FLYING VFR IN IMC CONDITIONS

VFR in three miles is NOT the easiest thing in the world. In fact, I usually chicken out and file in those cases.

It depends on what is causing the visibility to be three miles. I
learned to fly in SoCal, where 3-5 in haze was common. However, if it
was 3 miles, it was a good bet it would stay three miles.

In the Northeast, if it's three miles, it could easily go to one in no time.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

One of the traits of women pilots, testosterone doesn't
influence their judgment as much or as often as men.


"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| NTSB says that doesn't always work, IFR pilots need some
| level of pre-planning. The accident record for VFR into
IMC
| is nearly as bad for instrument rated pilots and VFR
only
| pilots, perhaps because more instrument pilots push VFR
more
| often.
|
|
| Not this one. I figure I paid all that money for an
instrument rating
| for a reason.

Jose wrote:
VFR in three miles is NOT the easiest thing in the world. In fact, I
usually chicken out and file in those cases.

It depends on what is causing the visibility to be three miles. I
learned to fly in SoCal, where 3-5 in haze was common. However, if it
was 3 miles, it was a good bet it would stay three miles.

In the Northeast, if it's three miles, it could easily go to one in no
time.

Jose

That's true. I was doing this in the GL region (we don't get IMC where
I am now) and you never could tell if it was going to stay 3 or go to
1/4 or back up to 10. Ended up diverting a few times when I was just
out flying approaches...that's how fast 1 mile went below minimums.

I miss unpredictable weather.

Our job as CFIs is to teach more than the book, which means
we need to think all the time.



"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| If you have the conditions, take a student out in low
vis
| conditions over a lake or snow covered ground under the
| hood. Have them do some airwork. Then have them remove
the
| hood when there is nothing but white or gray ahead [low
| altitude, about 1,000 feet]. They will be very
surprised.
| This is even more scary at night when there is no moon
and
| few ground lights. In fact, at night over many western
| states, with 100 mile visibility and nothing to see, you
| can't control the airplane without a good instrument
scan.
|
| LOL. I haven't seen IMC or snow in months. Well, for
snow it's been
| over a year and a half, thankfully.
|
| I did do this when I lived up north, though. Kind of a
scared straight
| thing. I don't think pilots realize how low VFR minimums
really are.

Jim Macklin wrote:
Our job as CFIs is to teach more than the book, which means
we need to think all the time.

Well, keep in mind, I don't actively teach much anymore. And when I
did, most of my students were instrument and commercial. They'd all
been in those situation and it generally wasn't a problem with them.

Never assume that a rating equals experience. I've had to
correct many high time and experienced pilots who knew the
wrong thing...an example.

A co-worker and charter pilot/CFI was getting some recurrent
training for 135. Looking for some question, I asked him
about a place on the chart R something... He went on to
explain that you could just fly right on through, but you
needed a clearance for an MOA. After a short argument, and
referring to THE BOOK, he came to understand that he was in
error. He did call the dozens of student he had been
teaching and corrected them. Why had it not been caught
before?

He soloed in a Cub seaplane at 14, without a student pilot
license in far northern Minnesota. He had lots of hours and
the examiner didn't ask him on the private check-ride.
Nobody else ever asked him either until he had his ATP, CFI,
CFII and had been flying 135 several years.

That's why a flight review is a good thing if taken
seriously.



"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| Our job as CFIs is to teach more than the book, which
means
| we need to think all the time.
|
| Well, keep in mind, I don't actively teach much anymore.
And when I
| did, most of my students were instrument and commercial.
They'd all
| been in those situation and it generally wasn't a problem
with them.
|

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:55:38 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote in ::


It seems that lousy judgement is in the Kennedy gene pool.

Social pressure (like getting his wife and her sister to the wedding
on time) can corrupt the judgment of the best of pilots.

Jose wrote:

If you are a competent instrument pilot, as soon as you have to use
the gauges to fly the airplane, you will switch to the "IFR world" and
begin to navigate using electronic means and call ATC for a clearance.


No, that is not true. It is desirable, and it will keep you alive.
However, the temptation to stay visual (and not have to scramble)
exists. Some pilots succomb to it. That doesn't make them
non-competent instrument pilots, it makes them pilots that have
excercised poor judgement. You can define "competent" that way if you
like, but it doesn't alter the fact that pilots do it, and that Darwin
gets fed that way.

Part of being competent is having decent judgement. How do you define it?

Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:
Never assume that a rating equals experience. I've had to
correct many high time and experienced pilots who knew the
wrong thing...an example.

I'm not. I'd flown with them before and knew what there experience was.
That was my point.

Part of being competent is having decent judgement. How do you define it?

It doesn't matter, really. We'd be just playing with words. But
competent does not mean perfect, and imperfect means subject to lapses
in judgement. Therefore, having a lapse in judgement does not make you
incompetent.

There was a thread on this some months back.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.