IFR just 5.4% of the time

The Instrument rating is a tool -- keep it sharp! I wouldn't fly in
IMC with PIC who is current becuase he had a checkout 5 months ago.

About 30% of my time in the northeast is in IMC, and probably more
than half the non recreational flights would have been cancelled if
not for IFR. My rated friends, maybe because of regional weather
differences, do not avoid IMC so long as the conditions are within
their personal minimums.





n Mar 1, 10:11 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Yes, but you might not hear what it's telling you. I have very little
actual in my book, but part of that is that She Who Must Be Obeyed (who
is actually a real good sport about flying) doesn't particularly like
IMC, and would much prefer waiting a day to go CAVU.

SO, we go CAVU.

This brings up a whole 'nother aspect of this discussion, which quite
simply asks: Who *wants* to fly IFR?

Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth, it's
absolutely no fun for the passengers, whose only real reward for
putting up with GA is the view. (Well, and the time savings over
driving, of course.)

Most of the instrument rated pilots I know try to avoid flying IFR as
much as I do, only using the rating when necessary to pop up (or down)
through unavoidable IMC. This, of course, leads to a lack of
proficiency, and the unavoidable fact that they really aren't prepared
for flying in hard IMC.

This is exactly what Mary and will use the rating for -- a safety
outlet -- and is one major reason why we fear that we might just end
up just dangerous enough to kill someone.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Yes, but you might not hear what it's telling you. I have very little
actual in my book, but part of that is that She Who Must Be Obeyed (who
is actually a real good sport about flying) doesn't particularly like
IMC, and would much prefer waiting a day to go CAVU.

SO, we go CAVU.


This brings up a whole 'nother aspect of this discussion, which quite
simply asks: Who *wants* to fly IFR?

Me!

Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth, it's
absolutely no fun for the passengers, whose only real reward for
putting up with GA is the view. (Well, and the time savings over
driving, of course.)

I love to fly IFR, but I agree that it is less than exciting for most
passengers. However, most of my IMC flights were solo.


Most of the instrument rated pilots I know try to avoid flying IFR as
much as I do, only using the rating when necessary to pop up (or down)
through unavoidable IMC. This, of course, leads to a lack of
proficiency, and the unavoidable fact that they really aren't prepared
for flying in hard IMC.

I look for IMC days to go flying. I find it very peaceful in my little
cocoon croning through the clouds watching the gauges and needles.


This is exactly what Mary and will use the rating for -- a safety
outlet -- and is one major reason why we fear that we might just end
up just dangerous enough to kill someone.

To me it adds another dimension to flying and another reason to fly.
After 15 years of VFR flying I was actually growing bored of the
hamburger runs over territory I'd flown several times before. I've
visited almost every airport within 200 NM of my house, many several
times for poker runs and such with our flying club. IFR added an entire
new reason and challenge to my flying.

Matt

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

This brings up a whole 'nother aspect of this discussion, which quite
simply asks: Who *wants* to fly IFR?

I do!

Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth, it's
absolutely no fun for the passengers, whose only real reward for
putting up with GA is the view. (Well, and the time savings over
driving, of course.)

In eight years of flying IFR, I can recall very few occasions of extended,
solid IMC. There have been many spectacular cloudscapes that I and my
passengers would never have seen VFR, though.

This is exactly what Mary and will use the rating for -- a safety
outlet -- and is one major reason why we fear that we might just end
up just dangerous enough to kill someone.

A reasonable concern. Maintaining real proficiency requires some dedication.
You have to force yourself to go flying--oh, the sacrifice!

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jay Honeck writes:

Flying IFR is almost always uncomfortable. Even when it's smooth, it's
snip
What about flying IFR at night? If it's dark enough that you can't see much
outside, you get the benefits of IFR without many of the dangers of IMC. You
can just fly regular night flights IFR and maintain your currency that way,
and yet you won't be stressed by bad weather to worry about.

If it's dark enough that you can't see much outside, then it _is_ IMC. Flying
at night normally doesn't really simulate IMC. There's a clear sense of up
and down. I do think that flying under the hood at night is a little better
than in the day. I find the combination of turbulence dropping one wing or
the other and no outside visual cues to be the real challenge in IMC flight.
Navigation isn't as much an issue. Simply filing night IFR won't satisfy
the FAA for currency either.

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

--
Don Poitras

Don Poitras writes:

If it's dark enough that you can't see much outside, then it _is_ IMC.

Nighttime isn't a meteorological condition. That's why you don't see
nighttime indicators in METARs. The key point is that you don't see much,
which allows you to fly IFR. I suppose that if you look out the window you
might see something, but you have to look, whereas during the day, the scenery
outside is hard to ignore.

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

Matt Whiting writes:

I look for IMC days to go flying. I find it very peaceful in my little
cocoon croning through the clouds watching the gauges and needles.

Ah, so there is finally someone who sees the attraction to IFR!

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

On Mar 2, 8:12 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Don Poitras writes:
If it's dark enough that you can't see much outside, then it _is_ IMC.

Nighttime isn't a meteorological condition. That's why you don't see
nighttime indicators in METARs. The key point is that you don't see much,
which allows you to fly IFR. I suppose that if you look out the window you
might see something, but you have to look, whereas during the day, the scenery
outside is hard to ignore.

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

You can see just fine at night. In fact, you can see better, depending
on what you are looking for. Compare it to driving. Would you compare
driving at night to the equivalent of a thick fog?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:1172695408.911628.219620
@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Exactly. Plus, you just don't have to fret weather decisions as much.

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.

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.

I can't speak for everyone, but I think that there are many factors that to
be considered...

Personally, I find that I don't do a whole lot of IFR in the winter - January
and February really - because here in the Northeast, anything IFR during
those months is likely to also come with icing. There's also a few weeks in
the spring where IFR usually means thunderstorms. Although the last couple of
years, I've been lucky enough that the thunderstorms were never directly in
my path when I wanted to fly. In once instance, I modified my flight plan to
go around them.

Perhaps Iowa has a nicer climate. Or perhaps the flatter topography and lower
density population makes it less of an issue. Here in the NorthEast, we have
areas of hills that go up to about 3500' MSL (they call them mountains, but
I've been out west - the mountains here really don't qualify). And there
really isn't a whole lot of unpopulated area. So I can't take off without a
1500' ceiling. And even if I might be able to take off from my airport VFR
with a 1500' ceiling, I really couldn't get very far in most directions
without at least a 3000-4000' ceiling because of the terrain. With the IR, I
will take off and land with 500' ceilings. I've even landed at minimums twice
(at my home airport), but that takes a perfectly enjoyable flight and turns
it into a stressful experience. I don't care how current you are, hunting for
lights through soup just over 200' AGL is a nerve-racking experience...
Somehow around 400', my mind starts to ask "What if" questions, like "What if
my instruments are off and I'm not really where I think I am?" Probably
because there is an obstruction not too far off the ILS 16 approach at about
400' AGL.


Anyway, I am going to have a look at the area histories when I get a moment
(probably not for a very long time, then, huh?) and see if the results for my
area come up different. Between the climate, the terrain, and the population,
I suspect I will see higher numbers for my area.

But I might just be full of S%^&*.

Andrew Sarangan writes:

You can see just fine at night. In fact, you can see better, depending
on what you are looking for. Compare it to driving. Would you compare
driving at night to the equivalent of a thick fog?

No, but driving at night is still closer to fog than driving during the day.

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

On Mar 2, 9:48 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Andrew Sarangan writes:
You can see just fine at night. In fact, you can see better, depending
on what you are looking for. Compare it to driving. Would you compare
driving at night to the equivalent of a thick fog?

No, but driving at night is still closer to fog than driving during the day.


Not necessarily. For driving, you only need a clear view of the road
and traffic ahead. Whether you can see the scenery around you is
irrelevant for safe driving. Except for the darkness inside the cabin,
which makes it harder to read maps, the darkness outside is not a big
factor. As long as you can see the horizon, airports, runways and
other airplanes, it does not make a big difference how much of the
scenery you can see. This only becomes an issue if you have to make an
emergency off-field landing.