First approach in actual

"Doug" wrote:
It is all too easy to just blow throught the MDA (DH)
and keep coming down. Important to guard against that.

Very good point.

We bought one of those altitude bugs for our Cherokee 180. Sticks right to
the face of the altimeter & has a red tick for DH/MDA, yellow arc for
200-100 feet above, and green tick for 500 feet above. Works for VFR, too.
Put red tick at field elevation. At $60 some bucks, they're kinda pricey,
but pretty handy.


"Doug" wrote in message
om...
One thing I do on an approach. I write down the minimum descent
altitude on a sticky and put it on my panel. I cannot go below that.
At 50' above that altitude, I start looking for the runway. It is all
too easy to just blow throught the MDA (DH) and keep coming down.
Important to guard against that.

Wizard of Draws wrote in message
news:BD8F446E.28C81%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdra ws.com...
Today was the first time I've ever been established on approach, in
actual.
A bit unnerving if I say so myself. Partly because it's been a month
since
I've been able to fly.
We (another instrument pilot and I) started down into La Grange (KLGC)
after
we were cleared for the approach and had to intercept the localizer
while
still in the clouds. I over-banked a bit at first. We only had to
descend
through about 2000' of cloud deck, but it sure felt like a lot more. We
broke out at ~1500' AGL, a little to the right of the localizer and
above
the slope.

I think it will be a lot more hours before I attempt any single pilot
IFR.

Dan Luke wrote:

Whoa! What's wrong with flying hard IFR in a PA-28-180? I fly "hard IFR"
(not sure what your definition is) in a 172RG; it does just fine. A
Cherokee 180 should do just as well - unless you're talking about doing it
in the mountains...?

In fact, a fixed-gear plane like a Cherokee or Skyhawk is safer for IFR in
many ways. Take a look at the NTSB reports and try to find a *single* case
of a fixed-gear plane crashing after a vacuum pump failure in IMC while
flying IFR over the past 10 or 20 years. My Warrior II, with its slow
approach speed, high drag, sluggish roll rate and lack of any overbanking
tendency, makes a very easy IFR platform for a relatively inexperienced
pilot, even in very unpleasant conditions (including some severe turbulence
last summer).

Just during the initial learning and confidence-building stage it could
be useful as a "backup".... You'd still better be able to do it all by
hand, though. Autopilots are good if used as a tool, but I think lots
of people depend on them.

Yep.

I wouldn't mind one, but it's not at the top of the list. If I move up to a
retract, though, it will be on my need-to-have list.


All the best,


David

On 10/13/04 5:35 PM, in article
, "Doug"
wrote:

One thing I do on an approach. I write down the minimum descent
altitude on a sticky and put it on my panel. I cannot go below that.
At 50' above that altitude, I start looking for the runway. It is all
too easy to just blow throught the MDA (DH) and keep coming down.
Important to guard against that.


Good idea, I'll do that.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

In article you wrote:
: wrote:
: My plane does not have an autopilot, nor do I believe it
: makes sense to add one (can't polish a turd...
: PA-28-180 isn't a hard IFR machine).

: Whoa! What's wrong with flying hard IFR in a PA-28-180? I fly "hard IFR"
: (not sure what your definition is) in a 172RG; it does just fine. A
: Cherokee 180 should do just as well - unless you're talking about doing it
: in the mountains...?

My usual trip here in SW VA is to head up to the flatlands (OH, IL, WI)...
that requires going over some 6000 MEA mountains. Not huge, but high enough to get a
good temperature drop in the winter. That basically means IMC between Nov-Mar is
serious icing consideration. I'm not saying that a high-end trainer (PA-28-180, 172RG
seem to fit in that category) can't slog around for hours in hard IMC, but it has to
be benign enough IMC. They just generally don't have enough power to deal with any
ice, or equipment to deal with EMBED TSRA in the summertime.


: If one has an autopilot, I belive that the transition to single-pilot IFR
: might be a bit easier,
: since you can let George fly while you collect yourself/charts/wits/etc.

: No question. The first thing I had installed in my airplane when I bought
: it was a 2-axis, rate-based autopilot, but not just for "training wheels"
: purposes. I still use it on every approach, unless I'm practicing hand
: flying.

That's where I'm at... Not seeing the need to fork out the cash for an
autopilot, but it would be nice to have as "backup training wheels" just in case you
need to think a moment in single-pilot IMC. For the most part, I enjoy hand-flying in
the soup... just don't get to do enough.

-Cory




--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:

My usual trip here in SW VA is to head up to the flatlands (OH, IL, WI)...
that requires going over some 6000 MEA mountains. Not huge, but high enough to get a
good temperature drop in the winter. That basically means IMC between Nov-Mar is
serious icing consideration. I'm not saying that a high-end trainer (PA-28-180, 172RG
seem to fit in that category) can't slog around for hours in hard IMC, but it has to
be benign enough IMC. They just generally don't have enough power to deal with any
ice, or equipment to deal with EMBED TSRA in the summertime.

I agree that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot fly in all IMC conditions, but I
don't agree that a high-performance plane without support for known icing
should be flying in much IMC that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot already handle.

Of course it's essential to have a way to detect embedded CB in real time
(not just through an uplink) if you're flying in IMC, but that's not a
function of the plane's power -- a low-powered plane like a Cherokee or
Skyhawk can have a Stormscope or Strikefinder just as easily as a Seneca or
Cessna 206.

As for icing, I agree that extra power can give you a bit more escape time
as well as the option of climbing (for a few minutes, anyway), but I think
it's easily overshadowed by other considerations. I don't mind flying in
cloud in my 160 hp Warrior around the freezing point when I have warmer air
or good VMC below me (still above MEA), but I cannot imagine doing that
while flying over mountains in a plane without certified deicing equipment,
no matter how powerful my engine.


All the best,


David

David Megginson wrote:
: I agree that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot fly in all IMC conditions, but I
: don't agree that a high-performance plane without support for known icing
: should be flying in much IMC that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot already handle.

True enough. Range and speed (headwind considerations) might be one minor
thing. Having a slippery plane can be a liability in IMC though... especially without
an autopilot. Fixed-pitch prop gives you a nice aural warning, "Hey stupid, your pitch
is wrong!"

: Of course it's essential to have a way to detect embedded CB in real time
: (not just through an uplink) if you're flying in IMC, but that's not a
: function of the plane's power -- a low-powered plane like a Cherokee or
: Skyhawk can have a Stormscope or Strikefinder just as easily as a Seneca or
: Cessna 206.

Yes, but it doesn't make sense to have $20k worth of avionics in a $35k
airframe. When you're talking about a Six or 206, the $20k fits better with the $100k
airframe. Once again, not worth polishing a turd (not that people don't do it). I
know a guy who just recently completely rewired the panel (including TWO brand new
Garmin 430's), electric AI, new interior, and new paint jobs after some major airframe
repair (lots of rivets).... IN A CESSNA 150! Not worth the expense of making a serious
IFR machine (weather detection, autopilot) in something that's not worth it.

: As for icing, I agree that extra power can give you a bit more escape time
: as well as the option of climbing (for a few minutes, anyway), but I think
: it's easily overshadowed by other considerations. I don't mind flying in
: cloud in my 160 hp Warrior around the freezing point when I have warmer air
: or good VMC below me (still above MEA), but I cannot imagine doing that
: while flying over mountains in a plane without certified deicing equipment,
: no matter how powerful my engine.

True enough. I think it'd be fairly careless to go slog in the sub-freezing
soup expecting the extra HP to pull you up and out... unless you run Jet-A. Trouble
with higher MEA's is you don't have options over the mountains, and it's generally cold
enough. I got my first solo icing (first was with my instructor for PPL!) coming back
IMC over WV at 9000' last fall. I wasn't too worried since I knew it was above
freezing below, but when it's not you've got limited options.

-Cory
--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

David Megginson wrote
I agree that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot fly in all IMC conditions, but I
don't agree that a high-performance plane without support for known icing
should be flying in much IMC that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot already handle.

Tell you what. Fly in some icing conditions in a Skyhawk or Cherokee
class airplane. Then fly in similar conditions in some thing with
50%-100% more power and the same number of seats. Then tell me about
it.

Having had both experiences, I'm here to tell you that it's VERY
different. The extra ponies give you way more in the way of options.
They give you the option of climbing on top. They give you a power
cushion on the descent - there's a huge difference between an airplane
that needs 20" MAP to stay afloat and one that can do it on 15. There
is a huge difference between an airplane that struggles to maintain
9,000 ft with trace ice on the wings and one that can cruise on up to
13,000 while carrying half an inch of rime.

Note that neither airplane has any business REMAINING in icing
conditions - but more power gives you dramatically more options to
escape. Neither is 100%, but there is a huge difference.

Michael

wrote:

Yes, but it doesn't make sense to have $20k worth of avionics in a $35k
airframe. When you're talking about a Six or 206, the $20k fits better with the $100k
airframe.

It's not quite that bad. A new Stormscope installed was about USD 8K when I
checked last spring; the used one I ended up putting in my Warrior was about
USD 2.5K plus installation (about USD 1.8K). It's cheap enough that it's a
worthwhile investment even for an entry-level IFR plane. Now, if you're
asking whether I'd put a Garmin 530, a two-axis autopilot, traffic avoidance
systems, etc. in a USD 55K plane, you'd find that you and I agree.


All the best,


David

Michael wrote:

I agree that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot fly in all IMC conditions, but I
don't agree that a high-performance plane without support for known icing
should be flying in much IMC that a Cherokee or Skyhawk cannot already handle.

Tell you what. Fly in some icing conditions in a Skyhawk or Cherokee
class airplane. Then fly in similar conditions in some thing with
50%-100% more power and the same number of seats. Then tell me about
it.

Sure, I'd be thrilled to have more horsepower when I'm flying in possible
icing conditions -- the question is whether I'd be willing to fly in even
worse conditions than I would in my Warrior just because I had more
horsepower. Personally, I'd want lots of other escapes either way -- I have
trouble imagining that I'd cancel fewer flights just because I had a 240 hp
engine.

The one situation I can think of where it would make a big difference is
flying in the mountains out west (which I don't do) -- I'd be nervous flying
IFR in even remotely-possible icing conditions in a 160 hp or 180 hp plane.


All the best,


David