I’m curious what you think
Funny, the USAF and USN teach instrument flying in primarily tandem aircraft. But what do they know.
Funny, the USAF and USN teach instrument flying in primarily tandem aircraft. But what do they know.
^^^ This
Technically, no…but it’s amazing how much your peripheral vision picks up from the corners that your brain actually processes. Between that and the psychological aspects, there can be a huge difference between instrument training in CAVU and instrument training in IMC.
The first time I was in IMC, which occurred a little more than halfway through my instrument training, I felt uncomfortable in way I never felt when wearing foggles. It was also the first and only time I've experienced vertigo.You still haven't shown me anything that contradicts what I said and I *believe* to be true. (But if you can find it, I'm open to it.)
I take you haven't gone through the IFR training yet. I'm sure others can pull out multiple examples, but these are the ones that instantly come to mind.
Well... If you're going to quote a Legal Interpretation, make sure you have the latest. Pratt in 2022 rescinded the Theriault interpretation.
Sorry, I don’t see the problem you do.
Your instructor might care. And “we need 10 degrees right to remain clear of clouds” is a discussion with ATC. A real problem for a controller trying to maintain separation in busier airspace areas.
I get what you're saying, or at least I think I do. I doubt any descent CFII is going to file an IFR Flight Plan on a day that they could potentially be vectored into IMC. So it's sort of a non issue.
We agree on the practicalities and the potential issues. “Permitted” especially in the IFR world, does not necessarily mean “good idea.”
So far you’re agreeing with Theriault and the 8900 reference.
Nope, still not. I actually thinking of writing in and asking for a clarification if when Theriault was rescinded, if they also meant to clarify that you could not File and accept and IFR Clearance in a VFR only plane.
The 8900 is a valid legal reference, and it makes the same distinction that the regs do between operating under IFR and accepting an IFR clearance.
Prior to the Thierault interpretation, you would have been correct.
However, read the quoted piece in post 10 carefully:
Specifically, starting on line 2, "Any aircraft that meets the equipment requirements..."
Then in the middle, "An aircraft may be operated on an IFR flight plan under IFR in VMC..."
And while the last sentence appears to contradict those, note that it says you can't operate *in IMC* if the aircraft isn't approved for IFR operations. It doesn't prohibit IFR in VMC, and the earlier portions specifically allow it.
A slight tangent question: In the sub paragraph quoted above does the pilot in command (PIC) need to be properly certificated and current to be operated on and IFR flight plan under IFR in VMC or would the instrument rating alone be sufficient to file and accept an IFR clearance?
But it was based on Thierault, which was rescinded by the Chief Councils Office. So is it still valid? Or are they just waiting for the next rewrite to change the language?
8900 is valid.
if someone can’t maintain VMC when they’re supposed to, that’s a different issue.
is it legit to say unable to atc instructions that would put you in imc when you are on an ifr clearance? doesn’t seem to me like it would be.
The PIC always needs to be rated and current to accept and operate on an IFR clearance.
No less than it’s legit to say unable to ATC instructions that would put you in a thunderstorm or a mountain or icing. “Cancel IFR” works as well.
Canceling ifr is not instant. I’ve often flown 30 or more miles after requesting to cancel before they actually cancelled me. Saying unable due to a safety issue is different. My opinion is you shouldn’t be accepting an ifr clearance if you can’t fly in imc.
that would eliminate lot of day-to-day IFR flying outside of the training world.
I think he meant you shouldn't accept a clearance if you aren't fully IFR capable (for whatever reason), not that you shouldn't do IFR if it's not IMC.
I know that. But I also didn’t say anything about not doing IFR if it’s not IMC.
I doubt the insurance on his decathlon would be impacted, but I won't pretend to understand how insurance companies work.
Is panel-mounted GPS now so ubiquitous that pilots have forgotten how to tell ATC "I can't accept a direct clearance to that fix, but I'll take a 117° vector until the VOR [hundreds of nautical miles away] is receivable.
"
Sure it is. Just as legit as refusing an instruction when VFR in Class C or B that will put you too close to (C) or in (B) a cloud. Or, for that matter, the extremely common "N1234A needs 20° right for a buildup." I actually do the latter even if it's a cloud I would have no problem with alone, if I have a passenger.
Sorry... Not quite sure what you're trying to say. Other than this discussion, who's flying IFR that can't fly into IMC??? (I doubt there are very many people out there with the specific issue being discussed here.)
Somebody flying a Cherokee in January, bases at about 4800 MSL, moderate ice in the clouds. IFR at 4000 is perfectly fine, but he can’t go in the clouds without picking up excessive ice.
You need to decide whether you’re going to base your argument on the interpretation being valid or the interpretation being invalid. My argument is based on the regs and the 8900, which are valid and say nothing about violating someone for not being able to comply with a vector for
Aside from unable do to adverse weather, there's "can't" as in "won't." There are definitely pilots out there who maintain instrument currency and fly cross countries under IFR as a convenience and rarely if ever go near a cloud, choosing only to fly on VFR days (personal minimums). I'm sure that n my own IFR flying there are far more complete flights with no clouds than those I've needed to punch even one hole through. That's what I mean by even the practical issue being pretty much a non-issue.
My crystal ball says that if asked, the Chief Counsel will, in order of likelihood, defer to Flight Standards, respond that that the question is not novel or legally significant enough for a legal interpretation, or reaffirm it.
We kind of need to go back to, "what do you have?" There are going to be tasks you need to accomplish from a training, regulatory requirements, and ACS standpoint. With a IFR-capable WAAS GPS or a combination of an IFR-capable GPS (WAAS or not) and a VLOC receiver, you should be able to meet all the requirements.
Having the equipment installed will raise your resale a bit also, plus you'll have it available to stay proficient and possibly save your butt some day.
