single pilot ifr trip tonight

David Megginson wrote in message ...
(Snowbird) writes:
I agree entirely that a handheld GPS in the flightbag is an excellent
safety investment

Well, just to clarify my views: a handheld GPS in the flightbag
is next to useless. It has to be set up, turn on, and acquired
at the beginning of the flight to have practical value if things
go south.

I can see how that would be helpful, but I'm not sure I would be that
strident about it.

Suit yourself.

We've been in a couple sticky situations IMC, and I can vouch
that the handheld GPS had great value ONLY because it was turned
on and acquired.

If we'd had to dig it out, set it up, turn it on, and let it
acquire it might as well have been located in Cahokia.

Again, the most important thing in IMC is to keep
the plane right-side up

And how do you do that?

You keep the wings level.

How do you keep the wings level?

You HOLD HEADING

My moving map GPS is a great help in holding heading partial
panel. I can fly partial panel with the map shut off, but
it's clearly much easier with the map, especially in nasty
conditions where the compass is waving around like a bobber
with a prizewinning Bass on the hook and the TC is vibrating.

So I feel you underestimate the value of GPS for fundamental
instrument flying. JMO of course.

Cheers,
Sydney

David Rind wrote in message ...
(Snowbird) writes:
Well, just to clarify my views: a handheld GPS in the flightbag
is next to useless. It has to be set up, turn on, and acquired
at the beginning of the flight to have practical value if things
go south.

Can you expand on this position? I keep a GPS in my flightbag
with the thought that if I had a total electrical failure in
IMC that I could climb/circle/continue on course as appropriate
using the vacuum instruments during the five minutes it would
take to have the GPS out and knowing its position.

That's a fine viewpoint -- IF you have a stable plane which
is easy to control and continue on course while you dig out
the GPS.

And IF you have 5 minutes to spare while you wait for it
to acquire.

Is there something I'm missing that you feel would be a major
hazard while getting the GPS out should I ever find myself in this
situation?

It seems like entirely unnecessary division of attention and
labor which could be done quickly and easily on the ground,
so as to be prepared.

When we had smoke in the cockpit, we had another problem to work.
Yeah there were two of us, but the last thing we needed was
to screw around setting up another piece of equipment. If the
smoke hadn't stopped when we slapped off the master switch, we
needed the GPS to take us somewhere flat we could let down -- NOW --
not in 5 minutes.

This was on the E coast btw flatlands. Near coast.

Perhaps you don't consider these "major hazards". Dunno.

Sydney

Snowbird wrote:
That's a fine viewpoint -- IF you have a stable plane which
is easy to control and continue on course while you dig out
the GPS.

Well, honestly if I have a total electrical failure, I don't
care that I hold course all that precisely while turning
on the GPS as long as there's no terrain around. I'm pretty
sure I can keep the plane upright while pulling the GPS out.

It seems like entirely unnecessary division of attention and
labor which could be done quickly and easily on the ground,
so as to be prepared.

When we had smoke in the cockpit, we had another problem to work.
Yeah there were two of us, but the last thing we needed was
to screw around setting up another piece of equipment. If the
smoke hadn't stopped when we slapped off the master switch, we
needed the GPS to take us somewhere flat we could let down -- NOW --
not in 5 minutes.

Hadn't thought about a possible fire situation where I would
tolerate a brief landing delay (use the GPS to get to a field)
rather than an emergency descent and landing. Certainly in that
situation, having the GPS up and active could make all the
difference.

I think that that's a sufficient reason to want the GPS up
and running when flying IMC. I'll have to add that to the
things I get set when going IFR in actual. Thanks.

--
David Rind

(Snowbird) writes:

I can see how that would be helpful, but I'm not sure I would be that
strident about it.

Suit yourself.

We've been in a couple sticky situations IMC, and I can vouch
that the handheld GPS had great value ONLY because it was turned
on and acquired.

Interestingly, this point came up yesterday morning. I was in solid
IMC and ATC cleared me direct to a VOR that was right at the limit of
my reception range for my low altitude, so I wasn't sure whether to
trust the (still wobbly) CDI yet or to ask for vectors a little
longer. I decided to get a second opinion from my handheld GPS, but I
had to reach behind my seat, open the flight bag, turn on the GPS,
acquire satellites, and then select the VOR as a waypoint. It was a
slight pain, but nothing serious -- I had everything set up in a
couple of minutes (though I did allow a brief 10-degree heading drift
at one point).

In retrospect, I would have been better just to tune in a nearby NDB
for confirmation, since it would have taken less time and effort (even
if the GPS had already been on and acquired).

How do you keep the wings level?

You HOLD HEADING

My moving map GPS is a great help in holding heading partial
panel. I can fly partial panel with the map shut off, but
it's clearly much easier with the map, especially in nasty
conditions where the compass is waving around like a bobber
with a prizewinning Bass on the hook and the TC is vibrating.

I would trust a GPS for that only if everything else failed. With a
latency of up to several seconds to register large heading changes, it
would be an awfully messy tool for trying to keep level in turbulence
(in smooth air, almost anything will work fine).

If I lost the AI and HI, I'd use the TC (of course); if I lost the AI,
HI, and TC and still had electricity, I'd use the ADF (which responds
almost instantly to heading changes); if I lost the AI, HI, TC, *and*
ADF (i.e. total vacuum and electrical failure), it would be a coin
toss between the mag compass (which overreacts) and the handheld GPS
(which lags). With my current whiskey compass, I might choose the
GPS, but if I get around to buying a vertical-card compass, I think
I'd choose that first.

So I feel you underestimate the value of GPS for fundamental
instrument flying. JMO of course.

I'm very happy to have it available, and have no desire to go back in
time. As I mentioned earlier, I think that the handheld GPS and cell
phone are extremely valuable (and cheap) insurance, and never fly
without both in my flightbag, VFR or IFR. I think we're debating only
the finer points in the middle rather than pro/anti GPS.


All the best,


David

"Snowbird"
David Megginson
(Snowbird) writes:
I agree entirely that a handheld GPS in the flightbag is an excellent
safety investment

Well, just to clarify my views: a handheld GPS in the flightbag
is next to useless. It has to be set up, turn on, and acquired
at the beginning of the flight to have practical value if things
go south.

I have a panel mount and don't have a handheld yet. Flying single pilot IFR
sans George, I've always assumed that effective use of the handheld as
backup strongly suggests having it out, mounted, powered and acquired. The
trick to keeping it upright and level when doing the single pilot dance is
preparation and organization.

No question that you can retrieve a loose relief bottle from under the back
seat in light turbulence while handflying in the soup.... *if* you get to
pick the time. But if the power goes out in a puff of smoke while I'm using
same bottle, the handheld GPS needs to be out and ready.

David Megginson wrote in message ...
I'm very happy to have it available, and have no desire to go back in
time. As I mentioned earlier, I think that the handheld GPS and cell
phone are extremely valuable (and cheap) insurance, and never fly
without both in my flightbag, VFR or IFR. I think we're debating only
the finer points in the middle rather than pro/anti GPS.

Hi David,

With all respect, I don't think we're debating a fine
point at all. I think we have a fundamental philosophical
difference on two points.

The first point is that you feel very confident in your ability
to continue to aviate, navigate and communicate, while coping
with an emergency or unusual circumstance AND set up a GPS.

Perhaps I'm just a lesser mortal, but I couldn't disagree more.
I feel that in a tight spot, the last thing I need is an additional
distraction. Even if in normal circs and unstressed I can do
an additional task with no problem, I don't want to bet the rent
I can do that when the going is tough. So for me, if something is
gonna be useful in an emergency I want it set up before I leave
the ground. It's not a fine point to me, it's a fundamental principle.

The second point is, I feel very strongly that for something to be
useful in an emergency, it has to be something I use frequently and
am very comfortable with. That means I fly with it under normal
conditions. Again, it's not a fine point to me, it's a fundamental
principle.

All the best,
Sydney

(Snowbird) writes:

The first point is that you feel very confident in your ability
to continue to aviate, navigate and communicate, while coping
with an emergency or unusual circumstance AND set up a GPS.

No, I don't feel that way at all, but if I do end up in an emergency,
I plan to do my best to aviate, and to worry about navigating and
communicating only when the opportunities present themselves.

I am still a new pilot (220 hours), so I'm very open to learning, but
I'm not doing a good job coming up with use cases where it's a
potential life-or-death issue whether the GPS is already on. Here are
the most likely emergencies I can think of in IMC:

1. Vacuum failure -- no immediate, direct benefit from the handheld
GPS.

2. Electrical failure -- if I know of VMC anywhere within range (or
above or below), I'll head in that general direction using the
compass or altimeter; if not, then an improvised IAP with a
handheld GPS is much better than nothing, but I don't need the GPS
immediately.

3. Smoke on board, goes away when electrical shut down -- see #2.

4. Smoke on board, does not go away when electrical shut down -- the
handheld GPS is useless (except as survival equipment on the
ground), because I'm landing NOW, even if I'm over bad terrain with
a 100 ft ceiling. I might turn in the direction I think is
flattest during my (very fast) controlled descent, but that's it.
Too many people die trying to get to an airport with an onboard
fire when seconds count.

5. Engine failure -- see #4.

6. Total vacuum and electrical failure -- it's a toss-up between the
handheld GPS or the magnetic compass (overreact or underreact).
Still, my goal is to get to the ground ASAP without losing control
of the plane, not to get to an airport 40 miles away.

That said, my handheld GPS often is on already, and as I mentioned, I
do consider it a useful tool. Another, somewhat more gruesome benefit
of having the GPS on is that the backtrack information acts as a
sort-of cheap-*******s flight data recorder during the NTSB
investigation, if the GPS survives a crash (they tend to be tougher
than human cargo) -- no benefit to you or your loved ones, but it
might help others in the future.

The second point is, I feel very strongly that for something to be
useful in an emergency, it has to be something I use frequently and
am very comfortable with. That means I fly with it under normal
conditions. Again, it's not a fine point to me, it's a fundamental
principle.

Sure, I agree with you there -- you have to be proficient with it. I
try to fly a combination of VFR by pure pilotage, VFR by radio nav,
VFR by handheld GPS, IFR by radio nav, and IFR by radio nav with
handheld GPS as backup, so that I'm at least somewhat proficient with
all of them.


All the best,


David

Peter writes:

The problem is that in IMC there is often (usually here in the UK) a
lot more turbulence than there is in clear air.

It cuts both ways where I live. Morning ground fog and low stratus
are, of course, the smoothest air you're ever going to see. Thick
afternoon cumulus will happily knock the fillings out of your teeth.


All the best,


David

David Megginson wrote
Interesting you mention this point. I am in the process of watching
a few of the Richard Collins Sporty's aviation DVDs. In the IFR
Tips and Techniques DVD, he offers a PoV that suggest a pilot hand
flying in IMC does not necessarily have the big picture view that a
pilot who uses an AP might.

I haven't heard that before. Is it because hand flying doesn't leave
you as much time to look at charts, etc., and interpret secondary
information?

That's basically the argument, and I've heard it before in various
incarnations. In its most virulent form, it suggests that single
pilot IFR without an autopilot is inherently unsafe, because the pilot
simply doesn't have enough spare capacity to deal with ATC, keep a
weather picture, monitor the systems, and all the other stuff he needs
to be doing.

The fundamental assumption here is that the fairly trivial task of
maintaining heading and altitude on instruments in cruising flight
absorbs enough pilot workload to materially impact higher order
thinking.

For some reason, such arguments with regard to IFR operations are
actually taken seriously, while similar arguments with regard to VFR
operations (see for example the r.a.piloting thread "Charts in the
cockpit - no more for me." sorry for the long URL
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...3D30%26hl% 3D
n ) are treated with the contempt they deserve.

I have my own theory about this, and this being usenet I'm going to
share it. I think the fundamental reason so many pilots actually take
the idea seriously is poor transition and recurrent training.

In general, the curriculum for the instrument rating in the US is
relatively good. In addition to the basics required to operate in the
system, such as ATC communications, approaches, and airways/direct
navigation, the training also includes holding procedures (including
random assigned holds and figuring out the correct entries on the fly,
intersection holds, etc.), partial panel approaches, and even partial
panel holds. There are steep turns and unusual attitude recoveries
(full and partial panel). It's not that there aren't shortcomings -
they are legion. There are glaring deficiencies in the way the the
visual segments of approaches (especially circling approaches) are
taught, and don't even get me started on weather planning and
management. But in comparison to the instrument transition training
most pilots get when stepping up to a more complex, higher performance
aircraft the training is wonderful.

The instrument portion of a multiengine checkride these days consists
of a single full-panel ILS on one engine. A complex endorsement and
high performance endorsement won't include ANY demonstration of
instrument skills in most cases. On paper, once you've gotten an
instrument rating in a Cherokee and added complex and high performance
endorsements in day-VFR conditions, you're legal to go fly night IFR
in a Bonanza.

The recurrent training requirements for IFR flight are pretty sad.
Sure, if you let your currency lapse by a year, then you need an IPC,
which is pretty thorough these days, requiring most of the checkride
tasks to the same tolerances. However, if you do six approaches and a
hold with a safety pilot every six months, you're exempt.

So let's say you have a typical green IFR pilot. Like most, he got
his rating in a C-172, a Cherokee, or something similar. He's pretty
comfortable flying that class of airplane IFR, and while he might like
an autopilot, he views it as a luxury rather than a necessity or
safety-critical item. Eventually, as his skills develop and
maintaining heading and altitude becomes second nature, he starts to
wonder what the big deal is. I actually have a friend who has racked
up hundreds of hours of night and IMC time in his Cherokee 140. He
reads books while flying IFR, and he has no autopilot.

However, most people (unlike my friend) don't keep flying hard IFR in
a Cherokee 140. They usually move up to something with more speed,
more range, and better redundancy. Usually this means less stability,
more things to do, and less time to do them. There is a right way to
approach this and a wrong way.

The right way - practice until you are consistently able to perform
all IFR tasks in the new airplane to the same standards as on the old
airplane (PTS standards or better) including handling any new
equipment, emergency procedures, etc. It takes time, it takes effort,
and it probably means a fair amount of frustration somewhere along the
line. Then, because there are more emergencies (gear issues on a
retract, single engine ops on a twin) and because the old emergencies
have more bite (vacuum failure hurts a lot more in a Bonanza than in a
Cherokee) you take regular recurrent training. And maybe you carry a
copilot until your skills get to the desired level.

Too many people choose the wrong way. They simply assume that the
more demanding aircraft requires an autopilot (rather than more skill)
to fly IFR.
They never really develop the skills for single pilot IFR in that
airplane, even though they might have been fine in something simpler
and slower.

In my opinion, when transitioning to a more demanding airplane for IFR
operations, anything less than a full IPC to PTS standards without use
of autopilot or moving map is inadequate - not just because those
things fail, but because needing those things means the skill level
just isn't there yet to be taking that kind of airplane into the soup
without help. However, what I see more typically is an hour or two of
hood time and maybe a couple of ILS's.

I know some pilots who make it a point to not let their currency lapse
- they want to retain IFR privileges, and I think they know that they
wouldn't pass the checkride if they had to take it again in the plane
they're flying. They're often the same people who claim that real IFR
isn't real practical without an autopilot. I know one light twin
pilot who will only make one trip with an inop autopilot - a day-VFR
flight to the autopilot shop.

On the other hand, the airline captain who taught me to fly my twin
flew his own twin all over the country, for hundreds of hours,
sometimes spending several hours in the soup - with no autopilot.
That kind of flying shaped his standard of IFR proficiency - and he
trained me to that standard, not the multiengine PTS. And so I flew
my twin all over the country, for hundreds of hours, sometimes
spending several hours in the soup - with no autopilot. When I
eventually installed one, I found that I only used it to rest on very
long flights - and never in IMC.

The insurance companies are only now starting to wake up to this - my
insurance (renewed a month ago) requires me to have an IPC in make and
model in the 12 months prior to the flight I'm making. I have a
feeling that this is going to become standard for twins and complex
singles, and will cure a lot of ills.

Michael

(Michael) writes:

That's basically the argument, and I've heard it before in various
incarnations. In its most virulent form, it suggests that single
pilot IFR without an autopilot is inherently unsafe, because the
pilot simply doesn't have enough spare capacity to deal with ATC,
keep a weather picture, monitor the systems, and all the other stuff
he needs to be doing.

I'm still new enough to IFR flying that I might just not have had
enough opportunity to be scared properly by IMC, but it could be that
different people just find different kinds of things nerve-racking.
For me, VFR, it's busy uncontrolled airports, with people cutting each
other off all over the place; for other people, it's busy controlled
airspace, worrying about negotiating with ATC.

I've always had trouble understand why some pilots will fly low or out
of their way just to avoid class B/C/D airspace, but they'd probably
be just as puzzled about my preferring to file flight plans and fly
into big controlled airports, even if I pay more for gas or parking.

I guess IMC is another example of the same kind of thing.

Too many people choose the wrong way. They simply assume that the
more demanding aircraft requires an autopilot (rather than more skill)
to fly IFR.

That's a very good lesson. I'll try to remember it in a few years if
I move up to something slicker than my Warrior.

I know some pilots who make it a point to not let their currency
lapse - they want to retain IFR privileges, and I think they know
that they wouldn't pass the checkride if they had to take it again
in the plane they're flying.

We don't have the choice up here in Canada -- we have to retake the
full IFR flight test every two years to stay current. On the other
hand, we don't get tested on partial panel or unusual attitudes, so it
probably balances out (the good side of that is that I was able to
take my IFR flight test in low IMC rather than wearing the stupid
foggles).


All the best,


David