Safe, Single-Pilot IFR generalities

Dan Luke wrote:
"Michael" wrote:
You would think we would have night and IFR crashes left and right,
but
we don't. In fact, I'm not sure we ever have.

Maybe because you're the only one crazy enough to fly the approach to
minimums there.

That may not be far from the truth.

Seriously: how much low-IMC traffic comes into Weiser?

Well, we have about a dozen private twins (mostly Barons, but also a
Cessna 340 and a couple of Twin Comanches) on the field, and quite a
few high end singles (Cessna 210, Bonanzas, a Turbo Viking) as well.
Most of these are routinely flown IFR in IMC.

But when you look at the hardcore IFR operators (the guys whose leading
edges are taped up or beat up), most of them are airline or military
trained, or trained by airline/military types. There are also a couple
I trained. I don't think the flight schools (or the people they
train)do any low-IMC approaches into Weiser, and I suspect if they did
the carnage would be spectacular.

Michael

Assuming the Bonanza had this fancy, *adequete* lighting system, what are
the odds that the bulb of this system wouldn't burn out the moment you
flicked it on? 1 out of a 100, perhaps?

Not even close. I believe I've replaced ONE bulb (the gear down light)
on my PA-30 in the 900 hours I've had it. Light bulbs have a very long
MTBF, especially DC bulbs.

I'll put more faith in an LED headlamp any day.

A whiskey compass and venturi-driven T&S are also way more reliable
than the usual complement of vacuum pump, AI, and HI - but we don't fly
IFR that way, even though it is possible (and was done - needle, ball,
and alcohol survives in the pilot vernacular to this day) because the
workload is too high. We keep it in reserve strictly as an emergency
procedure.

Also - what is to keep you from using the LED's in the fixed lighting
system? The entire system can be attached with velcro and plugged into
the cigarette lighter socket if you so choose (not that most mechanics
have a problem approving light installations as minor mods).

An adequate lighting system is NOT fancy. It's simple. It's set up to
light everything you need lit - without moving your head or killing
your night vision.

Michael

You're at EYQ, right? Airnav says it's 16 miles from IAH to EYQ.

Yes on both counts.

It's hard to imagine they couldn't design a straight-in approach to at
least one end of 9/27 that didn't interfere if they wanted to.

No, unfortunately it's not hard to imagine at all. Start by assuming
"they" are typical of civil servants in terms of both competence and
motivation, and it's quite easy.

The fact that they're up to GPS-G and NDB-F must mean they've tried a
few different variations over the years :-)

There's a history to that. In the beginning, there was just the NDB.
Then came the GPS overlay. Then the two approaches were split, and the
GPS got a real IAF and a hold in lieu. In all that time, the FAC was
always 025.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message...

It's hard to imagine they couldn't design a straight-in approach to at
least one end of 9/27 that didn't interfere if they wanted to.

No, unfortunately it's not hard to imagine at all. Start by assuming
"they" are typical of civil servants in terms of both competence and
motivation, and it's quite easy.

You assume they're 'servants'; they assume they're 'masters'. :~(

"Michael" wrote:
Light bulbs have a very long MTBF, especially DC bulbs.

Depends how you run them. If you're trying to get the most illumination
for a given electrical power, you run them at full rated voltage and get a
relatively short lifetime. On the other hand, if you run them at less than
rated voltage, you get much lower conversion efficiency, but also much
longer lifetime. I'm guessing that most panel lighting bulbs are run this
way.

In article ,
says...


"Michael" wrote:
Light bulbs have a very long MTBF, especially DC bulbs.

Depends how you run them. If you're trying to get the most illumination
for a given electrical power, you run them at full rated voltage and get a
relatively short lifetime. On the other hand, if you run them at less than
rated voltage, you get much lower conversion efficiency, but also much
longer lifetime. I'm guessing that most panel lighting bulbs are run this
way.


Unless it's a rental - and you find that all the panel lights are full-on
during the day for nobody knows how long. The plane hasn't flown at night for
over a month, but has logged 80h in daylight during that time. There are no
spare bulbs in the plane, and obviously the FBO won't replace them unless
they are actually burnt out.

Michael wrote:

Not even close. I believe I've replaced ONE bulb (the gear down light)
on my PA-30 in the 900 hours I've had it. Light bulbs have a very long
MTBF, especially DC bulbs.

Ok, so perhaps I overestimated the failure rate just a little.



--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Greg Farris wrote:
In article ,
says...


"Michael" wrote:
Light bulbs have a very long MTBF, especially DC bulbs.

Depends how you run them. If you're trying to get the most illumination
for a given electrical power, you run them at full rated voltage and get a
relatively short lifetime. On the other hand, if you run them at less than
rated voltage, you get much lower conversion efficiency, but also much
longer lifetime. I'm guessing that most panel lighting bulbs are run this
way.


Unless it's a rental - and you find that all the panel lights are full-on
during the day for nobody knows how long. The plane hasn't flown at night for
over a month, but has logged 80h in daylight during that time. There are no
spare bulbs in the plane, and obviously the FBO won't replace them unless
they are actually burnt out.

Yeah, but even with the knob turned to full brightness, they're
probably not running at the voltage the bulbs are rated for.

Ok, so perhaps I overestimated the failure rate just a little.

OK, but let's say you didn't. If bulbs burned out that often, we would
all have a package of spares in the plane. You would check the lights
prior to takeoff, and replace any that failed. If one failed in
flight, then you would go back to the flashlight - which would now be
an emergency, not a normal procedure. As an emergency procedure,
flying by flashlight is fine.

Michael

I look at it from the point of view that if there is a meaningful chance
that I will have to divert to somewhere with VFR weather then I wouldn't
launch into IMC in the first place. Basically he is saying that you won't
be able to fly IMC at some point in the flight but you are going to depend
on flying IMC (to get to the VFR).

Not necessarily. What he IS saying is that he may retain the
capability to fly IMC enroute, but not the capability to shoot an
approach. Now let's consider how this may happen.

IMO the biggest issue is an electrical failure that would leave you
able to fly enroute IMC (by dead reckoning if nothing else) since the
gyros are vacuum, but unable to shoot an approach. This was a real
issue before the handheld GPS, since few light aircraft have truly
redundant electrical systems. I have a handheld GPS with its own
batteries on a yoke mount. In a pinch, I can use it to shoot an
overlay VOR or NDB approach (I practice doing this) and I consider it a
no-go item on flights where I lack the range to reach VFR, despite the
fact that my electrical system is more redundant than most - I still
have only one electrical bus.

That doesn't mean that I don't want a
"real" alternate where I can count on getting in but if that alternate needs
to be VFR then either the pilot or the airplane is not up to flying IMC in
the first place.

By that definition, no single or light twin was up to flying IMC before
handheld nav became available. In my experience, electrical failures
are far more common than engine failures.

Having said that, the REAL reason for the rule is the sad reality that
all too many pilots of complex singles are not able to hand-fly a
partial panel approach, and all too many pilots of light twins are not
able to fly a single engine approach. These pilots need to have VFR in
range, so that they can fly there in the event of vacuum/engine
failure. You could argue that these pilots are not up to flying IMC in
the first place, and I would even agree with you, but you can't look at
the accident history and claim there are not many of them.

Michael