IFR rating?

Certainly flying in IMC is more complex than
flying in VMC.


Well, uh, not always. There is benign IMC and harrowing VMC. Of course IMC
can be harrowing if you are not IFR rated, but that's a different kettle of
oranges.


the pilot should have a minimum for
every stage of the flight.


I'm not sure I agree with this either. Personal minima are a guide, but either
don't take everything into account, or are cumbersomely complex. The key is
not to be tempted into a go by cheating. Benign 600-2 everywhere is more
problematic than 200 - 1/2 at the destination, but 1400 - 3 everywhere else.
A firm 400-2 personal minimum would scrub a perfectly doable flight, and allow
a flight that could get you into trouble.


Flight in IMC requires more precision[...] t but that is irrelevant to the
original question, except for
the question, "am I proficient enough to make the flight?"


I suppose the more proficient one is, the more things cease to be an automatic
no-go. There are more things to consider when the decision is harder. So, by
one definition, it is "more complex" to decide. But with more proficiency,
there is more ability to handle the greater complexity in decision making. So,
although it may be "more complex", it may not be "harder to decide".

Jose

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

"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

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
[...]
Just because you've developed the experience to manage the added
complexity of the decision-making, doesn't mean it isn't inherently
more complex than VFR decision making.

Now you are making the decisions in the air, not the go/no go.

Again, this is a semantic disagreement. However, it's my opinion that
throughout the flight, one is always making the decision of whether to
proceed. This is every bit as much a go/no-go decision as the one made
prior to takeoff, and I continue to call it a go/no-go decision.

Obviously your semantics are different, but you should know that not
everyone agrees or uses with your definitions.

As for the rest of your comments about minimums (I assume you're talking
about personal minimums, and not approach minimums), any minimums you can
apply to IFR flight, you can apply to VFR flight. Conversely, if you think
you have a fuzzy situation for VFR flight where it's impossible to apply a
strict minimum, that same kind of situation exists for IFR flight.

The two types of flight are only different with respect to the particulars.
They involve essentially the same kind of decision making, except that there
are more variables for IFR flight (which is what makes the decision more
complicated, IMHO).

Pete

[...]
Just because you've developed the experience to manage the added
complexity of the decision-making, doesn't mean it isn't inherently
more complex than VFR decision making.

Now you are making the decisions in the air, not the go/no go.

Again, this is a semantic disagreement. However, it's my opinion that
throughout the flight, one is always making the decision of whether to
proceed. This is every bit as much a go/no-go decision as the one made
prior to takeoff, and I continue to call it a go/no-go decision.

Obviously your semantics are different, but you should know that not
everyone agrees or uses with your definitions.

As for the rest of your comments about minimums (I assume you're talking
about personal minimums, and not approach minimums), any minimums you can
apply to IFR flight, you can apply to VFR flight. Conversely, if you think
you have a fuzzy situation for VFR flight where it's impossible to apply a
strict minimum, that same kind of situation exists for IFR flight.

The two types of flight are only different with respect to the particulars.
They involve essentially the same kind of decision making, except that there
are more variables for IFR flight (which is what makes the decision more
complicated, IMHO).

The point you make about in-flight decision making may have been overlooked
throughout most of this thread, but it's an important one. I'd suggest
especially those of us who fly the longer legged beasts, where 4 hour enroute
legs might be not that unusual, that it's especially important to be alert
for things that move your flight into the 'do not continue' category. One that
may be overlooked too often (at least I have, more than once) is continuing
when the PIC shouldn't. It's easy to get really sleepy at 11 000 feet at night,
and most SELs at least will not take too kindly to the pilot nodding off.

AJW

tony wrote:
....
especially those of us who fly the longer legged beasts, where 4 hour enroute
....
It's easy to get really sleepy at 11 000 feet at night,

11 000 ft at night for 4 hours is a situation where a pilot should
definitely use oxygen, regardless the legal situation.

Stefan

especially those of us who fly the longer legged beasts, where 4 hour
enroute
...
It's easy to get really sleepy at 11 000 feet at night,

11 000 ft at night for 4 hours is a situation where a pilot should
definitely use oxygen, regardless the legal situation.

Stefan

My first instinct is to say (and I do believe) it depends on the pilot's
condition, but there's little doubt using O2 about 10,000 feet is usually a
good idea.

Sure makes sipping a martini difficult, though.

AJW

Peter Duniho wrote:

The two types of flight are only different with respect to the particulars.
They involve essentially the same kind of decision making, except that there
are more variables for IFR flight (which is what makes the decision more
complicated, IMHO).

Flying VFR, I have to consider my personal condition, the aircraft's
airworthiness, weather, facilities, airspace, and NOTAMs; flying VFR, I have
to consider my personal condition, the aircraft's airworthiness, weather,
facilities, airspace, and NOTAMs.

If there's any extra complexity, it's a matter of quality, not quantity --
minor snags might leave my aircraft airworthy for VFR but not IFR, for
example, and I have to consider the weather above the ceiling as well as
below it.

Personally, I prefer IFR for cross-country flights, because it leaves me
with more options -- I can climb up above the clouds (or just into them) to
get a better wind and avoid all the VFR traffic down below 3000 ft, and I
don't have to start zigzagging around low scattered clouds. On the other
hand, I love VFR for just putting along at 2,000 ft AGL, following rivers,
roads, or railroads from town to town.


All the best,


David

In article . net, Mike Rapoport wrote:

Point is, with more things to consider and the added utility of
the instrument rating, the go/nogo decision isn't as simple in the
general case.

I would disagree. Having an instrument rating just moves the actual no-go
point farther to the right. I don't see why the no-go decision would get
harder.

I understand your point, and I'm willing to agree to disagree.

For me personally, I found that it wasn't just a matter of pushing the
decision point. A VFR-only go/nogo decision was far more black and
white than IFR. One data point. Others provide their own data.

Put it another way, IFR gives you more options than VFR, but it also
gives you more ways to get yourself into trouble. You you analyze
that to get the added utility the instrument rating provides is up
to you. I say more things to consider == more complex == harder.


Morris

In article , Roger Halstead wrote:
without getting saturated. Add talking on the radio. Throw in a

couple of extra controls (gear lever, prop, cowl flaps), and it's
like starting over.

OK, no one was asking about flying IFR Vs VRF. The question was simply
the no/no go decision. Certainly flying in IMC is more complex than
flying in VMC.

You're missing my point. These things are more complex, but as we
practice them, they get easier to handle. I say they are inherently
complex but our capacity to handle the complexity improves so there's
less effort, so it seems easier.

Same thing with the go/nogo decision. IFR is inherently more complex
than VFR, even if you've been doing it long enough not to feel the
complexity.


when he was able to discuss baseball scores with his instructor while
shooting an ILS (not to debate the merits of a sterile cockpit at that

Again, has nothing to do with the original question.

Still trying to illustrate the point: it's complex, even if it seems
less so when we've done it for a while.


Each decision is a simple, straight forward yes, or no answer... is it
above or below my minimums and the pilot should have a minimum for
every stage of the flight. IF the pilot is honest, and does not bend
ANY of those minimums because one is only a little below while the
others are fine it is a simple decision.

Here's the fundemental point of disagreement. I'm not a believer in
hard and fast minima. Ultimately, the go/nogo decision answers the
question, "can this flight be done safely?". For me, arbitrary
minima don't help, since on any given day, I might change my minima
depending on how sharp I'm feeling, how current I'm feeling, the nature
of the weather conditions, duration of the flight, alternate choices,
available equipment.

Would you raise your minima for longer flights when fatigue is likely
to become a factor? How much? Simple answer? I don't think so, but
others are free to disagree.


Morris

Journeyman wrote:

I understand your point, and I'm willing to agree to disagree.

(I'm not the person who made the original point.) That's good -- the Usenet
would be a boring place if everyone agreed.

For me personally, I found that it wasn't just a matter of pushing the
decision point. A VFR-only go/nogo decision was far more black and
white than IFR. One data point. Others provide their own data.

So which of these points do you not consider when you are planning a VFR flight?

- your condition
- the aircraft's condition
- the weather
- facilities (such as airports and navaids)
- airspace
- NOTAMs


All the best,


David