Question to the IFR Pilots Out There

Tim wrote:
If you feel that you can fly to the edge of the envelope (fully utilize
everything legally available to you in IMC conditions) at day one, what
is left to gain from experience? I'm not being facetrious (sic) here, I'm
really curious as to what value you feel that experience will bring?
Generally, it brings additional capabilities beyond what you had at the
start. But since you can't legally fly in worse weather after 500 hours
than you can after 0 hours (I'm talking post rating here), what is left
to gain from your experience?


What "edge of the envelope?" We are only talking about legal flying and
nothing that wasn't covered in training. The approach minimums give plenty
of safety if they are flown right and my training has given me all I need to
fly IMC safely. Apparently there are those out there who don't think that
is true. I question the training in that case. (And the DE who passed
them)

Once again, I never said experience is not a good thing or that you will not
get better, however, the bottom line is, you should be able to fly IMC and
do an approach to minimums on the day you take your checkride (if the DE
isn't testing that and if you weren't doing that in training, then something
is definitely wrong) Please don't say it is not practical to do an approach
to minimums during training or on a practical.

It is practical to do a simulated approach to minimums during training
and the practical test. It may be practical do an approach to minimums
in actual during training, but it may also not be. I flew for many
months getting my rating and never had conditions that were really close
to minimums. They were either much higher or too bad to fly due to
icing, ground fog, etc.

I think Sydney gave a good reason just a message or two ago.
Transitioning to visual in a real approach isn't nice and binary like
flipping up a view limiting device is.

You've got me curious now, how much IFR and IMC experience do you have?
Where did you train?


Why do you keep bringing the argument back to experience? That is not
relevant. The fact is, one should be able to fly to the standards and
safely fly IMC with an approach after you are properly trained.

Because experience and judgement are always relevent to safe aviation.
Being able to fly a simulated approach to minimums with an instructor or
examiner in the right seat isn't nearly the same as flying a real
approach to minimums by yourself at the end of a long flight. If you
really think it is, then I honestly have to question just how much
flying you've done in IMC. Care to say?


I don't think anyone is claiming that you need to learn to do the
approach. It is a question of precision, confidence, and the ability to
handle the unforeseen that comes with experience. I believe any new
insrument pilot should have the knowledge to fly an approach to
minimums. They shouldn't need to learn anything from a "mechanical"
perspective. That isn't what experience usually brings. It is the
ability to recognize and deal with the non-mechanical aspects (fatique,
etc.) that occur in real flying much more so than during training.



If you don't have the confidence after training and passing the practical,
then sure, don't fly, but I would consider the quality of the training and
the practical then.

That's your prerogative.



As to your question: would you want a doctor who had just graduated from
medical school perform his/her first
quadruple bypass on you without a more experienced surgeon in the
operating room?


Totally different and your example is not even close in so many ways.

Such as?



Just graduating from medical school does not qualify one to do a bypass.
We are talking about flying, not surgery. On the other hand, by
definition, passing the practical means you are qualified to fly IFR. A
single doctor doing a bypass is not likely from my limited knowledge of
medicine. I am open to examples, but this one doesn't do anything for your
argument. (neither does the P.E. one)

You have still not given a reason why a recent IFR pilot shouldn't be able
to fly what he was trained to do and what the DE said he could do. All your
arguments talk about experience years afterwards and about professional
engineers and doctors.

I've given several. You choose not to accept them, but that doesn't
mean they haven't been presented. To recap:

1. An approach in actual isn't the same as, and is more difficult than,
a simulated approach. Often the controllers are busier when every
airplane is flying the approach, communications is more active, etc.

2. The stress is higher on your first approach solo than with another
pilot in the right seat. Stress often causes you to miss small things
such as an altimeter setting, etc.

3. Sydney's reason that the transition to visual is more difficult in
actual than in simulation.

4. You often are more fatigued at the end of a real IFR flight than a
simulated one.


It appears that after this many postings neither of us is going to change
views, nor does it appear that you will answer the question about why it is
not good for a pilot to (foolishly, according to some) fly IMC and do
approaches to minimums as soon as he gets the rating. Perhaps it is best to
let it lie.

As I mentioned earlier, it is well documented that less experienced
pilots have higher accident rates than more experienced pilots. A more
experienced pilot simply has more reserve/margin at 200' on a bumpy ILS
than does a freshly minted pilot flying his first approach in actual.
Starting out with higher personally imposed minimums gives the new pilot
a margin of safety more in line with what an experienced pilot would
have at minimums. This makes it more likely that the new pilot will
live long enough to have the same safety margin at minimums as the
experienced pilot.

Even after probably 100 hours in actual and dozens of approaches into
some of the busiest airports in the northeast, I still avoid approaches
to minimums in some cases such as:

1. At the end of a flight of more than a couple hours, especially if at
night after a long day of work away from home.

2. If I'm just not feeling sharp. Some days I can fly an ILS like I'm
on rails and some days I'm just not as sharp. Same with landings. Some
days I can grease several in a row and some days I can't buy a greaser.
I can usually tell enroute just how sharp I am on a given day (how
well I hold altitude and heading for example) as I never flew with an
autopilot. If I don't feel sharp, I'll add some cushion above what the
FAA requires.

As others have mentioned, judgement is the hallmark of a safe and
experienced pilot. Saying, "I was trained to do X, therefore no reason
I shouldn't always go out and do X" is simply not, IMO, a sign of a
pilot with good judgement. End of my story. :-)


Matt

Just read it, thats the good thing about auto pilots, they keep you nice and
level and on course. I consider my auto pilot one of the most important things
in my plane.

You know, I think some night flying should be considered actual IFR for the fact
that while flying at night you do (I do) most of your flying by the instruments.

"Tom S." wrote:

See my other post about deceiving cloud tops. (not flat).

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message =
...
Robert Moore wrote:
vincent p. norris wrote
=20
=20
Bob, did you get a "White Card" when you got your wings?
=20
=20
I don't remember Vince, but I do remember flying "solo"=20
cross countries IFR in the S-2F while at Kingsville.
John Cuddy, another NAVCAD, and I set-out from Kingsville
to Pensacola and immediately looked for a cloud to fly
in since neither of us had ever been in a cloud before.
Maybe is was a special dispensation from the "white card"
requirement.
=20
Bob Moore
=20
For the non-Naval aviators among us, what is a white card?
=20
Matt
=20

I don't know about the white card, but I always heard about the blue =
card.
It had a hole punched into it, so you could see the sky through it.
If the sky color matched the card color, it was safe to fly.
---JRC---

John R. Copeland wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ...

Robert Moore wrote:

vincent p. norris wrote



Bob, did you get a "White Card" when you got your wings?


I don't remember Vince, but I do remember flying "solo"
cross countries IFR in the S-2F while at Kingsville.
John Cuddy, another NAVCAD, and I set-out from Kingsville
to Pensacola and immediately looked for a cloud to fly
in since neither of us had ever been in a cloud before.
Maybe is was a special dispensation from the "white card"
requirement.

Bob Moore

For the non-Naval aviators among us, what is a white card?

Matt



I don't know about the white card, but I always heard about the blue card.
It had a hole punched into it, so you could see the sky through it.
If the sky color matched the card color, it was safe to fly.
---JRC---


:-) Got it!

Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote

For the non-Naval aviators among us, what is a white card?

The Navy had two levels of instrument rating, white card and
green card. They both permitted pilots to operate to standard
approach minimums (100' and 1/4 mile for GCAs (PAR)). The main
difference was T.O. minimums. A white card pilot required at
least LDG minimums for T.O. and a release from either SQD OPS
(via the daily flight sked) or BASE OPS if away from home.
A green card pilot had no T.O. minimums and was authorized to
release himself anytime, anywhere. The Air Force had a problem
with this last item since (at that time) all of their pilots
required a release from Base OPS and a green card Naval Aviator
would just sign his own release and launch 0/0.
Bear in mind, that these were peacetime, non-combat operations.
I have forgotten just what the regulation required, but to be issued
a green card, one would normally have a thousand or so hours PIC.
It has been pointed out in this forum before that every Private
Pilot with an Instrument Rating can T.O. 0/0 with no restriction,
true, but not in a multimillion dollar plane owned by the U.S.
Government. :-)

Bob Moore
P-2V VP-21 1959-1962
P-3B VP-46 1965-1967

I have forgotten just what the regulation required, but to be issued
a green card, one would normally have a thousand or so hours PIC.

In the early 1950s, at least at Cherry Point, 2,000 hours were
required. I can recall that, because I would have qualified had it
been 1,000, but got out before I reached 2,000.

I recall also that some guys who were qualified refused a Green Card
because, they thought, the day would come when a skipper might try to
pressure them into making a flight when they would rather not, and
then find ways to make them regret it if they refused.

vince norris

Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
: For those of you who have your instrument ticket, how many hours of actual
: IMC did you have when you got your ticket.

: At approx 40 hours of instrument time I have a 'whopping' .9 hours of ACTUAL
: IMC... I sincerely hope I'm going to get to see a lot more before I get my
: instrument ticket - which I'm guessing should be around April or May at the
: latest.

I just finished my checkride about 6 weeks ago. At the time, I
went out of my way to choose my cross-countries with the instructor to
where it was "perfect IFR training" weather.... 3000-5000' AGL scattered
stuff. In the end, did most of my two cross-countries in actual with the
instructor. He also had me do 1.4 hours of actual for my private a year
earlier. At the time of the checkride:

Actual: 9.3
Simulated: 32
X-C: 115
Total: 250

Since the ticked, did two trips IFR. One trip enroute IMC for
about 1 hour, VMC departure and destination. Second departed IFR 1000'
from Milwaukee, got to almost VMC by Indiana (2 hours later after stinkin'
Chicago reroute) to shoot SCT 1500'/5mi.

Still not overly confident (especially because of ice this time of
year). I feel I could definately do a bit lower/harder, but certainly not
going to head out into it intentionally.

FWIW
-Cory
--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

We have something like that, only ours is called "white knuckle"
instead of "white card". It's for landing in a "white out".

Robert Moore wrote in message .6...
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote

For the non-Naval aviators among us, what is a white card?

The Navy had two levels of instrument rating, white card and
green card. They both permitted pilots to operate to standard
approach minimums (100' and 1/4 mile for GCAs (PAR)). The main
difference was T.O. minimums. A white card pilot required at
least LDG minimums for T.O. and a release from either SQD OPS
(via the daily flight sked) or BASE OPS if away from home.
A green card pilot had no T.O. minimums and was authorized to
release himself anytime, anywhere. The Air Force had a problem
with this last item since (at that time) all of their pilots
required a release from Base OPS and a green card Naval Aviator
would just sign his own release and launch 0/0.
Bear in mind, that these were peacetime, non-combat operations.
I have forgotten just what the regulation required, but to be issued
a green card, one would normally have a thousand or so hours PIC.
It has been pointed out in this forum before that every Private
Pilot with an Instrument Rating can T.O. 0/0 with no restriction,
true, but not in a multimillion dollar plane owned by the U.S.
Government. :-)

Bob Moore
P-2V VP-21 1959-1962
P-3B VP-46 1965-1967

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in
:

If you feel that you can fly to the edge of the envelope
(fully utilize everything legally available to you in IMC
conditions) at day one, what is left to gain from
experience? I'm not being facetrious here, I'm really
curious as to what value you feel that experience will
bring? Generally, it brings additional capabilities beyond
what you had at the start. But since you can't legally fly
in worse weather after 500 hours than you can after 0 hours
(I'm talking post rating here), what is left to gain from
your experience?

Judgment. Good judgment comes from exercising bad judgment.
After you fly for awhile, you learn when to go and when not to.
But if you aren't trained to fly an approach to minimums, then
you got cheated in your training.

I don't think anyone is claiming that you need to learn to
do the approach. It is a question of precision,
confidence, and the ability to handle the unforeseen that
comes with experience. I believe any new insrument pilot
should have the knowledge to fly an approach to minimums.
They shouldn't need to learn anything from a "mechanical"
perspective. That isn't what experience usually brings.
It is the ability to recognize and deal with the
non-mechanical aspects (fatique, etc.) that occur in real
flying much more so than during training.

In other words, judgment.

What capbilities will you be able to use after experience
than you could the day you got your rating? You can't
arbitrarily fly to an MDA or DH lower than what is
published, just because you are now a better pilot.

The published DH or MDA is published at that altitude for a
reason. Brand new pilots have to be able to fly to it safely,
as well as experienced pilots who are fatigued to exhaustion,
along with every other instrument pilot.

I keep seeing pilots who say they won't fly approaches to
minimums, but I've never had that luxury. As soon as I finished
flight school, I was expected to fly approaches to minimums,
with the visibility minimums half of published. I still do that
regularly. If you're just out flying for fun, you can set your
own minimums, but if you're going to do it for a living, you'd
better be ready to take off with barely legal weather both at
the destination and the departure point. If you don't think you
can handle weather that's at minimums, then you shouldn't be
flying in weather at all. If your competence is so low that you
can't fly an approach to minimums, then you're likely to kill
yourself before you get there, even if the weather is better
than minimums. Look at the NTSB reports, & you'll see lots of
barely competent instrument pilots who killed themselves and
their friends and families. Instrument flying isn't for
everyone, but if you want to do it, you'd better be good at it,
and if you aren't good enough, you shouldn't have been passed on
the checkride.

--
Regards,

Stan

"Cecil E. Chapman" wrote in message ...
Isn't the Bay area supposed to be great for "harmless" IMC, good for
flying actual approaches?

You're right. When I was working on my basic ticket it would be all over
the place, now that I want some of it to be there (for my instrument
training) it is nowhere to be found.

ROTFL! Yeah, it works that way, doesn't it! I remember standing
on a ramp next to DH (that's d___ husband in this context) and his
instrument instructor. They'd rushed to the airport for a perfect
IMC morning -- only to find that as they got their clearance, the
clouds almost literally rolled back and the sun poured down. I'd
really never seen anything like it. It was almost like watching a
time-lapse movie, only it was real time.

The CFI turned to DH and said "this would never happen if you were
a student pilot"

I think that all student pilots should make a pact with an instrument
student who has the same instructor. They can both book a flight at
the same time, that way one of them ought to be happy

Cheers,
Sydney