Curious about flying in IFR

I've only flown through a few light clouds,
and a couple of twilight evenings with pretty
good evening light. (had the red cockpit light on)
So that wasn't IFR.

Then flew out of Atlanta for an hour wearing the
hood for training. A little nauseating, but other
than that just kept my eye on the six-pack.

I keep trying to imagine flying in a white-out
for an extended period of time. Wouldn't you be
focused on your instruments enough to discern
orientation? (not counting synthetic vision).

Can't quite picture getting upside down without
gravity and attitude indicator letting me know
how OFF you are.

___

Flying in IMC is a great exercise of the brain.


I once wrote in 1998:

"For me, IFR flight is a lot like playing a game of Chess in the
blind while juggling three balls in the air and maintaining a
running conversation at a noisy cocktail party. You have to
mentally visualize the position of the "pieces" on the "board,"
continually monitor and interpret a myriad of arcane instruments
and make corrections to keep the airplane shinny side up, all
while constantly attempting to pick out the ATC communiques
intended for you from the rest of the "guests'" conversations. To
this add the _stress_ of the consequences of losing the game
(death). (Of course, this analogy fails to consider weather,
turbulence, flight planning, interpreting charts and plates,
tuning radios and OBS settings, equipment failures, ....)

Single-pilot IFR aircraft operation in the ATC system in IMC
without the benefit of Global Positioning Satellite receiver,
auto-pilot, and Active Noise Reduction headset, is probably one of
the most demanding things you will ever do."


On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:00:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:


I've only flown through a few light clouds,
and a couple of twilight evenings with pretty
good evening light. (had the red cockpit light on)
So that wasn't IFR.

Then flew out of Atlanta for an hour wearing the
hood for training. A little nauseating, but other
than that just kept my eye on the six-pack.

I keep trying to imagine flying in a white-out
for an extended period of time. Wouldn't you be
focused on your instruments enough to discern
orientation? (not counting synthetic vision).

Can't quite picture getting upside down without
gravity and attitude indicator letting me know
how OFF you are.

___

On 11/7/2015 4:41 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:


Flying in IMC is a great exercise of the brain.


I once wrote in 1998:

"For me, IFR flight is a lot like playing a game of Chess in the
blind while juggling three balls in the air and maintaining a
running conversation at a noisy cocktail party. You have to
mentally visualize the position of the "pieces" on the "board,"
continually monitor and interpret a myriad of arcane instruments
and make corrections to keep the airplane shinny side up, all
while constantly attempting to pick out the ATC communiques
intended for you from the rest of the "guests'" conversations. To
this add the _stress_ of the consequences of losing the game
(death). (Of course, this analogy fails to consider weather,
turbulence, flight planning, interpreting charts and plates,
tuning radios and OBS settings, equipment failures, ....)

Single-pilot IFR aircraft operation in the ATC system in IMC
without the benefit of Global Positioning Satellite receiver,
auto-pilot, and Active Noise Reduction headset, is probably one of
the most demanding things you will ever do."

Good summation.

With the cockpits of today a lot of the small parts are taken away.

But it still demands a high level of discipline

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 2:06:31 PM UTC-5, george wrote:
On 11/7/2015 4:41 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:


Flying in IMC is a great exercise of the brain.


I once wrote in 1998:

"For me, IFR flight is a lot like playing a game of Chess in the
blind while juggling three balls in the air and maintaining a
running conversation at a noisy cocktail party. You have to
mentally visualize the position of the "pieces" on the "board,"
continually monitor and interpret a myriad of arcane instruments
and make corrections to keep the airplane shinny side up, all
while constantly attempting to pick out the ATC communiques
intended for you from the rest of the "guests'" conversations. To
this add the _stress_ of the consequences of losing the game
(death). (Of course, this analogy fails to consider weather,
turbulence, flight planning, interpreting charts and plates,
tuning radios and OBS settings, equipment failures, ....)

Single-pilot IFR aircraft operation in the ATC system in IMC
without the benefit of Global Positioning Satellite receiver,
auto-pilot, and Active Noise Reduction headset, is probably one of
the most demanding things you will ever do."

Good summation.

With the cockpits of today a lot of the small parts are taken away.

But it still demands a high level of discipline

I would only add to what Larry has already said that once a pilot has developed a good instrument scan what actually happens while scanning is that the flying of the aircraft as that relates to subtle corrections actually takes place BETWEEN the time the eye scans the instrument and is in route to the next instrument in the cross check.
In other words, you see what the instrument is asking you to do as you scan it then as you move to the next instrument in your scan you DO what that last instrument told you needed to be done.
So on and so on as your never ending scan progresses.
It takes time and even more importantly CURRENCY to maintain competent scan proficiency.
I liken it very much to a major league baseball hitter reading the stitches on a fastball. Leave the venue for a while and you start losing your ability to read that fastball.
For this exact reason I always encourage pilots with instrument ratings to USE THE RATING !!!!!!!!

Dudley Henriques

On 11/8/2015 3:03 PM, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I would only add to what Larry has already said that once a pilot has developed a good instrument scan what actually happens while scanning is that the flying of the aircraft as that relates to subtle corrections actually takes place BETWEEN the time the eye scans the instrument and is in route to the next instrument in the cross check.
In other words, you see what the instrument is asking you to do as you scan it then as you move to the next instrument in your scan you DO what that last instrument told you needed to be done.
So on and so on as your never ending scan progresses.
It takes time and even more importantly CURRENCY to maintain competent scan proficiency.
I liken it very much to a major league baseball hitter reading the stitches on a fastball. Leave the venue for a while and you start losing your ability to read that fastball.
For this exact reason I always encourage pilots with instrument ratings to USE THE RATING !!!!!!!!

Dudley Henriques

True.
An old instructor who flew in WW2 always referred to 'The Graveyard
Spiral' and demonstrated just how quickly a situation could and would
develop.
I seem to recall 90 seconds was the average time it took me to unnail
the needles
I did a few hours 'under the hood' and a few hours night flying around
the circuit but never had the compulsion to go any further.
An IR should be part of the pre CPL requirement

On 11/8/2015 1:53 PM, george152 wrote:
but never had the compulsion to go any further.

I also have no reason to ever get an instrument rating. But I still
insist on including a hood session with every flight review. If that
takes my flight review beyond the minimum one hour, that's a small price
to pay.

I am strictly a "fair weather pilot", but it's nice to know that I at
least have a fighting chance to live should I end up in inadvertent IFR.
(And that's something than can happen to anyone.)

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 1:54:00 PM UTC-5, george wrote:
On 11/8/2015 3:03 PM, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I would only add to what Larry has already said that once a pilot has developed a good instrument scan what actually happens while scanning is that the flying of the aircraft as that relates to subtle corrections actually takes place BETWEEN the time the eye scans the instrument and is in route to the next instrument in the cross check.
In other words, you see what the instrument is asking you to do as you scan it then as you move to the next instrument in your scan you DO what that last instrument told you needed to be done.
So on and so on as your never ending scan progresses.
It takes time and even more importantly CURRENCY to maintain competent scan proficiency.
I liken it very much to a major league baseball hitter reading the stitches on a fastball. Leave the venue for a while and you start losing your ability to read that fastball.
For this exact reason I always encourage pilots with instrument ratings to USE THE RATING !!!!!!!!

Dudley Henriques

True.
An old instructor who flew in WW2 always referred to 'The Graveyard
Spiral' and demonstrated just how quickly a situation could and would
develop.
I seem to recall 90 seconds was the average time it took me to unnail
the needles
I did a few hours 'under the hood' and a few hours night flying around
the circuit but never had the compulsion to go any further.
An IR should be part of the pre CPL requirement

What makes the "graveyard spiral" so deadly is that in most cases it's coordinated (ball centered). Pilots seeing the airspeed rising react to a pitch change neglecting the bank. The applied positive pitch simply tightens the spiral doing nothing to decrease the airspeed.
The solution to ANY nose down increasing airspeed situation is to FIRST check and correct the BANK......THEN correct the pitch!
This is so basic it's almost unbelievable that a pilot can pass even a PPL check ride without knowing this and demonstrating that it's known.
Doing it wrong usually ends VERY badly!
Dudley Henriques

In article ,
wrote:

I've only flown through a few light clouds,
and a couple of twilight evenings with pretty
good evening light. (had the red cockpit light on)
So that wasn't IFR.

Then flew out of Atlanta for an hour wearing the
hood for training. A little nauseating, but other
than that just kept my eye on the six-pack.

I keep trying to imagine flying in a white-out
for an extended period of time. Wouldn't you be
focused on your instruments enough to discern
orientation? (not counting synthetic vision).

Can't quite picture getting upside down without
gravity and attitude indicator letting me know
how OFF you are.

I still remember the first time I went "wet." Indeed, anybody who
hasn't gone through that might want to consider my experience. I'd been
under the hood several times, had more-or-less "mastered" a few
simulators, etc. etc. and thought that I was prepared for the **real
thing**. I'd been flying for 14 years, had 1300 hours, and thought I
knew something about flying an airplane.

The airplane was a B Navion, with King KX160/glideslope, KX150B, Lear
ADF-12, and Brittain autopilot---very "up to date" for 1966 (which this
was). Had a CFII with many hours who wanted to go from Mass to Maine to
look at an airplane, and offered to ride shotgun. Weather, low
overcast, with snow forecast.

So, off we went. Gear up, and we went wet in the overcast before the
gear was up and locked. Absolute panic---I lost it immediately;
hollered HELP to my companion. "Turn on the autopilot" sez he. So I
did. That saved my bacon. By the time we'd climbed to our assigned
altitude, I dared to turn the autopilot back off, and touch the controls
gingerly. We were still wet, but I was able to level off, get on
course, and gradually got a little more comfortable with things. It was
VFR at our destination, so we didn't have to do more than a VOR
approach.

The return trip was VFR back into the soup after we were on course, so
that wasn't much of a problem, but the home airport was close to ILS
minimums, which the CFII flew once I got to the IAF.

Debriefing after we landed, I told the CFII that I was astounded that
after the amount of hood and simulator experience I had, that I'd lost
it the moment we went wet. He told me, "That's what they all do the
first time." That experience convinced me that I needed an instrument
rating RIGHT NOW if that airplane was going to be of any use to me.

Fast forward a few weeks, when I was able to line up a CFII who could
fly with me nearly every day. So I went out almost daily, after calling
the weather to find the closest IFR conditions, which were never more
than 30-40 minutes away, and often, much closer, for that airplane.
The regulations say that you need 40 hours of training, under the hood,
actual, or approved simulator. After 10 hours, I felt I was getting
nowhere. Ten more, and things were showing improvement. At 30 hours, I
figured I had 20+ to go---the moment things got busy, I'd get behind.
Then, 40 hours came, and I was ready for the check ride. I was
astounded at how things finally came together in that last 10 hours.
As luck would have it, my instructor needed to take a guy down to IAD
and didn't have an airplane available, before my check ride appointment,
so we used mine with no charge from the CFII for riding shotgun with me.
That was a trip-and-a-half, wet every inch of the way, clearance
screwups, bad handoffs, etc. etc. So I went for the check ride with 47
hours, and it was a piece of cake.

That, of course, was nearly 50 years ago, and I flew the Navion, a
Bonanza, and a C182 pretty regularly for about 35 of those years as
business transportation. Had a few adventures along the way, and I can
assure you that it is not too hard to get yourself into an "unusual
attitude" a time or two. The day came when I no longer flew regularly,
and had to decide that if I wasn't doing an hour of wet time a week, I
was out of currency for hard IFR, and was an accident waiting to happen.

One point I haven't seen brought out here is that IFR training was where
I really learned how to fly an airplane. Simple things like holding
altitude and heading apply to VFR as well. I think anyone who has been
through the process will tell you that IFR training is an opportunity to
get **real** as a pilot, whether you do a lot of wet time or not.

Hank

In article , ,
Vaughn Simon says...

On 11/8/2015 1:53 PM, george152 wrote:
but never had the compulsion to go any further.

I also have no reason to ever get an instrument rating. But I still
insist on including a hood session with every flight review. If that
takes my flight review beyond the minimum one hour, that's a small price
to pay.

I am strictly a "fair weather pilot", but it's nice to know that I at
least have a fighting chance to live should I end up in inadvertent IFR.
(And that's something than can happen to anyone.)

It's also a hell of a lot of fun, recovering from unusual attitudes
while under the helmet.

That, and as you say, that it could save your bacon one day.

--
Duncan.

I appreciate everyone's input. You've created an
informative thread that anyone interested in this
topic could benefit from. My take-away from it
is:

1. If I'm able to purchase a plane in the next couple
of years, then an IFR endorsement will be necessary
to satisfy travel requirements, and really get the
best value out of my certificate. Otherwise, you're
going to spend a lot of time waiting.

2. Although it's admirable and a challenge to fly "old-school"
with analogue gauges, paper charts, CP-R, and use
solely VOR and basic NAVCOM, it's only sensible
if possible, to carry the best glass EFIS and AHRS
available, including of course ADS-B weather.
I described somewhat this post:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ng/Oy5aJPeEfvw

3. While I know it's quite a challenge, the only way to
really know what it's like is to get out there and
experience it first hand. I believe a lot of people
think it's easier than it really it. Let's just
assume the opposite.

---