Flew a whole trip under foggles today

O

onwards

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
1,998
Location
CA
Display Name
Display name:
onwards
... and I wasn't cheating, so I really didn't see anything outside for the entire duration. About 40nm, and shot an ILS missed approach to the destination. This IFR thing is... well, fun I suppose, but also sort of weird. One of the big joys of flying for me is precisely the ability to look outside and see the scenery the way you get to do it in a small plane. While the whole technical/mechanical aspect of flying under the hood (or in actual cumulus, which we did part of today - oh boy keeping heading and altitude in turbulence!) is fascinating, it's just not that enjoyable.

I still want the rating of course, less for safety than for being able to go places without worrying too much about the weather being VFR the whole way. But I gotta say, I can't imagine using it much once I do get it beyond the currency requirements and to get me through tough spots in a pinch. Is this true for other private pilots as well?
 
Unfortunately, it most likely is. IMO this is one thing that gets so many low time IR pilots in trouble. Current AND proficient and aircraft to match the conditions is what is needed. Again, IMO an instrument pilot should fly most all trips under instrument flight rules. Useing the system should be automatic. This will make the mechanics of flying that much easier when it is for real.
 
+ 2
I also hated using the Foogles but it was a necessary evil to fulfill the requirements.

Using your IR often for actual IMC will depend on where you live, but you can file IFR for every flight to stay current and keep yourself fresh on using the system.
 
Last edited:
I don't think filing IFR in VMC unless you are useing a sight limiting device and then you need a safety pilot is going to do anything to keep you current.
It is a problem to stay current and proficient. As flav8tr said it depends a lot on where you fly. Even with sim school it is tough for me to get the actual I need to feel as proficient as I think I need to be.
Foogles, have not seen those:rofl:
 
+1 on hating foggles. I think when you are going places using the IFR system is so much easier, when you know exactly what is going to happen next. Even if the weather is good I will file, just to make it easy for me.
-Just my 2 cents
 
ronnieh said:
Unfortunately, it most likely is. IMO this is one thing that gets so many low time IR pilots in trouble. Current AND proficient and aircraft to match the conditions is what is needed. Again, IMO an instrument pilot should fly most all trips under instrument flight rules. Useing the system should be automatic. This will make the mechanics of flying that much easier when it is for real.
Click to expand...

This is the advice that I give new IR pilots (and old ones, for that matter).

Getting an instrument rating and not using it other than the legal currency requirements won't do much for making you a safe instrument pilot.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
This is the advice that I give new IR pilots (and old ones, for that matter).

Getting an instrument rating and not using it other than the legal currency requirements won't do much for making you a safe instrument pilot.
Click to expand...

Sure... but unfortunately, there is no "in-between" rating that would allow me to enter a cloud in a pinch without breaking regs. The thing I'm realizing is that the IR is more about the "system" than the "flying with no visual cues". I get why that is, but wish there was something that would allow one to navigate the occasional quirky weather formally while still under VFR (sort of like an SVFR) without having to do "the system".

The law of unintended consequences thus leads to the above, and what is almost certain to be my case: a lot of IR rated pilots who rarely use the rating, but have and maintain it "just in case" - and are probably dangerous to the well-practiced IFR guys.

Just something that occurred to me, I'm not suggesting it's wrong or right or even a solution, more like a point for discussion.
 
I would argue a pilot with an instrument rating but far removed from proficiency represents an increased risk to flight safety.

In reference to my comment about Where is your fuel stop? in the OP's Awesome Flight thread, my point was to exercise prudence when flying amongst the tall rocks. My point was apparently validated when the OP commented the flight lasted 25% longer than anticipated.

Think of it as one link on the accident chain. Under those conditions, successful completion of flight may only be because you weren't caught.
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
I would argue a pilot with an instrument rating but far removed from proficiency represents an increased risk to flight safety.

In reference to my comment about Where is your fuel stop? in the OP's Awesome Flight thread, my point was to exercise prudence when flying amongst the tall rocks. My point was apparently validated when the OP commented the flight lasted 25% longer than anticipated.

Think of it as one link on the accident chain. Under those conditions, successful completion of flight may only be because you weren't caught.
Click to expand...

Not sure which point was validated, to be honest. Since you are referring to my thread, I was still well within the fuel range of the plane... I was estimating 3, ended up a bit under 4 (mostly because of the stops along the way which were spur-of-the-moment but by definition would have solved any pending fuel issue, and a bit of extra time due to the circling I did not foresee), the plane can fly for 5.5 before reserve even hits. I was fully aware of fuel the whole time.

Anyhow, that's besides the point. Going back to the question I was asking, seeing as how the current regiment produces a significant number of non-proficient but current and legal IR pilots... any ideas?
 
onwards said:
Not sure which point was validated, to be honest. Since you are referring to my thread, I was still well within the fuel range of the plane... I was estimating 3, ended up a bit under 4 (mostly because of the stops along the way which were spur-of-the-moment but by definition would have solved any pending fuel issue, and a bit of extra time due to the circling I did not foresee), the plane can fly for 5.5 before reserve even hits. I was fully aware of fuel the whole time.

Anyhow, that's besides the point. Going back to the question I was asking, seeing as how the current regiment produces a significant number of non-proficient but current and legal IR pilots... any ideas?
Click to expand...
You mean other than AttackWatch? :rofl:

Peer pressure does a fine job of prevention. That plus the individual being aware of the consequences that await the lackadaisical pilot. Sure, there are some who 'work the system' but in their devious ways. I suspect any idea would not work 100%.

EDIT: until just now I was unaware of "5.5 before the reserves are hit". I'm a belt and suspenders kind of guy when playing in and around the high Sierra. BTW: your flight was amongst the tallest elevations.
 
Last edited:
Onwards, I would respectfully disagree on being more about the system than the mechanics of flying without visual clues. Flying the system needs to be almost second nature. You should be able to anticipate what comes two or three steps ahead. There are many airports I dread going into if the weather is good. KJKA comes to mind. I am always hoping for ceilings below 1000 feet when arriving or departing. IR is just not designed for the occasional use. ATC is going to assume you know how to use the system. They will also assume you know how to fly the plane by reference to instruments only. There are no unintended consequencies since the system is designed for the proficient pilot. I can not imagine trying to fly IFR once or twice a year and just for the few times I need to go through a cloud. It is hard for many of us to stay as proficient as we feel we should, I am one of those. I stated somewhere that even with sim training I don't get as much as I like. I always file IFR, of course I am almost always above 18,000 feet but even when I was flying the Navajo I almost always filed IFR, it is just more comfortable for me. If fact if you want to see me a little off my game put me in a piston on a 45 minute flight VFR into a controlled field. Just not my cup of tea. I know of no way to be safe in the IFR system for the occasional user. JMO.
 
Ronnie is correct.

The instrument rating is about flying in instrument conditions until you can get out of them to land. It's about dealing with weather, flying with reference to instruments alone, and managing to do so without hitting anything or flipping your plane upside down.

Keep in mind that being in the system is largely a function of the fact that in this country, the airspace is well-used enough to require it. As such, knowing how to use the system is imperative to successful use of the instrument rating. However, I have been flying along in the clouds, talking to nobody, on an instrument flight plan. 100% legal up in the uncontrolled airspace of Canada. My ability to use the system up there would be completely useless but, as in the United States, my ability to fly through a cloud successfully is just as valuable. Perhaps moreso - there ain't nobody up there to come save me.

What you speak of as an interim that allows you to go through a little cloud layer or something is called the instrument rating. If you use it long enough and regularly enough, you'll then get to the point where you'll be able to practically tackle worse instrument conditions. It's another license to learn.
 
I am not IF rated, but the thought of flying in IFR with someone doing the same but not using the system would scare the heck out of me. The system ensures order, separation, awareness of other traffic, etc.

The thought of flying in the blind with someone using the same airspace, not using the system, is scary.
 
flav8r said:
Are you talking about scud runners?
Click to expand...
Scud is those clouds hanging below a thick layer and leaving little room to maintain VFR. Aircraft in IMC but not flying under IFR don't only occupy that space down low. I had a very close call with a 210 at 9,000. No heads up from APP/DEP.
 
navigator44 said:
I am not IF rated, but the thought of flying in IFR with someone doing the same but not using the system would scare the heck out of me. The system ensures order, separation, awareness of other traffic, etc.

The thought of flying in the blind with someone using the same airspace, not using the system, is scary.
Click to expand...

If you take a look at a Canadian en-route low altitude chart, you'll see a large amount of area that's shaded green. That's all uncontrolled airspace, areas where there are few airports, fewer airplanes, and lots of sky. You make broadcasts on the common frequency with position reports. Think of it like going into and out of a non-towered airport... that happens to be very not busy. You still maintain the appropriate altitudes for direction.

I'm not aware of any air-to-air crashes that exist in those parts of Canada. It's entirely possible that there are some, I'm just not aware of any. If there are, it's probably around the airports, where people should be making broadcasts anyway. Most of the accident reports I've read up there are CFIT incidents at night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top