Safe, Single-Pilot IFR generalities

I've been a bad, bad boy.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:58:31 +0200, Greg Farris wrote:
These tips do not represent the "meat
and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of
points as generalities. How many agree with these :

1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night

Disagree. Plane does not care if it's night or day, IMC or VFR. Important
thing is currency and maintenance of the plane you fly. I did 2 1/2 hour
solid IMC at night, and actually for me, found it easier then VMC in
complete dark. Nav lights give a comforting glow inside the clouds, so
it's not "pitch black".

2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
performance

Don't know since I am not ME rated.

3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
preference for dual alrternators.

Disagree. Keep the plane maintained, and you should be fine. Things happen
granted, but why fly if you expect the on the what if in a million comes
up.

4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
know where it is

Disagree. Get a big ole stationary low pressure and you won't fly. What's
the purpose of getting an IFR ticket if you are not going to use it. I
don't think it's wise to launch when everything around you is at minimums,
but to expect VFR within range of the plane, I disagree with that. The
reason I say it's not wise to launch if everybody is reporting minimums, is
that the weather *could* worsen

5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
night or close to minimums

Disagree. My 2 1/2 hour night IMC flight terminated in a circle to
approach where ceilings were 1300. Minimums were 900. Nothing more
magical then descending, descending, and descending, and poof, out of the
ceiling the city lights come to life. Again, plane doesn't care whether
it's IMC or VMC, still need to fly the plane.

Fortunately, I had an instructor who took me down to ILS and circle to
approach minimums. The first time I went out on my own, ceilings were at
1000 and I loved every minute of it, since I had before done an approach
right down to ILS minimums. So, safety limits are relative to one's
experience.

Allen

In article . com,
says...
On the other hand, I think you're
pretty much taking your life in your hands flying a rental night-IMC
anyway.



These days it's easy to rent a 172SP. OK, you're in slow company, but
they're well appointed for night flying, VFR or IFR.

Why is that, anyway? Airspace issues?

Pretty much. We're so close to IAH that either the FAC will take us
into IAH approach airspace, or the miss will. We have no RCO on the
field, so the airspace would have to be protected for an awful long
time. Nobody will buy off. Thus the FAC is 025, with a turn on the
miss back to the IAF, and that way we can operate.

On top of that, the prevailing winds favor 9 and there is no circling
North of the field. Visualize this - landing on 9 in min vis means
flying an angled entry to a right upwind flown over or to the right of
the runway, then right crosswind, downwind, base, and final. It's
about the ugliest circle there is. At night, you get an additional
degree of difficulty - the lights are dim bulbs in mason jars, they are
not at the edges of the pavement, and in fact they are not even
centered on the centerline.

You would think we would have night and IFR crashes left and right, but
we don't. In fact, I'm not sure we ever have. We have plenty of
crashes, but it's almost always CFI's from the flight schools
(sometimes with a student, sometimes not) crashing in day-VMC.

Michael

I suppose it depends on your definition of "adequate." The Bonanza I fly
has overhead map lights that do an excellent job lighting up the cabin, but
I do not to use them to brief or follow an approach plate due to the night
vision damage these lights cause.

And in my opinion, that makes them inadequate - for all the reasons Roy
mentioned. There is no reason those map lights should not have a red
filter. Ot two bulbs - red and bright - switch selectable. If you
have to juggle flashlights, turn your head to look at a plate rather
than just glance (vertigo city, IMO), and otherwise compensate for a
lighting system that doesn't actually allow you to see at night, then
your workload goes up - and single pilot IFR in IMC workload is already
high. Can you do it? Probably, but can you do it consistently 100
times out of 100?

It's OK to have an emergency procedure that only gives a 99% success
rate. Odds are you will never use it, so the overall odds of using it
an having it fail are tiny. I don't think it's OK to have a normal
procedure that only works 99% of the time. If you fly any significant
amount of night-IMC, it's going to bite you.

That is why I consider no vacuum backup acceptable, but a lighting
system that requires juggling flashlights unacceptable. How many
vacuum pump failures have you seen? I've seen two in 1500+ hours of
dry pump operation (wet pumps pretty much don't fail). Thus between
the low likelihood of the event, and the high likelihood (for a
proficient pilot) of handling the event, it's no big deal. The
flashlight juggling happens on EVERY night flight you make in an
improperly equipped airplane. Now what's harder - partial panel IFR in
day-IMC (or night-IMC in well lit cabin), or full panel IFR in
night-IMC in an airplane where you have to juggle flashlights?

Michael

And people make a big deal about a single alternator, but it is not
true that it is single point of fail. It is also backed up by the
battery.

Right, the single point failure is not the single alternator - it is
the single battery contactor. If that fails (or the battery cooks
itself) the alternator ALSO goes off line - because it needs battery
power to excite the field and won't self-excite. Most light twin
electrical systems feature two alternators - which isn't any better,
because the battery/master contactor still exist as point failures.
Most generator-driven light twins have paralelling relatys, which, in
the event of some kinds of failures, will cook the system. A truly
redundant (no single point failures) electrical system is a very rare
thing in light GA. That's why all-electric airplanes scare me unless
they have independent buses and multiple batteries.

It seems to me that an electric attitude
that flags itself for problems is the best you can do here.

No such animal in GA, I'm afraid. You can buy one that flags loss of
power (be it vacuum, pressure, or electric) but that's not the most
common mode of failure for the AI - generally it is the gyro mechanism
(brushes, bearings, etc) that fails.

Ultimately, the only solution is dual independent power sources
(neither alternators nor generators with a paralelling relay qualify)
and dual attitude gyros. For example, one vacuum and one electric
attitude gyro is a great choice. Few GA airplanes have that.

Michael

Michael wrote:
Why is that, anyway? Airspace issues?

Pretty much. We're so close to IAH that either the FAC will take us
into IAH approach airspace, or the miss will.

You're at EYQ, right? Airnav says it's 16 miles from IAH to EYQ.
It's hard to imagine they couldn't design a straight-in approach to at
least one end of 9/27 that didn't interfere if they wanted to.

The fact that they're up to GPS-G and NDB-F must mean they've tried a
few different variations over the years :-)

In article om,
says...


Ultimately, the only solution is dual independent power sources
(neither alternators nor generators with a paralelling relay qualify)
and dual attitude gyros. For example, one vacuum and one electric
attitude gyro is a great choice. Few GA airplanes have that.



More and more do (because more and more have glass primary systems) -
but the backup is often a tiny job way off by your right hand somewhere.
I've seen some panels with two separate AI's, separate power sources,
and both right there in front of you. I like that - not only do you have
it where you need it when you need it, but you'll also detect the
failure immediately, because you'll see the discrepancy. One of the
nasty parts of AI failures in IMC is that it fails slowly, and by the
time you realize it's cooked, you're heading into the trees at low mach
speeds.

"Michael" wrote:
You would think we would have night and IFR crashes left and right,
but
we don't. In fact, I'm not sure we ever have.

Maybe because you're the only one crazy enough to fly the approach to
minimums there.

Seriously: how much low-IMC traffic comes into Weiser?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Michael wrote:

It's OK to have an emergency procedure that only gives a 99% success
rate.

Assuming the Bonanza had this fancy, *adequete* lighting system, what are
the odds that the bulb of this system wouldn't burn out the moment you
flicked it on? 1 out of a 100, perhaps?

I'll put more faith in an LED headlamp any day.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----