![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"tony" wrote in message
... If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above your personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't you go? IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR. IMHO, the go/no-go decision is being made constantly, not just before takeoff. I agree with those who say that the instrument rating makes the decision-making more complicated. I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing, but it is the price of the increased utility. Basically, when flying IFR there are more potential ways to run into flight hazards you can't see or predict than when VFR, at least in a typically-equipped four-seater piston airplane that most of us are flying. Forecast above minimums? Great...forecasts can be wrong and you won't find out until you get there and try to fly the approach. "Solid gold alternate"? What's that? In flying, there are no guarantees. No imbedded thunderstorms? Well, I guess if you have radar and/or a lightning detector, you could know this. Most of us don't. No icing? Impossible to know for sure until you fly through. No unusual turbulence reported? Past performance is no guarantee of future returns and when flying IMC, you have fewer clues to hint at the possibility, since you can't see visual signs of wind conditions. When flying day VFR, you can see outside the airplane and avoid most weather conditions that would be a problem. Not all people do, of course, and you still have wind to deal with. But even with wind, for the observant pilot there are plenty of clues. Night VFR is harder, but with conservative decision-making and proper planning, you can avoid flying into clouds, and you can visually avoid the rest of the stuff that might cause a problem. When flying IFR, real IFR that is, you are consistently in situations in which it's impossible to know for sure what hazards are present until you personally are in the area of the potential hazard. With extremely conservative decision making it's possible to avoid these issues, but then the utility of IFR rating becomes only slightly better than the VFR rating. Hardly worth the effort. Some real work needs to be put into the decision making to ensure you avoid these problems while still getting the usefulness of the instrument rating it offers. Bottom line: for VFR go/no-go the decision matrix is much simpler than that found for IFR flights. To me, a more complicated decision matrix means more complicated decision making. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Instrument Rating Checkride PASSED (Very Long) | Alan Pendley | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | December 16th 04 02:16 PM |
Get your Glider Rating - Texas | Burt Compton | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | December 1st 04 04:57 PM |
51st Fighter Wing betters rating to ‘excellent’ with inspection | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 20th 04 11:29 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Enlisted pilots | John Randolph | Naval Aviation | 41 | July 21st 03 02:11 PM |