IFR just 5.4% of the time

Peter R. wrote:

On 2/28/2007 4:39:47 PM, "Jim B" wrote:


Right now I'm confident that I'm proficient in all areas of departure,
climb, cruise, decent, and arrival procedures and also proficient to shoot
most precision and non precision approaches down to minimums in non
mountainous terrain, both in radar and non radar environments.


Wait a minute... you know Jay, too, so you are the second of the two
instrument-rated pilots he knows. That means there are no pilots in Iowa City
who are proficient and current.


With their weather and flat land, there is no need to be current and
proficient! :-)

Matt

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Robert,


I've only had to cancel a very small number of trips because the IFR
was not duable (usually ice). However, I've had lots of trips that
would have been canceled VFR but 0.1 hours of IFR made the trip work.



Exactly. Plus, you just don't have to fret weather decisions as much.
All this doesn't mean at all you're flying in clouds for hours or
approaches to the minimums.


Then again, it may! I flew my niece back to college one day (from ELM
to SGH) when the entire east coast was socked in. The ceilings were
300-600 feet the entire trip which took nearly 4 hours on the way out
and 2.5 on the way back. And the clouds were solid to 20,000 feet. I
flew out at 8,000 if memory serves and back at 7,000 and I could barely
see the wingtips the entire flight. It was smooth as silk however. An
easy IFR flight that would have not been possible VFR. The alternative
was 9 hours of driving...


Matt

Peter R. wrote:

On 2/28/2007 12:08:47 PM, "Jay Honeck" wrote:


However, I no long harbor the notion that an IR is going to help us
fly more, or longer, or more regularly -- at least not until we can
afford something like a Pilatus.


Now that I have several hundred hours since my instrument rating, I would
never trade it in for a VFR-only rating.

As someone who uses my Bonanza to commute weekly to work and to carry Angel
Flight patients at least monthly, I can attest to the power of an instrument
rating, at least when speaking of flying in the Northeast US.

In the end, it all boils down to where you are based, where you fly often,
and if you have a reason to be at your destination. From the weather I have
seen there, I agree that an IFR rating for those based out of an Arizona
airport would be difficult to maintain without a lot of safety
pilot/under-the-hood type flights.


I agree, Peter, you and I aren't in Kansas ... er, Iowa, anymore! :-)

Matt

After having lived and flown in both regions, I'd say the weather is much
worse in the Midwest. The extremes of temperature are much greater in the
Midwest, and the winds tend to be a lot stronger.

Icing- ever fly over Lake Michigan? Much worse than the lift over the
Adirondacks and Green Mountains. Thunderstorms?- When was the last time New
Hampshire had a tornado?

Subjectively, I'd say the weather in the Midwest is a lot more challenging
than in the Northeast.

On the original thread, having the IFR rating just provides the extra
comfort level- why scud run when you can pop through a few thousand feet of
clouds to CAVU on top?

Besides, doing all of the approaches, especially with the VNAV and LDP
approaches, is fun. Tracking an NDB course outbound with a howling
quartering tail wind can be real fun- then do it at night in IMC with some
turbulence. It's all fun.

"Bob Noel" wrote

I guess the northeast gets more IMC days than Iowa.

WithOUT a DOUbt! g

I _"think"_ it might have something to do with that big cold pond just to
the east of you! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

Jose wrote:
That's at one airport. To complete a =flight= VFR, both airports have
to be VFR, and so does the intervening space.

And so does the forecast, from departure through scheduled return.

What conditions are those? Sounds like you would be comfortable making
up your own rules. Would you be comfortable letting everyone make up
their own rules?

Well, this isn't what you were asking (and Jay's response clarified his
intent), but, yes, well all make up our own rules. They're called
"personal minimums", and we all have them. They do have to be at or above
the FAA's minima, of course ...

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

Jay,

That's really the reason for the IR, in my opinion. It's not that
you'll actually fly a whole lot more, but you'll not worry about those
clouds building "over there" as much. In the end, that is why Mary
and I will eventually get the rating.

I agree fully! Especially in the less capable planes we fly, that's the
way to look at IFR, IMHO.

Of course, your confidence level should be directly related to your
currency and proficiency. If my observations prove anything, it's
that most instrument-rated private pilots don't use the rating enough
to be proficient.

There's truth to that. OTOH, punching through 1000 feet of not-too-low
stratus doesn't require that much proficiency. It's really a matter of
adequate personal minimums.

FWIW, flight planning becomes much easier with IFR. You just don't worry
about airspace anymore.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jay,

Doesn't matter of your the Ace of the Base -- if you're flying a
Cherokee in February, you're gonna be sitting on the ground a lot.


Well, I'm not sure I agree. More often than not, you will have the
required "out" even with a danger of ice present.

The other day I made a 1.5 hour flight in the Tobago that would not
have been possible VFR - or not really well.

The forecast for the departure area with an ILS-equipped airport near
was stratus from 700 feet with tops at 2500 to 3500, visibility 4000
meters below the clouds. Serious scud running would have been required
VFR, something I would want to do, even though it would have been legal
in Germany. Freezing level at 3500 to 4000. Minimum enroute altitude
4000, MRVA 2000. Icing forecast in clouds above freezing level.

So with bad luck, we might just have ended up in icy clouds for a very
short time during climb-out. But we could have returned on the ILS
below the freezing level, so we had an out.

In reality, we came out of clouds at 1800 and flew the first hour in
the sunshine. After that some cumulus clouds popped up to 8000. So we
climbed on top. We entered some cloud briefly in the climb and picked
up very light trace ice. So flying in the clouds at our previous
altitude of 5000 definitely wouldn't have worked.

At the destination, the cloud cover became scattered to few at 1000
AGL, so we could make the landing at the VFR airfield as planned,
picking our way around those. Had that not worked, there was an ILS-
and rental-car-equipped airport 20 nm away reporting CAVOK.

Winter IFR is often quite doable.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt,

I
flew out at 8,000 if memory serves and back at 7,000 and I could barely
see the wingtips the entire flight. It was smooth as silk however. An
easy IFR flight that would have not been possible VFR.


Nice!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt Whiting wrote:
Then again, it may! I flew my niece back to college one day (from ELM
to SGH) when the entire east coast was socked in. The ceilings were
300-600 feet the entire trip which took nearly 4 hours on the way out
and 2.5 on the way back. And the clouds were solid to 20,000 feet. I
flew out at 8,000 if memory serves and back at 7,000 and I could barely
see the wingtips the entire flight. It was smooth as silk however. An
easy IFR flight that would have not been possible VFR. The alternative
was 9 hours of driving...


Back when I was flying cancelled checks, I used to take off every morning into a
low overcast from CLT (Monday through Friday), then cruise through a broken
layer to RDU, followed by an ILS to minimums. The crud would burn off later in
the morning/ This went on for several days at a time through the late summer
and early fall. Couldn't have done it VFR.

It was more exciting in the winter but I only left an airplane in place twice.
And this was flying either a Lance or a Geronimo converted Apache.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com