Cloud Flying - Experimental

Dan G wrote:
In Britain - where cloud flying is common - you radio your position
and intentions on a set frequency before entering a cloud. (You're
also required to be wearing a parachute.)

As an aside older British gliders were required to have speed-limiting
airbrakes, so if it all went pear-shaped you could open the airbrakes
and eventually fall out the bottom of the cloud at a reasonable
airspeed. My understanding is that more modern gliders have airbrakes
that only limit the speed in a 45deg dive.


Dan

YMMV - Many, including my Cirrus, are 45 degrees.

Bruce Greef schrieb:

As an aside older British gliders were required to have speed-limiting
airbrakes, so if it all went pear-shaped you could open the airbrakes
and eventually fall out the bottom of the cloud at a reasonable
airspeed. My understanding is that more modern gliders have airbrakes
that only limit the speed in a 45deg dive.

YMMV - Many, including my Cirrus, are 45 degrees.

JAR-22 requires at least 45 degrees for a glider to be certified for
cloud flying. (This is one of the reasons why the Duo is not.)

I agree with Bill: the Instrument Ticket IS the hardest: the ATP is
just an instrument ride with tighter tolerances, made possible (and
largely easy) through experience and training -- yes, I have flown
both checkrides (successfully). And those who have not done the
training (for IFR and/or ATP) have a signifcantly different
perspective than those who have. Thanks go out to Bill for pointing
the "failure to communicate." I wonder where modern aviation would be
if Jimmy Doolittle had listened to those that claim "instrument flight
is a crime against nature" and he had never accomplished that
monumental first ever "blind" flight (from takeoff through a SAFE
landing). I suppose it would be a "bigger sky," with room enough for
us to fly in clouds, with "fate being the hunter!"

On Feb 6, 8:03 am, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
It's hard to have an informed discussion between instrument rated pilots and
non-instrument rated pilots since the difference in training is huge.
Getting an instrument rating is probably the hardest rating to get. I've
been thold that the ATP is easier.

While I got my IFR ticket before I added a very rewarding and
educational Commercial Glider rating, I suspect my next observation
would apply to my glider flying as well as other aspects. I had been
flying (power) aerobatics for years before succumbing to CFI pressure
to add the IFR ticket. Seeing as IFR flying usually involves very
small control pressures and displacements -- as opposed to full
deflection action for aerobatics -- I chose to "pause" my aerobatics
during the final stages of my Instrument training. After a pleasant
Instrument check ride, I couldn't wait to go do aerobatics after the
self imposed sabbatical. In that very next acro flight, I noticed
that my acro maneuvers became significantly more PRECISE as a result
of my IFR training. I had never anticipated such a fringe benefit!!!
I fully believe this would be true for a PPG getting a PPA followed by
an IFR ticket -- the glider flying will benefit from the IFR skills
gained.

Actually, I know pilots who feel very uncomfortable flying visually.
(Instrument pilot sits in glider and asks, "Where the hell is the attitude
indicator?"

These type of people (I will not refer to them as pilots) scare me
more than Inspector Sphincter from the FAA: flying head down on a
CAVU day begging to be party to a midair. Those who are uncomfortable
flying without a full IFR panel will be sorry the day the first of the
six instrumtents fails, or worse, provides misleading information!
I've had both happen to me. Part of the Instrument training is to
recognize failures, cross reference other instruments and adapt to fly
partial panel. Oh, I might add a slight confession: I have been
there and took on some self-imposed goals to "cure the
disease," (e.g., get a glider rating!!!). Now I like to use that
neglected instrument (the "window"), even when it's pure white...

I've also had a controller vector me straight at a mountain, below the
MEA/MOCA (for those without IFR tickets, that means the controller
wanted to point me direclty at cumulo granitus). I think Steve Hill
grossly misrepresented the duties of a competent IFR pilot on an IFR
flight...he needs to remember the ONLY similarity between pilots and
controllers: if the pilot screws up, the pilot dies -- if the
controller screws up, the pilot dies. In defference to Steve's
opinion of this "odd" topic, I think it's great that it gets discussed
and reasonable, safe procedures get established to open the skies for
safe flying. Buckle up in your Aerostar, look out that thing called a
window when it's VMC and share the sky...even the cloudy parts. Oh,
BTW, yes, I have flown Aerostars, too. Move over Big Boy, there's a
1-26 coming through...

The point is that flight under IMC can be done safely by a well trained
pilot. It's not the equipment, it's the pilot that makes the difference.
Almost all accidents under IMC are pilots flying perfectly good aircraft
into the ground. They even have a name for it - CFIT (Controled Flight Into
Terrain) Aircraft and the installed instruments have little to do with it
as long as the pilot knows how to use what he has - and knows his own
limitations.


I have a slight disagreement: it is the COMBINATION of pilot AND
equipment AND TRAINING! Part of knowing how to use it is "computing"
the fact that today, I or the airplane or the weather are not
compatible! Some days, a slight forcast of icing switches me
immediately to "I'll drive" mode! And my previous note about dealing
with failures (spoilers, hooks, engines, GPS's, etc., etc., etc.) is
the lions' share of ALL aviation training, isn't it?

I'm looking forward to Shawn's presentation at the convention.

I'm quite sorry other committments will prevent me from seeing it, and
I hope it becomes available though other channels. While I haven't
got the equipment, or the (glider) IFR experience, but perhaps one day
I will (safely) enjoy such extended flights, provided that the triad
is ready: me, aircraft and weather!

-Pete
#309

Bill Daniels schrieb:

Getting an instrument rating is probably the hardest rating to get.

It's hard because of the navigation and approach procedures. None of
them is needed for simple cloud flying. Just flying by reference to
gyros is pretty simple.

"Stefan" wrote in message
. ..
Bill Daniels schrieb:

Getting an instrument rating is probably the hardest rating to get.

It's hard because of the navigation and approach procedures. None of them
is needed for simple cloud flying. Just flying by reference to gyros is
pretty simple.

True, but in the USA there is no glider instrument rating. You must first
get an airplane instrument rating and all that implies.

Bill Daniels