Instrument rating??

"Steven Barnes" wrote
I do. I'm about half way through my ifr training (about 230 hours total
time over 3 years). My pesonal VFR minimums are 3,500 ovc, 3,000 bkn. I had
to divert once due to weather going from 4,000 bkn to 800 within 20 minutes.

First, a question - if you've seen weather go from 4,000 bkn to 800,
how is a 3,000 ft bkn minimum keeping you safe?

Second, an observation - I've seen it go from CAVU to below ILS
minimums (200 and 1/2) in less than 30 minutes.

Luckily I was right over an airport when I called ahead to my class C home
base. Fetched the plane the next day.

Just realize that when you're VFR, you're never far from an airport
and you can see the weather going bad as it happens. Little VFR-only
fields are all over the place, and in most of the US you can cruising
VFR, decide to bail, and be on the ground in less than 10 minutes -
meaning you don't have to be very good at predicting the weather and
monitoring trends to escape.

IFR, if you're cruising and decide to bail, you're looking at 20-30
minutes before you are on the ground. Further, you can't see what the
weather is doing when you're in the clouds or above them. Thus IFR
you are more dependent on being able to predict the weather and
monitor trends, not less.

Even so, once I get the rating, I'm betting my ifr minimums will still be
around the 2k agl mark (2-3 miles visibility).

In that case, you would benefit far more from some competent
instruction in how to fly marginal VFR than from an instrument rating.
Just my opinion as a practicing instrument instructor...

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Steven Barnes" wrote
snip
Even so, once I get the rating, I'm betting my ifr minimums will still
be
around the 2k agl mark (2-3 miles visibility).

In that case, you would benefit far more from some competent
instruction in how to fly marginal VFR than from an instrument rating.
Just my opinion as a practicing instrument instructor...

I wonder if minimums in this case are being misinterpreted. For me, the
reason for a 2k minimum (and at least 1 mile visibility) is not because I
don't feel comfortable shooting an ILS down to 200', it's because I fly a
single engine plane and I want an out if the engine decides to take the day
off. If I'm at least within gliding distance of higher ceilings, I know I
can break out and have a chance to find a place to land (side note: there's
a pretty good article in a recent IFR about practicing engine out under the
hood). I see this as conservative risk management (maybe more conservative
than others), not a lack of proficiency. By the same reasoning, regardless
of weather, I think twice about flying over mountains if something will
prevent me from getting decent altitude. I also don't fly at night (other
than the minimum that was required for the PP). As I gain experience, I may
lower my minimums to 1k, but I can't see going much lower than that, at
least not in my current plane.

What skills would a marginal VFR pilot need that they couldn't get from IFR
training? Even under IFR you may find yourself in marginal VFR conditions,
and you still have the responsibility to see and avoid, know what the
weather's doing, have as many outs as you think you need, etc. Or is it
that IFR training assumes these skills are already well developed?

mark

What skills would a marginal VFR pilot need that they couldn't get from IFR
training?


Pilotage. Ground reference maneuvers. Basic attitude flying. VFR chart
interpretation (wrt low altitude rubbernecking). These are the skills you need
for low level marginal vfr flight.
--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

What skills would a marginal VFR pilot need that they couldn't get from
IFR
training?


I concede that IFR training may not entail these subjects (except for
attitude flying and possibly ground reference), but you definitely need the
same skills, specifically:


Pilotage.

Better know how to do this even under IFR. Electrical systems don't care
whether you filed or not.

Ground reference maneuvers.

You could argue that "circle to land" requires similar skills, but I won't
make a fuss on this one.

Basic attitude flying.

This is DEFINITELY covered under IFR training.

VFR chart
interpretation (wrt low altitude rubbernecking).

Most CFIIs teach using both VFR and IFR charts in case Murphy shows up. I
guess the tacit assumption is that you already know how to read a VFR chart
and can recognize things that might get you in trouble in an emergency.

These are the skills you need
for low level marginal vfr flight.
--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

I concede that IFR training may not entail these subjects (except for
attitude flying and possibly ground reference), but you definitely need the
same skills...


Yes, you need all those skills (and others) for all flying. You may not use
them all on every flight, but you need them in your toolbox. But the question
is "...couldn't get from IFR training?" by which I infer "is specifically
taught in IFR training". Low altitude circle to land is NOT taught in the IFR
training I got, except once when I asked to do a complete low circling approach
and land. It was an eye opener.

IFR flight training is primarily about flying solely with reference to
instruments, and working in the system. Some weather may be covered.

Jose





--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Mark Astley" wrote
I wonder if minimums in this case are being misinterpreted. For me, the
reason for a 2k minimum (and at least 1 mile visibility) is not because I
don't feel comfortable shooting an ILS down to 200', it's because I fly a
single engine plane and I want an out if the engine decides to take the day
off.

That's actually quite sensible. My point is that if you're goint to
stick to those minimums, you woud probably be safer flying that
weather VFR under the bottom rather than IFR. It's not necessarily
easier - but with the right training, I think it's safer. I've
snipped the rest of what you wrote, but I do very much agree with it.
I take a pretty dim view of single engine IFR over mountains, or with
ceilings of less than 1000 ft - not because I'd never do it, but
because I HAVE done it and never really felt good about it. In the
end, I wound up with a twin.

What skills would a marginal VFR pilot need that they couldn't get from IFR
training?

Low level navigation and planning, mostly. Planning a route to be
flown at low level is a lot different when you have to follow rivers,
roads, and railroads for obstruction clearance and navigation. The
available cues under a 1000 ft ceiling are a lot different than they
are at higher altitudes, and mistakes can be deadly. If you can't
effectively do an impromptu visual diversion at low altitude and in
low vis, you lack essential safety skills for low altitude VFR.

The emergency procedures are different too. You have to be prepared
to make a precautionary off-airport landing with power, and that means
practice landings on soft and/or rough fields, training in field
selection, etc. Uphill or into the wind? Cow pasture or horse
pasture? Newly ploughed or newly harvested? These are all major
issues.

Michael

On 11 Mar 2004 07:29:45 -0800, (Michael) wrote in
Message-Id: :

Planning a route to be
flown at low level is a lot different when you have to follow rivers,
roads, and railroads for obstruction clearance and navigation. The
available cues under a 1000 ft ceiling are a lot different than they
are at higher altitudes, and mistakes can be deadly.

That's what got Frank Tallman; he thought he was following Ortega
Highway through the pass, but he was actually in (blind) Trubuco
Canyon during an exceptionally severe storm.

(Snowbird) wrote
Are you sure about that? Do you have some sort of study or
evidence you could point to online?

No - just what I've seen when my friends and I got insurance.

I don't know what you consider "low time" for the purposes of this
discussion

That depends on the airplane. And I should have mentioned that it's
not just low time - recent experiene is also becoming very, very
important.

We fly a simple, fixed-gear, fixed-prop plane which is slightly
faster than its 180 HP fixed gear cousins -- but it's no Mooney/
Bonanza/Comanche/Viking.

Actually, your simple fixed gear plane is faster than similarly
powered planes with retractable gear - it will outrun a 180 hp Arrow
or C-172 RG. It will almost stay with a C-model Mooney. I've given a
reasonable amount of instrument dual in a Tiger (much of it in IMC)
and I must say that while it's not exactly in the
Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche/Viking, it's not comparable to a Cherokee or
C-172 either. It has enough speed and enough range that people do use
them for serious travel, and it's not particularly comfortable at low
speeds.

What's different? I finished my IR last fall.

Maybe. Or maybe the loss rate on that model has been low. Or maybe
you haven't been flying enough hours in the past few years.

I've heard a similar story from a fellow owner with a Piper Warrior,
which is even slower, and from the chap across the shadeports with a
Piper Archer.

I find that amazing - this is directly contrary to what I've seen
locally.

So it kind of looks to us that at least some insurance companies
think the IR makes a difference. Maybe not for your Tripacer, maybe
not for someone flying a Stinson 108 or a C140, but for ordinary
garden-variety spamcans which were commonly produced as
instrument-capable planes.

Well, leaving out a C-140, I will suggest that a TriPacer or Stinson
108 is just as instrument capable as a Warrior in terms of speed,
range, and redundancy. In fact, I might argue that the Stinson 108 is
MORE capable.

Granted most of the people I know do gravitate to these older
airplanes rather than the more modern stuff, which might skew my
impressions, but I have to wonder WHY the difference?

Michael

(Teacherjh) wrote
Low altitude circle to land is NOT taught in the IFR
training I got, except once when I asked to do a complete low circling
approach and land. It was an eye opener.

IMNSHO you were cheated. I consider low altitude circle to land an
important part of istrument training - I teach it to those I train for
the rating, I check it on an ICC, and I make it part of my own
recurrent training. I suppose to some extent my priorities are
colored by my experience - I am based out of an airport where no
straight-in approaches exist, and I have friends based at private
strips with no approaches at all. Thus I consider both the circling
maneuver and a maneuver where you shoot an approach into an airport,
break it off, and proceed low VFR to a nearby airport to be part of
the instrument pilot skill set.

In my opinion, there is HUGE overlap between proper instrument
training and training for low VFR. The only things you don't get as
part of the instrument training that you would get as part of proper
low VFR training would be off-airport precautionary landings and low
level flight planning and navigation.

Of course if you are simply trained to pass an instrument checkride,
this all goes out the window. It's quite possible to pass an
instrument ride (or even an instrument instructor ride) and be truly
dangerous in instrument conditions.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
m...
(Teacherjh) wrote
Low altitude circle to land is NOT taught in the IFR
training I got, except once when I asked to do a complete low circling
approach and land. It was an eye opener.

IMNSHO you were cheated. I consider low altitude circle to land an
important part of istrument training - I teach it to those I train for
the rating, I check it on an ICC, and I make it part of my own
recurrent training. I suppose to some extent my priorities are
colored by my experience - I am based out of an airport where no
straight-in approaches exist, and I have friends based at private
strips with no approaches at all. Thus I consider both the circling
maneuver and a maneuver where you shoot an approach into an airport,
break it off, and proceed low VFR to a nearby airport to be part of
the instrument pilot skill set.


I did a night circle to land with my instructor about a month ago (vfr,
under the hood). I can honestly say, I didn't like it. Learned alot, though.
He had always talked about how dangerous it can be and after doing one, even
if it was only simulated, was a big eye opener. Things just look all kinds
of wrong. :-)