IFR rating?

"David Megginson" wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...
[...]
So which of these points do you not consider when you are planning a VFR
flight?

- your condition
- the aircraft's condition
- the weather
- facilities (such as airports and navaids)
- airspace
- NOTAMs

Heh heh...maybe you didn't intend it as a straw man, but it's coming apart
at the seams right now.

How does "the weather" rate just a single lone mention? There are lots of
things involved with "the weather" that simply aren't a consideration for
VFR flight. Because other components of "the weather" will prevent you from
ever running into them.

When I plan a flight, the item you simply call "the weather" looks something
like this for VFR:
- winds
- visibility
- ceiling

Thunderstorms are an issue, but they are easily avoided when flying VFR.
They aren't part of the go/no-go decision unless there's a line of them
creating winds, low ceilings, or visibility issues (and usually, all of the
above), in which case they are covered by the existing items.

For IFR, there are additional items in addition to the VFR items:
- freezing level
- cloud tops
- thunderstorms

Thunderstorms are MUCH more of an issue flying IFR, because there's no way
to avoid them. Once you're in the cloud, you're at the whim of your
routing. Rather than being something to be aware of and avoid during the
flight, they become a reason to not make the flight at all. That is, they
are part of the go/no-go decision in and of themselves, but only for IFR
flight.

This is a simplistic look at my preflight decision making, but I hope it
illustrates what I'm trying to say. At the very least, it should show you
why I think your single mention of "the weather" as if it's the same for IFR
and VFR just doesn't make sense.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

So which of these points do you not consider when you are planning a VFR
flight?

- your condition
- the aircraft's condition
- the weather
- facilities (such as airports and navaids)
- airspace
- NOTAMs

How does "the weather" rate just a single lone mention? There are lots of
things involved with "the weather" that simply aren't a consideration for
VFR flight. Because other components of "the weather" will prevent you from
ever running into them.

Choose a level of abstraction: the aircraft's condition is at least as
complex as the weather, for example, and requires as much time and
consideration. In fact, I can break a single step like "check the engine,"
down into a posting so long that no one but the most pathetic antisocial
shut-in will bother reading all the way to the end.

Thunderstorms are MUCH more of an issue flying IFR, because there's no way
to avoid them.

Flying in IMC is a no-go with even occasional CB or TCU forecast along the
route, unless you have a Stormscope or Strikefinder on board; even then, you
don't want to launch into numerous CB or TCU, not to mention a squall line.
On the other hand, that stuff is a danger VFR as well, and any VFR pilot
who doesn't spend time looking at convective activity before flying probably
doesn't deserve her or his license: you still have to consider how likely it
is that you'll be able to see the rain and lightning in time, given the
ceiling and vis.


All the best,


David

"David Megginson" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
Choose a level of abstraction: the aircraft's condition is at least as
complex as the weather, for example, and requires as much time and
consideration.

True, but so what? Those things don't change depending on whether the
flight is IFR or VFR, and so are irrelevant to this discussion (other than
instrumentation required for IFR flight, of course).

My point is not that the other elements can not be further refined, but that
your list trivially ignores the differences between IFR and VFR decision
making by hiding those differences in a single, vague item.

Flying in IMC is a no-go with even occasional CB or TCU forecast along the
route, unless you have a Stormscope or Strikefinder on board; even then,
you
don't want to launch into numerous CB or TCU, not to mention a squall
line.

That's mostly what I said. Though, in truth, "occasional CB" is most
certainly NOT an automatic no-go for IFR flight, even without a Stormscope
or Strikefinder. Lots of cumulonimbus clouds are completely benign, and
there are elements to the weather forecast that let you know when they are
and when they aren't.

Even widely scattered thunderstorms aren't an automatic no-go. It depends
on the terrain, your route, time of day, and what's on the weather station
radar already.

You certainly can simplify your life by deciding that anytime the forecast
mentions cumulonimbus clouds, you stay on the ground. But that's the sort
of thing that greatly reduces the utility of the instrument rating. If
you'll recall, very early in my comments along this thread, I specifically
differentiated between pilots who actually use their instrument rating, and
those that don't really gain any significant utility through the rating.

On the other hand, that stuff is a danger VFR as well, and any VFR pilot
who doesn't spend time looking at convective activity before flying
probably
doesn't deserve her or his license: you still have to consider how likely
it
is that you'll be able to see the rain and lightning in time, given the
ceiling and vis.

But it's not a go/no-go decision issue. VFR, I want to know where
thunderstorms are, so that I can avoid them. But if the thunderstorms cause
me to cancel the flight, it's because there's something else (like reduced
visibility, high winds or turbulence, low ceilings, or all of the above).
The simple presence of a thunderstorm doesn't cause the flight to be
canceled, and is not part of what I'd call the "go/no-go decision".

Contrasting to the IFR decision making, where the exact nature of the
forecast, predicted thunderstorms, existing conditions, air stability and
the like are all important, when flying VFR all that's really important is
that you can see well enough to maintain a wide berth from any existing
thunderstorms and to know when they block your path of flight completely
(i.e. there's no detour to take you around). It's much more cut and dried
than for IFR flight.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

You certainly can simplify your life by deciding that anytime the forecast
mentions cumulonimbus clouds, you stay on the ground. But that's the sort
of thing that greatly reduces the utility of the instrument rating. If
you'll recall, very early in my comments along this thread, I specifically
differentiated between pilots who actually use their instrument rating, and
those that don't really gain any significant utility through the rating.

That's why I've been having a Stormscope installed in my plane. I do not
feel that I can responsibly fly through IMC when there's a forecast chance
of embedded CB -- it's playing Russian roulette with my passenger's lives,
and mine.

I was recently reading an accident report from a few years ago when ATC
vectored an entire family in a Cessna 210 (if I recall correctly) over
Quebec right into a thunderstorm that didn't show up on ATC's radar. The
plane broke up in flight. The pilot was an airline pilot flying his family
to Prince Edward Island for their summer vacation, so he probably knew all
the tricks about CB, but didn't, unfortunately, have a Stormscope,
Strikefinder, or weather radar on board to back up his hunches and ATC's
radar returns.

But it's not a go/no-go decision issue. VFR, I want to know where
thunderstorms are, so that I can avoid them. But if the thunderstorms cause
me to cancel the flight, it's because there's something else (like reduced
visibility, high winds or turbulence, low ceilings, or all of the above).

That sounds pretty complicated to me -- at least as complicated as IFR
flight planning. As you wrote, you have to consider several different
weather-related factors together before you can decide (visibility,
convection, ceiling, winds, and turbulence). The exact way that you combine
them -- and the conclusion you come up with -- may be different for VFR, but
it's the same kind of thing.

Contrasting to the IFR decision making, where the exact nature of the
forecast, predicted thunderstorms, existing conditions, air stability and
the like are all important, when flying VFR all that's really important is
that you can see well enough to maintain a wide berth from any existing
thunderstorms and to know when they block your path of flight completely
(i.e. there's no detour to take you around). It's much more cut and dried
than for IFR flight.

Hmm. What about when the forecast says good visibility, but the dewpoint
spread in the METARs along the way suggests that the ceiling is going to
come down hard? Is the morning lake fog going to stay over your destination
airport longer than expected, given the prevailing winds? What about flying
in light drizzle, studying the forecast to assure yourself that the
temperature at your altitude will be far enough above freezing (and will
those large droplets be supercooled or not?). It seems that there's a lot
to worry about for VFR pilots as well.


All the best,


David

"David Megginson" wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...
[...] It seems that there's a lot
to worry about for VFR pilots as well.

I never said there wasn't, and I feel I made it perfectly clear that I was
simplifying both the VFR and IFR cases for the sake of illustration.

I don't mind when someone just disagrees with my subjective views, or is
having a hard time with the methods I might use to convey my point (after
all, one needs to communicate the point, even if it's the correct one). But
when someone simply ignores what I've already said in an attempt to rebut
what I've said, I fail to see the point in the discussion at that point.
There's no hope for productive interaction.

Pete

On 27 Apr 2004 06:50:06 -0700, (Bob Martin)
wrote:

I'm debating whether to try for my IFR rating in the spring. I won't
have the time or money to start till then, but that's not the point.

The big question is, is it worth it right now? The only flying I
really do is cruising around, mild aerobatics, some formation stuff,
and occasionally a trip to the neighboring states. An IFR ticket
would be a "nice to have" but I don't think I'd really be able to make
use of it--our plane isn't IFR equipped, and probably won't be for the
forseeable future.

If you do not have access to an IFR plane, and don't see one in your
near future, I'd hold off on the rating.

Having said that, I have had my IR for about 2.5 years (10yrs flying)
and find it extremely valuable. Realistically, in a non-deiced
single, it only adds a few extra flights each year that would
otherwise have been no-go situations. However, I find a huge benefit
in the comfort factor added to VFR flight. Not having to worry about
getting stuck on top, or worrying about lowering cloud decks forcing
scud running is great.

-Nathan

Nathan Young wrote:

Having said that, I have had my IR for about 2.5 years (10yrs flying)
and find it extremely valuable. Realistically, in a non-deiced
single, it only adds a few extra flights each year that would
otherwise have been no-go situations.

That will depend, obviously, on where you live and whether you're willing to
scud-run at 1,000 ft AGL or lower in MVFR, like the old-timers do (the ones
who are still alive, anyway).

An IR is probably not that useful out in big sky country, but where I fly
(central Canada and NE U.S.), it figures into more than half of my longer
cross-country trips and has saved me a couple of cancelled trips and several
nights' hotel accommodation in the first ten months. Typically, I need only
to climb a few thousand feet through a low overcast or broken stratus or
stratocumulus layer, but sometimes I end up doing an entire flight in IMC.
Only occasionally do I end up with a low approach at my destination.

However, I find a huge benefit
in the comfort factor added to VFR flight. Not having to worry about
getting stuck on top, or worrying about lowering cloud decks forcing
scud running is great.

Agreed.


All the best,


David

"David Megginson" wrote in message
news
Nathan Young wrote:

Having said that, I have had my IR for about 2.5 years (10yrs flying)
and find it extremely valuable. Realistically, in a non-deiced
single, it only adds a few extra flights each year that would
otherwise have been no-go situations.

That will depend, obviously, on where you live and whether you're willing
to
scud-run at 1,000 ft AGL or lower in MVFR, like the old-timers do (the
ones
who are still alive, anyway).

An IR is probably not that useful out in big sky country, but where I fly
(central Canada and NE U.S.), it figures into more than half of my longer
cross-country trips and has saved me a couple of cancelled trips and
several
nights' hotel accommodation in the first ten months. Typically, I need
only
to climb a few thousand feet through a low overcast or broken stratus or
stratocumulus layer, but sometimes I end up doing an entire flight in IMC.

Same here, flying in the NE. I make several flights a year that are
partially or largely in IMC; a few VFR flights that would not have been
comfortable without an IFR option if weather deteriorated; and occasionally
a VFR flight with unexpected IMC at my destination, requiring a pop-up
clearance to approach and land instead of aborting. Also, an instrument
rating is required for Angel Flight missions (even flying VFR).

I use Microsoft Flight Simulator to help maintain my proficiency. Four times
a year (usually around April and October), I fly a few local approaches on a
LIFR day to be sure my official currency does not lapse (much of our summer
IMC is unflyable due to embedded CBs, and winter IMC is unflyable due to
icing). That combination, plus my occasional IMC XCs, works well for me. I
seldom need to practice with an instructor or safety pilot.

--Gary

"Journeyman" wrote in message
. ..
In article . net, Mike
Rapoport wrote:

Point is, with more things to consider and the added utility of
the instrument rating, the go/nogo decision isn't as simple in the
general case.

I would disagree. Having an instrument rating just moves the actual
no-go
point farther to the right. I don't see why the no-go decision would
get
harder.

I understand your point, and I'm willing to agree to disagree.

For me personally, I found that it wasn't just a matter of pushing the
decision point. A VFR-only go/nogo decision was far more black and
white than IFR. One data point. Others provide their own data.

Put it another way, IFR gives you more options than VFR, but it also
gives you more ways to get yourself into trouble. You you analyze
that to get the added utility the instrument rating provides is up
to you. I say more things to consider == more complex == harder.


Morris

I also agree to disagree. The difficulty of thedecision making process is
an individual thing. My perspective is that things have to go "more wrong"
to endanger an IFR flight than a VFR one. The occurance of weather than can
endanger an IFR flight in a light GA single is rarer than the reduced
visibility that endangers a VFR flight. Just my opinion.

Mike
MU-2