IFR rating?

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)