Safe, Single-Pilot IFR generalities

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
Larry Bartlett's refresher course. 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

Personal choice. The chances of successfully landing at night after an
engine failure are not that different IMC or VMC.

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

This is pretty stupid. It ignores the fact that if the aircraft is at the
MEA and loses an engine (and MEA is above its SE ceiling) that the aircraft
will travel hundreds of miles before reaching the SE ceiling. It will also
reach it absolute SE ceiling which is much higher than the SE service
ceiling in the manual. It also ignores the fact that no piston twin and few
turboprops have enough single engine climb gradient to reach the MEA before
hitting something. In other words, it doesn't make much difference what
the SE service ceiling is.

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

Personal choice.

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

Not practical a lot of times.

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

This is pretty stupid too. There are lots of approaches where the MDA is
not much different than pattern altitude.

The reality is that even the simplest airplane with no redundant systems is
far more reliable that the pilot flying it.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...

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

This is pretty stupid. It ignores the fact that if the aircraft is at the
MEA and loses an engine (and MEA is above its SE ceiling) that the
aircraft will travel hundreds of miles before reaching the SE ceiling. It
will also reach it absolute SE ceiling which is much higher than the SE
service ceiling in the manual. It also ignores the fact that no piston
twin and few turboprops have enough single engine climb gradient to reach
the MEA before hitting something. In other words, it doesn't make much
difference what the SE service ceiling is.

The Single-Pilot bit puzzles me too. Surely this is a performance issue.
Does it really take two pilots to work out whether you're going to hit the
mountain or not?

Julian

Julian Scarfe wrote:
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...


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

This is pretty stupid. It ignores the fact that if the aircraft is at the
MEA and loses an engine (and MEA is above its SE ceiling) that the
aircraft will travel hundreds of miles before reaching the SE ceiling. It
will also reach it absolute SE ceiling which is much higher than the SE
service ceiling in the manual. It also ignores the fact that no piston
twin and few turboprops have enough single engine climb gradient to reach
the MEA before hitting something. In other words, it doesn't make much
difference what the SE service ceiling is.


The Single-Pilot bit puzzles me too. Surely this is a performance issue.
Does it really take two pilots to work out whether you're going to hit the
mountain or not?

Julian


This reminds me of the "Far Side" cartoon showing two pilots discussing
why there is a mountain goat in the clouds.

In article t,
says...



"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
Larry Bartlett's refresher course. 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

Personal choice. The chances of successfully landing at night after an
engine failure are not that different IMC or VMC.

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

This is pretty stupid. It ignores the fact that if the aircraft is at the
MEA and loses an engine (and MEA is above its SE ceiling) that the aircraft
will travel hundreds of miles before reaching the SE ceiling. It will also
reach it absolute SE ceiling which is much higher than the SE service
ceiling in the manual. It also ignores the fact that no piston twin and few
turboprops have enough single engine climb gradient to reach the MEA before
hitting something. In other words, it doesn't make much difference what
the SE service ceiling is.

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

Personal choice.

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

Not practical a lot of times.

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

This is pretty stupid too. There are lots of approaches where the MDA is
not much different than pattern altitude.

The reality is that even the simplest airplane with no redundant systems is
far more reliable that the pilot flying it.

Mike
MU-2


His comments were specifically aimed though at "typical" GA aircraft - singles
and light twins, not twin turboprops. Several of your comments are equally
valid for eaither realm, of course, but things like "keep IFR within range"
could be of less concern to you, because of the comfort you can take in the
performance of your machine.

G Faris

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article t,
says...



"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from
Larry Bartlett's refresher course. 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

Personal choice. The chances of successfully landing at night after an
engine failure are not that different IMC or VMC.

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

This is pretty stupid. It ignores the fact that if the aircraft is at the
MEA and loses an engine (and MEA is above its SE ceiling) that the
aircraft
will travel hundreds of miles before reaching the SE ceiling. It will
also
reach it absolute SE ceiling which is much higher than the SE service
ceiling in the manual. It also ignores the fact that no piston twin and
few
turboprops have enough single engine climb gradient to reach the MEA
before
hitting something. In other words, it doesn't make much difference what
the SE service ceiling is.

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

Personal choice.

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

Not practical a lot of times.

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

This is pretty stupid too. There are lots of approaches where the MDA is
not much different than pattern altitude.

The reality is that even the simplest airplane with no redundant systems
is
far more reliable that the pilot flying it.

Mike
MU-2


His comments were specifically aimed though at "typical" GA aircraft -
singles
and light twins, not twin turboprops. Several of your comments are equally
valid for eaither realm, of course, but things like "keep IFR within
range"
could be of less concern to you, because of the comfort you can take in
the
performance of your machine.

G Faris

I look at it from the point of view that if there is a meaningful chance
that I will have to divert to somewhere with VFR weather then I wouldn't
launch into IMC in the first place. Basically he is saying that you won't
be able to fly IMC at some point in the flight but you are going to depend
on flying IMC (to get to the VFR). .That doesn't mean that I don't want a
"real" alternate where I can count on getting in but if that alternate needs
to be VFR then either the pilot or the airplane is not up to flying IMC in
the first place.

The no single pilot, single engine prohibition similiarly doesn't make
sense. What good would having two pilots do if the (single) engine quit?

His comments on multi simply don't make sense either. If you can't control
a multi in the event of an engine loss then it doesn't make any difference
whether it is VMC or IMC, you shouldn't be flying a multi. If you can
control the airplane on one engine then there is no senario where you would
be better off in a single after one engine fails.

Last week I went to McCall for a mountain flying school (which was really
great BTW) and I had to fly the Helio in IMC for the first time. It was
pouring rain to the point that water was coming out the vents. I was
uncomfortable for the IMC duration of the flight (which was 90%) but none of
the "rules" or strategies espoused in this book would have made things any
better although I would probably have been even more uncomfortable at night.

I think that every pilot has to decide for himself and his passengers what
constitutes acceptable risk and that there is no formula or set of rules
that is better than any other.

Mike
MU-2

I look at it from the point of view that if there is a meaningful chance
that I will have to divert to somewhere with VFR weather then I wouldn't
launch into IMC in the first place. Basically he is saying that you won't
be able to fly IMC at some point in the flight but you are going to depend
on flying IMC (to get to the VFR).

Not necessarily. What he IS saying is that he may retain the
capability to fly IMC enroute, but not the capability to shoot an
approach. Now let's consider how this may happen.

IMO the biggest issue is an electrical failure that would leave you
able to fly enroute IMC (by dead reckoning if nothing else) since the
gyros are vacuum, but unable to shoot an approach. This was a real
issue before the handheld GPS, since few light aircraft have truly
redundant electrical systems. I have a handheld GPS with its own
batteries on a yoke mount. In a pinch, I can use it to shoot an
overlay VOR or NDB approach (I practice doing this) and I consider it a
no-go item on flights where I lack the range to reach VFR, despite the
fact that my electrical system is more redundant than most - I still
have only one electrical bus.

That doesn't mean that I don't want a
"real" alternate where I can count on getting in but if that alternate needs
to be VFR then either the pilot or the airplane is not up to flying IMC in
the first place.

By that definition, no single or light twin was up to flying IMC before
handheld nav became available. In my experience, electrical failures
are far more common than engine failures.

Having said that, the REAL reason for the rule is the sad reality that
all too many pilots of complex singles are not able to hand-fly a
partial panel approach, and all too many pilots of light twins are not
able to fly a single engine approach. These pilots need to have VFR in
range, so that they can fly there in the event of vacuum/engine
failure. You could argue that these pilots are not up to flying IMC in
the first place, and I would even agree with you, but you can't look at
the accident history and claim there are not many of them.

Michael