IR without actual IMC

One of the things I did on my training was to take some .010 opaque
plastic and make shields that fit the corners of the windshield on my
172. They were about 6" high and about 16" long. This provided the
vision block to the side. I did find the sun would give "clues" as you
turned.

"Peter R." wrote:

Michael ) wrote:

IMC that is sufficiently benign for the average instrument trainer is
not common in much of the US. For example, where I'm based IMC
usually means embedded T-storms;

Come to central NY. Typically there is a low overcast over our region
thanks to Lake Ontario.

However, I do have to admit that this summer we have had more than our
share of embedded t-storms.

Then, of course, there is the issue of icing from October to April...

Well, OK, in May and September it is good. :-)

--
Peter

----== Posted via Usenet.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.Usenet.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Ross Richardson wrote:

One of the things I did on my training was to take some .010 opaque
plastic and make shields that fit the corners of the windshield on my
172. They were about 6" high and about 16" long. This provided the
vision block to the side. I did find the sun would give "clues" as you
turned.

I don't think that there's anything that can truly replace flight in IMC
(outside perhaps of high-end simulators, with which I've no experience).
There are just too many different variables.

For example, flight right above the clouds makes possible a "false horizon"
illusion. I'd read about that, but I remember starting the turn as I
looked off into the distance and saw "the horizon" tilted. It was a
humbling reminder that "knowing" and "experiencing" are not the same.

Then there's the simple matter of heading into a cloud "wall" the first few
times. Given PPL training which said "stay away", and all those "clouds
are death" lessons (okay; I may exaggerate a little {8^), it was difficult
to stay on course and not "avoid".

I've perhaps a dozen or so "actual" hours, and I'm both glad and eager for
more. But yes, it is tough to get that time in the barely-IFR trainers we
tend to fly. It also requires the "right" selection of airports. Training
out of a field with no approach, or perhaps only a GPS or NDB, it's going
to be tough to find "good" weather w/o getting stuck away for a while.

We were fortunate that our airport had a localizer. Before a flight when
clouds were about, we'd hunt for the "best" weather in the neighborhood.
I've even flown some "real" misseds (?) as a result (albeit never on an
ILS, as I recall).

It's especially fun with approaches like the VOR-27 into SWF (if I'm
recalling the right approach). In poor visibility, you must really *look*
as the airport isn't straight ahead, but instead off to the right.

Still, I envy the students my CFII has that have their own airplanes. Many
were very well equiped. One just did his long XC in his Trinidad (?) with
a stormscope and NEXRAD.

Sigh

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
...

Then there's the simple matter of heading into a cloud "wall" the first
few
times. Given PPL training which said "stay away", and all those "clouds
are death" lessons (okay; I may exaggerate a little {8^), it was difficult
to stay on course and not "avoid".

Interesting. My first reaction to that was "woo-hoo!"

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
...

Then there's the simple matter of heading into a cloud "wall" the first
few
times. Given PPL training which said "stay away", and all those "clouds
are death" lessons (okay; I may exaggerate a little {8^), it was
difficult
to stay on course and not "avoid".

Interesting. My first reaction to that was "woo-hoo!"


Absolutely! Ditto for me.

I got my IR on May 19, and since then it seems there has been nary a cloud
in Central Texas (except for during the thunderstorm downpours). But the
few that I've found I've been delighted to plow through, and so have my
passenger daughters!

BTW, I just today received my new certificate-- it's the plastic one with
the hologram that I've heard about. Woop-E-Doo!

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
C210 N7NZ

Yes, the sun is a clue, but I've found when the sun is in the "picture"
I am more prone to vertigo. Anyone else??

Wheeeeeeee


Ross Richardson wrote:
One of the things I did on my training was to take some .010 opaque
plastic and make shields that fit the corners of the windshield on my
172. They were about 6" high and about 16" long. This provided the
vision block to the side. I did find the sun would give "clues" as you
turned.

I would grumble also! I'm not IR (nor have I even begun IR training yet) but
it stands to reason that if you're being tested for competency as it relates
to flying in IMC and you run scared from actual IMC during your checkride
due to fear of failure or whatnot, you're not ready for it. So it's a little
more stressful, so is a vacuum pump failure in hard IFR. Also consider that
the FAA Examiner can take over if you run into trouble. If you're not
comfortable doing it with that safety net, why sign someone off to do it
with pax in the plane?



Just my $.02



Scott



"Ryan Ferguson" wrote in message
...
It would be ideal to find some actual IMC and fly in it prior to the
checkride. That's not always possible, especially in the southwest, but
it
would be a good idea. It might be a littel disconcerting to you to enter
your
first cloud during your flight test.

A friend of mine who's a pilot examiner gets upset when instrument
applicants
cancel their checkrides due to flyable IMC. He grumbles that they must
not be
ready to fly in the clouds if they can't do it without foggles.

-Ryan
CFII-A/MEI/CFI-H

Iain Wilson wrote:

Anyone IR without having actually flown in IMC? My checkride is around
the
corner and I've no actual IFR yet. I'm itching to experience it but the
damned weather isn't co-operating (seemed the same way with the PPL!).

Iain

"Scott Schluer" wrote
I would grumble also! I'm not IR (nor have I even begun IR training yet) but
it stands to reason that if you're being tested for competency as it relates
to flying in IMC and you run scared from actual IMC during your checkride
due to fear of failure or whatnot, you're not ready for it.

I think there are two ways to look at this.

On the one hand, I buy it. When I took my IR ride, I was fully
prepared to do it in actual. I was in fact flying a non-precision
circling approach, to mins, within days of taking the ride, and I got
in. The guy behind me missed the approach.

On the other hand, that flight scared the crap out of me - and it had
nothing to do with my skills and everything to do with how unsuitable
my airplane was for hard IFR. By the time I shot that approach, I
pretty much had to get in. I had enough fuel to make my alternate,
but not much more - dealing with carb icing had eaten into my
reserves. On top of that, my alternate was down to 300 and 1, and it
was the best thing going - people were waiting to get in there. My
plane lacked the range to get out of the weather system which went
bad.

There was no ice, no T-storms - the IMC was benign - but it was still
pretty dumb. I made it because I was good enough to get in right at
mins, and because I used the GPS to supplement the VOR. I also had to
maneuver very carefully to proceed from the MAP (literally - I did not
see the runway until directly over the runway and with only seconds to
go on the clock) to the numbers while remaining clear of cloud,
because I broke out in a hole.

Basically, because of my flying skills and familiarity with my
airplane all was well, but if I had used good judgment I would not
have launched IFR in the first place. My airplane was unsuitable. It
should have told me something when a much more experienced pilot (the
ferry pilot for a famous aerobatic performer) who was flying a much
better IFR mount opted to scud run instead. And my airplane was a
Tri-Pacer - 4 place, 100 kts, 4 hour endurance - typical of the
standard IFR trainer.

Just because the IMC is supposedly flyable - meaning you're not going
to be falling out of the sky with ice on your wings or getting chewed
up by a T-storm - doesn't mean it's OK to fly hard IFR in a plane with
poor speed, range, and redundancy. It will be fine if nothing goes
wrong, but things do go wrong.

Quite often, refusal to take the average instrument trainer into IMC
is not a matter of low skill, but of good judgment. My last
instrument student took his ride in actual hard IFR. He passed. But
it wasn't in a rental. It was in a plane with reasonable speed,
range, and redundancy.

Michael

Ryan Ferguson wrote:

A friend of mine who's a pilot examiner gets upset when instrument
applicants
cancel their checkrides due to flyable IMC. He grumbles that they must
not be ready to fly in the clouds if they can't do it without foggles.

I understood that VMC was required for the checkride.

- Andrew

In a previous article, Ryan Ferguson said:
A friend of mine who's a pilot examiner gets upset when instrument applicants
cancel their checkrides due to flyable IMC. He grumbles that they must not be
ready to fly in the clouds if they can't do it without foggles.

Our local DE won't do checkrides in IMC because he wants to be able to see
the horizon during the unusual attitude recovery.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
-- Blair P. Houghton

In a previous article, Michael Hofmann said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
Our local DE won't do checkrides in IMC because he wants to be able to see
the horizon during the unusual attitude recovery.

So he doesn't really believe in scanning and interpreting instruments? Most
remarkable.

I think it's more a case that he believes that some candidates are quite
capable of tumbling the AI before he could recover. I think the PIC
liability issue might also be a factor.


--
Paul Tomblin , not speaking for anybody
Every program has two purposes -- one for which it was written and
another for which it wasn't.