Question to the IFR Pilots Out There

"Kobra" wrote in message ...

Not sure how he came up with that number, but let's face it, one should have
*some* hours in actual conditions before venturing out alone in the clouds
and soup.

Well, IMO single pilot IFR is always tough. It's certainly never a
bad idea to ask someone competent to go with you (another IR pilot
or a CFI).

I think probably how much experience is needed depends on the
individual, and how comfortable they are. I know I started flying
in clouds as a passenger, with my husband, and the first few flights
I durn near took the arm rest off the rented plane. At some point
when I started my own IR, that went away, but I can't say exactly
when. Then sometime afterward I remember a flight where I was
in solid clouds for about an hour and it was a knife-fight for
the whole time because I felt dizzy and like I was tumbling backwards
the whole time. It was pretty bumpy, and I must have had some water
in my inner ear from a week of swimming in the Bahamas or something.

I guess I'd have to agree that it's prudent to have someone more
experienced along if you've never seen the inside of a cloud at
all, just in case. And if there's something about it that makes
you uncomfortable, then I would agree it's good to fly with someone
else until you work through it.

I do know people that have never had any discomfort at all about
clouds, though. They are natural instrument pilots where I'm very
much a visual pilot and instrument flying does not come easy to me
but took a lot of remedial CFI beating. So I wouldn't project my
feelings onto someone else.

Also for me at least, instrument skills are a real 'use it or lose
it' phenomenon. So it's currency and proficiency (in the real, not
the FAA sense) which most concern me.

In my examiner's opinion and experience he feels that 10 hours is the
minimum needed experience in actual IMC for an average pilot to become
familiar and comfortable enough with instrument conditions to venture out
alone.

I guess my point is that I don't feel any arbitrary number has
any real meaning.

I feel there are three factors:
1) how comfortable or uncomfortable you personally feel flying
in clouds, once you've tried it
2) how current and proficient you are
3) what kind of IMC you're facing

Maybe you have 30 hrs flying in IMC, but you haven't shot an
approach in a month and you find that for you, about 10 days
is the "magic number" you need to stay sharp. Does it make
sense for you to go? Maybe --- if your destination has a
good forecast and there's pretty ironclad VFR within range
as a backup plan.

OTOH if you have two hours in IMC, but they were yesterday
shooting ILS down to 300 and 1 with no problems, I think you're
in pretty good shape for a carefully-planned trip in the clouds.
What I mean by carefully planned is, I think it makes most sense
to have higher standards for fuel reserve and for having really
good wx w/in comfortable range at first.

I know when DH was a newly minted instrument pilot, we flew
some trips that were perfectly legal and scare the socks off me
now to think about. Stuff where the nearest VFR was two states
away. God looks after fools sometimes.

Just my opinion of course.

I think it depends on the weather conditions as we both talked about. 1000
to 1500' ceilings with 4 or 5 miles visibility is a comfortable starting
point with minimal experience.

Well, just remember IME you can have that forecast when you set out,
but the weather doesn't read the forecast. Be prepared to fly what
you find.

or the "...I don't need no stinking
GPS or Autopilot! That sissy-ass $hit is for wimps and losers and if you
were a real pilot like me you'd pull those @#$%ing things right out."

ROTFLMAO!

I hope we are all conservative when it comes to flying in IMC and we start
out slow and build our experience, skill and confidence patiently and
safely.

Absolutely! I think my point is, I'd bank more on currency and
proficiency than on some absolute number. 10 hrs in actual a year
ago might not do you as much good as 1 hr last week, KWIM?

It sounds to me like you have a sensible approach to easing into
it, finding IMC enroute to a VFR destination at first and so
forth.

Good luck,
Sydney

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message news:WcCtb.209285$Fm2.205149@attbi_s04...

I don't quite understand the theory behind this advice. I do agree that IMC
is harder than hood flying, because the latter provides peripheral cues as
to changes in attitude. For that reason, I made sure to have adequate dual
practice in IMC before trying it on my own.

On the other hand, once basic attitude flying in IMC becomes comfortable, it
doesn't strike me that flying an approach to minimums in IMC is then any
harder than doing it under the hood. And since doing it reliably under the
hood is a required part of instrument training, I don't really see why
pilots shouldn't fly single-pilot IMC to minimums soon after flying
single-pilot IMC at all.

Gary,

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.

It's my understanding the pros fly strictly "monitored" approaches
where the pilot flying stays on the instruments and the pilot not
flying watches for visual cues and announces the visual transition.

We do this too, when we have two pilots up front.

When you're on your own, it's different. You have to learn to
bring the outside world into your scan at first as just one more
instrument while flying to tight tolerances.

The smaller the margin for error (ie the closer the approach
is to minimums) the harder this is at first.

It makes perfect sense to me that one should practice this
skill at first with higher minimums.

Cheers,
Sydney

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 (sic) 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?

What "edge of the envelope?" We are only talking about legal flying and
nothing that wasn't covered in training. The approach minimums give plenty
of safety if they are flown right and my training has given me all I need to
fly IMC safely. Apparently there are those out there who don't think that
is true. I question the training in that case. (And the DE who passed
them)

Once again, I never said experience is not a good thing or that you will not
get better, however, the bottom line is, you should be able to fly IMC and
do an approach to minimums on the day you take your checkride (if the DE
isn't testing that and if you weren't doing that in training, then something
is definitely wrong) Please don't say it is not practical to do an approach
to minimums during training or on a practical.

Why do you keep bringing the argument back to experience? That is not
relevant. The fact is, one should be able to fly to the standards and
safely fly IMC with an approach after you are properly trained.


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.


If you don't have the confidence after training and passing the practical,
then sure, don't fly, but I would consider the quality of the training and
the practical then.



As to your question: would you want a doctor who had just graduated from
medical school perform his/her first
quadruple bypass on you without a more experienced surgeon in the
operating room?


Totally different and your example is not even close in so many ways.

Such as?


Just graduating from medical school does not qualify one to do a bypass.
We are talking about flying, not surgery. On the other hand, by
definition, passing the practical means you are qualified to fly IFR. A
single doctor doing a bypass is not likely from my limited knowledge of
medicine. I am open to examples, but this one doesn't do anything for your
argument. (neither does the P.E. one)

You have still not given a reason why a recent IFR pilot shouldn't be able
to fly what he was trained to do and what the DE said he could do. All your
arguments talk about experience years afterwards and about professional
engineers and doctors.

It appears that after this many postings neither of us is going to change
views, nor does it appear that you will answer the question about why it is
not good for a pilot to (foolishly, according to some) fly IMC and do
approaches to minimums as soon as he gets the rating. Perhaps it is best to
let it lie.

(Snowbird) wrote

It's my understanding the pros fly strictly "monitored"
approaches where the pilot flying stays on the instruments and
the pilot not flying watches for visual cues and announces the
visual transition.

There are two other versions of this used by various airlines.

One in which the pilot flying the approach is glued to the
instruments...never looks out...and is prepared for the missed
approach...and the other pilot looks for visual cues, takes the
controls and executes the landing if visual cues permit.

Second, the one we used at PanAm. Approaching minimums, the pilot
flying the approach adjusts his scan to include the outside and
if seeing the required cues, executes the landing while the pilot
not flying is glued to the instruments to make call-outs and look
for deviations from the desired flight path.

Bob Moore

yes I have quite a few, one set is from doing the ILS into chino, ca. , I didnt
know my wife was taking them but she took them all the way down the glideslope,
visibility was like a mile.
pictures and some video clips I made are here
http://216.158.136.206/newplane/index.html


"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote:

Thanks for the reply!

BTW, great photos,, do you have anymore on-line?

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com
"Jeff" wrote in message ...
the instrument ticket is priceless, 2 days ago I took my plane up for the
first
time in a month (it had been in the shop getting new avionics installed)
went only about 40 miles out to the MMM VOR, when I turned around to head
back,
the city was covered by low clouds and what looked like fog on the ground,
I
thought I could go under it, but as I got closer it did not look do'able.

I was talking to nellis approach because I was entering class B, told them
I
didnt think I could make it in without a clearence, they gave it to me and
away
I went.
technically, it was not VFR, I did not actually go through any clouds, but
I
skimmed them so I could not log it as actual. but once below the layer and
I was
able to see the airport, I canceled IFR and did the visual approach.

You can see the las vegas valley in this picture and the fog, kinda sucked
I
couldnt login as actual even tho it was not VFR.
http://216.158.136.206/newplane/clouds/image3.html

Here is the cloud I almost got to fly through
http://216.158.136.206/newplane/clouds/image2.html


Jeff

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote:

For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of
actual
IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of
ACTUAL
IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get
my
instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at
the
latest.

--
--
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman, Jr.
PP-ASEL

"We who fly do so for the love of flying.
We are alive in the air with this miracle
that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"

- Cecil Day Lewis-

Check out my personal flying adventures: www.bayareapilot.com

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
I think some people tend to log actual when they are not suppose to.
How often do you stay in the clouds? once you can see again, your not in
actual
and cant log it.


"In clouds" only, or in the clear (VFR) "on top"? Both are flight without
reference to ground or other cues. Kinda ambiguous, huh?

Robert Moore wrote:
vincent p. norris wrote


Bob, did you get a "White Card" when you got your wings?


I don't remember Vince, but I do remember flying "solo"
cross countries IFR in the S-2F while at Kingsville.
John Cuddy, another NAVCAD, and I set-out from Kingsville
to Pensacola and immediately looked for a cloud to fly
in since neither of us had ever been in a cloud before.
Maybe is was a special dispensation from the "white card"
requirement.

Bob Moore

For the non-Naval aviators among us, what is a white card?

Matt

if your on top, you still have a horizon, you can fly legal VFR over the top,
without seeing the ground. But for VFR, you need a clear spot to decend through.
For instruments, you can decend through the cloud, at that point your solely on
instruments and you can log that portion of it.
requirements are to be solely on instruments for it to be logged as actual.

Jeff

"Tom S." wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
I think some people tend to log actual when they are not suppose to.
How often do you stay in the clouds? once you can see again, your not in
actual
and cant log it.


"In clouds" only, or in the clear (VFR) "on top"? Both are flight without
reference to ground or other cues. Kinda ambiguous, huh?

"Hilton" wrote in message
nk.net...
Bob Noel wrote:
another fun aspect of IMC is needing to transition from looking
outside to looking inside to looking outside to looking inside
as you fly in and out of the clouds. Hard to simulate.

Sometime flying IFR in VMC can be more difficult. In VMC, you now have to
look outside about 90% of the time, while in the clouds you could devote
100% of your time inside. When I flew with a friend of mine soon after
getting his IR, I had to ensure that he looked outside when outside a
cloud - definitely higher workload. Unfortunately, this is something the
hood cannot simulate, and in fact, encourages the bad habit.


Also, VFR on top can be quite deceiving if the cloud tops are not flat, but
rather sloped instead.

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
if your on top, you still have a horizon, you can fly legal VFR over the
top,
without seeing the ground. But for VFR, you need a clear spot to decend
through.
For instruments, you can decend through the cloud, at that point your
solely on
instruments and you can log that portion of it.

Yes, I know.

requirements are to be solely on instruments for it to be logged as
actual.

Jeff

See my other post about deceiving cloud tops. (not flat).


"Tom S." wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
I think some people tend to log actual when they are not suppose to.
How often do you stay in the clouds? once you can see again, your not
in
actual
and cant log it.


"In clouds" only, or in the clear (VFR) "on top"? Both are flight
without
reference to ground or other cues. Kinda ambiguous, huh?