Anthony, question about IFR / IMC

Anthony,

Is it true that one must fly by reference to instruments alone while
in IMC and/or IFR?
I am an instrument student and I thought I learned something
different. Please explain where you learned that I must fly by
reference to instruments alone when on an IFR flight plan or in IMC
above or below clouds?

Thanks,

IFR student absorbing wisdom

On Aug 12, 11:18*pm, Darrell wrote:
Anthony,

Is it true that one must fly by reference to instruments alone while
in IMC and/or IFR?
I am an instrument student and I thought I learned something
different. Please explain where you learned that I must fly by
reference to instruments alone when on an IFR flight plan or in IMC
above or below clouds?

Thanks,

IFR student absorbing wisdom

The other day my instructor and I departed Longview, Texas on an IFR
flight plan. The conditions were legal IMC, with cloud ceilings at a
little over 700 feet & overcast, the perfect day to get real
instrument time & shoot practice ILS approaches my instructor said. We
flew around the local area in the clouds a while then did 3 ILS
approaches into Gregg County Airport (GGG), 2 vectored and 1 full
approach. After my final missed approach ATC tucked us 50 feet under
the cloud ceiling which meant we were not only IFR, we were actual
IMC, too! It was really cool because even though we were IFR and IMC,
too, we were still flying by outside visual reference since the
visibility under the ceiling was good. I did glance at my instruments
to maintain my IFR flight plan which ATC had given us but we were
flying by visual reference mainly.

The thing I would like you, Anthony, to help me understand is how was
this possible since you said that I must fly by reference to
instruments alone while in IFR and/or IMC?

Thanks again for any help, Anthony, that you give this instrument
student!

IFR is fun!

Darrell

"Darrell" wrote

Is it true that one must fly by reference to instruments alone while
in IMC and/or IFR?
I am an instrument student and I thought I learned something
different. Please explain where you learned that I must fly by
reference to instruments alone when on an IFR flight plan or in IMC
above or below clouds?

Thanks,

IFR student absorbing wisdom

Isn't this all getting just a little tedious?

Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to find
some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally Mx is right
and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them from embarrasing
themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes from nit picking to
semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The amazing thing is that it occurs
with almost every one of his posts.

Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when you
have no reliable outside visual references.

I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own worst
enemy.

"Tim" wrote in
:

"Darrell" wrote

Is it true that one must fly by reference to instruments alone while
in IMC and/or IFR?
I am an instrument student and I thought I learned something
different. Please explain where you learned that I must fly by
reference to instruments alone when on an IFR flight plan or in IMC
above or below clouds?

Thanks,

IFR student absorbing wisdom

Isn't this all getting just a little tedious?

Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to
find some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally
Mx is right and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them
from embarrasing themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes
from nit picking to semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The
amazing thing is that it occurs with almost every one of his posts.

Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when
you have no reliable outside visual references.

I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own
worst enemy.




You're a mind reader?

Tim wrote:

Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to find
some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally Mx is right
and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them from embarrasing
themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes from nit picking to
semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The amazing thing is that it occurs
with almost every one of his posts.

Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when you
have no reliable outside visual references.

I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own worst
enemy.

And you know what he meant is correct while what he actually said was
wrong how?

Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in instrument
conditions, you must be on instruments.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:52:31 -0700 (PDT), Darrell wrote:

Thanks again for any help, Anthony, that you give this instrument
student!

You shouldn't use Caciocavallo Podolico in the trap, it makes the rat
suspicious. Try Velveeta next time.


--
Dallas

wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:

Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to find
some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally Mx is
right
and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them from embarrasing
themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes from nit picking to
semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The amazing thing is that it
occurs
with almost every one of his posts.

Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when you
have no reliable outside visual references.

I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own worst
enemy.

And you know what he meant is correct while what he actually said was
wrong how?

Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in instrument
conditions, you must be on instruments.


Well, why not, that's right! If you are in "instrument conditions" you
must be on instruments. Now on the other hand, if you were in IMC per the
AIM definition, that would be another situation. You have to consider the
"nuance, subtlety, or shades of grey"

--
Regards, BobF.

Bob F. wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:

Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to find
some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally Mx is
right
and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them from embarrasing
themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes from nit picking to
semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The amazing thing is that it
occurs
with almost every one of his posts.

Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when you
have no reliable outside visual references.

I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own worst
enemy.

And you know what he meant is correct while what he actually said was
wrong how?

Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in instrument
conditions, you must be on instruments.


Well, why not, that's right! If you are in "instrument conditions" you
must be on instruments. Now on the other hand, if you were in IMC per the
AIM definition, that would be another situation. You have to consider the
"nuance, subtlety, or shades of grey"

You do understand what the 'I' and 'C' in IMC stand for, don't you?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
Bob F. wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:

Mx posts something and then a certain contingent tries their best to
find
some flaw, however minor, to argue endlessly over. Occasionally Mx is
right
and the contingent is wrong, but that doesn't stop them from
embarrasing
themselves for weeks on end as the arguement goes from nit picking to
semantics to the sublimely ridiculous. The amazing thing is that it
occurs
with almost every one of his posts.

Let me help you here - Mx meant that you must fly on instruments when
you
have no reliable outside visual references.

I'm no Mx fan - far from it. But sometimes you guys are your own
worst
enemy.

And you know what he meant is correct while what he actually said was
wrong how?

Let me help you here - Mx has no grasp of nuance, subtlety, or shades
of grey and everything is black and white, ergo if you are in
instrument
conditions, you must be on instruments.


Well, why not, that's right! If you are in "instrument conditions" you
must be on instruments. Now on the other hand, if you were in IMC per
the
AIM definition, that would be another situation. You have to consider
the
"nuance, subtlety, or shades of grey"

You do understand what the 'I' and 'C' in IMC stand for, don't you?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Ah, but in your transcription you neglected to quote "IMC" and just said
"instrument conditions". "IMC" is a special definition in the AIM.
"instrument conditions" is just English... look the words up in Webster, put
them together and it means: conditions using instruments.

Hey I got an idea...how about stop bashing the OP, simply state the nuances,
politely, have a reasonable discussion and move on...how about that?


--
Regards, BobF.

Darrell writes:

After my final missed approach ATC tucked us 50 feet under
the cloud ceiling which meant we were not only IFR, we were actual
IMC, too! It was really cool because even though we were IFR and IMC,
too, we were still flying by outside visual reference since the
visibility under the ceiling was good. I did glance at my instruments
to maintain my IFR flight plan which ATC had given us but we were
flying by visual reference mainly.

So the entire experience was largely wasted. Had you actually been in
conditions of poor visibility, your experience of using visual references
would have been useless, and your inexperience with relying solely on
instruments would have put you in danger. This type of nonchalance concerning
flight into poor weather conditions has killed countless pilots.

The thing I would like you, Anthony, to help me understand is how was
this possible since you said that I must fly by reference to
instruments alone while in IFR and/or IMC?

Perhaps one day, when you really can't see out the window and you realize that
you should have been looking at the instruments instead of at the scenery
during all that instrument practice clear of clouds, you'll find out what I
mean. I'm sure it all seems very funny right now, but it won't then.