Safe, Single-Pilot IFR generalities

Roy Smith wrote:

Judah wrote:

But I don't even think there's all that much
difference between flying through soup at 3000' when the top of the
white stuff outside your window is light by the sun or the moon.


The difference (in my mind, and with my 40-something eyes) is that it's
harder to see stuff in the cockpit at night. Every task from instrument
scan, to reading a chart, to tuning a radio, to copying an in-flight
reroute becomes more difficult.

Task overload is insidious. It's taking you a little longer than usual to
find the right approach plate and get the radios set up, but you're still
keeping up so it's not a big deal. Then the controller tells you they just
switched runways, fly direct to some waypoint you've never heard of, expect
some different approach, contact the next controller on 123.45, etc, etc,
and suddenly you realize you're way behind. Maybe during the day you would
have been able to keep up, but at night the added workload of having to do
everything by flashlight sent you down the tubes.

There's also a lot more in the way of visual illusions at night. I've
broken out plenty of times and spotted what I thought was the approach
lights, only to realize it was a nearby highway.

About 10 years ago I read an article (sorry, no citation) that said
aging decreases the ability to cope with multiple, parallel activities.
I believe that's what we're talking about when we say "task
overload". Certainly training and experience teaches us to cope and I
hope old folks at least remain trainable.

Wow, I've done all those (except #2).
The important thing to remember is that "safety" is not an absolute.
Pilots need to start thinking in terms of risk management and not "safe
vs. not safe"

-Robert

Yes, I agree, the remaining IFR flights are likely to be safer.

I'm not sure I even agree with that. IFR flying is a perishable skill,
and the limitations imposed will certainly cause one to make fewer
flights.

Now that you bring this to my attention, you are right. In fact it's
one of the things I harp on occasionally. I retract (that part of) my
statement. The remaining IFR flights may well not be safer.

Of course, usenet will never be the same.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
says...


Judah,

But I don't even think there's all that much
difference between flying through soup at 3000' when the top of the
white stuff outside your window is light by the sun or the moon.


The statistics (as interpreted over and over again by Richard Collins)
are violently against your statement...


Yes, Richard Collins continually shows us the statistical prejudice
against night flight - even VFR, but particularly IFR - and makes it
clear that if we were to fly more hours at night we would have many more
accidents - often fatal ones too. Yet he flies IFR at night - even hard
IFR routinely, so he must feel that, with experience, it is safe to do
alone.

OK - the guy has a few hours under his belt :-)

In article ,
says...


1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night

I agree that single-pilot IFR is hard, and doing it at night is harder, but
I don't see the single-engine connection. If the fear is not being able to
find an emergency landing spot, then the rule should be "No single-engine
at night". If the fear is pilot task overload, then the rule should be "no
single-pilot IMC at night".

Perhaps he means if you lose your power and control your descent rate only to
break out at 500AGL, you don't have time to look for a landing spot. In night
VFR, you will usually be contact with greater reserves, sometimes with a
moon, and generally have much greater margins to deal with this. The
work overload factor may enter into his reasoning here as well, though I
connot speak for him.


2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
performance

Again, I don't see the connection here. Presumably this means it's OK to
fly single-pilot, single-engine IFR at those same altitudes?


I'm somewhat with you on this. It seems that a lot of ME rules tend to hold
ME operations to a standard we were simply willing to wash over in SE ops.
But then, the whole multi-engine equation is skewed anyway - Collins has
shown us that a power loss in a ME environment is statistically more
dangerous than the same thing in a sigle - which blows the whole ME reasoning
apart at the seams.

There seems to be a committment level involmved in ME ops - at least in light
twins, with marginal SE performance. If the pilot does everything right, the
second engine is a life saver in case of a power failure. Since we know that
most of the time (something like 80%) the pilot fails to maintain these
standards, the ME environment becomes more dangerous than the single would
have been with the same engine failure. Even a bad landing in a field is
often survivable, while a loss of control SE in a twin is usually not. So we
all have to assume we're among the 20% who are going to get it right!

Some countries do not allow IFR at night in SE aircraft. The way the
statistics point, you could almost argue they should not allow Multi-IFR at
night - or at least require certain SE performance standards (much better
than most light twins) for multi-IFR, day or night.

G Faris

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Wow, I've done all those (except #2).

And what was that?

Don't you love people that talk to themselves?


--
"At a time when our entire country
is banding together and facing down
individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful
example, showing us all what is possible
when we work together, believe
in each other, and sacrifice for the
greater good." -
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, D-MASS., in a statement read
onto the Congressional Record, praising the New
England Patriots and declaring us all to be in
an American war against individualism. --
Quoted in America's 1st Freedom magazine, April, 2002

And no way will you be based at my home field and fly enough IFR to
remain proficient. We don't have ANY straight-in approaches. Both the
NDB and the GPS have a FAC of 025, and the only runway is 9-27.

Why is that, anyway? Airspace issues? I can see why they wouldn't
have one from the east into EYQ because of IAH, etc-- but why not have
a GPS approach straight in to 9? Sugarland shouldn't be much of an
issue there, right?
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

Greg Farris wrote:
Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the "meat
and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
points as generalities. How many agree with these :

1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night

I would never get any IFR time if I didn't. Seriously, I don't see your issue.
It really comes down to if you are going to be safer contacting the ground
on engine out in the dark with or without fog. I'd say its unlikely that
its a significant disadvantage over the (already admittedly dangerous)
engine out with night VFR.

2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
performance

Don't have a multi, so can't comment.

3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
preference for dual alrternators.

Pretty much don't agree. I am moving away from vac stuff to electric,
its more reliable. The next step is to get rid of the vac horizon.
And people make a big deal about a single alternator, but it is not
true that it is single point of fail. It is also backed up by the
battery. In any case, the vac and the electric back each other up.
It comes back to if having the attitude go out kills you, even if
you have a backup for that. It seems to me that an electric attitude
that flags itself for problems is the best you can do here.

4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
know where it is

Nice. Not always possible, but nice.

5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
night or close to minimums


Agree. I don't do circling anything, except for my instructor. But
I fly needles and lines, and I don't feel comfortable any other way.

Michael wrote:

1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night

I agree that single-pilot IFR is hard, and doing it at night is harder, but
I don't see the single-engine connection. If the fear is not being able to
find an emergency landing spot, then the rule should be "No single-engine
at night". If the fear is pilot task overload, then the rule should be "no
single-pilot IMC at night".


What Roy said (though I'm not sure single-pilot IFR is appreciably
harder at night in a properly lit cockpit - but if you're doing it by
flashlight, no argument from me). As stated, the rule really doesn't
make sense.


2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
performance

Again, I don't see the connection here. Presumably this means it's OK to
fly single-pilot, single-engine IFR at those same altitudes?


Which, of course, is silly. In the twin, you actully have a lot more
options and a lot more time to think. A twin above the SE ceiling
won't climb, but it won't descend very quickly. The difference is
striking - a single with an engine failure at 8000 will be descending
about 800 fpm; a light twin will be more like 100 fpm. Way better
chance of making it to someplace landable.


3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
preference for dual alrternators.

This is a good rule. I'll admit I break it.


A dual vacuum source won't back up a dying gyro (and I've seen as many
gyro failures as I've seen vacuum source failures). So now we need
dual AI's and dual vacuum. Well, it so happens I do have such a setup
in my airplane. Also dual generators with solid state regulators.

Is it necessary? I think it depends on the pilot and the airplane.
For someone who flies a lot of IFR and trains seriously, probably not -
but that's exactly the person most likely to have such a setup. For a
solid and stable airplane like a Cherokee, I think it's overkill. For
a Bonanza, a really good idea. But is it more important than flying
instruments regularly? I don't think so. Given that resources are
finite, I think recurrent training is a better investment than
installing this stuff. In other words - it sounds like a good rule in
theory, but it probably isn't in practice.


4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
know where it is.

An excellent rule.


I think it's another one of those rules that sounds great in theory.
If you can plan your flight to do that, it's great. Certainly if there
is VFR weather in range, you ought to know where it is to keep your
options open in case anything really bad happens. But what if that
rule substantially reduces the amount of IFR flying you do? Is the
loss of proficiency going to offset the reduced exposure?


5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
night or close to minimums

No argument there.


And no way will you be based at my home field and fly enough IFR to
remain proficient. We don't have ANY straight-in approaches. Both the
NDB and the GPS have a FAC of 025, and the only runway is 9-27.


Well some approaches are more circling than others. A circling approach
which is only 10-20 degrees off the straight-in, or even one that puts
you into what is similar to a VFR downwind entry may not be as bad as,
say, doing an ILS 9 circle to land 27. (This is MO as an instrument
student, not an experienced instrument pilot).

That's interesting. I have post lamps on all the instruments. I use a
combination of clip on goosenecks for pilot and co-pilot(backup). I use
a strap-on headlamp on too. And I have 1 to 3 additional flashlights
in the bag along with a eyeglass case full of spare batteries.

I have an overhead cabin lamp but almost never use it. It's both too
good and not good enough. It kills my night vision but isn't good
enough to use for map reading.

In fact, my headlamp is my main light. It moves where I'm looking, it
has 3 distinct lighting levels and colors, it gives me what I want, when
I want it, without killing my night vision. I've almost stopped using
my goosenecks.

Fact is, I try to do as little night flying as possible - VFR or IFR.
My 50-some eyesight isn't getting any better but more important, I just
become more risk averse as time marches on.

But I'm still willing to do night SE/SP IFR in many situations. It
helps that I'm flying a slow, simple, stable plane that only I fly.

Michael wrote:

My eyes are not quite 40, but I have much the same problem in most
airplanes. However, most GA airplanes do not have anything resembling
an adequate lighting system.

Clue time - if you need a flashlight to perform ANY task in the
cockpit, your lighting is inadequate. A flashlight is an emergency
backup, not for normal inflight use.

I don't worry about single pilot night IFR in my airplane, because it
has an adequate lighting system. Someone, somewhere along the way, did
most of what was required and I filled in the rest. That includes
pilot and copilot overhead map lights with yoke-mounted actuation
switches - so you can keep flying the plane while reading the map. It
also includes panel lighting for all the instruments and overhead
lights forward and aft - each with independent switches. The only time
I use a flashlight in the plane is for startup, so as not to run down
the battery.

Once adequate lighting is in place, there's really no issue. However,
as I mentioned before, most GA airplanes do not have adequate lighting.
I've never seen a rental that did. On the other hand, I think you're
pretty much taking your life in your hands flying a rental night-IMC
anyway.

Michael