IFR rating?

On Sun, 2 May 2004 08:09:08 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"tony" wrote in message
...
If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above your
personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't you
go?

IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR.

IMHO, the go/no-go decision is being made constantly, not just before
takeoff.

I agree with those who say that the instrument rating makes the
decision-making more complicated. I don't see this as necessarily a bad

I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
to consider.

OTOH there really is only three things to consider, in both VFR and
IFR.
The airplanes capabilities, your capabilities, and minimums.

You set your minimums and THEN check (and don't cheat or reset any
minimums just because conditions are only a little worse)

Ice? Go/no go
Thunderstorms? Go/no go
Turbulence? go/no go
Wind? Go/no go
Visibility? VFR the whole route Go/no go.
IFR Origin, destination, and
alternate if applicable Go/no go

My rule: Origin, route, and destination =my minimums
Alternate MUST be VFR AND there must be good VFR well within the range
of the aircraft plus reserves.

VFR, I'm quite willing to depart in marginal IF actual VFR (good VFR)
is near and I will head for a destination that is IMC IF it is
scheduled to be VMC before I get there AND there is good VMC nearby.
So, for me, to fly VFR in these conditions I have more to do to keep
track of the weather. Some times a lot more. OTOH I usually have the
option of filing if things look like they are deteriorating, or
changing faster than expected. Normally I'd file in the first place
as I find it easier in those circumstances. Currently that is not an
option until I get back out, do some practice and take a competency
check. We've been having weather that can make a competency check
into a real IFR flight for most of its duration too. :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
to consider.

IMHO that's exactly why it's more complicated. "More things to consider"
directly translates into "more complicated".

Maybe other people have a different definition of "complicated", but for me,
the conclusion comes directly from my own definition of "complicated".
Having more things to consider, by definition, means that the decision
making is more complicated.

Pete

I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
to consider.

IMHO that's exactly why it's more complicated. "More things to consider"
directly translates into "more complicated".

Maybe other people have a different definition of "complicated", but for me,
the conclusion comes directly from my own definition of "complicated".
Having more things to consider, by definition, means that the decision
making is more complicated.

Pete

I suppose one could look at it that way. The problem I had for the 200 hours I
was not rated for IFR was trying to guess weather the weather guessers were
right when they promised 3000 feet and 5 miles for the next couple of days
before I'd start out on a weekend trip. The 'window of opportunity' for making
a flight has been much wider the 3300 hours I've logged since then. FWIF, I
log about 150 hours a year, and a buddy and I do an hour's profiencey check
every two or three months to each other (those are brutal: "It's your
airplane" we tell each other after doing everything we can to screw up the
other's inner ear while wearing a hood, he pilot has his head down.)

That may be the difference between my attitude and some others: I get to fly a
high performance airplane, a Mooney 201, that I know very well, and I do it
fairly often. It (and my bladder) has long legs: I usually file 5.5 hours of
fuel on board and 150 kts. My log book shows about 20% of my flight time is
actual IMC, and that's probably typical for someone who flys 80% of his time on
business and is based on the east coast.

It also probably means my definition of 'complicated' may be different than
yours. I usually have a reasonable sense of weather conditions for the eastern
third of the country where I do most of my flying. I'll have gotten a weather
briefing the night before a planned trip, and another before I file: life gets
complicated for me if the initial weather forecast is better than my personal
equirements and the later one shows the system is getting more intense than
initially forecast.

I'm lucky in that I get to fly quite a lot -- most of it paid for by my
company. I remember having to fly actual missed approaches only 5 times
because conditions dropped below my personal minimums, so I may be more
conservative than my contributions to this thread suggest.

In article , Roger Halstead wrote:
I agree with those who say that the instrument rating makes the
decision-making more complicated. I don't see this as necessarily a bad

I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
to consider.

That's a definition of complexity.

I deal with complexity in my day job (software) and have some (mostly
stolen) insights about software complexity and how to manage it. None
of it applies to aviation, but I can recognize complexity when I see it
at least 2 out of 3 times. :-)

As far as the decision-making goes, you need to compare apples to
apples. ISTR being saturated just holding the airplane straight and
level. Eventually, you develop the subroutines to fly the plane
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.

Roy Smith once posted that he knew he had his instrument rating nailed
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
phase of flight). Not because the ILS becomes less demanding, but
because you develop the subroutines to deal with it more effectively.
IOW, when you fly, there's a point at which you get saturated. With
training and experience you learn to push back that saturation point
(and perhaps how to shed load as you approach it).

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.

Sure, there's no-brainer yes, no-brainer let's go IFR (say, climbing
through a low marine layer into clear and 1e6), and there's obvious
no-go weather (say, Hurricane Andrew). The point at which yes and no
converges is where things become more complex.


Morris

In article , tony wrote:

If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above your
personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't you go?

Strawman. It's an easy go decision in this case. It's harder when
things are pushing your minima, where the weather might become worse
than forecast, where you might be flying over rough terrain, where your
routing is over land but ATC might vector you over water.


IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR.

Okay. IFR can simplify flight planning and navigation, but we're
talking about the go/nogo decision making process. More things
to consider. Go/nogo is less obvious as go point and nogo point
converge. Clearly, even for IFR, there're obvious gos and obvious
nogos. Furthermore, what might be an obvious IFR go might be an
obvious VFR nogo.

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.


Morris

"Journeyman" wrote in message
. ..
In article , tony
wrote:

If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above
your
personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't
you go?

Strawman. It's an easy go decision in this case. It's harder when
things are pushing your minima, where the weather might become worse
than forecast, where you might be flying over rough terrain, where your
routing is over land but ATC might vector you over water.


IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR.

Okay. IFR can simplify flight planning and navigation, but we're
talking about the go/nogo decision making process. More things
to consider. Go/nogo is less obvious as go point and nogo point
converge. Clearly, even for IFR, there're obvious gos and obvious
nogos. Furthermore, what might be an obvious IFR go might be an
obvious VFR nogo.

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.


Morris

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. The only difference an instrument rating makes is to reduce the
*required* visibility and ceiling. You don't *have* to change your personal
minimia. When I earned my instrument rating, I lived in SoCal and flew a
Turbo Lance. The instrument rating allowed me to depart from Santa Monica
with the typical morning marine layer and it allowed me to be more
comfortable at night, particularly over unlighted terrain. I didn't use the
rating to fly approaches to minimia or weave around embeded CBs. When I
moved to the mountains the IFR rating again helped me at night but I had no
illusions about flying in IMC at the 16,000' MEAs. To fly IMC over the
mountains required more and better equipment, not more skills.

In short, I think the average pilot stays within his/her comfort range
whether they have an instrument rating or not. The instrument rating just
provides a few more flyable days each month. This leads to a few less
unexpected hotel stays and perhaps a couple fewer missed work days each
year.

Mike
MU-2

If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above your
personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't you
go?

Strawman. It's an easy go decision in this case. It's harder when
things are pushing your minima, where the weather might become worse
than forecast, where you might be flying over rough terrain, where your
routing is over land but ATC might vector you over water.


IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR.

Okay. IFR can simplify flight planning and navigation, but we're
talking about the go/nogo decision making process. More things
to consider. Go/nogo is less obvious as go point and nogo point
converge. Clearly, even for IFR, there're obvious gos and obvious
nogos. Furthermore, what might be an obvious IFR go might be an
obvious VFR nogo.

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.


Maybe the problem I'm having is, as a fairly high time pilot, the decision
making has gotten almost automatic. I see the difference this way: deciding to
go in marginal VFR conditions is at best dicy. If the forecast seems stable,
just maybe vis will be better than 3 or 4 miles (but I HATE marginal VFR, with
me and other pilots stumbling around under a 1500 foot overcast in limited
visibility, that scares the in vivo processed food out of me). OTOH, frankly,
it's very rare for weather in the Eastern part of the country to be below my
personal IFR minimums, so so long as icing seems not likely, there are no
imbedded thunderstorms, and I'm happy with the forecast and how well it's
holding up, it's going to be "Good Morning ground, it's Mooney 201 whatever,
instruments to Rochester, I have information Alpha, ready to taxi."

But it remains a different strokes issue -- I have no arguement at all with
those whose decision making process is different. The discussion is an
opportunity to share insights, and I may leaarn or relearn something.

It's harder when
things are pushing your minima, where the weather might become worse
than forecast, where you might be flying over rough terrain, where your
routing is over land but ATC might vector you over water.


Except for ATC vectoring, the same is true IFR or VFR. Just that a VFR pilot's
personal minima might be higher. But near your personal minima the decision is
harder.

Jose

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

On Sun, 2 May 2004 22:48:52 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
.. .
I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
to consider.

IMHO that's exactly why it's more complicated. "More things to consider"
directly translates into "more complicated".

To me that's why the "decision is more simple.

Maybe other people have a different definition of "complicated", but for me,
the conclusion comes directly from my own definition of "complicated".
Having more things to consider, by definition, means that the decision
making is more complicated.

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)

Each to me are strictly go/no go decisions.

The question was on making the go/no go decision.




Pete


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 3 May 2004 06:25:33 -0500, Journeyman
wrote:


In article , Roger Halstead wrote:
I agree with those who say that the instrument rating makes the
decision-making more complicated. I don't see this as necessarily a bad

I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
to consider.

That's a definition of complexity.

I deal with complexity in my day job (software) and have some (mostly
stolen) insights about software complexity and how to manage it. None
of it applies to aviation, but I can recognize complexity when I see it
at least 2 out of 3 times. :-)

As far as the decision-making goes, you need to compare apples to
apples. ISTR being saturated just holding the airplane straight and
level. Eventually, you develop the subroutines to fly the plane
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.


Roy Smith once posted that he knew he had his instrument rating nailed
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
phase of flight). Not because the ILS becomes less demanding, but
because you develop the subroutines to deal with it more effectively.
IOW, when you fly, there's a point at which you get saturated. With
training and experience you learn to push back that saturation point
(and perhaps how to shed load as you approach it).

Again, has nothing to do with the original question.


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.


Sure, there's no-brainer yes, no-brainer let's go IFR (say, climbing
through a low marine layer into clear and 1e6), and there's obvious
no-go weather (say, Hurricane Andrew). The point at which yes and no
converges is where things become more complex.

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.

If any one of the answers to "Is it below my minimums?" comes back a
yes then the flight should be a no go.

If you compare the information needed to make that decision for each
stage of the flight there are only a few differences and again they
are pretty much cut-and dried. We are not talking about the ongoing
decision making process "in flight" once the go decision has been
made. Nor are we comparing the difficulty of VFR Vs IFR flight.

Flight in IMC requires more precision, more multitasking, better radio
skills, more precision flight planning in all stages including fuel
management but that is irrelevant to the original question, except for
the question, "am I proficient enough to make the flight?"
Considering we are making the go/no go decision and the pilot is
current that should be a given.

Once you have gathered the information it still boils down to a yes,
or no for each stage of flight. (before you even file the flight plan)
although if any times has passed prior to take off a re-evaluation is
in order just as it would be for VFR.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



Morris