Not wanting to fly in IMC

wabower said:
Doug was seriously injured a couple days ago, taking off in his Cardinal from what sounded like a tight airport. His plane ended up hanging from power line wires. Passenger was hurt worse, but both should recover.
Click to expand...

Wow, scary. Pass along whatever details you learn. Thank goodness the outcome wasn't worse.
 
He and pax are recovering, ready to get back on the horse. Lots of hand-wringing, "how can this happen to a guy this good" comments on AOPA board. Accident airport apparently from 1,900' strip with obstacles at the end. For one reason or another he didn't clear them.

No mention in news story or other reports re. number of moose on board.


flyersfan31 said:
Wow, scary. Pass along whatever details you learn. Thank goodness the outcome wasn't worse.
Click to expand...
 
I don't blame you. Cumulogranite is notoriously unforgiving.
There was a story about pilots waiting out weather in Florida a few years back. The pilot who wrote it was waiting out a line of showers in Georgia or South Carolina at a general aviation airport's cafe. He wrote that there were several IFR-rated, general aviation pilots who were also waiting out the weather. Even though they could fly through the weather, it was uncomfortable for them.
When the weather is beautiful, it is hard to put on the foggles or IFR hood. But that is the price you pay for proficiency.:blueplane:
ApacheBob
 
Brian,
Today was your day (flyable IFR in Denver), hope you took advantage. Lots of GA out flying. Clouds from 6-9K.
 
Everskyward said:
What Mark (midlifeflyer) said. I haven't done an instrument approach to my home airport, which is the same as his, all summer. I'll get to do some this fall and winter but a good percentage of those will be in snow or icing conditions.
Click to expand...


I must just be "lucky". The last two times I flew into the Denver area it was IMC and relatively low mins one of the times. Of course this was in late fall / early winter. And I could swear that 8 out of 10 trips to the SLC area involve some IMC in or near the mountains although the terrain is much more benign along that route than west of Denver.
 
Last edited:
I have the same problem. To find real IMC around here, you pretty much have to fly up to Oregon or east of the Rockies. Sometimes, we do get some nice IMC, but at the very least it's always challenging because it usually comes with some ICE or TS. Personally, I find that flying IFR, even when it's IMC, is good practice. All my XC flights are IFR, and it helps me to stay current with procedures.

-Felix
 
Walt said:
Brian,
Today was your day (flyable IFR in Denver), hope you took advantage. Lots of GA out flying. Clouds from 6-9K.
Click to expand...

and I did. I was up in an SR-22 and got about 1/2 hour actual with an instructor. :yes:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Cool! How'd it go? What approaches did you shoot? Feeling any better now? Glass panel or steam gauges?

</twoyearold> :D
Click to expand...

GXY ILS 34, GXY VOR-A and BJC ILS 29R. Ceilings were about 1000', so no great challenge there.

It's glass panel. It went OK, but I spent most of the time trying to stay ahead of the airplane (and didn't in a couple of cases).

It's just going to take more practice... :)

Thanks,
Brian
 
blmoore said:
It's glass panel. It went OK, but I spent most of the time trying to stay ahead of the airplane (and didn't in a couple of cases).
Click to expand...

Don't worry, that's part of the learning process. Always remember you can slow down, too, or ask ATC to standby while you're figuring stuff out.

One of the things I find helps is knowing ahead of time everything I'm going to need (at least to the best of my abilities) and having it all sitting in the right seat, preferably opened to the section I'm going to need. This comes with practice mostly. A lot of it helps if you fly under IFR in VMC. If you have the procedures down, then they become second nature and you can focus on flying the plane.

It's just going to take more practice... :)
Click to expand...

You got it! It's good that you're actually wanting to get the practice you need rather than either getting yourself into a situation you can't handle. I have a number of friends with their instrument ratings who just say that single pilot IMC is impossible. That attitude is, to me, not a good one.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Don't worry, that's part of the learning process. Always remember you can slow down, too,
Click to expand...
That's a very good point. If I recall correctly, SR-22 pilots are often taught to approach at 120 kts even though the airplane is just as stable, and easier to stay ahead of, at 100.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's a very good point. If I recall correctly, SR-22 pilots are often taught to approach at 120 kts even though the airplane is just as stable, and easier to stay ahead of, at 100.
Click to expand...

Well, I was more referring to in cruise, if you forgot to do all those things you should be doing when you don't think you need to be doing something (as my CFII said: "Whenever you don't have something to do, you have something to do."), but you make a good point about approaches.

I'd say for approaches, you're absolutely better off if you can be stable at a slower speed. You just want to make sure you're still well above stall speed, but in the Mooney for example you're supposed to be at 80 mph on final. If the plane is getting ahead of you, slow to 80. When I an ILS with it the other night, by the time I was established I was going 120 (which is important to be at because it's hard to slow it down and 120 is the speed at which you can drop the gear and flaps), and then worked the gear and flaps to slow down further as I continued in the approach. But at no point did I let the plane get ahead of me. If I wasn't comfortable with my speed, I would've slowed down further.

Just don't stall it, that'd be bad. But you should know where the plane stalls and be able to avoid that.
 
Last edited:
In the retracts I've flown, establishing the Approach speed before reaching the FAF with gear and flaps up, then dropping gear at the FAF will give about 500 FPM descent with no change in power.

And 800 FPM descent requires a 2-3" reduction in MAP.

The less I have to do once on the glideslope, the better, IMHO.

If the request is to keep the speed up, I'll keep it in the white arc (<Vle) and drop the gear and reduce power (higher GS will require higher descent rate).

If ATC wants an even faster approach, all that's changed is a reduction in power once the FAF is reached -- the airplane is already trimmed for cruise airspeed.

But my prference is to fly the approach slow enough that the transition to landing requires no last-moment heroics.
 
dmccormack said:
Why 120 knots?
Click to expand...
Beats me. There's a similar "controversy" about 120 vs 90/100 among Comanche pilots. The theory in the case of the Comanche is that the airplane is much more stable at 120. Doesn't make any sense to me. As Red Skelton used to say - "I just say 'em, I don't explain 'em."

...and, btw, I use the exact same gear down at the FAF methodology as you do.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Beats me. There's a similar "controversy" about 120 vs 90/100 among Comanche pilots. The theory in the case of the Comanche is that the airplane is much more stable at 120. Doesn't make any sense to me. As Red Skelton used to say - "I just say 'em, I don't explain 'em."
Click to expand...

Understood.

As far as the "more stable at 120," the airplane will be really stable in the yellow arc, I'm sure.

I think what they probably mean (without knowing it)is that less control deflection is required for corrections due to the greater aerodynamic forces, and so the airplane "feels more stable."

The problem is an approach is meant to end in a landing -- and slower speed equals less energy.

No airplane is very stable rolling along at high speed on the ground.
 
It really depends on the airplane. Personally, I like 120 knots because it is a published speed for approaches and because gear down and 15 MP gives me about that speed in the descent. Don't mind 150 knots either if the ceiling and visibility are good enough. It's easy enough to slow down. "keeping the speed up" means 180 knots around here, so I practice that whenever I can.

-Felix
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Huh? Vno on the 250 and 260 Comanches was 180mph, or 156 knots.
Click to expand...

Read my post -- Assuming the apparent stability is a function of control sensitivity, a higher airspeed will render the airplane apparently "more stable."

Since approach stability is instead a function of overall condition of the airplane to maintain a pre-determined speed and descent rate with as little pilot input as necessary, and arrive at the runway with as little energy as necessary, their definition of "stable" is too narrow.
 
sba55 said:
"keeping the speed up" means 180 knots around here, so I practice that whenever I can.

-Felix
Click to expand...
Good grief Felix, you flying into air force bases? That's pretty darn quick for most of the single engine crowd.
 
Lance F said:
Good grief Felix, you flying into air force bases? That's pretty darn quick for most of the single engine crowd.
Click to expand...
No AFB for me,but when it comes to GA, I like to exceed expectations. No reason not to do the best possible given the aircraft, and 180 doesn't take more than 65% power in the descent.

Oh, and I enjoy flying by 737s on the left on final at KONT :D
 
sba55 said:
No AFB for me,but when it comes to GA, I like to exceed expectations. No reason not to do the best possible given the aircraft, and 180 doesn't take more than 65% power in the descent.
Click to expand...

Now, we'll ignore the fact that I don't consider myself good enough to do approaches at 180 kts at all at this point (but I ought to practice doing approaches in the Mooney progressively faster to get better at it), but how do you bleed off enough speed from 180 to get to gear and flap speed without overshooting the runway? I'm sure you're not going 180 on an ILS till you're 200 AGL and then pulling the power, just curious. The Mooney definitely likes planned descents, unless you want to do go-arounds or overshoot the runway.
 
dmccormack said:
Understood.

As far as the "more stable at 120," the airplane will be really stable in the yellow arc, I'm sure.

I think what they probably mean (without knowing it)is that less control deflection is required for corrections due to the greater aerodynamic forces, and so the airplane "feels more stable."
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. I don't really see a difference between "feels more stable" or "being more stable" in this context. And the 120 advice is coming from some folks pretty high up in the Comanche knowledge hierarchy.

Of course, I'm not too good at listening to people based solely on their credentials and think 120 is unncessary unless I need to keep my speed up for other traffic (I've done 120 in a 172 also). I put the gear down at glideslope intercept and 90-100 kts and consistently wonder whether the glideslope needle is working right because it sits there dead centered all the way down and I'm not that good.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Now, we'll ignore the fact that I don't consider myself good enough to do approaches at 180 kts at all at this point (but I ought to practice doing approaches in the Mooney progressively faster to get better at it), but how do you bleed off enough speed from 180 to get to gear and flap speed without overshooting the runway? I'm sure you're not going 180 on an ILS till you're 200 AGL and then pulling the power, just curious. The Mooney definitely likes planned descents, unless you want to do go-arounds or overshoot the runway.
Click to expand...
It may or may not be an issue depending on the airplane. The typical ILS runway is meant to handle some prettty fast-approaching traffic and (again, depending on the airplane) you probably have plenty of time to slow down and land normally with runway to spare.

Of course, you want to =know= that for your airplane before trying it ;)
 
midlifeflyer said:
Maybe, maybe not. I don't really see a difference between "feels more stable" or "being more stable" in this context. And the 120 advice is coming from some folks pretty high up in the Comanche knowledge hierarchy.

Of course, I'm not too good at listening to people based solely on their credentials and think 120 is unncessary unless I need to keep my speed up for other traffic (I've done 120 in a 172 also). I put the gear down at glideslope intercept and 90-100 kts and consistently wonder whether the glideslope needle is working right because it sits there dead centered all the way down and I'm not that good.
Click to expand...


The simplest definition of stability is that the state remains unchanged unless acted upon by an outside force, and when so acted upon, restores to the original state.

I've heard the same "Gotta keep it fast" stuff from the Bonanza folks. I'm not sure what approach BPPP is teaching now, But Ecklebar recommends 110 KIAS in the A36, and his book is gospel to many Bo folks.

While the airplane flies fine at 110 knots, the breakout and reconfigure to land 200' AGL exercise makes it a handful. I used 90-110 in an A36 (depending on turbulence & potential wind shear) and it flew fine that way as well.

So I agree that the gurus need to be assessed objectively. Just because someone has 5000 hours in a model airplane may mean he/she made the same mistake 5000 times.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It may or may not be an issue depending on the airplane. The typical ILS runway is meant to handle some prettty fast-approaching traffic and (again, depending on the airplane) you probably have plenty of time to slow down and land normally with runway to spare.

Of course, you want to =know= that for your airplane before trying it ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it all depends. Williamsport has a pretty decent sized runway, but even at that if I came in at 180 kts down to at 500 AGL when the foggles come off, I highly doubt I have the time to get the speed down so I can drop the gear and do the flaps. I'd have to pull the power back to idle, prop full forward, slip the plane really hard, and then maybe...

Although the 5000 ft or so at Williamsport is nowhere near the length that I think you're referring to, probably in the 10000+ ft range?

Alright, now I'm curious. This seems worth exploring, but I won't start at 180. ;) Maybe I'll head out to Philipsburg at some point and shoot the ILS there a few times, that's a good place to practice. In the Archer I would shoot the approaches at 120-140, but that plane is a lot dirtier, and it is much, much easier to slow than a slippery plane like the Mooney.
 
dmccormack said:
In the retracts I've flown, establishing the Approach speed before reaching the FAF with gear and flaps up, then dropping gear at the FAF will give about 500 FPM descent with no change in power.
Click to expand...

works pretty good, and is what i use, unless of course you have to fight Vle speeds that are limiting. In the 421 i have to get down to 165 mph to put the gear down so i typically have 15deg flaps down(below 200) and level off around with 25in MP at some point before starting the descent. whenever i am ready to go down (at or before the FAF) i extend the gear and that typically gives me the descent rate to hold the glideslope. if i start descending on the glideslope before putting the gear down, i will never get it slowed down to gear speed.
 
Ted,

The kind of airplane you're flying is key here, as well as the runway. I've done this a few times at places like Ontario (ONT), which has ~10,000' runways, so even if you're at 180 at 200', you'd be fine. This is also easier to do on something that's not an ILS because you can get down early and then bleed of speed while maintaining altitude. The one thing I can't do very efficiently is to slow down quickly and descent at the same time.

Also, if the ceiling is 200', and you're on an ILS, I'll be back to 120KIAS. Basically, if I can't lower the gear at the FAF because I'm going too fast, then I want to have plenty of altitude (>500') to play with to get set up for landing, otherwise I'll be back to 120 or 150 IAS.

This is good practice even if you never use it, IMO. If you can fly an approach at max speed, it's going to be much easier at slower speeds.

-Felix
 
tonycondon said:
works pretty good, and is what i use, unless of course you have to fight Vle speeds that are limiting. In the 421 i have to get down to 165 mph to put the gear down so i typically have 15deg flaps down(below 200) and level off around with 25in MP at some point before starting the descent. whenever i am ready to go down (at or before the FAF) i extend the gear and that typically gives me the descent rate to hold the glideslope. if i start descending on the glideslope before putting the gear down, i will never get it slowed down to gear speed.
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely!

The '47 V tail has Vle/Vfe speed of 100 MPH! It takes a bit of planning to get everything slowed down enough to be within the white arc in that fairly slippery airplane.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Now, we'll ignore the fact that I don't consider myself good enough to do approaches at 180 kts at all at this point (but I ought to practice doing approaches in the Mooney progressively faster to get better at it), but how do you bleed off enough speed from 180 to get to gear and flap speed without overshooting the runway? I'm sure you're not going 180 on an ILS till you're 200 AGL and then pulling the power, just curious. The Mooney definitely likes planned descents, unless you want to do go-arounds or overshoot the runway.
Click to expand...


That is the art, and the answer for me is usually just throw the plane into a hard rudder to the floor slip. Just a few moments of it brings you down from 180-90. It has a tendency to scare the unindoctrinated so unless it's an operational necessity I tend not to do it with passengers. Spoiler type speed brakes are the real answer, they work very nicely. You just reduce power for your target speed and push the button, and in a few seconds there you are without ever changing your glide slope. But if you can't afford em... there's always a slip, or if you have a turboprop, you can do like we sometimes do with ag planes and "tap reverse" on short final.
 
Henning said:
That is the art, and the answer for me is usually just throw the plane into a hard rudder to the floor slip. Just a few moments of it brings you down from 180-90. It has a tendency to scare the unindoctrinated so unless it's an operational necessity I tend not to do it with passengers. Spoiler type speed brakes are the real answer, they work very nicely. You just reduce power for your target speed and push the button, and in a few seconds there you are without ever changing your glide slope. But if you can't afford em... there's always a slip, or if you have a turboprop, you can do like we sometimes do with ag planes and "tap reverse" on short final.
Click to expand...

Technically, above Va you aren't guaranteed (by design) that something won't bend and/or come off when you go to a full rudder deflection slip. In any case I'll bet it's rather stressful on most any airplane to slip aggressively near the top of the green arc. And IMO (with no data to back that up), "tapping" reverse thrust in the air is a very good way to end up falling out of the sky especially if the prop won't come back out of beta range quickly. I was under the impression that airborne use of reverse thrust was prohibited by most turbine POHs, is this correct?
 
lancefisher said:
I was under the impression that airborne use of reverse thrust was prohibited by most turbine POHs, is this correct?
Click to expand...
That's probably true in general, but I just saw a fascinating video of a Concorde inflight commentary by the Captain. He was explaining everything going on to the camera. The point is that in the descent they put two of the engines in "idle reverse" (no spoilers on Concorde) which both slowed them down and I think doubled the rate of descent. So it's ok in one very special POH:yes:

BTW, use of the afterburners was very interesting to learn about. The use them up to Mach 1.7. At that point they could turn off the afterburners and continue to both accelerate and climb, something he claimed was unique to Concorde. With the ABs on they were burning 90,000pph !!!!!
 
Last edited:
Lance F said:
That's probably true in general, but I just saw a fascinating video of a Concorde inflight commentary by the Captain. He was explaining everything going on to the camera. The point is that in the descent they put two of the engines in "idle reverse" (no spoilers on Concorde) which both slowed them down and I think doubled the rate of descent. So it's ok in one very special POH:yes:
Click to expand...

You never know but I suspect that Henning has not yet flown a Concord.:D

BTW, use of the afterburners was very interesting to learn about. The use them up to Mach 1.7. At that point they could turn off the afterburners and continue to both accelerate and climb, something he claimed was unique to Concorde. With the ABs on they were burning 90,000pph !!!!!
Click to expand...

No big deal, that's only a bit over 3.5 gallons per second. Must be some mighty big fuel lines though.
 
lancefisher said:
Technically, above Va you aren't guaranteed (by design) that something won't bend and/or come off when you go to a full rudder deflection slip. In any case I'll bet it's rather stressful on most any airplane to slip aggressively near the top of the green arc. And IMO (with no data to back that up), "tapping" reverse thrust in the air is a very good way to end up falling out of the sky especially if the prop won't come back out of beta range quickly. I was under the impression that airborne use of reverse thrust was prohibited by most turbine POHs, is this correct?
Click to expand...

Most probably advise against it, in certain conditions it is a used technique.
 
lancefisher said:
Technically, above Va you aren't guaranteed (by design) that something won't bend and/or come off when you go to a full rudder deflection slip. In any case I'll bet it's rather stressful on most any airplane to slip aggressively near the top of the green arc. And IMO (with no data to back that up), "tapping" reverse thrust in the air is a very good way to end up falling out of the sky especially if the prop won't come back out of beta range quickly. I was under the impression that airborne use of reverse thrust was prohibited by most turbine POHs, is this correct?
Click to expand...


You might wana look into what Va affects, because the rudder isn't factored into Va. There was a large airliner that had the rudder ripped off when a pilot took it from full deflection, to full deflection to demonstrate Va. The rudder quickly seperated, killing both of em. Some think Va is a magical airspeed that you can do no dammage. It is only valid at max gross (under gross will stress the engine mounting and other components from faster than normal acceleration) and it is only for the wings. NOT RUDDER!!
 
n20junkie said:
There was a large airliner that had the rudder ripped off when a pilot took it from full deflection, to full deflection to demonstrate Va. The rudder quickly seperated, killing both of em.
Click to expand...

I thought it was because they were in the wake of a 747? :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top