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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Anthony, question about IFR / IMC
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Anthony, question about IFR / IMC
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Anthony, question about IFR / IMC
"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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Anthony, question about IFR / IMC
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Anthony, question about IFR / IMC
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Anthony, question about IFR / IMC
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Anthony, question about IFR / IMC
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Anthony, question about IFR / IMC
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Anthony, question about IFR / IMC
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stop bashing Anthony | Viperdoc[_3_] | Piloting | 47 | August 15th 08 07:03 AM |
If Anthony won the lottery | Bertie the Bunyip[_19_] | Piloting | 28 | December 20th 07 10:18 PM |