Anthony, question about IFR / IMC

[Darrell[_2_]]

Anthony,

Is it true that one must fly by reference to instruments alone while
in IMC and/or IFR?
I am an instrument student and I thought I learned something
different. Please explain where you learned that I must fly by
reference to instruments alone when on an IFR flight plan or in IMC
above or below clouds?

Thanks,

IFR student absorbing wisdom

[Darrell[_2_]]

On Aug 12, 11:18*pm, Darrell > wrote:
> Anthony,
>
> Is it true that one must fly by reference to instruments alone while
> in IMC and/or IFR?
> I am an instrument student and I thought I learned something
> different. Please explain where you learned that I must fly by
> reference to instruments alone when on an IFR flight plan or in IMC
> above or below clouds?
>
> Thanks,
>
> IFR student absorbing wisdom

The other day my instructor and I departed Longview, Texas on an IFR
flight plan. The conditions were legal IMC, with cloud ceilings at a
little over 700 feet & overcast, the perfect day to get real
instrument time & shoot practice ILS approaches my instructor said. We
flew around the local area in the clouds a while then did 3 ILS
approaches into Gregg County Airport (GGG), 2 vectored and 1 full
approach. After my final missed approach ATC tucked us 50 feet under
the cloud ceiling which meant we were not only IFR, we were actual
IMC, too! It was really cool because even though we were IFR and IMC,
too, we were still flying by outside visual reference since the
visibility under the ceiling was good. I did glance at my instruments
to maintain my IFR flight plan which ATC had given us but we were
flying by visual reference mainly.

The thing I would like you, Anthony, to help me understand is how was
this possible since you said that I must fly by reference to
instruments alone while in IFR and/or IMC?

Thanks again for any help, Anthony, that you give this instrument
student!

IFR is fun!

Darrell

[Tim[_1_]]

"Darrell" > wrote
>
> Is it true that one must fly by reference to instruments alone while
> in IMC and/or IFR?
> I am an instrument student and I thought I learned something
> different. Please explain where you learned that I must fly by
> reference to instruments alone when on an IFR flight plan or in IMC
> above or below clouds?
>
> Thanks,
>
> IFR student absorbing wisdom

Isn't this all getting just a little tedious?

Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to find
some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally Mx is right
and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them from embarrasing
themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes from nit picking to
semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The amazing thing is that it occurs
with almost every one of his posts.

Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when you
have no reliable outside visual references.

I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own worst
enemy.

[Buster Hymen]

"Tim" > wrote in
:

> "Darrell" > wrote
>>
>> Is it true that one must fly by reference to instruments alone while
>> in IMC and/or IFR?
>> I am an instrument student and I thought I learned something
>> different. Please explain where you learned that I must fly by
>> reference to instruments alone when on an IFR flight plan or in IMC
>> above or below clouds?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> IFR student absorbing wisdom
>
> Isn't this all getting just a little tedious?
>
> Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to
> find some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally
> Mx is right and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them
> from embarrasing themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes
> from nit picking to semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The
> amazing thing is that it occurs with almost every one of his posts.
>
> Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when
> you have no reliable outside visual references.
>
> I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own
> worst enemy.
>
>
>

You're a mind reader?

[[email protected]]

Tim > wrote:

> Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to find
> some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally Mx is right
> and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them from embarrasing
> themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes from nit picking to
> semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The amazing thing is that it occurs
> with almost every one of his posts.

> Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when you
> have no reliable outside visual references.

> I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own worst
> enemy.

And you know what he meant is correct while what he actually said was
wrong how?

Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in instrument
conditions, you must be on instruments.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dallas]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:52:31 -0700 (PDT), Darrell wrote:

> Thanks again for any help, Anthony, that you give this instrument
> student!

You shouldn't use Caciocavallo Podolico in the trap, it makes the rat
suspicious. Try Velveeta next time.


--
Dallas

[Bob F.[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Tim > wrote:
>
>> Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to find
>> some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally Mx is
>> right
>> and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them from embarrasing
>> themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes from nit picking to
>> semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The amazing thing is that it
>> occurs
>> with almost every one of his posts.
>
>> Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when you
>> have no reliable outside visual references.
>
>> I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own worst
>> enemy.
>
> And you know what he meant is correct while what he actually said was
> wrong how?
>
> Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
> of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in instrument
> conditions, you must be on instruments.
>

Well, why not, that's right! If you are in "instrument conditions" you
must be on instruments. Now on the other hand, if you were in IMC per the
AIM definition, that would be another situation. You have to consider the
"nuance, subtlety, or shades of grey"

--
Regards, BobF.

[[email protected]]

Bob F. > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tim > wrote:
> >
> >> Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to find
> >> some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally Mx is
> >> right
> >> and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them from embarrasing
> >> themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes from nit picking to
> >> semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The amazing thing is that it
> >> occurs
> >> with almost every one of his posts.
> >
> >> Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when you
> >> have no reliable outside visual references.
> >
> >> I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own worst
> >> enemy.
> >
> > And you know what he meant is correct while what he actually said was
> > wrong how?
> >
> > Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
> > of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in instrument
> > conditions, you must be on instruments.
> >

> Well, why not, that's right! If you are in "instrument conditions" you
> must be on instruments. Now on the other hand, if you were in IMC per the
> AIM definition, that would be another situation. You have to consider the
> "nuance, subtlety, or shades of grey"

You do understand what the 'I' and 'C' in IMC stand for, don't you?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Bob F. > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Tim > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to
>> >> find
>> >> some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally Mx is
>> >> right
>> >> and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them from
>> >> embarrasing
>> >> themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes from nit picking to
>> >> semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The amazing thing is that it
>> >> occurs
>> >> with almost every one of his posts.
>> >
>> >> Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when
>> >> you
>> >> have no reliable outside visual references.
>> >
>> >> I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own
>> >> worst
>> >> enemy.
>> >
>> > And you know what he meant is correct while what he actually said was
>> > wrong how?
>> >
>> > Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
>> > of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in
>> > instrument
>> > conditions, you must be on instruments.
>> >
>
>> Well, why not, that's right! If you are in "instrument conditions" you
>> must be on instruments. Now on the other hand, if you were in IMC per
>> the
>> AIM definition, that would be another situation. You have to consider
>> the
>> "nuance, subtlety, or shades of grey"
>
> You do understand what the 'I' and 'C' in IMC stand for, don't you?
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Ah, but in your transcription you neglected to quote "IMC" and just said
"instrument conditions". "IMC" is a special definition in the AIM.
"instrument conditions" is just English... look the words up in Webster, put
them together and it means: conditions using instruments.

Hey I got an idea...how about stop bashing the OP, simply state the nuances,
politely, have a reasonable discussion and move on...how about that?


--
Regards, BobF.

[Mxsmanic]

Darrell writes:

> After my final missed approach ATC tucked us 50 feet under
> the cloud ceiling which meant we were not only IFR, we were actual
> IMC, too! It was really cool because even though we were IFR and IMC,
> too, we were still flying by outside visual reference since the
> visibility under the ceiling was good. I did glance at my instruments
> to maintain my IFR flight plan which ATC had given us but we were
> flying by visual reference mainly.

So the entire experience was largely wasted. Had you actually been in
conditions of poor visibility, your experience of using visual references
would have been useless, and your inexperience with relying solely on
instruments would have put you in danger. This type of nonchalance concerning
flight into poor weather conditions has killed countless pilots.

> The thing I would like you, Anthony, to help me understand is how was
> this possible since you said that I must fly by reference to
> instruments alone while in IFR and/or IMC?

Perhaps one day, when you really can't see out the window and you realize that
you should have been looking at the instruments instead of at the scenery
during all that instrument practice clear of clouds, you'll find out what I
mean. I'm sure it all seems very funny right now, but it won't then.

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when you
> have no reliable outside visual references.

Exactly. Thank you.

> I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own worst
> enemy.

Especially if their zeal to make fun in this venue influences their conduct in
real life, which it almost certainly does (the more you repeat something, the
more likely you are to start believing it, no matter how foolish it might be).

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
> of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in instrument
> conditions, you must be on instruments.

It never hurts to be on instruments, except for traffic avoidance. You can
fly IFR in VMC conditions as long as you watch for traffic, but you cannot fly
VFR (legally) in IMC, and you certainly cannot fly VFR safely in the poor
visibility conditions that tend to characterize IMC.

As long as you stay in VMC for all your flying, dismissing what I say is fine.
But if you get stuck in hard IMC one day, you'll die. It's a really important
concept to understand, and I didn't make it up myself. Many, many pilots die
because they stubbornly refuse to accept it.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob F. writes:

> Well, why not, that's right! If you are in "instrument conditions" you
> must be on instruments. Now on the other hand, if you were in IMC per the
> AIM definition, that would be another situation.

Not really. If you're in IMC but you can still see out the window, it means
that the risk is high that you will not be able to see out the window in just
a few minutes or miles. If you continue to rely on visual references even in
IMC just because you can still see something outside, you're putting yourself
in danger. There are good reasons why the regulations mention a distance from
clouds in most contexts, instead of just being outside the clouds.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
> > of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in instrument
> > conditions, you must be on instruments.

> It never hurts to be on instruments, except for traffic avoidance. You can
> fly IFR in VMC conditions as long as you watch for traffic, but you cannot fly
> VFR (legally) in IMC, and you certainly cannot fly VFR safely in the poor
> visibility conditions that tend to characterize IMC.

> As long as you stay in VMC for all your flying, dismissing what I say is fine.
> But if you get stuck in hard IMC one day, you'll die. It's a really important
> concept to understand, and I didn't make it up myself. Many, many pilots die
> because they stubbornly refuse to accept it.

Translation:

If the real pilots flying real airplanes with real IFR ratings don't
fly exactly like someone who has never flown a real airplane under
any conditions says, they will all die.

Right.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 13, 3:55*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> > > Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
> > > of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in instrument
> > > conditions, you must be on instruments.
> > It never hurts to be on instruments, except for traffic avoidance. *You can
> > fly IFR in VMC conditions as long as you watch for traffic, but you cannot fly
> > VFR (legally) in IMC, and you certainly cannot fly VFR safely in the poor
> > visibility conditions that tend to characterize IMC.
> > As long as you stay in VMC for all your flying, dismissing what I say is fine.
> > But if you get stuck in hard IMC one day, you'll die. *It's a really important
> > concept to understand, and I didn't make it up myself. *Many, many pilots die
> > because they stubbornly refuse to accept it.
>
> Translation:
>
> If the real pilots flying real airplanes with real IFR ratings don't
> fly exactly like someone who has never flown a real airplane under
> any conditions says, they will all die.
>
> Right.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mx is looking for a credible soap box: sort of like watching a fly in
a spider web, isn't it?

[Bob F.[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bob F. writes:
>
>> Well, why not, that's right! If you are in "instrument conditions" you
>> must be on instruments. Now on the other hand, if you were in IMC per
>> the
>> AIM definition, that would be another situation.
>
> Not really. If you're in IMC but you can still see out the window, it
> means
> that the risk is high that you will not be able to see out the window in
> just
> a few minutes or miles. If you continue to rely on visual references even
> in
> IMC just because you can still see something outside, you're putting
> yourself
> in danger. There are good reasons why the regulations mention a distance
> from
> clouds in most contexts, instead of just being outside the clouds.


Yes, really. It's "another situation" since the definitions are different.
How one handles the difference is another conversation.

--
Regards, BobF.

[george]

On Aug 14, 7:55 am, wrote:

> Translation:
>
> If the real pilots flying real airplanes with real IFR ratings don't
> fly exactly like someone who has never flown a real airplane under
> any conditions says, they will all die.
>
> Right.

Bingo.
That's why Anthony is still in France.
He knows that the distance between Europe and the US is far enough
that some if not all the flight will be conducted under IFR rules and
at night.

[Ricky]

On Aug 13, 2:46*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> If you continue to rely on visual references even in
> IMC just because you can still see something outside, you're putting yourself
> in danger. *

Oh...my...gosh.
Anthony, please, this statement is wrong. Flying in IMC with visual
reference is not dangerous. Visual transition from the instruments to
the outside references to back on the instruments is as natural as
breathing once an IFR pilot has a little experience.

The dangerous thing here, Anthony, is a student believing any of this
gibberish that you type.

Ricky

[Bob F.[_2_]]

"Ricky" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 13, 2:46 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> If you continue to rely on visual references even in
> IMC just because you can still see something outside, you're putting
> yourself
> in danger.

Oh...my...gosh.
Anthony, please, this statement is wrong. Flying in IMC with visual
reference is not dangerous. Visual transition from the instruments to
the outside references to back on the instruments is as natural as
breathing once an IFR pilot has a little experience.

I've trained a lot of instrument pilots. They all have been surprised, in
actual transitions when it occurred, how easy it was to make the change. It
is alway fun to hear the glee about this from them, but it was no big deal.
I liked doing training in actual conditions. When I worked with ATP's this
was no deal at all.

The dangerous thing here, Anthony, is a student believing any of this
gibberish that you type.

Ricky

--
Regards, BobF.

[Mxsmanic]

Ricky writes:

> Flying in IMC with visual reference is not dangerous.

That's what John Kennedy thought.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If the real pilots flying real airplanes with real IFR ratings don't
> fly exactly like someone who has never flown a real airplane under
> any conditions says, they will all die.

If real pilots don't heed the wisdom that I am simply repeating from other
sources, yes, they will sometimes die.

The interesting thing about this newsgroup (and many other similar venues) is
that I can copy and paste statements literatim out of respected sources and
people here will reject them simply because they see my name on the post. It
proves that they are so obsessed with me that they cannot think objectively.

If I didn't have a strong conscience, I'd be tempted to take advantage of
this.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 13, 10:43*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > If the real pilots flying real airplanes with real IFR ratings don't
> > fly exactly like someone who has never flown a real airplane under
> > any conditions says, they will all die.
>
> If real pilots don't heed the wisdom that I am simply repeating from other
> sources, yes, they will sometimes die.
>
> The interesting thing about this newsgroup (and many other similar venues) is
> that I can copy and paste statements literatim out of respected sources and
> people here will reject them simply because they see my name on the post. *It
> proves that they are so obsessed with me that they cannot think objectively.
>
> If I didn't have a strong conscience, I'd be tempted to take advantage of
> this.

I think if you posted valid information it would not be as challenged
as the crap you have been posting. Not by me, in any event.

[Bob F.[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ricky writes:
>
>> Flying in IMC with visual reference is not dangerous.
>
> That's what John Kennedy thought.


Puleeeze... inexperience flying a Saratoga in marginal VFR results in
exactly what happened. He was simply not competent in flying that mission.
This was a case of a person flying having more money than brains.

--
Regards, BobF.

[150flivver]

On Aug 13, 9:43 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > If the real pilots flying real airplanes with real IFR ratings don't
> > fly exactly like someone who has never flown a real airplane under
> > any conditions says, they will all die.
>
> If real pilots don't heed the wisdom that I am simply repeating from other
> sources, yes, they will sometimes die.
>
> The interesting thing about this newsgroup (and many other similar venues) is
> that I can copy and paste statements literatim out of respected sources and
> people here will reject them simply because they see my name on the post. It
> proves that they are so obsessed with me that they cannot think objectively.
>
> If I didn't have a strong conscience, I'd be tempted to take advantage of
> this.

The problem with information gleaned from the internet is the good is
mixed in with the bad and knowing which is which is difficult. You
(MXSMANIC) have no credibility based on your lack of flying
credentials so when you answer a flying question, your response has no
credibility and exacerbates the problem with internet information.
Now if you answered and credited a reliable source for the
information, it might be useful but I doubt you will. Just parroting
things you read somewhere and are unwilling or unable to cite where
means it is worthless at best and dangerous if believed at worst, Do
everyone a favor and STFU.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I think if you posted valid information it would not be as challenged
> as the crap you have been posting.

If it's valid in the book that it comes from, it remains so when posted here.

What exactly is your quarrel with relying on instruments?

[Mxsmanic]

150flivver writes:

> The problem with information gleaned from the internet is the good is
> mixed in with the bad and knowing which is which is difficult. You
> (MXSMANIC) have no credibility based on your lack of flying
> credentials so when you answer a flying question, your response has no
> credibility and exacerbates the problem with internet information.
> Now if you answered and credited a reliable source for the
> information, it might be useful but I doubt you will.

The information I provide is either correct, or it isn't. It doesn't matter
whether I'm personally credible or not; people should not be judging the
utility and correctness of what I say on the basis of my credibility alone.
If I copy and paste something from a highly reliable source, that information
remains valid even though my name is on the post.

The difficulty some people have is separating their emotional reactions to
others from objective reality.

> Just parroting
> things you read somewhere and are unwilling or unable to cite where
> means it is worthless at best and dangerous if believed at worst ...

If it's correct, it's not dangerous.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> The interesting thing about this newsgroup (and many other similar venues) is
> that I can copy and paste statements literatim out of respected sources and
> people here will reject them simply because they see my name on the post. It
> proves that they are so obsessed with me that they cannot think objectively.

So where is the copy and paste from the regulations that confirms your
statement that one is legally required to be on instruments when in IMC?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ricky]

On Aug 13, 9:43*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> The interesting thing about this newsgroup (and many other similar venues) is
> that I can copy and paste statements literatim out of respected sources

Anthony, a request.
Cite one, single "respected source" that you have used.

Ricky

[Darrell[_2_]]

On Aug 13, 9:43*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> The interesting thing about this newsgroup (and many other similar venues) is
> that I can copy and paste statements literatim out of respected sources and
> people here will reject them

Oh, hey, Anthony, remember me? I'm the instrument student. I really
appreciate the way you've been helping me.
Would you do me a favor and tell me what respected source you've been
using so I can go and learn more from it?

Thanks!

Darrell

[Ricky]

On Aug 13, 9:40*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Ricky writes:
> > Flying in IMC with visual reference is not dangerous.
>
> That's what John Kennedy thought.

Was John Kennedy instrument rated?
Anyone, seriously.

Ricky

[Ricky]

On Aug 13, 9:43*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> If real pilots don't heed the wisdom that I am simply repeating from other
> sources....

What source, what source?
Do tell please.

Ricky

[Ricky]

On Aug 13, 10:20*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> If it's valid in the book that it comes from, it remains so when posted here.

3rd time, 3rd request. What book? Simple.

Ricky

[Dallas]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:15:57 -0700 (PDT), Ricky wrote:

> Was John Kennedy instrument rated?
> Anyone, seriously.

Na. John John had a few hours towards an IR... clearly not enough
however.

--
Dallas

[[email protected]]

On Aug 14, 1:53*am, Dallas > wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:15:57 -0700 (PDT), Ricky wrote:
> > Was John Kennedy instrument rated?
> > Anyone, seriously.
>
> Na. * John John had a few hours towards an IR... *clearly not enough
> however.
>
> --
> Dallas

Dallas, JFK Jr had lots of logged time toward his IFR rating -- see
the NTSB report or the book "The Day John Died". It's simply that he
had trouble passing the staged exams that his CFII used to demonstrate
proficiency. I seem to remember in excess of 300 hours dual.

He was also a known risk taker: his nickname among his friends was
something like Master of Disaster. Some of his family members refused
to fly with him. See the book mentioned above for the details. He was,
at the time of his death, still recovering from a broken ankle that
was a result of an ultra light crash on the Vineyard.

In short, if you were going to select characteristics of a pilot who
would have a greater than normal chance of crashing, JFK Jr would have
fit the profile pretty well.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob F. wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ricky writes:
>>
>>> Flying in IMC with visual reference is not dangerous.
>>
>> That's what John Kennedy thought.
>
>
> Puleeeze... inexperience flying a Saratoga in marginal VFR results in
> exactly what happened. He was simply not competent in flying that
> mission. This was a case of a person flying having more money than brains.
>

I don't know about the money vs brains thing but what happened to
Kennedy has happened to a lot of other VFR pilots operating out of, in,
and around coastal areas, especially around dusk. Spatial disorientation
in this scenario is now and always has been a killer.
What has always bothered me about the Kennedy accident is whether or not
his instructor(s) ever made a POINT of warning him about this. The fact
that everyone in the world knew he would be operating any airplane he
flew in and out of the Martha"s Vineyard Block Island area should have
been a red flag to his instructors.
So for me at least, the REAL issue with his accident has always been
whether or not he had been SPECIFICALLY WARNED of the dangers involved
with flying in this area at dusk. If he was warned, I would believe that
then a case for the for the "money vs brains" thing would be warranted.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> That's the way it works in the real world.

That depends on the company you keep.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 14, 8:49*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bob F. wrote:
> > "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Ricky writes:
>
> >>> Flying in IMC with visual reference is not dangerous.
>
> >> That's what John Kennedy thought.
>
> > Puleeeze... inexperience flying a Saratoga in marginal VFR results in
> > exactly what happened. *He was simply not competent in flying that
> > mission. This was a case of a person flying having more money than brains.
>
> I don't know about the money vs brains thing but what happened to
> Kennedy has happened to a lot of other VFR pilots operating out of, in,
> and around coastal areas, especially around dusk. Spatial disorientation
> in this scenario is now and always has been a killer.
> What has always bothered me about the Kennedy accident is whether or not
> his instructor(s) ever made a POINT of warning him about this. The fact
> that everyone in the world knew he would be operating any airplane he
> flew in and out of the Martha"s Vineyard Block Island area should have
> been a red flag to his instructors.
> So for me at least, the REAL issue with his accident has always been
> whether or not he had been SPECIFICALLY WARNED of the dangers involved
> with flying in this area at dusk. If he was warned, I would believe that
> then a case for the for the "money vs brains" thing would be warranted.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

John Jr flew that route with a CFII a number of times. If memory
serves, he planned to take one with him on that trip too. As it
happened, the ETA was chosen so that the entire trip would have been
flown in daylight, but traffic and other delays made it a dusk take
off. Worse than that, the night before (I'm using the book "The Day
John Died" as a reference here, but I read it a few years ago) he had
a major fight with his wife as well, and is magazine "George" was
failing.

I think he had 300 plus hours of dual -- but was not nearly ready to
take the flight test. I don't know if he passed the written, but don't
think so.

It was the usual case of a sequence of bad decisions. Probably the
worst one -- I'm guessing here, but there's good evidence it happened
this way-- is he was VFR at 5500 feet or so between Point Judith RI
and the Vineyard, close enough to his destination -- maybe 20 miles
away? -- so that it would be a good time to start down. (Personal
preference, I fly IFR has high as the winds will allow, and if traffic
is light l like to let down at 250 or 300 feet per minute, so if I'm
at 10,000 and want to be near the airport at 1,000 I start down 30
minutes out). the radar track suggests to me he disconnected the a/p,
(until that point altitude was pretty much rock solid) started to hand
fly, and impacted the water 30 seconds later.

Other pilots in the area said there was no visible horizon, and there
are NO lights in Rhode Island Sound. There are plenty of lights at
Point Judith (ask me about Harbor of Last Refuge there sometime, but
in a sailing newsgroup) and on the Vineyard.

John Jr had taken plenty of chances in his life, and when you roll the
dice as often as he did the odds are not in your favor. When there is
no visible horizon, regardless of whether the conditions are VFR or
IFR, a pilot had damn well better be able to fly with reference to
instruments -rated or not.

I really considered the training for the instrument rating having more
to do with learning the ATC system, although my *&&^&%(_) CFII was
really good at putting the airplane in unusual attitudes before
telling me, with my head down under the hood, "It's all yours."

[Dallas]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 04:52:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> I seem to remember in excess of 300 hours dual.

Wow, that's just hard to believe.

[shaking his head]

--
Dallas

[[email protected]]

On Aug 14, 1:45 pm, Dallas > wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 04:52:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> > I seem to remember in excess of 300 hours dual.
>
> Wow, that's just hard to believe.
>
> [shaking his head]
>
> --
> Dallas

My BIG error. He had 310 hours total time. See

http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/misc/NYC99MA178a.pdf

which states he was about half way through his instrument training.
Elsewhere, I forgot where, I remember reading he had lots of CFII
time. He did have about 35 trips to the vineyard.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 14, 6:54*pm, wrote:
> On Aug 14, 1:45 pm, Dallas > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 04:52:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> > > *I seem to remember in excess of 300 hours dual.
>
> > Wow, that's just hard to believe.
>
> > [shaking his head]
>
> > --
> > Dallas
>
> My BIG error. He had 310 hours total time. See
>
> http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/misc/NYC99MA178a.pdf
>
> which states he was about half way through his instrument training.
> Elsewhere, I forgot where, I remember reading he had lots of CFII
> time. He did have about 35 trips to the vineyard.

Final note -- the NTSB report seems to be hard to download. I probably
have a copy in my files -- for purposes unrelated to this thread I did
some research on the matter a couple of years ago -- so if you need it
drop me a note.