

There's truth to that. OTOH, punching through 1000 feet of not-too-low
stratus doesn't require that much proficiency. It's really a matter of
adequate personal minimums.

FWIW, flight planning becomes much easier with IFR. You just don't worry
about airspace anymore.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Doesn't matter of your the Ace of the Base -- if you're flying a
> Cherokee in February, you're gonna be sitting on the ground a lot.
>

Well, I'm not sure I agree. More often than not, you will have the
required "out" even with a danger of ice present.

The other day I made a 1.5 hour flight in the Tobago that would not
have been possible VFR - or not really well.

The forecast for the departure area with an ILS-equipped airport near
was stratus from 700 feet with tops at 2500 to 3500, visibility 4000
meters below the clouds. Serious scud running would have been required
VFR, something I would want to do, even though it would have been legal
in Germany. Freezing level at 3500 to 4000. Minimum enroute altitude
4000, MRVA 2000. Icing forecast in clouds above freezing level.

So with bad luck, we might just have ended up in icy clouds for a very
short time during climb-out. But we could have returned on the ILS
below the freezing level, so we had an out.

In reality, we came out of clouds at 1800 and flew the first hour in
the sunshine. After that some cumulus clouds popped up to 8000. So we
climbed on top. We entered some cloud briefly in the climb and picked
up very light trace ice. So flying in the clouds at our previous
altitude of 5000 definitely wouldn't have worked.

At the destination, the cloud cover became scattered to few at 1000
AGL, so we could make the landing at the VFR airfield as planned,
picking our way around those. Had that not worked, there was an ILS-
and rental-car-equipped airport 20 nm away reporting CAVOK.

Winter IFR is often quite doable.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> I
> flew out at 8,000 if memory serves and back at 7,000 and I could barely
> see the wingtips the entire flight. It was smooth as silk however. An
> easy IFR flight that would have not been possible VFR.
>

Nice!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Then again, it may! I flew my niece back to college one day (from ELM
> to SGH) when the entire east coast was socked in. The ceilings were
> 300-600 feet the entire trip which took nearly 4 hours on the way out
> and 2.5 on the way back. And the clouds were solid to 20,000 feet. I
> flew out at 8,000 if memory serves and back at 7,000 and I could barely
> see the wingtips the entire flight. It was smooth as silk however. An
> easy IFR flight that would have not been possible VFR. The alternative
> was 9 hours of driving...


Back when I was flying cancelled checks, I used to take off every morning into a
low overcast from CLT (Monday through Friday), then cruise through a broken
layer to RDU, followed by an ILS to minimums. The crud would burn off later in
the morning/ This went on for several days at a time through the late summer
and early fall. Couldn't have done it VFR.

It was more exciting in the winter but I only left an airplane in place twice.
And this was flying either a Lance or a Geronimo converted Apache.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Dan Luke]

"Peter R." wrote:

>> However, I no long harbor the notion that an IR is going to help us
>> fly more, or longer, or more regularly -- at least not until we can
>> afford something like a Pilatus.
>
> Now that I have several hundred hours since my instrument rating, I would
> never trade it in for a VFR-only rating.
>

Ditto.

Not having the instrument rating is like not being able to drive on the
interstate highway system: you can get where you're going, but it's going to
be difficult or inconvenient at times.

My favorite illustration of this is the time I stopped for fuel at an airport
that was under a low ceiling. On the ramp were about a dozen National Guard
helicopters and in the FBO were their fretting pilots who were missing tee
times, kids outings and hot dates because they had been waiting several hours
to get out from under 500 feet of scud.

Do without the rating? No way.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Denny]

The real bottom line to this is having managed to meet the PTS for the
IR makes you a more proficient pilot ... And while skills need
practice to keep them honed to a razors edge, being more proficient
carries over into better decisions and safer flying overall...
Insurance companies offer a premium discount to the instrument rating
- must be a reason for this...

Bottom line is every pilot should take the training for the IR... Even
if he never uses the rating he will benefit..

denny

[Paul kgyy]

I'd have to disagree with at least part of this. I don't deny that a
single station may be IFR only 5% of the time, but I've often
overflown KIOW en route to Des Moines, and have found that weather can
be fine VFR at both ends, while there is often uncomfortable cloud
cover around the Mississippi River. I've had similar experiences
flying up to Michigan - good VFR at both ends, but a choice between
1500 AGL and 10,000 en route to stay clear of clouds.

In addition, I've flown over Lake Michigan in VFR weather but had to
use instruments for lack of any visible horizon only 5 mi offshore.

Flying into Chicago VFR, flight following is almost always terminated
just when you need it most, while under IFR you can receive traffic
advisories in a very active airspace.

What the rating provides is comfort, knowing that in the absence of
Tstorm activity and icing, I don't have to sweat about clouds.

[Matt Barrow[_3_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> As another VFR pilot I am not surprised.
>
> I know you're not, Gene -- but you're the exception. You've flown
> more cross-country VFR flights than any active pilot I know.
>
> One thing I think the IR *does* give many pilots is the confidence
> boost they needed to launch on a truly cross-country flight. The fact
> that their enhanced weather-handling ability is largely illusory
> (again, unless they're flying a Pilatus) is irrelevant -- the rating
> gives them the extra confidence necessary to launch themselves into
> the unknown.
>
> "Oz didn't give nuthin' to the Tin Man, that he didn't already
> have..."
>
> My observation is that most pilots rarely leave their home state.
> Many local pilots rarely leave a five-county area.

Hoooboy...

My average CC is about 500nm, but then I don't do any business in my home
state. I'd guess I've done IFR approaches to my old base, maybe a half dozen
times in the past seven years, but nearly 100 at my destinations.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC
Colorado Springs, CO

[Matt Barrow[_3_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > and a truly tiny set that were
>> > canceled due to "soft IFR" conditions that we
>> > would feel safe flying Atlas in.
>>
>> What conditions are those? Sounds like you would be comfortable making
>> up your own rules. Would you be comfortable letting everyone make up
>> their own rules?
>
> Ah, I guess that wasn't clear. That line should read:
>
> "...that were canceled due to 'soft IFR' conditions that we would feel
> safe flying Atlas in IF WE HAD THE INSTRUMENT RATING."

Good thing you don't have a widely dispersed chain of hotels that you
absitively had to go to! :~)
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC
Colorado Springs, CO

[Jay Honeck]

> > The fact
> > that their enhanced weather-handling ability is largely illusory
> > (again, unless they're flying a Pilatus) is irrelevant --
>
> say what? You think me and my cherokee can't handle IMC?
> IMC isn't just ice and thunderstorms.

I said "largely" illusory -- not *entirely*.

Here's why: It's IFR 5.4% of the time, and your IFR ticket will
definitely help you fly out of that, as opposed to my VFR-only
ticket. However, what makes the IR's weather-handling ability
"largely illusory" is that your aircraft (and mine) can't fly in a
(currently unknown, but suspected to be large)percentage of that
5.4%.

Around here, I'd say it's well upwards of 50% of IFR conditions are
unflyable in my plane, regardless of pilot rating.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > My observation is that most pilots rarely leave their home state.
> > Many local pilots rarely leave a five-county area.
>
> My average CC is about 500nm, but then I don't do any business in my home
> state. I'd guess I've done IFR approaches to my old base, maybe a half dozen
> times in the past seven years, but nearly 100 at my destinations.

You are clearly NOT the average pilot, Matt.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Good thing you don't have a widely dispersed chain of hotels that you
> absitively had to go to! :~)

If I did, I'd definitely have an instrument rating, and I certainly
would not own a Pathfinder.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I think that is somewhat unique to your location.

Absolutely. If I were still living on the shores of Lake Michigan, I
certainly would have obtained the IR by now, just to get up and
through the scuddy crud that often seems to lay 10 miles inland from
the lakeshore.

The vast majority of the country, however, is not on a large body of
water, nor mountainous, which is what makes the IR a low priority for
many pilots.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tony]

Jay, in the northeast, about 10% of my preplanned trips are cancelled
due to IMC conditions my M20J and/or me are not able to handle. More
than half would have been had I needed to fly VFR. Think of these
trips being 300 to 700 mile XC on a predetermined schedule to various
meetings.

An instrument rating improved the effectiveness of the airplane for my
use profile from about 50% to about 90%. I don't know enough about
other parts of the country, but IMC, soft or hard, are likely to be
found within a few hundred miles miles of my home base much of the
time, and summertime low vis .with haze happens around cities where I
want to go.




On Mar 1, 11:58 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > > The fact
> > > that their enhanced weather-handling ability is largely illusory
> > > (again, unless they're flying a Pilatus) is irrelevant --
>
> > say what? You think me and my cherokee can't handle IMC?
> > IMC isn't just ice and thunderstorms.
>
> I said "largely" illusory -- not *entirely*.
>
> Here's why: It's IFR 5.4% of the time, and your IFR ticket will
> definitely help you fly out of that, as opposed to my VFR-only
> ticket. However, what makes the IR's weather-handling ability
> "largely illusory" is that your aircraft (and mine) can't fly in a
> (currently unknown, but suspected to be large)percentage of that
> 5.4%.
>
> Around here, I'd say it's well upwards of 50% of IFR conditions are
> unflyable in my plane, regardless of pilot rating.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> FWIW, flight planning becomes much easier with IFR. You just don't worry
> about airspace anymore.

I live in the wide-open Midwest. I don't worry about airspace now!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Bottom line is every pilot should take the training for the IR... Even
> if he never uses the rating he will benefit..

Agree 100%. The training I did in preparation for the IR really made
me a much more precise pilot. I wish I had finished it up, but there
just weren't enough hours in the day, after we bought the hotel.

Again, my only purpose for this thread was to show (by newly-available
statistical analysis) that VFR cross-country flying is easily doable,
and that an instrument rating is not going to allow you to be an "all-
weather" flyer in the planes most of us own and operate.

I think most of us intuitively *knew* all this, but my friend's data
helps us see it more clearly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 1, 12:19 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Bottom line is every pilot should take the training for the IR... Even
> > if he never uses the rating he will benefit..
>
> Agree 100%. The training I did in preparation for the IR really made
> me a much more precise pilot. I wish I had finished it up, but there
> just weren't enough hours in the day, after we bought the hotel.
>
> Again, my only purpose for this thread was to show (by newly-available
> statistical analysis) that VFR cross-country flying is easily doable,
> and that an instrument rating is not going to allow you to be an "all-
> weather" flyer in the planes most of us own and operate.
>
> I think most of us intuitively *knew* all this, but my friend's data
> helps us see it more clearly.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


I would concur with your observations. With my instrument students,
sometimes we end up waitng for several weeks to get find suitable IMC
conditions. Most of the time we get ice, thunderstorm or just too
windy. If you look in any pilots logbook, the IMC hours should tell
you something. Most of the pilot I fly with have about 5-10% IMC time,
which roughly corresponds with your ASOS observations. And this is in
the Great Lakes area, which has no shortage of IFR conditions. I used
to live in the desert southwest, where IMC was a rare novelty.

However, I almost always file IFR because it makes life so much
easier. May be I am being too lazy, but I can't imagine flying into
Chicago, Detroit or across the border into Canada without filing IFR.

[Jose]

> If you look in any pilots logbook, the IMC hours should tell
> you something.

Yes, but you might not hear what it's telling you. I have very little
actual in my book, but part of that is that She Who Must Be Obeyed (who
is actually a real good sport about flying) doesn't particularly like
IMC, and would much prefer waiting a day to go CAVU.

SO, we go CAVU.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Around here, I'd say it's well upwards of 50% of IFR conditions are
> unflyable in my plane, regardless of pilot rating.

In the spring, summer, and fall, very little of the IMC is unflyable in my plane
here in the northeast. Thunderstorms are not that wide-spread and much easier
to see coming with strikefinders, stormscope, in-flight weather. It's the dang
ice that's a problem and the occasional low low low IMC.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Matt Barrow[_3_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> > My observation is that most pilots rarely leave their home state.
>> > Many local pilots rarely leave a five-county area.
>>
>> My average CC is about 500nm, but then I don't do any business in my home
>> state. I'd guess I've done IFR approaches to my old base, maybe a half
>> dozen
>> times in the past seven years, but nearly 100 at my destinations.
>
> You are clearly NOT the average pilot, Matt.

I'm probably average but our mission profile is much different since we use
ours for business over eleven Midwestern states.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC
Colorado Springs, CO

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes, but you might not hear what it's telling you. I have very little
> actual in my book, but part of that is that She Who Must Be Obeyed (who
> is actually a real good sport about flying) doesn't particularly like
> IMC, and would much prefer waiting a day to go CAVU.
>
> SO, we go CAVU.

This brings up a whole 'nother aspect of this discussion, which quite
simply asks: Who *wants* to fly IFR?

Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth, it's
absolutely no fun for the passengers, whose only real reward for
putting up with GA is the view. (Well, and the time savings over
driving, of course.)

Most of the instrument rated pilots I know try to avoid flying IFR as
much as I do, only using the rating when necessary to pop up (or down)
through unavoidable IMC. This, of course, leads to a lack of
proficiency, and the unavoidable fact that they really aren't prepared
for flying in hard IMC.

This is exactly what Mary and will use the rating for -- a safety
outlet -- and is one major reason why we fear that we might just end
up just dangerous enough to kill someone.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 1, 10:11 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>
> This brings up a whole 'nother aspect of this discussion, which quite
> simply asks: Who *wants* to fly IFR?
>
> Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth, it's
> absolutely no fun for the passengers, whose only real reward for
> putting up with GA is the view. (Well, and the time savings over
> driving, of course.)

I would definitely not describe IFR as uncomfortable, any more than
flying VFR as uncomfortable. Actually, I find IFR in IMC comforting
because I don't have to look for traffic, and I don't have to worry
about busting anyones airspace. Every time I fly VFR through busy
airspaces I am constantly worrying whether I have the right
frequencies for the appropriate airspaces. No such worry under IFR.

The only thing to watch for under IFR is getting into a trap, such as
icing, thunderstorms or very low minimums.

I am not sure about the outside view argument either. There is nothing
to compare with breaking out on top and skimming the tops of each
cloud with clear sunshine above. If you are nice to the controller,
you might even get a block altitude so that you can go do some cloud
popping. Every passenger I flew with loved this. Granted, every IFR
flight is not like this, but every VFR flight is not a glassy smooth
scenic flight either.

[Jose]

> This brings up a whole 'nother aspect of this discussion, which quite
> simply asks: Who *wants* to fly IFR?
>
> Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth, it's
> absolutely no fun...

This brings to mind another discussion in another thread, with another
"pilot".

I want to fly IFR. It keeps me sharp. It is challenging and rewarding.
And it gets me there when VFR might not. I love popping into and out
of cumulous clouds, or just skimming a stratus layer. I love seeing the
runway appear as if by magic after an hour or two of pea soup.

I also love to fly VFR, skimming the treetops while the leaves below me
change color in October. But flying in solid cloud is much more
interesting than flying in 4 mile haze five thousand feet up.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth, it's
> absolutely no fun for the passengers, whose only real reward for
> putting up with GA is the view. (Well, and the time savings over
> driving, of course.)
>
> Most of the instrument rated pilots I know try to avoid flying IFR as
> much as I do, only using the rating when necessary to pop up (or down)
> through unavoidable IMC. This, of course, leads to a lack of
> proficiency, and the unavoidable fact that they really aren't prepared
> for flying in hard IMC.
>
> This is exactly what Mary and will use the rating for -- a safety
> outlet -- and is one major reason why we fear that we might just end
> up just dangerous enough to kill someone.

What about flying IFR at night? If it's dark enough that you can't see much
outside, you get the benefits of IFR without many of the dangers of IMC. You
can just fly regular night flights IFR and maintain your currency that way,
and yet you won't be stressed by bad weather to worry about.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

The Instrument rating is a tool -- keep it sharp! I wouldn't fly in
IMC with PIC who is current becuase he had a checkout 5 months ago.

About 30% of my time in the northeast is in IMC, and probably more
than half the non recreational flights would have been cancelled if
not for IFR. My rated friends, maybe because of regional weather
differences, do not avoid IMC so long as the conditions are within
their personal minimums.





n Mar 1, 10:11 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Yes, but you might not hear what it's telling you. I have very little
> > actual in my book, but part of that is that She Who Must Be Obeyed (who
> > is actually a real good sport about flying) doesn't particularly like
> > IMC, and would much prefer waiting a day to go CAVU.
>
> > SO, we go CAVU.
>
> This brings up a whole 'nother aspect of this discussion, which quite
> simply asks: Who *wants* to fly IFR?
>
> Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth, it's
> absolutely no fun for the passengers, whose only real reward for
> putting up with GA is the view. (Well, and the time savings over
> driving, of course.)
>
> Most of the instrument rated pilots I know try to avoid flying IFR as
> much as I do, only using the rating when necessary to pop up (or down)
> through unavoidable IMC. This, of course, leads to a lack of
> proficiency, and the unavoidable fact that they really aren't prepared
> for flying in hard IMC.
>
> This is exactly what Mary and will use the rating for -- a safety
> outlet -- and is one major reason why we fear that we might just end
> up just dangerous enough to kill someone.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Yes, but you might not hear what it's telling you. I have very little
>>actual in my book, but part of that is that She Who Must Be Obeyed (who
>>is actually a real good sport about flying) doesn't particularly like
>>IMC, and would much prefer waiting a day to go CAVU.
>>
>>SO, we go CAVU.
>
>
> This brings up a whole 'nother aspect of this discussion, which quite
> simply asks: Who *wants* to fly IFR?

Me!

> Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth, it's
> absolutely no fun for the passengers, whose only real reward for
> putting up with GA is the view. (Well, and the time savings over
> driving, of course.)

I love to fly IFR, but I agree that it is less than exciting for most
passengers. However, most of my IMC flights were solo.


> Most of the instrument rated pilots I know try to avoid flying IFR as
> much as I do, only using the rating when necessary to pop up (or down)
> through unavoidable IMC. This, of course, leads to a lack of
> proficiency, and the unavoidable fact that they really aren't prepared
> for flying in hard IMC.

I look for IMC days to go flying. I find it very peaceful in my little
cocoon croning through the clouds watching the gauges and needles.


> This is exactly what Mary and will use the rating for -- a safety
> outlet -- and is one major reason why we fear that we might just end
> up just dangerous enough to kill someone.

To me it adds another dimension to flying and another reason to fly.
After 15 years of VFR flying I was actually growing bored of the
hamburger runs over territory I'd flown several times before. I've
visited almost every airport within 200 NM of my house, many several
times for poker runs and such with our flying club. IFR added an entire
new reason and challenge to my flying.

Matt

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
> This brings up a whole 'nother aspect of this discussion, which quite
> simply asks: Who *wants* to fly IFR?

I do!

> Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth, it's
> absolutely no fun for the passengers, whose only real reward for
> putting up with GA is the view. (Well, and the time savings over
> driving, of course.)

In eight years of flying IFR, I can recall very few occasions of extended,
solid IMC. There have been many spectacular cloudscapes that I and my
passengers would never have seen VFR, though.

> This is exactly what Mary and will use the rating for -- a safety
> outlet -- and is one major reason why we fear that we might just end
> up just dangerous enough to kill someone.

A reasonable concern. Maintaining real proficiency requires some dedication.
You have to force yourself to go flying--oh, the sacrifice!

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Don Poitras]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jay Honeck writes:

> > Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth, it's
<snip>
> What about flying IFR at night? If it's dark enough that you can't see much
> outside, you get the benefits of IFR without many of the dangers of IMC. You
> can just fly regular night flights IFR and maintain your currency that way,
> and yet you won't be stressed by bad weather to worry about.

If it's dark enough that you can't see much outside, then it _is_ IMC. Flying
at night normally doesn't really simulate IMC. There's a clear sense of up
and down. I do think that flying under the hood at night is a little better
than in the day. I find the combination of turbulence dropping one wing or
the other and no outside visual cues to be the real challenge in IMC flight.
Navigation isn't as much an issue. Simply filing night IFR won't satisfy
the FAA for currency either.

> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

--
Don Poitras

[Mxsmanic]

Don Poitras writes:

> If it's dark enough that you can't see much outside, then it _is_ IMC.

Nighttime isn't a meteorological condition. That's why you don't see
nighttime indicators in METARs. The key point is that you don't see much,
which allows you to fly IFR. I suppose that if you look out the window you
might see something, but you have to look, whereas during the day, the scenery
outside is hard to ignore.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> I look for IMC days to go flying. I find it very peaceful in my little
> cocoon croning through the clouds watching the gauges and needles.

Ah, so there is finally someone who sees the attraction to IFR!

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 2, 8:12 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Don Poitras writes:
> > If it's dark enough that you can't see much outside, then it _is_ IMC.
>
> Nighttime isn't a meteorological condition. That's why you don't see
> nighttime indicators in METARs. The key point is that you don't see much,
> which allows you to fly IFR. I suppose that if you look out the window you
> might see something, but you have to look, whereas during the day, the scenery
> outside is hard to ignore.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You can see just fine at night. In fact, you can see better, depending
on what you are looking for. Compare it to driving. Would you compare
driving at night to the equivalent of a thick fog?

[Judah]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1172695408.911628.219620
@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

>> Exactly. Plus, you just don't have to fret weather decisions as much.
>
> That's really the reason for the IR, in my opinion. It's not that
> you'll actually fly a whole lot more, but you'll not worry about those
> clouds building "over there" as much. In the end, that is why Mary
> and I will eventually get the rating.
>
> Of course, your confidence level should be directly related to your
> currency and proficiency. If my observations prove anything, it's
> that most instrument-rated private pilots don't use the rating enough
> to be proficient.

I can't speak for everyone, but I think that there are many factors that to
be considered...

Personally, I find that I don't do a whole lot of IFR in the winter - January
and February really - because here in the Northeast, anything IFR during
those months is likely to also come with icing. There's also a few weeks in
the spring where IFR usually means thunderstorms. Although the last couple of
years, I've been lucky enough that the thunderstorms were never directly in
my path when I wanted to fly. In once instance, I modified my flight plan to
go around them.

Perhaps Iowa has a nicer climate. Or perhaps the flatter topography and lower
density population makes it less of an issue. Here in the NorthEast, we have
areas of hills that go up to about 3500' MSL (they call them mountains, but
I've been out west - the mountains here really don't qualify). And there
really isn't a whole lot of unpopulated area. So I can't take off without a
1500' ceiling. And even if I might be able to take off from my airport VFR
with a 1500' ceiling, I really couldn't get very far in most directions
without at least a 3000-4000' ceiling because of the terrain. With the IR, I
will take off and land with 500' ceilings. I've even landed at minimums twice
(at my home airport), but that takes a perfectly enjoyable flight and turns
it into a stressful experience. I don't care how current you are, hunting for
lights through soup just over 200' AGL is a nerve-racking experience...
Somehow around 400', my mind starts to ask "What if" questions, like "What if
my instruments are off and I'm not really where I think I am?" Probably
because there is an obstruction not too far off the ILS 16 approach at about
400' AGL.


Anyway, I am going to have a look at the area histories when I get a moment
(probably not for a very long time, then, huh?) and see if the results for my
area come up different. Between the climate, the terrain, and the population,
I suspect I will see higher numbers for my area.

But I might just be full of S%^&*. :)

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> You can see just fine at night. In fact, you can see better, depending
> on what you are looking for. Compare it to driving. Would you compare
> driving at night to the equivalent of a thick fog?

No, but driving at night is still closer to fog than driving during the day.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 2, 9:48 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan writes:
> > You can see just fine at night. In fact, you can see better, depending
> > on what you are looking for. Compare it to driving. Would you compare
> > driving at night to the equivalent of a thick fog?
>
> No, but driving at night is still closer to fog than driving during the day.
>

Not necessarily. For driving, you only need a clear view of the road
and traffic ahead. Whether you can see the scenery around you is
irrelevant for safe driving. Except for the darkness inside the cabin,
which makes it harder to read maps, the darkness outside is not a big
factor. As long as you can see the horizon, airports, runways and
other airplanes, it does not make a big difference how much of the
scenery you can see. This only becomes an issue if you have to make an
emergency off-field landing.

[JB]

On Mar 2, 2:12 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jay Honeck writes:
> > Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth, it's
> > absolutely no fun for the passengers, whose only real reward for
> > putting up with GA is the view. (Well, and the time savings over
> > driving, of course.)
>
> > Most of the instrument rated pilots I know try to avoid flying IFR as
> > much as I do, only using the rating when necessary to pop up (or down)
> > through unavoidable IMC. This, of course, leads to a lack of
> > proficiency, and the unavoidable fact that they really aren't prepared
> > for flying in hard IMC.
>
> > This is exactly what Mary and will use the rating for -- a safety
> > outlet -- and is one major reason why we fear that we might just end
> > up just dangerous enough to kill someone.
>
> What about flying IFR at night? If it's dark enough that you can't see much
> outside, you get the benefits of IFR without many of the dangers of IMC. You
> can just fly regular night flights IFR and maintain your currency that way,
> and yet you won't be stressed by bad weather to worry about.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

What ARE you rambling about? Go look up the definition of IMC and
VMC. Its not about weather or day or night. Its about flying by
instrument or visual reference. There are plenty of hazy summer days
at 12 noon that have alot less visibility and "reference to visual
cues" than the darkest nights with only a few lights below to gauge
which was is up and down. IMC at night is just as "dangerous" as IMC
during the day. IMC is IMC, regardless of what the clock says. If
you don't know how to interpret the instrument and get spatially
disoriented, you can die just the same. Remember JFK Jr?...not a
cloud in the sky but a moonless flight over dark water with no
reference to the ground or horizon. While he was not instrument
rated, IMC killed him just the same.

--Jeff

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> Not necessarily. For driving, you only need a clear view of the road
> and traffic ahead. Whether you can see the scenery around you is
> irrelevant for safe driving. Except for the darkness inside the cabin,
> which makes it harder to read maps, the darkness outside is not a big
> factor. As long as you can see the horizon, airports, runways and
> other airplanes, it does not make a big difference how much of the
> scenery you can see.

What about terrain?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

JB writes:

> What ARE you rambling about? Go look up the definition of IMC and
> VMC. Its not about weather or day or night. Its about flying by
> instrument or visual reference.

No. VMC and IMC define the weather conditions of flight. VFR and IFR define
the governing rules of flight. IMC normally mandates IFR, but in VMC either
VFR or IFR can be used.

The distinction between IMC and VMC is unrelated to time of day. You can be
in VMC at any time of day or night; the same is true for IMC.

Flying at night provides you with fewer visual cues than flying during the
day, even when it's VMC. This is why it might be a useful compromise between
attempting to fly IFR in VMC during the day, and flying IFR in IMC.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> What about terrain?

This proves how utterly clueless you are. We are to fly at
an altitude which assures obstruction clearance. Now
research how we determine that altitude in pre-flight planning.

F--

[Jay Honeck]

> > I look for IMC days to go flying. I find it very peaceful in my little
> > cocoon croning through the clouds watching the gauges and needles.
>
> Ah, so there is finally someone who sees the attraction to IFR!

Not me.

IFR flying is diametrically opposed to my reasons for wanting to fly.
The only reason I will ever do it is because I must.

Which explains, in a nutshell, why I haven't "made time" to finish the
rating. It's just not something I'm interested in doing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Don Poitras]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Don Poitras writes:

> > If it's dark enough that you can't see much outside, then it _is_ IMC.

> Nighttime isn't a meteorological condition. That's why you don't see
> nighttime indicators in METARs. The key point is that you don't see much,
> which allows you to fly IFR. I suppose that if you look out the window you
> might see something, but you have to look, whereas during the day, the scenery
> outside is hard to ignore.

You don't have to _look_, you just have to _see_. Unless you're under the hood,
you're going to see outside. And in fact, under VMC unless you have a safety
pilot, you are _required_ to look outside.

--
Don Poitras

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> This proves how utterly clueless you are. We are to fly at
> an altitude which assures obstruction clearance.

Famous last words.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Not me.

Well, different people get different things out of aviation, of course.

> IFR flying is diametrically opposed to my reasons for wanting to fly.
> The only reason I will ever do it is because I must.

But there are also people who apparently enjoy IFR flight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> But there are also people who apparently enjoy IFR flight.

Yeah, it's great until you have to go 50 miles or more out of your way.

BDS

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>>This brings up a whole 'nother aspect of this discussion, which quite
>>simply asks: Who *wants* to fly IFR?
>
>
> I do!
>
>
>>Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth, it's
>>absolutely no fun for the passengers, whose only real reward for
>>putting up with GA is the view. (Well, and the time savings over
>>driving, of course.)
>
>
> In eight years of flying IFR, I can recall very few occasions of extended,
> solid IMC. There have been many spectacular cloudscapes that I and my
> passengers would never have seen VFR, though.

I agree. I've seen some amazing "cloudscapes" over the years. Probably
the neatest was on top at night under a full moon. Priceless!


>>This is exactly what Mary and will use the rating for -- a safety
>>outlet -- and is one major reason why we fear that we might just end
>>up just dangerous enough to kill someone.
>
>
> A reasonable concern. Maintaining real proficiency requires some dedication.
> You have to force yourself to go flying--oh, the sacrifice!

Yes, oh the agony of having another excuse to fly... :-)

Matt

[Tony]

> What about flying IFR at night? If it's dark enough that you can't see much
> outside, you get the benefits of IFR without many of the dangers of IMC. You
> can just fly regular night flights IFR and maintain your currency that way,
> and yet you won't be stressed by bad weather to worry about.
>

One can certainly file and fly an IFR flight plan in VMC at night -- I
do that all of the time. But, because it's VMC, the PIC has an
obligation to see and avoid other traffic. That PIC will be making
some of his flight control decisions based on the outside world, it's
not the same as flying by only reference to instruments. To have
meaningful experience be under the hood or in a cloud!

You are, are you not, the person who not so long ago claimed there was
no visual outside reference in IMC, indicating a lack of understanding
what IMC is? Have you repaired that deficit?

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 2, 12:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan writes:
> > Not necessarily. For driving, you only need a clear view of the road
> > and traffic ahead. Whether you can see the scenery around you is
> > irrelevant for safe driving. Except for the darkness inside the cabin,
> > which makes it harder to read maps, the darkness outside is not a big
> > factor. As long as you can see the horizon, airports, runways and
> > other airplanes, it does not make a big difference how much of the
> > scenery you can see.
>
> What about terrain?
>


Terrain avoidance at night becomes a problem only in unpopulated areas
under an overcast moonless sky. It has happened, so it is a real
issue, but most pilots fly in areas where there are at least some
ground lights, moon or stars, and it is really not that hard to tell
if you are heading towards a mountain. On the other hand, unlit towers
are a real concern, regardless of whether it is day or night, and this
is why they get NOTAM'd.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> You are, are you not, the person who not so long ago claimed there was
> no visual outside reference in IMC, indicating a lack of understanding
> what IMC is?

By definition, any visual references available in IMC are inadequate for
flight.

So even if you can see something outside in IMC, you cannot see enough to fly
safely, which is why IMC requires IFR.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

Wrong again.

On Mar 2, 10:19 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tony writes:
> > You are, are you not, the person who not so long ago claimed there was
> > no visual outside reference in IMC, indicating a lack of understanding
> > what IMC is?
>
> By definition, any visual references available in IMC are inadequate for
> flight.
>
> So even if you can see something outside in IMC, you cannot see enough to fly
> safely, which is why IMC requires IFR.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> Wrong again.

If so, then show the error. It's not very useful to just say "wrong," without
explaining why.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

You, as a teacher, should know lessons are best learned when your
student finds the correct answer on his or her own.

Yet you as an arrogant student refuse to do that.

In this circumstance, for example, why would you not research the
FAA's definition of the condiiton? It, by the way, is something pilots
learn very early in their training.

This is probably an example of, in this reference, item (5).
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_frm/thread/8fdd203f1b60cdc5/#








On Mar 2, 10:36 pm, Mxtsmanic > wrote:
> Tony writes:
> > Wrong again.
>
> If so, then show the error. It's not very useful to just say "wrong," without
> explaining why.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
> Terrain avoidance at night becomes a problem only in unpopulated areas
> under an overcast moonless sky. It has happened, so it is a real
> issue, but most pilots fly in areas where there are at least some
> ground lights, moon or stars, and it is really not that hard to tell
> if you are heading towards a mountain. On the other hand, unlit towers
> are a real concern, regardless of whether it is day or night, and this
> is why they get NOTAM'd.
>
The above is an excellent example of bad pre-flight planning. All one has
to do to avoid terrain, day, night, IMC, etc. is stay above the altitude
of any obstructions in the sector. As this is plainly listed on every
sectional, it is not a difficult task.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> You, as a teacher, should know lessons are best learned when your
> student finds the correct answer on his or her own.

I, as a teacher, know that this is not necessarily true.

If you're trying to get a student to apply general principles or theory to a
specific instance, then yes, this can work well. If it's simply a matter of
missing knowledge, it's a waste of time. You give him the information that he
does not have, as he isn't likely to guess it correctly on his own.

Additionally, explaining why someone is wrong is far more useful than just
telling him he is wrong.

Finally, if you don't know the answer yourself, it's not a good idea to try to
bluff the student.

> In this circumstance, for example, why would you not research the
> FAA's definition of the condiiton? It, by the way, is something pilots
> learn very early in their training.

I did, and my definition matched theirs.

IMC is weather below VFR minimums. Weather below VFR minimums simply means
that you cannot see outside the aircraft well enough to reliably determine the
attitude of the aircraft and navigate. IMC prevents safe flight based on
visual information alone. A VFR pilot is in IMC anytime he inadvertently or
intentionally finds himself in a situation where he cannot navigate, cannot
find his position, or doesn't know the attitude of his aircraft through visual
references outside the aircraft.

IMC requires IFR. By extension, if you are unable to navigate or determine
the attitude of your aircraft without reference to instruments, you are in
IMC. Just seeing shapes out the window doesn't count if they don't allow you
to determine the attitude of the aircraft and your position.

You see, like any good teacher, I can and do explain.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

OK, you have now demonstrated you don't know how to do research --
again.

Are you in VMC flying in haze with vis 2 miles in most domestic
airspace? Do you have outside reference?

Are you in VMC flying 500 feet above a cloud deck with unrestricted
visiblity? Do you have outside reference?

There, I fed the troll.


What is your technical iOn Mar 3, 7:54 am, Mxsmanic
> wrote:
> Tony writes:
> > You, as a teacher, should know lessons are best learned when your
> > student finds the correct answer on his or her own.
>
> I, as a teacher, know that this is not necessarily true.
>
> If you're trying to get a student to apply general principles or theory to a
> specific instance, then yes, this can work well. If it's simply a matter of
> missing knowledge, it's a waste of time. You give him the information that he
> does not have, as he isn't likely to guess it correctly on his own.
>
> Additionally, explaining why someone is wrong is far more useful than just
> telling him he is wrong.
>
> Finally, if you don't know the answer yourself, it's not a good idea to try to
> bluff the student.
>
> > In this circumstance, for example, why would you not research the
> > FAA's definition of the condiiton? It, by the way, is something pilots
> > learn very early in their training.
>
> I did, and my definition matched theirs.
>
> IMC is weather below VFR minimums. Weather below VFR minimums simply means
> that you cannot see outside the aircraft well enough to reliably determine the
> attitude of the aircraft and navigate. IMC prevents safe flight based on
> visual information alone. A VFR pilot is in IMC anytime he inadvertently or
> intentionally finds himself in a situation where he cannot navigate, cannot
> find his position, or doesn't know the attitude of his aircraft through visual
> references outside the aircraft.
>
> IMC requires IFR. By extension, if you are unable to navigate or determine
> the attitude of your aircraft without reference to instruments, you are in
> IMC. Just seeing shapes out the window doesn't count if they don't allow you
> to determine the attitude of the aircraft and your position.
>
> You see, like any good teacher, I can and do explain.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jb,

> IMC at night is just as "dangerous" as IMC
> during the day.
>

That's true in theory, but the accident statistics clearly show the
opposite.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Whiting]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> On Mar 2, 12:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>Andrew Sarangan writes:
>>
>>>Not necessarily. For driving, you only need a clear view of the road
>>>and traffic ahead. Whether you can see the scenery around you is
>>>irrelevant for safe driving. Except for the darkness inside the cabin,
>>>which makes it harder to read maps, the darkness outside is not a big
>>>factor. As long as you can see the horizon, airports, runways and
>>>other airplanes, it does not make a big difference how much of the
>>>scenery you can see.
>>
>>What about terrain?
>>
>
>
>
> Terrain avoidance at night becomes a problem only in unpopulated areas
> under an overcast moonless sky. It has happened, so it is a real
> issue, but most pilots fly in areas where there are at least some
> ground lights, moon or stars, and it is really not that hard to tell
> if you are heading towards a mountain. On the other hand, unlit towers
> are a real concern, regardless of whether it is day or night, and this
> is why they get NOTAM'd.

If you are flying the minimum IFR altitudes, it still should not be a
problem, unless there is a chart error.

Matt

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 3, 7:28 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
> > Terrain avoidance at night becomes a problem only in unpopulated areas
> > under an overcast moonless sky. It has happened, so it is a real
> > issue, but most pilots fly in areas where there are at least some
> > ground lights, moon or stars, and it is really not that hard to tell
> > if you are heading towards a mountain. On the other hand, unlit towers
> > are a real concern, regardless of whether it is day or night, and this
> > is why they get NOTAM'd.
>
> The above is an excellent example of bad pre-flight planning. All one has
> to do to avoid terrain, day, night, IMC, etc. is stay above the altitude
> of any obstructions in the sector. As this is plainly listed on every
> sectional, it is not a difficult task.
>
> Neil

If you insist on flying above the MEF for each quadrant, you will not
be able to do any GA flying in the mountain states. This is the very
definition of mountain flying - ie flying below the peaks. Please
don't flame my responses as "examples of bad preflight planning" when
it is your reponse that is not adequately thought out.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 3, 8:24 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 12:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> >>Andrew Sarangan writes:
>
> >>>Not necessarily. For driving, you only need a clear view of the road
> >>>and traffic ahead. Whether you can see the scenery around you is
> >>>irrelevant for safe driving. Except for the darkness inside the cabin,
> >>>which makes it harder to read maps, the darkness outside is not a big
> >>>factor. As long as you can see the horizon, airports, runways and
> >>>other airplanes, it does not make a big difference how much of the
> >>>scenery you can see.
>
> >>What about terrain?
>
> > Terrain avoidance at night becomes a problem only in unpopulated areas
> > under an overcast moonless sky. It has happened, so it is a real
> > issue, but most pilots fly in areas where there are at least some
> > ground lights, moon or stars, and it is really not that hard to tell
> > if you are heading towards a mountain. On the other hand, unlit towers
> > are a real concern, regardless of whether it is day or night, and this
> > is why they get NOTAM'd.
>
> If you are flying the minimum IFR altitudes, it still should not be a
> problem, unless there is a chart error.
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
True, but we are talking about flying VFR at night and how to avoid
terrain under those circumstances.

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> If you insist on flying above the MEF for each quadrant, you will not
> be able to do any GA flying in the mountain states. This is the very
> definition of mountain flying - ie flying below the peaks.

If you are flying in the mountains below the peaks at night ...

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> OK, you have now demonstrated you don't know how to do research --
> again.

One of the sentences I used is almost literatim from one of the sources I
consulted. I suspected you wouldn't notice, and you didn't.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

You breakout at 200 feet and a half mile, and see the runway
enviroment. Are you in IMC? Do you have outside reference?

You are in a thousand feet high gap between stratus layers. Are you in
IMC? Do you have outside reference?

How many specific examples does it take to demonstrate you are wrong
inyour presumption that IMC is defined as having no outside reference?

You make a poor student, but an excellent troll.


assertation On Mar 3, 9:20 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tony writes:
> > OK, you have now demonstrated you don't know how to do research --
> > again.
>
> One of the sentences I used is almost literatim from one of the sources I
> consulted. I suspected you wouldn't notice, and you didn't.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TxSrv]

Tony wrote:
> Are you in VMC flying in haze with vis 2 miles in most domestic
> airspace? Do you have outside reference?
>

Perhaps you meant one mile? 91.157? No, wait, research by
one poster here might turn up the fact that most pilots
requesting a special have crashed. 91.157(d) does, however,
require that nonpilot simmers set crash off when viz is set
to one in MSFS. Wise of FAA; oh, the simulated humanity.

F--

[Matt Whiting]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> On Mar 3, 8:24 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 2, 12:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>>>>Andrew Sarangan writes:
>>
>>>>>Not necessarily. For driving, you only need a clear view of the road
>>>>>and traffic ahead. Whether you can see the scenery around you is
>>>>>irrelevant for safe driving. Except for the darkness inside the cabin,
>>>>>which makes it harder to read maps, the darkness outside is not a big
>>>>>factor. As long as you can see the horizon, airports, runways and
>>>>>other airplanes, it does not make a big difference how much of the
>>>>>scenery you can see.
>>
>>>>What about terrain?
>>
>>>Terrain avoidance at night becomes a problem only in unpopulated areas
>>>under an overcast moonless sky. It has happened, so it is a real
>>>issue, but most pilots fly in areas where there are at least some
>>>ground lights, moon or stars, and it is really not that hard to tell
>>>if you are heading towards a mountain. On the other hand, unlit towers
>>>are a real concern, regardless of whether it is day or night, and this
>>>is why they get NOTAM'd.
>>
>>If you are flying the minimum IFR altitudes, it still should not be a
>>problem, unless there is a chart error.
>>
>>Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> True, but we are talking about flying VFR at night and how to avoid
> terrain under those circumstances.

I didn't see any clear reference to VFR, just to flying at night and
seeing things. And the subject line says IFR... :-)

Matt

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:

> On Mar 3, 8:24 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>>> On Mar 2, 12:03 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>>>> Andrew Sarangan writes:
>>
>>>>> Not necessarily. For driving, you only need a clear view of the
>>>>> road and traffic ahead. Whether you can see the scenery around
>>>>> you is irrelevant for safe driving. Except for the darkness
>>>>> inside the cabin, which makes it harder to read maps, the
>>>>> darkness outside is not a big factor. As long as you can see the
>>>>> horizon, airports, runways and other airplanes, it does not make
>>>>> a big difference how much of the scenery you can see.
>>
>>>> What about terrain?
>>
>>> Terrain avoidance at night becomes a problem only in unpopulated
>>> areas under an overcast moonless sky. It has happened, so it is a
>>> real issue, but most pilots fly in areas where there are at least
>>> some ground lights, moon or stars, and it is really not that hard
>>> to tell if you are heading towards a mountain. On the other hand,
>>> unlit towers are a real concern, regardless of whether it is day or
>>> night, and this is why they get NOTAM'd.
>>
>> If you are flying the minimum IFR altitudes, it still should not be a
>> problem, unless there is a chart error.
>>
>> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
> True, but we are talking about flying VFR at night and how to avoid
> terrain under those circumstances.
>
That's why sectionals are handy, and pre-flight planning is a good idea.
It's really easy to avoid terrain if you read the chart and stay above the
altitude of the highest obstacle in the sector, which is clearly marked in
large numbers. I don't understand why pilots would fly at night with
insufficient information to be safe.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:

> On Mar 3, 7:28 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>>
>>> Terrain avoidance at night becomes a problem only in unpopulated
>>> areas under an overcast moonless sky. It has happened, so it is a
>>> real issue, but most pilots fly in areas where there are at least
>>> some ground lights, moon or stars, and it is really not that hard
>>> to tell if you are heading towards a mountain. On the other hand,
>>> unlit towers are a real concern, regardless of whether it is day or
>>> night, and this is why they get NOTAM'd.
>>
>> The above is an excellent example of bad pre-flight planning. All
>> one has to do to avoid terrain, day, night, IMC, etc. is stay above
>> the altitude of any obstructions in the sector. As this is plainly
>> listed on every sectional, it is not a difficult task.
>>
>> Neil
>
> If you insist on flying above the MEF for each quadrant, you will not
> be able to do any GA flying in the mountain states. This is the very
> definition of mountain flying - ie flying below the peaks. Please
> don't flame my responses as "examples of bad preflight planning" when
> it is your reponse that is not adequately thought out.
>
I would consider a "go" decision to fly in the mountains at night to be
*exceptionally* bad pre-flight planning. Exceptions do not invalidate a
rule.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> I didn't see any clear reference to VFR, just to flying at night and
> seeing things.

Hmm.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Whiting]

Neil Gould wrote:

> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
>
>>On Mar 3, 7:28 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>>
>>>Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Terrain avoidance at night becomes a problem only in unpopulated
>>>>areas under an overcast moonless sky. It has happened, so it is a
>>>>real issue, but most pilots fly in areas where there are at least
>>>>some ground lights, moon or stars, and it is really not that hard
>>>>to tell if you are heading towards a mountain. On the other hand,
>>>>unlit towers are a real concern, regardless of whether it is day or
>>>>night, and this is why they get NOTAM'd.
>>>
>>>The above is an excellent example of bad pre-flight planning. All
>>>one has to do to avoid terrain, day, night, IMC, etc. is stay above
>>>the altitude of any obstructions in the sector. As this is plainly
>>>listed on every sectional, it is not a difficult task.
>>>
>>>Neil
>>
>>If you insist on flying above the MEF for each quadrant, you will not
>>be able to do any GA flying in the mountain states. This is the very
>>definition of mountain flying - ie flying below the peaks. Please
>>don't flame my responses as "examples of bad preflight planning" when
>>it is your reponse that is not adequately thought out.
>>
>
> I would consider a "go" decision to fly in the mountains at night to be
> *exceptionally* bad pre-flight planning. Exceptions do not invalidate a
> rule.

Why? I've flown on full-moon nights where it was very easy to see the
terrain. A new moon night is an entirely different animal, however. I
don't think your blanket statement above is true.

Matt

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 3, 10:59 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 7:28 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> >> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
> >>> Terrain avoidance at night becomes a problem only in unpopulated
> >>> areas under an overcast moonless sky. It has happened, so it is a
> >>> real issue, but most pilots fly in areas where there are at least
> >>> some ground lights, moon or stars, and it is really not that hard
> >>> to tell if you are heading towards a mountain. On the other hand,
> >>> unlit towers are a real concern, regardless of whether it is day or
> >>> night, and this is why they get NOTAM'd.
>
> >> The above is an excellent example of bad pre-flight planning. All
> >> one has to do to avoid terrain, day, night, IMC, etc. is stay above
> >> the altitude of any obstructions in the sector. As this is plainly
> >> listed on every sectional, it is not a difficult task.
>
> >> Neil
>
> > If you insist on flying above the MEF for each quadrant, you will not
> > be able to do any GA flying in the mountain states. This is the very
> > definition of mountain flying - ie flying below the peaks. Please
> > don't flame my responses as "examples of bad preflight planning" when
> > it is your reponse that is not adequately thought out.
>
> I would consider a "go" decision to fly in the mountains at night to be
> *exceptionally* bad pre-flight planning. Exceptions do not invalidate a
> rule.
>
> Neil- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


No, these areas are not the exceptional areas. Large chucks of this
country falls ine areas where MEF is simply not attainable or
practical in small airplanes.

I can see the sprit of the 'rule' that was taught to you, but that is
by no means a rule. It is easy to follow that rule in the eastern and
midwestern states, but it is impossible in the west.

The field elevation of Colorado Springs Airport is about 6200ft. The
MEF is 12000 ft and higher. If you believe that, just go out there
some day and see for yourself how many night VFR operations are
conducted there well below the MEF.
This is just one example, and you can find hundreds of examples if you
browse the charts for the western states.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 3, 9:19 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan writes:
> > If you insist on flying above the MEF for each quadrant, you will not
> > be able to do any GA flying in the mountain states. This is the very
> > definition of mountain flying - ie flying below the peaks.
>
> If you are flying in the mountains below the peaks at night ...
>

It is done all the time, unless you think pilots who live in Colorado,
Arizona etc.. should not be flying VFR at night at all.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 3, 1:04 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Neil Gould wrote:
> > Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
> >>On Mar 3, 7:28 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
> >>>Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
> >>>>Terrain avoidance at night becomes a problem only in unpopulated
> >>>>areas under an overcast moonless sky. It has happened, so it is a
> >>>>real issue, but most pilots fly in areas where there are at least
> >>>>some ground lights, moon or stars, and it is really not that hard
> >>>>to tell if you are heading towards a mountain. On the other hand,
> >>>>unlit towers are a real concern, regardless of whether it is day or
> >>>>night, and this is why they get NOTAM'd.
>
> >>>The above is an excellent example of bad pre-flight planning. All
> >>>one has to do to avoid terrain, day, night, IMC, etc. is stay above
> >>>the altitude of any obstructions in the sector. As this is plainly
> >>>listed on every sectional, it is not a difficult task.
>
> >>>Neil
>
> >>If you insist on flying above the MEF for each quadrant, you will not
> >>be able to do any GA flying in the mountain states. This is the very
> >>definition of mountain flying - ie flying below the peaks. Please
> >>don't flame my responses as "examples of bad preflight planning" when
> >>it is your reponse that is not adequately thought out.
>
> > I would consider a "go" decision to fly in the mountains at night to be
> > *exceptionally* bad pre-flight planning. Exceptions do not invalidate a
> > rule.
>
> Why? I've flown on full-moon nights where it was very easy to see the
> terrain. A new moon night is an entirely different animal, however. I
> don't think your blanket statement above is true.
>


Full moon is nice to have, but you don't necessary need a full moon to
see the terrain. Pilots fly every day in the vast mountain areas of
this country at night under VFR without any problems. There are of
course hazards that come with any flying activity, but if you insist
on only flying the MEF altitude, you will have to avoid flying night
VFR in nearly a third of this country.

I have flown in the remote areas of the southwestern desert mountains
with no moon at all, and you can see the terrain just fine. You just
needs to be more pro-active when looking outside (dim cockpit lights,
proper dark adaptation) and exercise the usual mountain area
precautions.

Not flying the MEF is not bad preflight planning. In fact I would
claim that insisting on flying the MEF is poor planning because you
are wasting too much time and fuel to do something that could be done
far simpler by flying a lower altitude.

Consider a routine night VFR flight from Albuquerque to Santa Fe,
which is only 40 miles. MEF is 11,000 ft. Are you really going to
climb to 11000 ft (about 6000' AGL) to go 40 miles? If you do that, I
can assure you that you will get funny looks from pilots who live in
that area.

[Tony]

It's a neat point you raise -- there is special VFR. That does not
deny that vis < 3 miles is a criteria for not VMC, ergo actual IMC, in
many parts of the country.

He's twisting, twisting, slowly in the wind.

On Mar 3, 9:49 am, TxSrv > wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> > Are you in VMC flying in haze with vis 2 miles in most domestic
> > airspace? Do you have outside reference?
>
> Perhaps you meant one mile? 91.157? No, wait, research by
> one poster here might turn up the fact that most pilots
> requesting a special have crashed. 91.157(d) does, however,
> require that nonpilot simmers set crash off when viz is set
> to one in MSFS. Wise of FAA; oh, the simulated humanity.
>
> F--

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> It is done all the time, unless you think pilots who live in Colorado,
> Arizona etc.. should not be flying VFR at night at all.

As long as I'm not aboard, I don't care what they do.

There are lots of places in Colorado and Arizona without mountains.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> I can see the sprit of the 'rule' that was taught to you, but that is
> by no means a rule. It is easy to follow that rule in the eastern and
> midwestern states, but it is impossible in the west.

You can fly above the mountain peaks just about anywhere. If you can't, then
it might be a good idea to stay out of areas where you can't at night.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Eric Bartsch]

>
> However, I no long harbor the notion that an IR is going to help us
> fly more, or longer, or more regularly -- at least not until we can
> afford something like a Pilatus.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

You know, my instrument rating doesn't currently help me that much
with my Pilatus being VFR only...

Its great being constantly confused with PC-12s by ATC though. I think
my Vne is actually higher than their's, but the only way I'd ever
outrun a PC-12 is if we were both aimed straight at the ground...

Jay, I will give you an alternate piece of data on IFR flight: Out of
my long XC flights (400nm+) prior to buying the Pilatus (VFR only) I
have had to fly in IMC at some point on more than 75% of them. After
purchasing a VFR only aircraft, I have had to land and wait out
weather on 2 out of 5 long XC flights, where I could have easily
continued non-stop if the plane was equipped for IFR.

The issue I see with the way you calculated the % of time that the
weather is IMC, is that on a cross country flight you need a constant
path of VMC weather from departure to destination in order to make the
flight. I would be really interested to find out what the results
would change to, if your friend did a search on the number of days
that every ASOS station from IOW to Cincinnati or Detroit was showing
VFR. That would give a much better read on the percent of days that it
is possible to do a cross country under VFR.

Thanks,
Eric Bartsch
1959 Pilatus P-3 A-848
http://www.hometown.aol.com/bartscher/P3A848.html

[Jay Honeck]

> The issue I see with the way you calculated the % of time that the
> weather is IMC, is that on a cross country flight you need a constant
> path of VMC weather from departure to destination in order to make the
> flight. I would be really interested to find out what the results
> would change to, if your friend did a search on the number of days
> that every ASOS station from IOW to Cincinnati or Detroit was showing
> VFR. That would give a much better read on the percent of days that it
> is possible to do a cross country under VFR.

True enough, Eric -- although it wouldn't take into account the
ability to fly around pockets of IFR conditions.

This happens on almost every long (and I mean trans-continental) cross
country flight I've done -- sooner or later, you're going to run into
cruddy weather over *there*, which means that I fly over *here*.

While this may be seen as inconvenient by some, we have built it into
our expectations of a "flying vacation" -- and relish it. And on
those rare occasions when the weather goes REALLY bad, you park the
plane and make the best of it.

We saw Nashville that way for three days, because of freezing rain --
and had one of our most memorable vacations, ever. It turned out to
be a fantastic time.

The key is to always be flexible. When it comes to flying VFR cross-
country, we have to be more flexible than our IFR-capable brethren --
but not by too much.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> Whats wrong with flying around the mountain peaks instead of above?

Nothing, if you do it under conditions that allow it to be done safely, and
you're competent at mountain flying. How common are the former, and how many
pilots satisfy the latter criterion?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:

> On Mar 3, 10:59 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 3, 7:28 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>>>> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>>
>>>>> Terrain avoidance at night becomes a problem only in unpopulated
>>>>> areas under an overcast moonless sky. It has happened, so it is a
>>>>> real issue, but most pilots fly in areas where there are at least
>>>>> some ground lights, moon or stars, and it is really not that hard
>>>>> to tell if you are heading towards a mountain. On the other hand,
>>>>> unlit towers are a real concern, regardless of whether it is day
>>>>> or night, and this is why they get NOTAM'd.
>>
>>>> The above is an excellent example of bad pre-flight planning. All
>>>> one has to do to avoid terrain, day, night, IMC, etc. is stay above
>>>> the altitude of any obstructions in the sector. As this is plainly
>>>> listed on every sectional, it is not a difficult task.
>>
>>>> Neil
>>
>>> If you insist on flying above the MEF for each quadrant, you will
>>> not be able to do any GA flying in the mountain states. This is the
>>> very definition of mountain flying - ie flying below the peaks.
>>> Please don't flame my responses as "examples of bad preflight
>>> planning" when it is your reponse that is not adequately thought
>>> out.
>>
>> I would consider a "go" decision to fly in the mountains at night to
>> be *exceptionally* bad pre-flight planning. Exceptions do not
>> invalidate a rule.
>>
>> Neil- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> No, these areas are not the exceptional areas. Large chucks of this
> country falls ine areas where MEF is simply not attainable or
> practical in small airplanes.
>
> I can see the sprit of the 'rule' that was taught to you, but that is
> by no means a rule. It is easy to follow that rule in the eastern and
> midwestern states, but it is impossible in the west.
>
> The field elevation of Colorado Springs Airport is about 6200ft. The
> MEF is 12000 ft and higher. If you believe that, just go out there
> some day and see for yourself how many night VFR operations are
> conducted there well below the MEF.
>
Interesting that you should mention this area, as I was out there last
summer, and am somewhat familiar with it. I was doing some mountain flying
around Magdelena/Socorro, and have spent time in Santa Fe, Taos, Silver
Springs, and Ruidoso as well. So, for those who are unfamiliar with the
area, I'd add the following details that may make your story appear a bit
differently.

If you're flying *west* out of Colorado Springs Airport, say to Nevada,
then you'll have to deal with the Rockies and the MEF you're indicating.
For a good distance to the north, south, and to the Manzano range in the
east it's a different story entirely, and if you follow the interstate
it's easy to fly a MEF at around 2000' AGL. Someone mentioned flying from
Alburquerque to Santa Fe. Unless their planned route takes them through
the Sandias, they also will not be doing any "mountain flying" (again,
just follow the interstate). And, full moons are the exception to night
time; 12 vs. 365. So, to be relevant to the topic at hand, I'd like to
know if you're suggesting that taking any of the *mountain flying* routes
at night are safe, good planning, as your responses imply? ;-)

Neil

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 4, 8:06 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 10:59 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> >> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
> >>> On Mar 3, 7:28 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> >>>> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
> >>>>> Terrain avoidance at night becomes a problem only in unpopulated
> >>>>> areas under an overcast moonless sky. It has happened, so it is a
> >>>>> real issue, but most pilots fly in areas where there are at least
> >>>>> some ground lights, moon or stars, and it is really not that hard
> >>>>> to tell if you are heading towards a mountain. On the other hand,
> >>>>> unlit towers are a real concern, regardless of whether it is day
> >>>>> or night, and this is why they get NOTAM'd.
>
> >>>> The above is an excellent example of bad pre-flight planning. All
> >>>> one has to do to avoid terrain, day, night, IMC, etc. is stay above
> >>>> the altitude of any obstructions in the sector. As this is plainly
> >>>> listed on every sectional, it is not a difficult task.
>
> >>>> Neil
>
> >>> If you insist on flying above the MEF for each quadrant, you will
> >>> not be able to do any GA flying in the mountain states. This is the
> >>> very definition of mountain flying - ie flying below the peaks.
> >>> Please don't flame my responses as "examples of bad preflight
> >>> planning" when it is your reponse that is not adequately thought
> >>> out.
>
> >> I would consider a "go" decision to fly in the mountains at night to
> >> be *exceptionally* bad pre-flight planning. Exceptions do not
> >> invalidate a rule.
>
> >> Neil- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > No, these areas are not the exceptional areas. Large chucks of this
> > country falls ine areas where MEF is simply not attainable or
> > practical in small airplanes.
>
> > I can see the sprit of the 'rule' that was taught to you, but that is
> > by no means a rule. It is easy to follow that rule in the eastern and
> > midwestern states, but it is impossible in the west.
>
> > The field elevation of Colorado Springs Airport is about 6200ft. The
> > MEF is 12000 ft and higher. If you believe that, just go out there
> > some day and see for yourself how many night VFR operations are
> > conducted there well below the MEF.
>
> Interesting that you should mention this area, as I was out there last
> summer, and am somewhat familiar with it. I was doing some mountain flying
> around Magdelena/Socorro, and have spent time in Santa Fe, Taos, Silver
> Springs, and Ruidoso as well. So, for those who are unfamiliar with the
> area, I'd add the following details that may make your story appear a bit
> differently.
>
> If you're flying *west* out of Colorado Springs Airport, say to Nevada,
> then you'll have to deal with the Rockies and the MEF you're indicating.
> For a good distance to the north, south, and to the Manzano range in the
> east it's a different story entirely, and if you follow the interstate
> it's easy to fly a MEF at around 2000' AGL. Someone mentioned flying from
> Alburquerque to Santa Fe. Unless their planned route takes them through
> the Sandias, they also will not be doing any "mountain flying" (again,
> just follow the interstate). And, full moons are the exception to night
> time; 12 vs. 365. So, to be relevant to the topic at hand, I'd like to
> know if you're suggesting that taking any of the *mountain flying* routes
> at night are safe, good planning, as your responses imply? ;-)
>
> Neil- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As you mentioned, a flight from Albuquerque to Santa Fe does not
involve what we normally consider as mountain flying. However, you
will be flying in an area where the MEF is high, and your cruise
altitude is well below the mountain peaks. The original posted claimed
that flying below the MEF under night VFR was an example of poor
planning. My point was that there was nothing wrong with that, it is
done all the time, and there is no immediate danger of colliding with
terrain just because you are below the MEF at night under VFR.

As to whether any mountain flying routes are safe at night, it
depends. You would not want to, for example, fly to Glenwood Springs,
CO (GWS) at night because the traffic pattern is way too close to high
terrain. A wide pattern will put you in the path of the rocks. But go
20 miles to the west to Rifle, CO and it is safe to fly at night. Both
airports share the same MEF, and their airport elevations are almost
the same. One is safe at night, the other is not.

To reiterate my point, MEF cannot be used as a blanket rule for flight
planning purposes. One has to know more about mountain flying tactics
to make an intelligent decision. For the flat lander, it may be wise
to avoid these areas altogether at night until they get some
instruction.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:

> On Mar 4, 8:06 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>>> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>>> No, these areas are not the exceptional areas. Large chucks of this
>>> country falls ine areas where MEF is simply not attainable or
>>> practical in small airplanes.
>>
>>> I can see the sprit of the 'rule' that was taught to you, but that
>>> is by no means a rule. It is easy to follow that rule in the
>>> eastern and midwestern states, but it is impossible in the west.
>>
>>> The field elevation of Colorado Springs Airport is about 6200ft. The
>>> MEF is 12000 ft and higher. If you believe that, just go out there
>>> some day and see for yourself how many night VFR operations are
>>> conducted there well below the MEF.
>>
>> Interesting that you should mention this area, as I was out there
>> last summer, and am somewhat familiar with it. I was doing some
>> mountain flying around Magdelena/Socorro, and have spent time in
>> Santa Fe, Taos, Silver Springs, and Ruidoso as well. So, for those
>> who are unfamiliar with the area, I'd add the following details that
>> may make your story appear a bit differently.
>>
>> If you're flying *west* out of Colorado Springs Airport, say to
>> Nevada, then you'll have to deal with the Rockies and the MEF you're
>> indicating. For a good distance to the north, south, and to the
>> Manzano range in the east it's a different story entirely, and if
>> you follow the interstate it's easy to fly a MEF at around 2000'
>> AGL. Someone mentioned flying from Alburquerque to Santa Fe. Unless
>> their planned route takes them through the Sandias, they also will
>> not be doing any "mountain flying" (again, just follow the
>> interstate). And, full moons are the exception to night time; 12 vs.
>> 365. So, to be relevant to the topic at hand, I'd like to know if
>> you're suggesting that taking any of the *mountain flying* routes at
>> night are safe, good planning, as your responses imply? ;-)
>>
>
> As you mentioned, a flight from Albuquerque to Santa Fe does not
> involve what we normally consider as mountain flying. However, you
> will be flying in an area where the MEF is high, and your cruise
> altitude is well below the mountain peaks. The original posted claimed
> that flying below the MEF under night VFR was an example of poor
> planning. My point was that there was nothing wrong with that, it is
> done all the time, and there is no immediate danger of colliding with
> terrain just because you are below the MEF at night under VFR.
>
> As to whether any mountain flying routes are safe at night, it
> depends. You would not want to, for example, fly to Glenwood Springs,
> CO (GWS) at night because the traffic pattern is way too close to high
> terrain. A wide pattern will put you in the path of the rocks. But go
> 20 miles to the west to Rifle, CO and it is safe to fly at night. Both
> airports share the same MEF, and their airport elevations are almost
> the same. One is safe at night, the other is not.
>
> To reiterate my point, MEF cannot be used as a blanket rule for flight
> planning purposes. One has to know more about mountain flying tactics
> to make an intelligent decision. For the flat lander, it may be wise
> to avoid these areas altogether at night until they get some
> instruction.
>
The way I read it, you were suggesting that *mountain flying at night* was
safe, and I see that as being quite different from "flying at night in a
state that has mountains". Again, one who planned well would know that,
and IMO, no amount of planning would make flying in the mountains at night
safe.

So, I maintain that flying above MEF covers most of the US airspace, and
flying in a state that has mountains in a quadrant nowhere near where
you're flying is an exception that doesn't change the rule. Do you
disagree with that?

Neil

P.S. -- I meant "Silver City", above.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 4, 10:16 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:

> The way I read it, you were suggesting that *mountain flying at night* was
> safe, and I see that as being quite different from "flying at night in a
> state that has mountains". Again, one who planned well would know that,
> and IMO, no amount of planning would make flying in the mountains at night
> safe.
>
> So, I maintain that flying above MEF covers most of the US airspace, and
> flying in a state that has mountains in a quadrant nowhere near where
> you're flying is an exception that doesn't change the rule. Do you
> disagree with that?
>
> Neil
>


A discussion on mountain flying is not what I was attempting to start
here. I was only responding to the comment that "flying below the MEF
is an example of poor preflight planning". One example, as you also
pointed out, is a flight between Albuquerque and Santa Fe.

Regarding mountain flying at night, I won't say that it is perfectly
safe or that it is always dangerous and unsafe. Mountains don't always
mean they are unsafe. You have to consider a multitude of factors,
such as topography, sky condition, ground lighting, wind conditions,
density altitude etc.. MEF is not a high ranking factor in the
decision matrix.

So, I agree with you in the sense that mountain flying at night can be
tricky if you don't know the terrain, or if you are new to this.

However, I disagree that flying above MEF is the norm for most of the
U.S. In most areas of CO, NM, UT, AZ, ID and some areas of CA, NV,
OR, WA, MT and WY as well as VA, WV and TN one would routinely fly
below the MEF. I have not done the math, but I would not describe
these massive areas as exceptions to the CONUS.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:

> On Mar 4, 10:16 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>> The way I read it, you were suggesting that *mountain flying at
>> night* was safe, and I see that as being quite different from
>> "flying at night in a state that has mountains". Again, one who
>> planned well would know that, and IMO, no amount of planning would
>> make flying in the mountains at night safe.
>>
>> So, I maintain that flying above MEF covers most of the US airspace,
>> and flying in a state that has mountains in a quadrant nowhere near
>> where you're flying is an exception that doesn't change the rule. Do
>> you disagree with that?
>>
>
> A discussion on mountain flying is not what I was attempting to start
> here.
>
Well, it was your post on 3/3/07 that I responded to:

Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
> If you insist on flying above the MEF for each quadrant, you will not
> be able to do any GA flying in the mountain states. This is the very
> definition of mountain flying - ie flying below the peaks.
>
This statement seems pretty unambiguous.

> I was only responding to the comment that "flying below the MEF
> is an example of poor preflight planning".
>
Wait a second. Your above statement is NOT something I wrote, so it should
not be in quotes.

My comment in response to your statement:
"On the other hand, unlit towers are a real concern, regardless of whether
it is day or night..."

was:
"The above is an excellent example of bad pre-flight planning. All one has
to do to avoid terrain, day, night, IMC, etc. is stay above the altitude
of any obstructions in the sector. As this is plainly listed on every
sectional, it is not a difficult task."

Perhaps it rubbed you the wrong way, and if so, sorry about that. But it
is still a true statement that the altitude of obstructions are listed on
every sectional, and obstacle avoidance is easy to do with a little
planning. The whole business about MEF came up later and in the context of
moutain flying.

> Regarding mountain flying at night, I won't say that it is perfectly
> safe or that it is always dangerous and unsafe. Mountains don't always
> mean they are unsafe. You have to consider a multitude of factors,
> such as topography, sky condition, ground lighting, wind conditions,
> density altitude etc.. MEF is not a high ranking factor in the
> decision matrix.
>
Again, I understand and agree with your point about ranking MEF in the
decision tree. Still, I won't go mountain flying at night with anyone
(e.g. in the mountains and below the peaks) unless my chances of living
are significantly reduced by not doing so. YMMV.

> However, I disagree that flying above MEF is the norm for most of the
> U.S. In most areas of CO, NM, UT, AZ, ID and some areas of CA, NV,
> OR, WA, MT and WY as well as VA, WV and TN one would routinely fly
> below the MEF. I have not done the math, but I would not describe
> these massive areas as exceptions to the CONUS.
>
I would exclude those states east of the Mississippi, as most GA aircraft
would have no problems staying above MEF, and except for take-off and
landing, I see little reason to fly below the peaks at night in those
states. As for AZ, CA, CO, NM, NV, MT, UT, WA, and WY, even though there
are mountainous areas, there are also very large, open areas relatively
free of mountains in each of those states. So, in terms of square mileage,
I'd stick to my opinion about the practicality of flying above MEF.

Regards,

Neil

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Mar 4, 1:18 pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:

>
> > I was only responding to the comment that "flying below the MEF
> > is an example of poor preflight planning".
>
> Wait a second. Your above statement is NOT something I wrote, so it should
> not be in quotes.

Neil,
I did not say that I was responding to your comments. Someone else
made that statement, and that is how this thread got started. I agreed
with most of what you said, and no, you did not rub me the wrong way
at all. I apologize if it came across that way.

Sorry for the confusion :-)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:

> On Mar 4, 1:18 pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
>>
>>> I was only responding to the comment that "flying below the MEF
>>> is an example of poor preflight planning".
>>
>> Wait a second. Your above statement is NOT something I wrote, so it
>> should not be in quotes.
>
> Neil,
> I did not say that I was responding to your comments. Someone else
> made that statement, and that is how this thread got started. I agreed
> with most of what you said, and no, you did not rub me the wrong way
> at all. I apologize if it came across that way.
>
> Sorry for the confusion :-)
>
No problem. I must have missed the post that you quoted in this thread. I
also agree with most of what you were saying, and understand the viewpoint
you presented. The rest is picking nits about the finer points. ;-)

Regards,

Neil

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:11:03 -0800, Jay Honeck wrote:

> This brings up a whole 'nother aspect of this discussion, which quite
> simply asks: Who *wants* to fly IFR?

Being cotton-balled is dull for passengers, as much as I might enjoy it.
But flying between layers, in and out, or amongst the clouds is fun for
her (and for my 4-y-old son).

Cloudscapes offer some incredible views.

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> If you are flying the minimum IFR altitudes, it still should not be a
> problem, unless there is a chart error.

Matt, you have provided a great leadin to what I think got missed in
this discussion. Yes, flying the minimum IFR altitude is ok...
PROVIDED you can MAINTAIN that altitude.

One of the most insidious things about mountain flying is the wind!
You can be going DOWN (or UP) over 2000 FPM in the laminar flow and
not feel a thing! This can be a VERY BAD (TM) thing at night.

As you remember, in the mountains, the minimum IFR altitude is only
2000' above the highest terrain in the area. But, at 2000 FPM down,
you are at mountain top level in one minute.

4000 FPM down is not uncommon. Day or night!

I profess that until you are flying at over 18000 MSL, AND you can
overcome a 4000 FPM downdraft, IFR in the mountains should be
avoided.

Conversely, VFR in the mountains, day or night, if you choose your
route carefully, and the winds are less than 25 knots at mountain
top level and you and stay about 2000' above the canyon floor, you
are rarely out of gliding distance to a survivable landing spot.
Not an airport, but a survivable landing spot.

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 247 Young Eagles!

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> If you are flying the minimum IFR altitudes, it still should not be a
>> problem, unless there is a chart error.
>
> Matt, you have provided a great leadin to what I think got missed in
> this discussion. Yes, flying the minimum IFR altitude is ok...
> PROVIDED you can MAINTAIN that altitude.
>
> One of the most insidious things about mountain flying is the wind!
> You can be going DOWN (or UP) over 2000 FPM in the laminar flow and
> not feel a thing! This can be a VERY BAD (TM) thing at night.
>
> As you remember, in the mountains, the minimum IFR altitude is only
> 2000' above the highest terrain in the area. But, at 2000 FPM down,
> you are at mountain top level in one minute.
>
> 4000 FPM down is not uncommon. Day or night!
>
> I profess that until you are flying at over 18000 MSL, AND you can
> overcome a 4000 FPM downdraft, IFR in the mountains should be
> avoided.
>
> Conversely, VFR in the mountains, day or night, if you choose your
> route carefully, and the winds are less than 25 knots at mountain
> top level and you and stay about 2000' above the canyon floor, you
> are rarely out of gliding distance to a survivable landing spot.
> Not an airport, but a survivable landing spot.

Yes, hence the M in MEA, MOCA, etc. It isn't necessarily a RECOMMENDED
altitude! :-)

Matt

[Denny]

> > Matt, you have provided a great leadin to what I think got missed in
> > this discussion. Yes, flying the minimum IFR altitude is ok...
> > PROVIDED you can MAINTAIN that altitude.
>

I was night IFR over the Appalachain Mountain in Tennessee when the
Knoxville controller asked me to 'say altitude' - the usual controller
speak for, 'what are you doing, dip**** ! '...
I was in a 300 hp Super Viking at full power and best rate of climb
and the IVSI showed me as going DOWN at 1300fpm...
All I said was, 'unable to maintain altitude'...
He replied, 'roger that'...
I finally punched out of the down vortex and started back up to
assigned altitude having lost a hair over a thousand feet... Even
though I still had approximately 1500' of clearance when I broke out,
my heart was pumping!
I later did some reading on mountain flying and found I could have
handled it better by not trying to climb out of the down draft... The
problem is that your IFR reflexes - and IFR regs - will prompt you to
hold your target altitude, the opposite of what the mountain experts
say to do...

denny

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth,
>> it's absolutely no fun for the passengers, whose only real reward for
>> putting up with GA is the view. (Well, and the time savings over
>> driving, of course.)
>>
>> Most of the instrument rated pilots I know try to avoid flying IFR as
>> much as I do, only using the rating when necessary to pop up (or
>> down) through unavoidable IMC. This, of course, leads to a lack of
>> proficiency, and the unavoidable fact that they really aren't
>> prepared for flying in hard IMC.
>>
>> This is exactly what Mary and will use the rating for -- a safety
>> outlet -- and is one major reason why we fear that we might just end
>> up just dangerous enough to kill someone.
>
> What about flying IFR at night? If it's dark enough that you can't
> see much outside, you get the benefits of IFR without many of the
> dangers of IMC. You can just fly regular night flights IFR and
> maintain your currency that way, and yet you won't be stressed by bad
> weather to worry about.


Well it's always IFR where you are, up your own ass.



Bertie