IFR rating?

It's certainly a longggg way from a blank check, but it adds greatly
to the utility of the plane and like you, it allows me to make quite a
few flights that I'd not otherwise be able to try.
...
To me it doesn't make the go/no go decision more difficult, but it may
require much more input that for VFR on many occasions.

Different way of saying the same thing? On an obviously VFR day,
going is a no-brainer. On an obviously IFR day (without the rating),
nogo is a no-brainer (modulo those who *gasp* run the scud).
When it's IFR, you need to think about a lot more things.

It goes from (usually) an obvious yes/no to a continuum. At what
point do you decide it's a nogo?


Morris

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.

The undlying assumption is that the PIC is both current, competent, and
confident, of course. If you haven't shot an approach or two to minimums, even
under the hood, in the past few weeks, your personal minimums should be a lot
greater than the published ones.

"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

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.


Of course -- most often the night before in my case, based on weather
expectations.

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.

I fly an Mooney 201 that I keep in top condition, Even so I've had some in
flight failures -- vacuum pump in one case, alternator in the other, in actual
IMC conditions. Training has everything to do with handling such events, they
were hardly emergencies. As an aside, I like to keep my ADF tuned to a strong
station in the direction I'm flying, that works as a backup to the DG.


Forecast above minimums? Great...forecasts can be wrong and you won't find
out until you get there and try to fly the approach.


Oh come on. If the weather is slow moving and the forecast is for 1000 feet
ceiling 4 hours from now and there's an ILS with 200 feet minimums, you're
going to cancel the flight?

Solid gold alternate" What's that?

Yeah -- my bird has 6 comfortable hours of endurance -- 8 if I go high and
lean. If my destination is 2..5 hours west, and my home base is in good weather
and it's expected to stay that way for the next half day, that's pretty golden.
BTW, if conditons are changing faster than expected, well that's what flight
service is for, you should know that and change your plans as needed. I had
unplanned RONs more than once on multiday cross countries because a weather
system brewed up some unforecasted nasties a couple of hours into a 5 hour
flight.



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.

I tend to depend on knowing where the freezing level is and pilot reports.
Mooneys don't carry ice all that well.


I have no problems with prudent pilots deciding the conditions are not to their
liking and staying on the ground. I consider myself prudent, but probably fly
in conditons you'd choose not to, and that's OK for both of us. I happen to
like hard IFR, love the feeling of looking up at minimums and seeing the runway
a half mile in front of me -- that's the happy surprise -- almost as much as I
like looking up and seeing nothing but black or grey -- that's what I expect
whenever I fly an approach, that way I know what the missed approach is going
to be and expect to fly it.

I will admit if the engine quits I'd rather be in VFR at 11,500 feet, but that
is a gamble I do take. I do everything I know how to to avoid that kind of
failure, and that's the single biggest worry about flying in hard IFR I have.

Having said all of that, I can tell you, even flying to advance my business as
I do, I probably about 5% of my flights after I get to the airport. (Equipment
problems, WX is worse than expected -- never leave if I can't get back in)

Would you agree, different strokes?

"tony" wrote in message
...
IMHO, the go/no-go decision is being made constantly, not just before
takeoff.

Of course -- most often the night before in my case, based on weather
expectations.

That's not what I meant. The go/no-go decision is constantly reevaluated
even after takeoff, all the way to landing.

[...] Would you agree, different strokes?

Honestly, I have no idea what most of your post was trying to say. I didn't
say anything about engine or equipment failures at all, yet you seemed to
think that was an important point in your response. As far as the forecast
goes, you say "I consider myself prudent, but probably fly in conditons
you'd choose not to, and that's OK for both of us", which clearly misses my
point. The more challenging the weather you choose to fly in, the MORE
difficult the decision making becomes. You seem to be claiming it makes it
easier, which is mind-boggling to me.

I have no idea how, given what you wrote in your post, how you come to the
conclusion that IFR decision making is easier than VFR.

Pete

I have no idea how, given what you wrote in your post, how you come to the
conclusion that IFR decision making is easier than VFR.


The difficulty of a go/no-go decision rests on a balance between pilot/plane
capabilities, and weather conditions. An experienced IFR pilot in a capable
plane will have a real easy time making a decision about flying in VFR, whereas
a newly minted pilot in a tomahawk might still be squirrely about some
conditions, though he may still choose to go. However, the experienced IFR
pilot can also find conditions which will squirrel him out.

It's not VFR vs IFR. It's "how close are these conditions to the ones you and
the plane are capable of", both in terms of handling the conditions themselves,
and the available outs.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On Sun, 2 May 2004 08:09:08 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"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

I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
to consider.

OTOH there really is only three things to consider, in both VFR and
IFR.
The airplanes capabilities, your capabilities, and minimums.

You set your minimums and THEN check (and don't cheat or reset any
minimums just because conditions are only a little worse)

Ice? Go/no go
Thunderstorms? Go/no go
Turbulence? go/no go
Wind? Go/no go
Visibility? VFR the whole route Go/no go.
IFR Origin, destination, and
alternate if applicable Go/no go

My rule: Origin, route, and destination =my minimums
Alternate MUST be VFR AND there must be good VFR well within the range
of the aircraft plus reserves.

VFR, I'm quite willing to depart in marginal IF actual VFR (good VFR)
is near and I will head for a destination that is IMC IF it is
scheduled to be VMC before I get there AND there is good VMC nearby.
So, for me, to fly VFR in these conditions I have more to do to keep
track of the weather. Some times a lot more. OTOH I usually have the
option of filing if things look like they are deteriorating, or
changing faster than expected. Normally I'd file in the first place
as I find it easier in those circumstances. Currently that is not an
option until I get back out, do some practice and take a competency
check. We've been having weather that can make a competency check
into a real IFR flight for most of its duration too. :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
to consider.

IMHO that's exactly why it's more complicated. "More things to consider"
directly translates into "more complicated".

Maybe other people have a different definition of "complicated", but for me,
the conclusion comes directly from my own definition of "complicated".
Having more things to consider, by definition, means that the decision
making is more complicated.

Pete

I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
to consider.

IMHO that's exactly why it's more complicated. "More things to consider"
directly translates into "more complicated".

Maybe other people have a different definition of "complicated", but for me,
the conclusion comes directly from my own definition of "complicated".
Having more things to consider, by definition, means that the decision
making is more complicated.

Pete

I suppose one could look at it that way. The problem I had for the 200 hours I
was not rated for IFR was trying to guess weather the weather guessers were
right when they promised 3000 feet and 5 miles for the next couple of days
before I'd start out on a weekend trip. The 'window of opportunity' for making
a flight has been much wider the 3300 hours I've logged since then. FWIF, I
log about 150 hours a year, and a buddy and I do an hour's profiencey check
every two or three months to each other (those are brutal: "It's your
airplane" we tell each other after doing everything we can to screw up the
other's inner ear while wearing a hood, he pilot has his head down.)

That may be the difference between my attitude and some others: I get to fly a
high performance airplane, a Mooney 201, that I know very well, and I do it
fairly often. It (and my bladder) has long legs: I usually file 5.5 hours of
fuel on board and 150 kts. My log book shows about 20% of my flight time is
actual IMC, and that's probably typical for someone who flys 80% of his time on
business and is based on the east coast.

It also probably means my definition of 'complicated' may be different than
yours. I usually have a reasonable sense of weather conditions for the eastern
third of the country where I do most of my flying. I'll have gotten a weather
briefing the night before a planned trip, and another before I file: life gets
complicated for me if the initial weather forecast is better than my personal
equirements and the later one shows the system is getting more intense than
initially forecast.

I'm lucky in that I get to fly quite a lot -- most of it paid for by my
company. I remember having to fly actual missed approaches only 5 times
because conditions dropped below my personal minimums, so I may be more
conservative than my contributions to this thread suggest.

On Sun, 2 May 2004 22:48:52 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
.. .
I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
to consider.

IMHO that's exactly why it's more complicated. "More things to consider"
directly translates into "more complicated".

To me that's why the "decision is more simple.

Maybe other people have a different definition of "complicated", but for me,
the conclusion comes directly from my own definition of "complicated".
Having more things to consider, by definition, means that the decision
making is more complicated.

To me making a decision on 6 clear cut definitions is much more simple
than on 3 or 4 that tend to get into gray areas (although they
shouldn't)

Each to me are strictly go/no go decisions.

The question was on making the go/no go decision.




Pete


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
[...]
To me making a decision on 6 clear cut definitions is much more simple
than on 3 or 4 that tend to get into gray areas (although they
shouldn't)

I'm not familiar with the "6 clear cut definitions" of which you speak.
When I make go/no-go decisions, whether for IFR or VFR, there are always
gray areas. The only time the decision making is trivial is when the
weather is perfectly beautiful, or when the weather is absolutely
horrendous. There's a lot of room in between for IFR and VFR flight both.

Pete