single pilot ifr trip tonight

I've read all the replies, and appreciate everyone's comments!

I did actually have another spare flashlight that I always bring along with
me... I got it from Sporty's, and it's a flex neck type with a red led in it
that you can clip onto the visor. I had it positioned at the instrument
panel, so I did actually have a backup light in addition to the spare white
I was already using. I also discovered, thanks to Ben's post, that there was
indeed a spare bulb in the base of my Maglight, so I replaced it and it's
working again. For good measure, I bought another one, plus a headband red
led / white led combo unit at Target on the way home, so now I know I'm
golden on the flashlight situation.

As for the minimum equipment, night, etc, I knew I would be able to fly this
flight both to and from SWF under VFR if I had had to. I wouldn't have tried
if I couldn't, and actually scrubbed an attempt last week when the winds
started picking up as I was getting ready to preflight. This time, the winds
were real calm, clouds were very high (at least 5000 both up and back), and
visibility, while it did drop off as I approached CDW, was still at least 6
nm the entire trip.

All of my previous single-pilot IFR trips have been in a 172SP, with
alternate static source, dual COM, dual NAV, ADF, GPS, dual-axis
Autopilot... basically the works minus a standby vacuum. I wanted to do this
trip to get back to the basics, and didn't think it was as unsafe as it
might sound. It did give me a very good appreciation for GPS though... I
wouldn't fly passengers in actual without it, and I definitely won't be
taking such an underequipped plane out at night anymore.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

I am sorry if this offends anybody, however this sentence "It did give
me a very good appreciation for GPS though... I wouldn't fly
passengers in actual without it..." is quite concerning to me. I
understand that each person has a different comfort level, but what is
happening to the pilots of today when we are no longer comfortable
flying passengers without the use of GPS? What happened to VOR and ADF
skills? Maybe rather than not flying passengers without GPS, it would
be a better idea of going to get some dual in VOR and ADF usage so you
are comfortable flying with passengers without the use of GPS.

Lynne

"Guy Elden Jr." wrote in message ...

All of my previous single-pilot IFR trips have been in a 172SP, with
alternate static source, dual COM, dual NAV, ADF, GPS, dual-axis
Autopilot... basically the works minus a standby vacuum. I wanted to do this
trip to get back to the basics, and didn't think it was as unsafe as it
might sound. It did give me a very good appreciation for GPS though... I
wouldn't fly passengers in actual without it, and I definitely won't be
taking such an underequipped plane out at night anymore.

"Lynne Miller" wrote in message
om...
I am sorry if this offends anybody, however this sentence "It did give
me a very good appreciation for GPS though... I wouldn't fly
passengers in actual without it..." is quite concerning to me. I
understand that each person has a different comfort level, but what is
happening to the pilots of today when we are no longer comfortable
flying passengers without the use of GPS? What happened to VOR and ADF
skills? Maybe rather than not flying passengers without GPS, it would
be a better idea of going to get some dual in VOR and ADF usage so you
are comfortable flying with passengers without the use of GPS.

Valid point. On my last CC I spent some time practicing my VOR navigation
simply because once again I found myself losing what little 'touch' I had.
Haven't done a VOR approach in awhile though.

I don't have an ADF - only have book learning and with zero experience.

I think the opposite applies in some cases - while a lot of people rely on
GPSs, not everyone is proficient using the particular unit they are relying
on. They seem both easier and more challenging if that's possible.

"Lynne Miller" wrote in message
om...
I am sorry if this offends anybody, however this sentence "It did give
me a very good appreciation for GPS though... I wouldn't fly
passengers in actual without it..." is quite concerning to me. I
understand that each person has a different comfort level, but what is
happening to the pilots of today when we are no longer comfortable
flying passengers without the use of GPS? What happened to VOR and ADF
skills? Maybe rather than not flying passengers without GPS, it would
be a better idea of going to get some dual in VOR and ADF usage so you
are comfortable flying with passengers without the use of GPS.

It's not about a comfort level for me... it's about pilot workload. There is
a tremendous amount of work involved in flying heads down in the clouds, so
any device that can help alleviate that load is welcome by me. It may be
legal to fly in instrument conditions with two VORs and an ADF, but is it
really safe if you're the only pilot in the plane, weather is forming all
around you, and you have to hand fly the plane? My instructor is definitely
of the opinion (and I share the same view) that it is not.

I make it a point to be proficient at using all of the equipment available
in the plane... VOR, NDB, COM, Transponder, GPS, Autopilot in my case. If
any (or all) of them went TU, no problem, I know the emergency procedures
very well. But I don't think it's worth it to risk the lives of anybody but
myself if I don't have every single one of those "assistants" helping me out
when I'm the only pilot in the plane.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

"Guy Elden Jr." writes:

It may be legal to fly in instrument conditions with two VORs and an
ADF, but is it really safe if you're the only pilot in the plane,
weather is forming all around you, and you have to hand fly the
plane?

Why wouldn't it be safe? I have nothing against GPS or an autopilot
-- I'll happily accept the gift of a Garmin 530 and/or STEC 30
installed in my Warrior from the first person who offers -- but even
though I'm a very new IFR pilot (only since last August), I've flown
myself and my family several times in solid IMC, day and night, using
the VORs and the ADF. As far as workload goes, I don't think it's any
harder tuning in a VOR frequency than it is selecting three or four
alphanumerics with a rocker switch or buttons for a GPS waypoint.

The only time I'd be reluctant to trust VOR or ADF for enroute would
be flying through a canyon or something similar, where a mile or so
off course would matter quite a bit. I don't live near any terrain
that high, though.


All the best,


David

David Megginson wrote in message ...
"Guy Elden Jr." writes:
It may be legal to fly in instrument conditions with two VORs and an
ADF, but is it really safe if you're the only pilot in the plane,
weather is forming all around you, and you have to hand fly the
plane?

Why wouldn't it be safe?

With all respect, David, I think you and "Maule Guy" are
letting Troller Chick (*aka Lynne Miller* -- remember
"Slav Inger is getting a tattoo" and "throw out that
checklist" etc etc) get it mixed for you.

There's a distinction between proficiency/capability and
safety. And safety is a continuum, where safe/unsafe are
a matter of personal limits.

For example, obviously it's possible to complete a night
IMC flight safely in a single-engine plane equipped with
VOR and ADF. It's possible to be proficient with these
navaids and to know your position with a fair degree of
certainty. Yet some people would argue that night IMC
in a single engine plane is not a safe trip for pax, and
they have an inarguable point IMO. If the fan quits in a
SE plane, your options are strictly limited, no matter
how proficient and capable and situationally aware you are.
Night, IMC, and night IMC both decrease your options.

If someone's personal limits don't allow them to take
pax IMC in a single, I have no argument against their view
even though my own personal limits differ and we fly our
daughter SE IMC.

There's a similar issue with GPS. Yes, it's possible
to know exactly where you are w/ 2 VORs and an ADF,
but single pilot IMC, there's no question it's higher
workload-- may require retuning stations and resetting
radials with the possibility for undetected error which
this entails. And this is true no matter how proficient
and capable you are with the equipment.

GPS adds situational awareness and capability. Thus
it adds safety. If you start smelling smoke, a handheld
GPS gives you the option to slap the master switch off
while maintaining the ability to navigate. If the fan
quits, it will take you to the nearest airport at the
touch of a button. IMO it's just as inarguable that
GPS adds safety and that it's a perfectly reasonable view
to say "I wouldn't fly pax in IMC without it" -- and this
has absolutely nothing to do with VOR/ADF proficiency.

Now, a multiengine plane and the continued proficiency to
fly it safely are a significant capitol investment.

But a useful handheld GPS can be had for a couple hundred
bucks. Maybe less if you shop carefully for a used unit.

So don't dismiss the viewpoint that it's unsafe to fly pax
IMC without a GPS. Think about your plans if you start
smelling electrical smoke in IMC (BTDT), or if the engine quits,
or even if you have a vacuum failure or wx is forming around
you and you have to scurry for an airport in a hurry. That
GPS adds a lot of safety "bang for the buck" and I have no
argument against the viewpoint of someone who wouldn't leave
home IMC without it.

Best,
Sydney

(Snowbird) writes:

So don't dismiss the viewpoint that it's unsafe to fly pax
IMC without a GPS. Think about your plans if you start
smelling electrical smoke in IMC (BTDT), or if the engine quits,
or even if you have a vacuum failure or wx is forming around
you and you have to scurry for an airport in a hurry. That
GPS adds a lot of safety "bang for the buck" and I have no
argument against the viewpoint of someone who wouldn't leave
home IMC without it.

I agree entirely that a handheld GPS in the flightbag is an excellent
safety investment, precisely because it gives you a way to navigate
independent of the plane's systems. Ditto for a cellphone with a
headset adapter (handheld VHF transcievers have lousy ranges, but over
populated areas, you can almost always hit a cell).

I didn't have the impression, though, that the poster was writing
about emergency backup -- I had the impression that he (and his
instructor) thought that flying with VOR or ADF was somehow more
dangerous than flying with GPS. In fact, if we're talking about using
a handheld GPS in IMC, we're talking about extra workload, because the
pilot has to tune in the VOR and/or ADF and *then* tune the handheld
backup as well. It may be worthwhile sometimes, but there's a price
to consider.

As I mentioned in a previous posting, none of that navigational
equipment addresses the main safety requirement in IMC, keeping the
plane upright. I would agree that using with *any* equipment you're
not proficient with is a dangerous distraction, but given equal
proficiency, tuning and spinning an ADF or VOR receiver involves no
higher a workload than fiddling with GPS buttons.

The poster also mentioned flying with an autopilot, though it fell out
of the followups. That makes a lot more sense as a personal safety
minimum, since the AP does actually help to keep the wings level.
Personally, I'm happy to hand fly, but I believe that my plane would
be safer if it had a simple wing-leveller that I could hit as a panic
button if I ever experienced extreme vertigo. I'm willing to fly
without it, but I can respect that other people might not be.


All the best,


David

David Megginson ) wrote:

The poster also mentioned flying with an autopilot, though it fell out
of the followups. That makes a lot more sense as a personal safety
minimum, since the AP does actually help to keep the wings level.
Personally, I'm happy to hand fly, but I believe that my plane would
be safer if it had a simple wing-leveller that I could hit as a panic
button if I ever experienced extreme vertigo. I'm willing to fly
without it, but I can respect that other people might not be.

Interesting you mention this point. I am in the process of watching a few
of the Richard Collins Sporty's aviation DVDs. In the IFR Tips and
Techniques DVD, he offers a PoV that suggest a pilot hand flying in IMC
does not necessarily have the big picture view that a pilot who uses an AP
might.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

David Megginson wrote in message ...
(Snowbird) writes:
So don't dismiss the viewpoint that it's unsafe to fly pax
IMC without a GPS. Think about your plans if you start
smelling electrical smoke in IMC (BTDT), or if the engine quits,
or even if you have a vacuum failure or wx is forming around
you and you have to scurry for an airport in a hurry. That
GPS adds a lot of safety "bang for the buck" and I have no
argument against the viewpoint of someone who wouldn't leave
home IMC without it.

I agree entirely that a handheld GPS in the flightbag is an excellent
safety investment

Well, just to clarify my views: a handheld GPS in the flightbag
is next to useless. It has to be set up, turn on, and acquired
at the beginning of the flight to have practical value if things
go south.

I didn't have the impression, though, that the poster was writing
about emergency backup

Not clear. The statement IIRC was simply that he wouldn't want
to fly pax in IMC without GPS. I concur.

-- I had the impression that he (and his
instructor) thought that flying with VOR or ADF was somehow more
dangerous than flying with GPS. In fact, if we're talking about using
a handheld GPS in IMC, we're talking about extra workload, because the
pilot has to tune in the VOR and/or ADF and *then* tune the handheld
backup as well.

Huh?

I fly around with two GPS on and acquired in the cockpit, and
I've never "tuned" one yet . I have selected a navaid or
airport -- is that what you mean?

The point is:
A moving map GPS is a significant aid to situational awareness
whether the GPS has anything selected, or not. It will always
tell you where you are relative to nearby airports and navaids.

So it doesn't have to increase workload one iota.

I would agree that using with *any* equipment you're
not proficient with is a dangerous distraction, but given equal
proficiency, tuning and spinning an ADF or VOR receiver involves no
higher a workload than fiddling with GPS buttons.

Actually the opposite is true. Tuning a VOR receiver and setting
the OBS is a significantly *lower* workload than setting up
a route, loading an approach, or even selecting a navaid and
inputting a course on the typical older panel-mount IFR GPS.

However, given a choice between flying a VOR or NDB approach
or flying a stand-alone GPS approach in actual, I want the latter
every time.

My thing with simple wing-leveler autopilots is I'm not
sure how well ours (anyway) would work in really nasty
conditions. The sort of conditions most likely to induce
spatial disorientation. Not dissing it as a safety item
at all, just saying I see it more as a workload-reducer.

Cheers,
Sydney

It may be
legal to fly in instrument conditions with two VORs and an ADF, but is it
really safe if you're the only pilot in the plane, weather is forming all
around you, and you have to hand fly the plane?


That depends on the proficiency of the pilot. In the long term, (over)
reliance on GPS reduces your proficiency in the cockpit. This can come back to
bite.

Jose


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