Question to the IFR Pilots Out There

(Snowbird) wrote in
om:

Probably the hardest and most dangerous part of IFR flight
in IMC is the transition to visual once you break out on
approach.

This isn't usually well-taught under the hood. Your safety
pilot tells you "look up" and the airport is there.

IMO the safest way to fly single-pilot approaches is to do it
this way as closely as you can. Fly the approach to the MAP,
then look up. If you aren't VMC, execute the missed. If you
are, then go visual and land. In a spam-can on an ILS or most
straight-in non-precision approaches, you have lots of runway
left to land on. For circling approaches, you may need to peek
a little before the MAP in order to set up for landing, and for
this reason circling approaches have higher minimums, and are
much more dangerous than straight-in approaches.

--
Regards,

Stan

Stan Gosnell wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in
:


If you feel that you can fly to the edge of the envelope
(fully utilize everything legally available to you in IMC
conditions) at day one, what is left to gain from
experience? I'm not being facetrious here, I'm really
curious as to what value you feel that experience will
bring? Generally, it brings additional capabilities beyond
what you had at the start. But since you can't legally fly
in worse weather after 500 hours than you can after 0 hours
(I'm talking post rating here), what is left to gain from
your experience?


Judgment. Good judgment comes from exercising bad judgment.
After you fly for awhile, you learn when to go and when not to.
But if you aren't trained to fly an approach to minimums, then
you got cheated in your training.

I consider going out on your first solo IFR flight in IMC and flying an
approach to minimums to be a sign of poor judgement. :-)


Matt

Stan Gosnell me@work wrote in message ...
(Snowbird) wrote in
om:
Probably the hardest and most dangerous part of IFR flight
in IMC is the transition to visual once you break out on
approach.

This isn't usually well-taught under the hood. Your safety
pilot tells you "look up" and the airport is there.

IMO the safest way to fly single-pilot approaches is to do it
this way as closely as you can. Fly the approach to the MAP,
then look up. If you aren't VMC, execute the missed. If you
are, then go visual and land. In a spam-can on an ILS or most
straight-in non-precision approaches, you have lots of runway
left to land on.

Stan,

Perhaps I don't understand this advice, or its practical application,
but it doesn't sound realistic to me.

Let's not worry about circling approaches for now, but just take
(for example) a typical non-precision GPS approach heading into
a typical rural midwestern airport with a 3,000 - 3,500 ft runway.

The MAP is usually the end of the runway. If I fly to the MAP
and look up, the runway will be harder to see because it's about
to go underneath me, and no way can I complete a reasonable
straight-in landing.

OTOH, if I fly to MDA in the typical "dive and drive" method, I
may be 2+ miles from the MAP and unable to see the runway yet.
If I start sneaking in peaks, I may catch it from about a mile
away and be able to power back and land.

Could you explain how to apply your advice here?

Thanks!
Sydney

Stan,

As soon as I finished flight school, I was expected to fly approaches to
minimums, with the visibility minimums half of published. I still do that
regularly.

Was this done alone or with a copilot? Where you the copilot? Who
"expected" you to do this? That sounds like the external pressure scenario
that we were warned about and the "half of published" visibility sounds
illegal. Asking, not telling.

Kobra


"Stan Gosnell" me@work wrote in message
...
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in
:

If you feel that you can fly to the edge of the envelope
(fully utilize everything legally available to you in IMC
conditions) at day one, what is left to gain from
experience? I'm not being facetrious here, I'm really
curious as to what value you feel that experience will
bring? Generally, it brings additional capabilities beyond
what you had at the start. But since you can't legally fly
in worse weather after 500 hours than you can after 0 hours
(I'm talking post rating here), what is left to gain from
your experience?

Judgment. Good judgment comes from exercising bad judgment.
After you fly for awhile, you learn when to go and when not to.
But if you aren't trained to fly an approach to minimums, then
you got cheated in your training.

I don't think anyone is claiming that you need to learn to
do the approach. It is a question of precision,
confidence, and the ability to handle the unforeseen that
comes with experience. I believe any new insrument pilot
should have the knowledge to fly an approach to minimums.
They shouldn't need to learn anything from a "mechanical"
perspective. That isn't what experience usually brings.
It is the ability to recognize and deal with the
non-mechanical aspects (fatique, etc.) that occur in real
flying much more so than during training.

In other words, judgment.

What capbilities will you be able to use after experience
than you could the day you got your rating? You can't
arbitrarily fly to an MDA or DH lower than what is
published, just because you are now a better pilot.

The published DH or MDA is published at that altitude for a
reason. Brand new pilots have to be able to fly to it safely,
as well as experienced pilots who are fatigued to exhaustion,
along with every other instrument pilot.

I keep seeing pilots who say they won't fly approaches to
minimums, but I've never had that luxury. As soon as I finished
flight school, I was expected to fly approaches to minimums,
with the visibility minimums half of published. I still do that
regularly. If you're just out flying for fun, you can set your
own minimums, but if you're going to do it for a living, you'd
better be ready to take off with barely legal weather both at
the destination and the departure point. If you don't think you
can handle weather that's at minimums, then you shouldn't be
flying in weather at all. If your competence is so low that you
can't fly an approach to minimums, then you're likely to kill
yourself before you get there, even if the weather is better
than minimums. Look at the NTSB reports, & you'll see lots of
barely competent instrument pilots who killed themselves and
their friends and families. Instrument flying isn't for
everyone, but if you want to do it, you'd better be good at it,
and if you aren't good enough, you shouldn't have been passed on
the checkride.

--
Regards,

Stan

In article ,
Snowbird wrote:
Stan Gosnell me@work wrote in message
.. .

IMO the safest way to fly single-pilot approaches is to do it
this way as closely as you can. Fly the approach to the MAP,
then look up.

The MAP is usually the end of the runway. If I fly to the MAP
and look up, the runway will be harder to see because it's about
to go underneath me, and no way can I complete a reasonable
straight-in landing.

And if it's not straight in, it's even harder. There's a VOR approach
to UAO that arrives at a 90 degree angle to the runway. If you look up
at the MAP and you've executed the approach perfectly you are right at
the center of the runway and have a few seconds to see it (less in a
low wing). The first time I did this at night it freaked me out, because
I didn't think I could have spotted it without coaching from my CFII
(who was looking at it the whole way, of course). Then I realized that
if I had been in IMC and broken out when I completed the last stepdown
I would have had plenty of time to see it.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

On 17 Nov 2003 08:58:59 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

Stan Gosnell me@work wrote in message ...
(Snowbird) wrote in
om:
Probably the hardest and most dangerous part of IFR flight
in IMC is the transition to visual once you break out on
approach.

This isn't usually well-taught under the hood. Your safety
pilot tells you "look up" and the airport is there.
snip
My safety pilot is there for one reason...safety. To look out for
traffic and keep me advised. They do not make the decision when to
look outside.


OTOH, if I fly to MDA in the typical "dive and drive" method, I
may be 2+ miles from the MAP and unable to see the runway yet.
If I start sneaking in peaks, I may catch it from about a mile
away and be able to power back and land.

I fly a practice VOR the same was as I do in real life (IRL).
I do the step down when appropriate and then fly it to minimums before
looking. IE. I go down to MDA and don't peak until I'm within a mile
of the airport. I figure if I don't see the runway from a mile out I
wouldn't be able to land any way. I do not fly the approach all the
way to the MAP before peaking, *Unless* I'm doing lots of approaches
and have no intention of landing. OTOH I fly every approach as if it
were going to end in a missed.

There are those rare times when you'd not see the airport until the
MAP but I contend that if you don't catch a glimpse until the MAP you
are not likely to be able to land any way (depending on the size of
the airport). With our longest runway being 3800 feet, if I don't see
the airport until the MAP while at MDA I am unlikely to be able to
land.

Even the circle to land is in doubt if you don't see the airport until
the MAP. You are not permitted to descend until within 30 degrees of
the desired runway and in this scenario the majority of the circle to
land is likely to be in and out of the clouds, which legally means a
missed.

Yes, I could pull the power, go into a steep slip and land with plenty
of runway left, but I'd have over half the runway behind me and the
FAA says we are supposed to make the landing in a "normal" attitude.
Hence if I don't see the airport until the MAP I fully intend on going
missed and then flying the ILS at MBS which is only and extra 11 miles
for my ride.

OTOH, I have seen a day or two where it was below minimums until just
prior to the MAP and the airport was out in the clear. Two planes
coming in. The first landed, and the second had to go missed and over
to MBS which was VFR. I've also seen it legal VFR within two to three
miles of the airport when the airport was below minimums.

To me, flying the approach all the way to the MAP is a good exercise
in confidence building, but IRL I'd already be calling Approach for
MBS telling them I was going to be paying them a visit by the time I
reached the MAP if I had not seen the airport.

I'm not at all bashful about bringing in the power and doing a good
circle to land while staying within a mile, but not if I'm going to be
pushing the legal limits. I'm not too proud to say, "this is not for
me, lets go to MBS"...or where ever.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Could you explain how to apply your advice here?

Thanks!
Sydney

On 16 Nov 2003 18:13:38 -0800, (Doug)
wrote:

We have something like that, only ours is called "white knuckle"
instead of "white card". It's for landing in a "white out".

You're in Alaska?

"Kobra" wrote in
:

Stan,

As soon as I finished flight school, I was expected to fly
approaches to
minimums, with the visibility minimums half of published.
I still do that regularly.

Was this done alone or with a copilot? Where you the
copilot? Who "expected" you to do this? That sounds like
the external pressure scenario that we were warned about
and the "half of published" visibility sounds illegal.
Asking, not telling.

Usually with a copilot, but not necessarily. The U.S. Army was
who was expecting me to do it. Now it's my employer.
Helicopters can usually cut the published visibility in half,
and it's completely legal. My ops specs permit reducing the
published visibility by half, but never below 1/4 mile. Same
thing for the military, IIRC, although it's been a long time
since I wore a green uniform. In a pinch, we did GCA's to very
little visibility.

--
Regards,

Stan

(Snowbird) wrote in
om:

Perhaps I don't understand this advice, or its practical
application, but it doesn't sound realistic to me.

Let's not worry about circling approaches for now, but just
take (for example) a typical non-precision GPS approach
heading into a typical rural midwestern airport with a
3,000 - 3,500 ft runway.

The MAP is usually the end of the runway. If I fly to the
MAP and look up, the runway will be harder to see because
it's about to go underneath me, and no way can I complete a
reasonable straight-in landing.

If the MAP is the runway end, then I agree you need to look up
before then, perhaps 1/2 mile or so. The approach plate tells
you where the MAP is, of course, and judgment is always
necessary.

OTOH, if I fly to MDA in the typical "dive and drive"
method, I may be 2+ miles from the MAP and unable to see
the runway yet. If I start sneaking in peaks, I may catch
it from about a mile away and be able to power back and
land.

I don't like the 'dive and drive' method. A constant rate of
descent, which will get you to MDA between a mile and 1/2 mile
is safer, IMO. This means you just descend at ~500'/min, if
everything is set up correctly, in a stabilized descent, and at
MDA you level off & then take a look. I don't mean to say that
you should never look out early, but if the weather is right at
minimums, you're safer to fly a stabilized approach to arrive at
MDA within a mile of the MAP, and then just descend to the
runway if you're in visual conditions. Getting down early,
going visual, then scud-running for a couple or 5 miles is more
dangerous, IMO. Again, judgment is required at all times.

--
Regards,

Stan

Usually with a copilot, but not necessarily. The U.S. Army was
who was expecting me to do it.

Ok, this makes more sense. I couldn't imagine a civilian aviation company
to expect this with paying passengers in an airplane.


Now it's my employer.
Helicopters can usually cut the published visibility in half,
and it's completely legal.

Thanks for the info. I didn't know this about rotary wing aircraft. Seems
to make sense though.

Kobra