If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug" wrote: It is all too easy to just blow throught the MDA (DH) and keep coming down. Important to guard against that. Very good point. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
We bought one of those altitude bugs for our Cherokee 180. Sticks right to
the face of the altimeter & has a red tick for DH/MDA, yellow arc for 200-100 feet above, and green tick for 500 feet above. Works for VFR, too. Put red tick at field elevation. At $60 some bucks, they're kinda pricey, but pretty handy. "Doug" wrote in message om... One thing I do on an approach. I write down the minimum descent altitude on a sticky and put it on my panel. I cannot go below that. At 50' above that altitude, I start looking for the runway. It is all too easy to just blow throught the MDA (DH) and keep coming down. Important to guard against that. Wizard of Draws wrote in message news:BD8F446E.28C81%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdra ws.com... Today was the first time I've ever been established on approach, in actual. A bit unnerving if I say so myself. Partly because it's been a month since I've been able to fly. We (another instrument pilot and I) started down into La Grange (KLGC) after we were cleared for the approach and had to intercept the localizer while still in the clouds. I over-banked a bit at first. We only had to descend through about 2000' of cloud deck, but it sure felt like a lot more. We broke out at ~1500' AGL, a little to the right of the localizer and above the slope. I think it will be a lot more hours before I attempt any single pilot IFR. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Luke wrote:
Whoa! What's wrong with flying hard IFR in a PA-28-180? I fly "hard IFR" (not sure what your definition is) in a 172RG; it does just fine. A Cherokee 180 should do just as well - unless you're talking about doing it in the mountains...? In fact, a fixed-gear plane like a Cherokee or Skyhawk is safer for IFR in many ways. Take a look at the NTSB reports and try to find a *single* case of a fixed-gear plane crashing after a vacuum pump failure in IMC while flying IFR over the past 10 or 20 years. My Warrior II, with its slow approach speed, high drag, sluggish roll rate and lack of any overbanking tendency, makes a very easy IFR platform for a relatively inexperienced pilot, even in very unpleasant conditions (including some severe turbulence last summer). Just during the initial learning and confidence-building stage it could be useful as a "backup".... You'd still better be able to do it all by hand, though. Autopilots are good if used as a tool, but I think lots of people depend on them. Yep. I wouldn't mind one, but it's not at the top of the list. If I move up to a retract, though, it will be on my need-to-have list. All the best, David |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article you wrote: : wrote: : My plane does not have an autopilot, nor do I believe it : makes sense to add one (can't polish a turd... : PA-28-180 isn't a hard IFR machine). : Whoa! What's wrong with flying hard IFR in a PA-28-180? I fly "hard IFR" : (not sure what your definition is) in a 172RG; it does just fine. A : Cherokee 180 should do just as well - unless you're talking about doing it : in the mountains...? My usual trip here in SW VA is to head up to the flatlands (OH, IL, WI)... that requires going over some 6000 MEA mountains. Not huge, but high enough to get a good temperature drop in the winter. That basically means IMC between Nov-Mar is serious icing consideration. I'm not saying that a high-end trainer (PA-28-180, 172RG seem to fit in that category) can't slog around for hours in hard IMC, but it has to be benign enough IMC. They just generally don't have enough power to deal with any ice, or equipment to deal with EMBED TSRA in the summertime. : If one has an autopilot, I belive that the transition to single-pilot IFR : might be a bit easier, : since you can let George fly while you collect yourself/charts/wits/etc. : No question. The first thing I had installed in my airplane when I bought : it was a 2-axis, rate-based autopilot, but not just for "training wheels" : purposes. I still use it on every approach, unless I'm practicing hand : flying. That's where I'm at... Not seeing the need to fork out the cash for an autopilot, but it would be nice to have as "backup training wheels" just in case you need to think a moment in single-pilot IMC. For the most part, I enjoy hand-flying in the soup... just don't get to do enough. -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
David Megginson wrote:
: I agree that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot fly in all IMC conditions, but I : don't agree that a high-performance plane without support for known icing : should be flying in much IMC that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot already handle. True enough. Range and speed (headwind considerations) might be one minor thing. Having a slippery plane can be a liability in IMC though... especially without an autopilot. Fixed-pitch prop gives you a nice aural warning, "Hey stupid, your pitch is wrong!" : Of course it's essential to have a way to detect embedded CB in real time : (not just through an uplink) if you're flying in IMC, but that's not a : function of the plane's power -- a low-powered plane like a Cherokee or : Skyhawk can have a Stormscope or Strikefinder just as easily as a Seneca or : Cessna 206. Yes, but it doesn't make sense to have $20k worth of avionics in a $35k airframe. When you're talking about a Six or 206, the $20k fits better with the $100k airframe. Once again, not worth polishing a turd (not that people don't do it). I know a guy who just recently completely rewired the panel (including TWO brand new Garmin 430's), electric AI, new interior, and new paint jobs after some major airframe repair (lots of rivets).... IN A CESSNA 150! Not worth the expense of making a serious IFR machine (weather detection, autopilot) in something that's not worth it. : As for icing, I agree that extra power can give you a bit more escape time : as well as the option of climbing (for a few minutes, anyway), but I think : it's easily overshadowed by other considerations. I don't mind flying in : cloud in my 160 hp Warrior around the freezing point when I have warmer air : or good VMC below me (still above MEA), but I cannot imagine doing that : while flying over mountains in a plane without certified deicing equipment, : no matter how powerful my engine. True enough. I think it'd be fairly careless to go slog in the sub-freezing soup expecting the extra HP to pull you up and out... unless you run Jet-A. Trouble with higher MEA's is you don't have options over the mountains, and it's generally cold enough. I got my first solo icing (first was with my instructor for PPL!) coming back IMC over WV at 9000' last fall. I wasn't too worried since I knew it was above freezing below, but when it's not you've got limited options. -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
David Megginson wrote
I agree that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot fly in all IMC conditions, but I don't agree that a high-performance plane without support for known icing should be flying in much IMC that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot already handle. Tell you what. Fly in some icing conditions in a Skyhawk or Cherokee class airplane. Then fly in similar conditions in some thing with 50%-100% more power and the same number of seats. Then tell me about it. Having had both experiences, I'm here to tell you that it's VERY different. The extra ponies give you way more in the way of options. They give you the option of climbing on top. They give you a power cushion on the descent - there's a huge difference between an airplane that needs 20" MAP to stay afloat and one that can do it on 15. There is a huge difference between an airplane that struggles to maintain 9,000 ft with trace ice on the wings and one that can cruise on up to 13,000 while carrying half an inch of rime. Note that neither airplane has any business REMAINING in icing conditions - but more power gives you dramatically more options to escape. Neither is 100%, but there is a huge difference. Michael |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
I agree that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot fly in all IMC conditions, but I don't agree that a high-performance plane without support for known icing should be flying in much IMC that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot already handle. Tell you what. Fly in some icing conditions in a Skyhawk or Cherokee class airplane. Then fly in similar conditions in some thing with 50%-100% more power and the same number of seats. Then tell me about it. Sure, I'd be thrilled to have more horsepower when I'm flying in possible icing conditions -- the question is whether I'd be willing to fly in even worse conditions than I would in my Warrior just because I had more horsepower. Personally, I'd want lots of other escapes either way -- I have trouble imagining that I'd cancel fewer flights just because I had a 240 hp engine. The one situation I can think of where it would make a big difference is flying in the mountains out west (which I don't do) -- I'd be nervous flying IFR in even remotely-possible icing conditions in a 160 hp or 180 hp plane. All the best, David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
First Solo In Actual Conditions | David B. Cole | Instrument Flight Rules | 22 | September 3rd 04 11:40 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Approach Question- Published Missed Can't be flown? | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | May 6th 04 04:19 AM |
Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate? | S. Ramirez | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | April 2nd 04 11:13 AM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |