Is it possible to switch from VFR to IFR and back?

writes:

I get a weather
update from them, and if there is so much as a hint of clouds in the
Bay Area, I file
and IFR flight plan with them, beginning at the next waypoint on my GPS
flight plan.

By this you mean that you essentially just read off the waypoints on
your GPS to them as your routing?

About 10 miles from my waypoint, I mention to ATC that I would like
to activate my IFR flight plan starting at ***. They give me the new
clearance, I write it down and immediately turn to the new heading
and altitude. Poof, I'm IFR.

Sounds great.

So do you plan waypoints and fly them for all your flights, even VFR?
If so, I imagine that makes it a lot easier to switch to IFR if the
weather doesn't cooperate.

I usually fly that way in the sim, too, and even when I'm being
"casual," I keep an eye on nearby radio fixes and other things I can
use to find my way if the weather changes. If I'm set to use
real-world weather, it often _does_ change, and then I just switch to
instrument flight.

Which makes me think of something else I was wondering: How do you
work things if you are on the ground at the airport, and there's a
layer of fog or clouds that prevents you from taking off under VFR,
but you know that the weather is clear only a few thousand feet above?
Do you file IFR and fly it until you are in clear air and then cancel
the IFR and switch to VFR, or what?

Does ATC get mad if you switch back and forth to and from IFR as
conditions change?

One common example is - you're flying along over a cloud
layer and you'd like to land the airplane. So you ask ATC for
an approach. I get the feeling that it's easier to get a single
approach out of ATC directly than a whole flight plan.

That's one scenario I've been wondering about. So do you just call
them and say you'd like to switch to IFR and ask for vectors for your
approach, or what? How much formality does switching to IFR flight
require?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

A Lieberma wrote:
fromTheShadows wrote in news:ekf7sd$8in$1
@aioe.server.aioe.org:

If his questions are good then what bearing does the intention have?

Intentions are everything.

I'd rather put my time and effort to those that will truly use the
information rather then sit behind a keyboard and make it like the MSFS
game is reality.

As you will see from my postings, not only will I add to the responders on
topic, but I am going to advise them they are dealing with a troll.

If it talks, walks and quacks like a troll, it is a troll.

If you have questions, post away. Don't look to Mxmaniac.

If it's a sim question, post to the sim newsgroups. I am sure there are
pilots that monitor that group.

Also, don't expect pilots to treat simulation the same as the real deal.
IT IS NOT, and WILL NEVER BE!!!!

IF you are in the same simulated world that Mx lives in, then hopefully the
real world pilots will treat you just the same.

Allen

I have few specific questions, but I do have a general interest in the
answers to most of the posts here. I think that people effectively being
instructed to not answer certain questions is detrimental to the group.

I am a wannabe pilot who for various reasons is unable to fly for real
at the moment, so I content myself with trying to make my sim
environment as realistic as possible. If I want to know about how the
sim works, I go to a sim group. If I want to know how to fly a plane, I
come here. There will inevitably be some overlap between the two worlds,
but I don't think anybody (including even Mx) is expecting anybody to
treat simming as the 'real deal'.

Cheers,

Craig

Ron Garret wrote in
:

Maybe I will start a list of all the people who rant and rave about
people who respond to MX. That way I can sit back and look at the
names and laugh at them for being such fools. After all, they seem to
lack the mental capacity to figure out how to use a kill file, and the
strength of will to just not read threads where MX is participating.

Tell me, A. Lieberman and J.S. Morgan, do you think that would be
helpful?

Probably not since the above is not accurate anyway.

I haven't responded to Mx in some time. You have.....

I am out to let new folks know they are dealing with a troll.

What does it take for you to realize that you are dealing with a troll and
only adding to the problem by replying directly to him???

Seems like he don't give you the time or day either.... Of course if you
like disrespect, more power to you.

Allen

In article ,
A Lieberma wrote:

Ron Garret wrote in
:

Maybe I will start a list of all the people who rant and rave about
people who respond to MX. That way I can sit back and look at the
names and laugh at them for being such fools. After all, they seem to
lack the mental capacity to figure out how to use a kill file, and the
strength of will to just not read threads where MX is participating.

Tell me, A. Lieberman and J.S. Morgan, do you think that would be
helpful?

Probably not since the above is not accurate anyway.

I haven't responded to Mx in some time.

I never said you did. I think you need to carefully re-read what I said.

I am out to let new folks know they are dealing with a troll.

How noble of you. But frankly, between MX's context-dropping and your
straw-man arguments and ad-hominem attacks it is not entirely clear to
me which of you is the troll.

What does it take for you to realize that you are dealing with a troll and
only adding to the problem by replying directly to him???

Sorry, I don't see the problem. Except for his annoying habit of
dropping the context of the conversation on occasion, I have found MX's
questions to be reasonable and on the whole well-informed. In fact, I
think one of the sources of friction might be that in some respects MX
knows more about flying than some of the "real" pilots, and they don't
like being upstaged by a "mere" sim pilot.

No question MX has some annoying habits, but frankly sir, so do you, and
I suggest that it is unwise to throw stones from a glass cockpit.

rg

On 11/27/06 09:59, Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Garret writes:

It tends to, but it's not a perfect tendency. Real airplanes are rarely
perfectly trimmed; they will have a roll bias one way or the other.

Still ... how long before they "flop over" from straight and level
flight in trim?

It depends. Seconds to minutes depending on how good the trim was to
begin with. Definitely not tens of minutes.

In practice you can't count on a plane
staying level by itself for more than a few minutes.

I think that probably depends a great deal on the plane.

It depends on the plane whether you have seconds or minutes. No plane
stays level by itself for more than a few minutes.

Some planes have rudder and/or aileron trims, but many don't. And even
those that do, it's very hard to get it perfect. And even if you do it
rarely stays that way for long.

Granted, but it seems implausible that it changes so quickly and
dramatically that the plane flips over the moment you avert your eyes
or hands.

I never said it did.

Yes. But that's the point: in IMC you have to look and in VMC you don't
(because your peripheral vision will notice if you roll).

Well, in IMC you have nothing to see outside the window, so you have
more time to look at the attitude indicator.

You're missing the point. Yes, you having nothing to see out the
window, but you also have to look at other things (other instruments,
radios, charts). When you do you have to take your eyes off the AI.
When you do that, absent the peripheral vision cues you have in VMC
whether or not you are actually looking out the window, the plane can
(and often will) roll without you realizing it.

And by the
time you look you could be in a pretty severe bank. Learning to look at
the AI "often enough" and without fail is a skill that can be
surprisingly difficult to acquire.

Maybe, but a VFR pilot who fails to develop this skill quickly in IMC
has a serious problem. I don't see any way around that.

Yes, that would be precisely the point I am trying to make.

Yep, GPS makes life easier in many ways. With a GPS and an autopilot,
flying a real plane can be not so much different from playing a video
game. But if you want to be safe you have to be able to fly the plane
without them because they can break.

I agree. It's highly unlikely that the GPS would break at the same
moment that you enter IMC, but one should try to be prepared for
anything. In any case, pilots were handling IMC successfully long
before GPS came along.

Yes, but not without a great deal of training and practice IN IMC or
under the hood. You can't practice in VMC without a view limiting
device because you can't eliminate the subconscious processing of
peripheral vision information no matter how hard you try.

Actually, simulator pilots might have an easier time in IMC than real
pilots because flying a sim is actually a lot more like IFR than it is
like VFR. It would make an interesting experiment.

The airplane pilot would still have to deal with spatial (vestibular?)
disorientation, while the (MS) simulator "pilot" would not.

In fact, it seems that unfamiliarity with this particular "effect" is what
makes most folks who have never experienced it wonder why everyone else
claims that it makes flying in IMC so difficult. It just has to be
experienced to be understood. You just can't get that from reading.

Even after reading about it (a lot of reading, in fact), the first time
I went up in IMC, I found the urge to follow my senses was overwhelming.

[ snip ]

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Jay Beckman writes:

- Pilots who fly inadvertantly into IMC without already working a
proper scan will (on average) lose control in approximately 90
seconds.

Sounds like even VFR pilots need to work on getting a proper scan to
be a habit, then.

I don't think too many aircraft in stable flight will spiral out of
control in just 90 seconds, so the loss of control has to be the
pilot's fault ... and it implies that he was never in control to begin
with.

If the IMC is a cloud, there is a good likelihood that it isn't stable.
You'll be bouncing along, and the attitude of the plane can change
drastically in far less than 90 seconds. It may take that much time to
collide with terrain, though.

I'm sure it's much safer to fly IFR in VMC than to fly VFR in IMC.
The implication is that all flights should be IFR, but that admittedly
would take a lot of the fun out of flying for many pilots.

You apparently didn't understand the statistics that you snipped. Go back
and read them again for comprehension.

Neil

The airplane pilot would still have to deal with spatial (vestibular?)
disorientation, while the (MS) simulator "pilot" would not.

How about Mx gets in an FAA motion simulator - the kind that just spins
slowly while the "pilot" tries to follow simulated ATC commands. It's
not real flying, so Mx might be willing to try it. It would be a real
eye-opener too.

I know he's in France, maybe they have something similar there. Here
you can often find these things at major airshows (I got a ride in at
Sun'n'Fun).

Failing that, if he can power his simulator with a battery (like, on a
laptop), maybe he can put the whole thing on a rotating platform and
have somebody slowly spin him in the dark while he flies.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ron,

nice description.

Thanks. :-)


The troll still doesn't buy it and thinks he would do better, as you
can see.

We've been down that road several times before you came in.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"fromTheShadows" wrote in message
...

I have few specific questions, but I do have a general interest in the
answers to most of the posts here. I think that people effectively being
instructed to not answer certain questions is detrimental to the group.

I am a wannabe pilot who for various reasons is unable to fly for real at
the moment, so I content myself with trying to make my sim environment as
realistic as possible. If I want to know about how the sim works, I go to
a sim group. If I want to know how to fly a plane, I come here. There will
inevitably be some overlap between the two worlds, but I don't think
anybody (including even Mx) is expecting anybody to treat simming as the
'real deal'.

Cheers,

Craig



Craig, the problems that many in this group has with Mx aren't the
questions. It is the fact that once and answer is given then he will argue
that the answer is wrong and then the tread goes to hell in a handbasket.
This is the reason we don't want to answer his questions.

If you have a question ask it and as Mx has been told many times if the
answer you get is wrong please be sure that a pilot or 10 here will be sure
to correct it. If Mx asks a question that you would like to know the answer
to please feel free to cut and paste the question under your name. I'm sure
you will get an answer.

Ron Garret wrote in
:

No question MX has some annoying habits, but frankly sir, so do you,
and I suggest that it is unwise to throw stones from a glass cockpit.

Then kill file me, no loss to me....

Allen