My first real IFR XC

[azure]

Until now, all of my IFR flying so far since getting my ticket has been either local flights for proficiency, or longer trips that could have been done VFR (even if with a little pucker factor). Saturday morning I did my first sorta longer trip that would have been an easy, no ifs and or buts no-go without the instrument. It was KVLL to KCMH, the whole route of flight south of Lake Erie was covered by an IFR airmet. A cold front had just moved through, carrying with it a band of moderate to intense precip that was all slowly pushing east. At the time I took off the rain hadn't yet cleared KCMH but I could tell from its movement that it would be pretty well gone by the time I landed, and there was no convective activity anywhere nearby. Ceilings at my point of departure were in the low to medium MVFR range, at times 1200 AGL, so I even departed IFR with a void time clearance (no tower at KVLL).

I was feeling very much on my A-game and was hoping it would be a good IFR workout. I was IMC within 3-4 minutes of takeoff and had about 6-7 minutes in the soup climbing out. Unfortunately most of the trip was above the low cloud layer either in the bright sunshine, or wedged between that layer and a higher cirrus layer that got lower the farther south and east I got. Even the approach at my destination was a disappointment. Columbus was using the ILS 28L, and the rain edge was only about 20 miles east of town, so I thought for sure I'd get to fly it for real. Descending north of the field to be vectored for the approach I got another few minutes of actual, but even before intercepting the localizer I was under the cloud deck. They had just changed the LOC frequency -- the new freq had not made it into the new cycle (neither the plate nor the database had it) and it wasn't in the published NOTAMs either -- the only indication was on the ATIS, so I called up ATC to verify that I had heard it correctly (KCMH's ATIS is a weird, not very real-sounding electronic voice with a strong Russian accent, go figure).

I've attached some pictures I took with my iPhone -- not great quality, and I've seen cooler cloudscapes on my proficiency flights, but at least they're something. Oh, and a question: was that approach loggable? I did get about 30 seconds of actual going through a few scud fragments on the final approach segment. By my usual rule it was loggable, but it almost feels like cheating to log it, the IMC time on the approach was so short.

 

[LDJones]

Welcome to the real world of IFR flying. What you've experienced will likely be very common in your instrument flying. You get the ticket so you can spend those few minutes getting above the crap and to get you safely back down through it!

 

[gismo]

Until now, all of my IFR flying so far since getting my ticket has been either local flights for proficiency, or longer trips that could have been done VFR (even if with a little pucker factor). Saturday morning I did my first sorta longer trip that would have been an easy, no ifs and or buts no-go without the instrument. It was KVLL to KCMH, the whole route of flight south of Lake Erie was covered by an IFR airmet. A cold front had just moved through, carrying with it a band of moderate to intense precip that was all slowly pushing east. At the time I took off the rain hadn't yet cleared KCMH but I could tell from its movement that it would be pretty well gone by the time I landed, and there was no convective activity anywhere nearby. Ceilings at my point of departure were in the low to medium MVFR range, at times 1200 AGL, so I even departed IFR with a void time clearance (no tower at KVLL).

I was feeling very much on my A-game and was hoping it would be a good IFR workout. I was IMC within 3-4 minutes of takeoff and had about 6-7 minutes in the soup climbing out. Unfortunately most of the trip was above the low cloud layer either in the bright sunshine, or wedged between that layer and a higher cirrus layer that got lower the farther south and east I got. Even the approach at my destination was a disappointment. Columbus was using the ILS 28L, and the rain edge was only about 20 miles east of town, so I thought for sure I'd get to fly it for real. Descending north of the field to be vectored for the approach I got another few minutes of actual, but even before intercepting the localizer I was under the cloud deck. They had just changed the LOC frequency -- the new freq had not made it into the new cycle (neither the plate nor the database had it) and it wasn't in the published NOTAMs either -- the only indication was on the ATIS, so I called up ATC to verify that I had heard it correctly (KCMH's ATIS is a weird, not very real-sounding electronic voice with a strong Russian accent, go figure).

I've attached some pictures I took with my iPhone -- not great quality, and I've seen cooler cloudscapes on my proficiency flights, but at least they're something. Oh, and a question: was that approach loggable? I did get about 30 seconds of actual going through a few scud fragments on the final approach segment. By my usual rule it was loggable, but it almost feels like cheating to log it, the IMC time on the approach was so short.

Like Loren wrote, this is what the vast majority of IFR trips are like. But don't worry, you'll get the chance to fly in conditions that are challenging enough to make your mouth dry and hands wet soon enough.

I wonder how many pilots cruise in the clouds when clear skies are within reach? Not long after getting my IR I made a few flights where I deliberately filed and flew in stratus that I could easily have topped just to build confidence but pretty soon that got boring and I found it far more enjoyable to cruise above the clouds, especially on a flight that occurred after living under a solid overcast for days or weeks. There's something rather uplifting about popping out on top after leaving the ground in dreary weather.

 

[azure]

There's something rather uplifting about popping out on top after leaving the ground in dreary weather.

Last December I went up with my CFII for my first time in actual without a hood. It was a really gloomy day on the ground and towards the end I got to enjoy a few minutes in the bright sunshine before descending for my last approach. Great fun! Then one morning this summer I was out by myself, trying to fly the published missed at PHN in actual to log the hold. At the published altitude I would have been IMC, but ATC put me 1000 feet higher for separation (they even parked me in the hold with an EFC time) and I got to float along for a bit on "cotton" with bright blue sky above. So that time it was a mixed blessing. Luckily most of my time in the hold was below the top, so I still got to log it.

 

[GMascelli]

Good post and good shots!

It's on those dreary days when you take off and break through the layer and into the sunshine that you have to remember where you put your sunglasses!

My Bride and I like breaking out on top and looking for things that are able to poke through. Besides, all the ground pounders are dealing with the overcast while we work on the tan flying to our destination.

A recent shot of salem nuke plane and one 'under cover'.

VFR day
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qZlUQ19qipA/UjdrUDqjePI/AAAAAAAAJNg/VhhGxlAYEgk/s1600/salem.JPG

IFR day
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-INYvHa4HYjc/T8P97StcIKI/AAAAAAAAHAw/jr-CMd_klBc/s1600/Salem+on+top.jpg

 

[Rwsavory]

Yes, you can log the approach. But, as you know, currency does not equal proficiency. Good write up!

 

[frfly172]

Love breaking out in a short time to regroup,however the controllers seem to keep me in the clouds. The more IFR I get the better I feel.Set your own minimums until you get comfortable then lower them as you go.

 

[jordane93]

ive done a couple of x countries since getting my IR.havent been able to get some good instrument time. usually ill fly through the cloud layer and the top is sunny and vfr. all of my x countries i had to request a vor/ils/gps because all the airports had visual approaches in use but i wanted to get in a few approaches to sharpen up my skills

 

[azure]

Thanks guys. I guess I might log the ILS, maybe in parentheses like I do for airports where I just do approaches but no landing.

Sure, I prefer to cruise in the clear too when I'm going somewhere. I only once filed for an altitude on a XC that put me in the clouds for an extended time, and that was by accident. The letdown on this flight was that most of the flight I could even see the ground (as the pictures show), and the lack of any challenge in flying the ILS. I shouldn't complain, many times before I had my ticket I scrubbed trips that I knew would have been easy IFR. This was one I was able to do, and it was easy IFR. I just wasn't expecting things to "deteriorate" so quickly behind the front.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yes, you can log the approach.

He said.

but even before intercepting the localizer I was under the cloud deck.

Hardly enough information to know whether it was loggable or not (assuming we're talking logging for legal currency and not for ha-ha-s). Can't tell whether any of the approach procedure was in IMC.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Unfortunately most of the trip was above the low cloud layer either in the bright sunshine, or wedged between that layer and a higher cirrus layer that got lower the farther south and east I got.

Only a new instrument pilot would complain about that

Great photos.

 

[EppyGA]

Welcome to the real world of IFR flying. What you've experienced will likely be very common in your instrument flying. You get the ticket so you can spend those few minutes getting above the crap and to get you safely back down through it!

 

[azure]

He said.



Hardly enough information to know whether it was loggable or not (assuming we're talking logging for legal currency and not for ha-ha-s). Can't tell whether any of the approach procedure was in IMC.

Sure you can. To quote from the next paragraph:

I did get about 30 seconds of actual going through a few scud fragments on the final approach segment.

AFAIK there's no real guidance from the FAA on this. Following Ron Levy's lead and others' on the board, I usually ask whether I was in instrument conditions for all or part of the final approach segment. I was -- for a few seconds anyway. So by that criterion it was loggable, by the letter anyway.

After thinking about it for awhile I decided to log it in parentheses to remind myself that I flew the approach, but not really count it for currency. As far as proficiency goes, it was more for buttonology skills than anything else, like flying an instrument approach in totally visual conditions.

As someone wrote, currency does not equal proficiency, and I want to be a proficient IR pilot not just a legally current one.

 

[azure]

Only a new instrument pilot would complain about that

Yeah. Touchee. Like I said later, I really wasn't complaining about the cruise in VMC, just that the whole thing turned out to be so easy.

Great photos.

Thanks. I kind of like the second one. I wish the resolution was better though.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Sure you can. To quote from the next paragraph:

AFAIK there's no real guidance from the FAA on this. Following Ron Levy's lead and others' on the board, I usually ask whether I was in instrument conditions for all or part of the final approach segment. I was -- for a few seconds anyway. So by that criterion it was loggable, by the letter anyway.

I missed the mention of the fragments. Of course, there's Bob Gardner's final question -whether you felt you use and increased instrument skills in some way.

Yeah, I know there's no real guidance from the FAA on this: How Much Actual Is Required to Log an Instrument Approach?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yeah. Touchee. Like I said later, I really wasn't complaining about the cruise in VMC, just that the whole thing turned out to be so easy.

That's OK. Sounds like my dual IFR cross country.

OTOH, I got very lucky on my first IFR flight:
Flight time: 1.3
Actual 1.0
Night 0.8
Never saw anything other than the inside of a cloud from just above the pattern until breaking out on the destination ILS about 650' above above the runway.

 

[somorris]

Well Liz, it looks to me like the answer to your "loggable" question is illusive . If you get an IPC, you are obviously "legal" for the next six months. If you wanted to be sure you are "legal," that would be the safest way to do it. The truth is, that other than doing the IPC, we are basically on the honor system and you are the only person who knows the truth. I don't want you to buy the farm, so use your best judgment and be safe out there.

 

[azure]

I missed the mention of the fragments. Of course, there's Bob Gardner's final question -whether you felt you use and increased instrument skills in some way.

In some way? Sure. Mostly buttonology, but a bit of scan and tracking practice too. Then the question is, by how much? I like to get at least 45 minutes of aerobic exercise 3 times a week. Does climbing two flights of stairs increase my fitness level? Yes, but not by enough to really matter. I couldn't get the same benefit by doing that 10 times a day every day.

Yeah, I know there's no real guidance from the FAA on this: How Much Actual Is Required to Log an Instrument Approach?

Good discussion, thanks. As I said, I would feel that I was cheating to count this one toward currency. Yet it was a first in a way, and I want to make some note of it in my logbook. So I figure logging it as (1 ILS) in parens with explanation in the Notes column should do it.

OTOH, I got very lucky on my first IFR flight:
Flight time: 1.3
Actual 1.0
Night 0.8
Never saw anything other than the inside of a cloud from just above the pattern until breaking out on the destination ILS about 650' above above the runway.

Yes, I've had 5-6 flights like that since my checkride. All of them involved at least 3 approaches to near minimums. The one at PHN was nearly 2 hours in the clag. One flight, deteriorating conditions beat me back home, and I had to leave my plane for a few days at a nearby field with an ILS. But none of those approaches was to an unfamiliar field, and all the flights were strictly local, for proficiency only.

 

[gismo]

It's loggable if you say it is, it's an honor system. Unless you habitually log approaches flown in CAVU conditions sans goggles for currency the legality issue is pretty much satisfied as long as your log entry isn't a blatent lie.

And only you (the pilot) knows if you're competent as well.

 

[Hank S]

My rule for "counting" the approach is whether or not I can navigate to the airport without flying an approach. You don't need to be inside the milk bottle to log 'actual.'

• 
  If you're in bright sunshine above the overcast, or between layers, how do you tell if you are on course, level, near the airport, etc?

• 
  If you must rely on your instruments to stay in complete control and on course, can you log your time in sunshine?

• 
  If you make a procedure turn and intercept the glideslope above the layer, descend through the murk in 30 seconds and fly the long final looking at the runway, can you log the approach for currency?

 

[bbchien]

One of the reasons I hand fly my approaches is that my typical trip consists of: depart, IFR, enter layer/climb on top/VMC cruise, descend into layer, fly approach.

Not a whole lot of IMC time. The autopilot is for VFR cruise.

 

[Hank S]

It's even more fun cruising above the tops without a turbo, then have the tops rise up above you again . . .

 

[midlifeflyer]

My rule for "counting" the approach is whether or not I can navigate to the airport without flying an approach. You don't need to be inside the milk bottle to log 'actual.'

• 
  If you're in bright sunshine above the overcast, or between layers, how do you tell if you are on course, level, near the airport, etc?

• 
  If you must rely on your instruments to stay in complete control and on course, can you log your time in sunshine?

• 
  If you make a procedure turn and intercept the glideslope above the layer, descend through the murk in 30 seconds and fly the long final looking at the runway, can you log the approach for currency?

I'd agree except for the crossed-out parts. The FAA has long defined "actual" in terms of outside conditions making "use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft." IOW, keeping the shiny side up. Radio navigation is as much a VFR skill as an IFR one and is IMO not enough to make a visual flight into an instrument one.

 

[azure]

I'd agree except for the crossed-out parts. The FAA has long defined "actual" in terms of outside conditions making "use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft." IOW, keeping the shiny side up. Radio navigation is as much a VFR skill as an IFR one and is IMO not enough to make a visual flight into an instrument one.

I agree with that too, as regards logging. However practice with navigation, entering flight plans in the GPS, all of the button-mashing stuff are important skills that when practiced in visual conditions definitely aid one's proficiency for flying "inside the milk bottle". The less brain cycles you have to devote to making the gadgets do what you want when flying instruments, the less task saturated and ahead of the airplane you can be. Keeping the shiny side up in the clag is definitely a separate (and obviously critical) skill, but IME it's the easiest part of IFR flying.