If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote:
Judah wrote: But I don't even think there's all that much difference between flying through soup at 3000' when the top of the white stuff outside your window is light by the sun or the moon. The difference (in my mind, and with my 40-something eyes) is that it's harder to see stuff in the cockpit at night. Every task from instrument scan, to reading a chart, to tuning a radio, to copying an in-flight reroute becomes more difficult. Task overload is insidious. It's taking you a little longer than usual to find the right approach plate and get the radios set up, but you're still keeping up so it's not a big deal. Then the controller tells you they just switched runways, fly direct to some waypoint you've never heard of, expect some different approach, contact the next controller on 123.45, etc, etc, and suddenly you realize you're way behind. Maybe during the day you would have been able to keep up, but at night the added workload of having to do everything by flashlight sent you down the tubes. There's also a lot more in the way of visual illusions at night. I've broken out plenty of times and spotted what I thought was the approach lights, only to realize it was a nearby highway. About 10 years ago I read an article (sorry, no citation) that said aging decreases the ability to cope with multiple, parallel activities. I believe that's what we're talking about when we say "task overload". Certainly training and experience teaches us to cope and I hope old folks at least remain trainable. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Wow, I've done all those (except #2).
The important thing to remember is that "safety" is not an absolute. Pilots need to start thinking in terms of risk management and not "safe vs. not safe" -Robert |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I agree, the remaining IFR flights are likely to be safer.
I'm not sure I even agree with that. IFR flying is a perishable skill, and the limitations imposed will certainly cause one to make fewer flights. Now that you bring this to my attention, you are right. In fact it's one of the things I harp on occasionally. I retract (that part of) my statement. The remaining IFR flights may well not be safer. Of course, usenet will never be the same. Jose -- You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message oups.com... Wow, I've done all those (except #2). And what was that? Don't you love people that talk to themselves? -- "At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good." - SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, D-MASS., in a statement read onto the Congressional Record, praising the New England Patriots and declaring us all to be in an American war against individualism. -- Quoted in America's 1st Freedom magazine, April, 2002 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
And no way will you be based at my home field and fly enough IFR to
remain proficient. We don't have ANY straight-in approaches. Both the NDB and the GPS have a FAC of 025, and the only runway is 9-27. Why is that, anyway? Airspace issues? I can see why they wouldn't have one from the east into EYQ because of IAH, etc-- but why not have a GPS approach straight in to 9? Sugarland shouldn't be much of an issue there, right? -- Cheers, John Clonts Temple, Texas N7NZ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Farris wrote:
Here are some "general" tips for safe, single-pilot IFR, gleaned from Larry Bartlett's refresher course. These tips do not represent the "meat and potatoes" of the video course, but are thrown in at a couple of points as generalities. How many agree with these : 1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night I would never get any IFR time if I didn't. Seriously, I don't see your issue. It really comes down to if you are going to be safer contacting the ground on engine out in the dark with or without fog. I'd say its unlikely that its a significant disadvantage over the (already admittedly dangerous) engine out with night VFR. 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE performance Don't have a multi, so can't comment. 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong preference for dual alrternators. Pretty much don't agree. I am moving away from vac stuff to electric, its more reliable. The next step is to get rid of the vac horizon. And people make a big deal about a single alternator, but it is not true that it is single point of fail. It is also backed up by the battery. In any case, the vac and the electric back each other up. It comes back to if having the attitude go out kills you, even if you have a backup for that. It seems to me that an electric attitude that flags itself for problems is the best you can do here. 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and know where it is Nice. Not always possible, but nice. 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at night or close to minimums Agree. I don't do circling anything, except for my instructor. But I fly needles and lines, and I don't feel comfortable any other way. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night I agree that single-pilot IFR is hard, and doing it at night is harder, but I don't see the single-engine connection. If the fear is not being able to find an emergency landing spot, then the rule should be "No single-engine at night". If the fear is pilot task overload, then the rule should be "no single-pilot IMC at night". What Roy said (though I'm not sure single-pilot IFR is appreciably harder at night in a properly lit cockpit - but if you're doing it by flashlight, no argument from me). As stated, the rule really doesn't make sense. 2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE performance Again, I don't see the connection here. Presumably this means it's OK to fly single-pilot, single-engine IFR at those same altitudes? Which, of course, is silly. In the twin, you actully have a lot more options and a lot more time to think. A twin above the SE ceiling won't climb, but it won't descend very quickly. The difference is striking - a single with an engine failure at 8000 will be descending about 800 fpm; a light twin will be more like 100 fpm. Way better chance of making it to someplace landable. 3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong preference for dual alrternators. This is a good rule. I'll admit I break it. A dual vacuum source won't back up a dying gyro (and I've seen as many gyro failures as I've seen vacuum source failures). So now we need dual AI's and dual vacuum. Well, it so happens I do have such a setup in my airplane. Also dual generators with solid state regulators. Is it necessary? I think it depends on the pilot and the airplane. For someone who flies a lot of IFR and trains seriously, probably not - but that's exactly the person most likely to have such a setup. For a solid and stable airplane like a Cherokee, I think it's overkill. For a Bonanza, a really good idea. But is it more important than flying instruments regularly? I don't think so. Given that resources are finite, I think recurrent training is a better investment than installing this stuff. In other words - it sounds like a good rule in theory, but it probably isn't in practice. 4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and know where it is. An excellent rule. I think it's another one of those rules that sounds great in theory. If you can plan your flight to do that, it's great. Certainly if there is VFR weather in range, you ought to know where it is to keep your options open in case anything really bad happens. But what if that rule substantially reduces the amount of IFR flying you do? Is the loss of proficiency going to offset the reduced exposure? 5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at night or close to minimums No argument there. And no way will you be based at my home field and fly enough IFR to remain proficient. We don't have ANY straight-in approaches. Both the NDB and the GPS have a FAC of 025, and the only runway is 9-27. Well some approaches are more circling than others. A circling approach which is only 10-20 degrees off the straight-in, or even one that puts you into what is similar to a VFR downwind entry may not be as bad as, say, doing an ILS 9 circle to land 27. (This is MO as an instrument student, not an experienced instrument pilot). |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
That's interesting. I have post lamps on all the instruments. I use a
combination of clip on goosenecks for pilot and co-pilot(backup). I use a strap-on headlamp on too. And I have 1 to 3 additional flashlights in the bag along with a eyeglass case full of spare batteries. I have an overhead cabin lamp but almost never use it. It's both too good and not good enough. It kills my night vision but isn't good enough to use for map reading. In fact, my headlamp is my main light. It moves where I'm looking, it has 3 distinct lighting levels and colors, it gives me what I want, when I want it, without killing my night vision. I've almost stopped using my goosenecks. Fact is, I try to do as little night flying as possible - VFR or IFR. My 50-some eyesight isn't getting any better but more important, I just become more risk averse as time marches on. But I'm still willing to do night SE/SP IFR in many situations. It helps that I'm flying a slow, simple, stable plane that only I fly. Michael wrote: My eyes are not quite 40, but I have much the same problem in most airplanes. However, most GA airplanes do not have anything resembling an adequate lighting system. Clue time - if you need a flashlight to perform ANY task in the cockpit, your lighting is inadequate. A flashlight is an emergency backup, not for normal inflight use. I don't worry about single pilot night IFR in my airplane, because it has an adequate lighting system. Someone, somewhere along the way, did most of what was required and I filled in the rest. That includes pilot and copilot overhead map lights with yoke-mounted actuation switches - so you can keep flying the plane while reading the map. It also includes panel lighting for all the instruments and overhead lights forward and aft - each with independent switches. The only time I use a flashlight in the plane is for startup, so as not to run down the battery. Once adequate lighting is in place, there's really no issue. However, as I mentioned before, most GA airplanes do not have adequate lighting. I've never seen a rental that did. On the other hand, I think you're pretty much taking your life in your hands flying a rental night-IMC anyway. Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Can a Private Pilot tow gliders and get paid? | BTIZ | Soaring | 1 | October 17th 04 01:35 AM |
Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality | Chip Jones | Piloting | 125 | October 15th 04 07:42 PM |
WINGS: When do the clocks start ticking? | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 6 | February 3rd 04 03:01 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |