[video] Lancair 360: MHT to CDW, 90 mins, 95% IMC with ATC audio

C

coma24

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 2, 2011
Messages
920
Location
Pompton Plains, NJ
Display Name
Display name:
coma24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GauEr0ENbXM

Break out briefly at around 44mins, then back into the soup for a while.

Finally get between layers at around 55mins for a stretch before descending back into it for a night approach (LOC RWY 22) to ~200ft above minimums.

Smooth ride until about half way through the flight, then it gets bumpy/tiring.
This was filmed last year, shortly after "climb via SID" was introduced. Controller says, "climb via SID...up to 4000," which causes me to pause because he should've either said "climb via SID," or "climb via SID except maintain xxxx," but he rolled his own version which caused some confusion in the clearance del process.

Another point of interest is NY approach trying to assign me the RNAV RWY 22 into CDW, which is below minimums (based on 400 overcast) if you can't shoot it as a LPV approach. I have to state, several times, that I need the LOC rather than the RNAV since the minimums for the LOC are lower than the RNAV (LNAV mins). It's a good reminder that you need to negotiate with ATC when it's appropriate.

The pilot is in a better position to know which approach is or isn't going to work when the weather is marginal and there are equipment limitations that the controllers aren't aware of. Maybe if I start filing ICAO flight plans, they'll be in the loop, but I really don't know how closely the controllers would be checking the filed equipment codes in any case, nor are they necessarily aware of the various minimums for the approach based on equipment type.

It's also a good reminder that ceilings are AGL. Approach minimums are MSL except for the smaller number on the plate. So "560" mins for the LOC are actually 388...hence, worth a shot with 400 overcast.

One other point of interest, the runway doesn't come into view right away at MDA due to clouds ahead/above. It finally appears at 1:27:44.

I decided to post the flight portion unedited to give a sense of what prolonged IMC exposure looks and feels like. It also gives you some time to perform your own scan during level flight. Lastly, maybe you'll feel the relief that I felt when I finally got a break from the turbulence and got between layers.

This was hand flown, something that will become obvious as you watch. :)

I hope this is helpful for anyone that is pursuing the IR or just wants some exposure to an end to end IFR flight.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting! I miss about the northeast is the long IMC flights from takeoff to mins on the approach.

NY approach often requires negotiation and will assign you approaches that are unworkable or that you're unable to do. It really is a pain, but it's a reality. Basically, you need to act like a New Yorker to them. :)
 
EdFred said:
tl;dw
Click to expand...

Understood, but:
a) title does say 90 mins
b) this isn't a tape-based VCR, you can forward to the phase of flight that interests you (if any)

The first post lists the reasons for posting the full, unedited flight portion. It is probably more of interest to someone who is working on their IR or is thinking about getting an IR.
 
I know editing is a PITA, but I would probably cut out all the parts of the video where it's only but engine noise, and/or communication not relevant to the flight and offer a short version where only the particulars are shown.

I know when I was training, I would not have sat through a 90 minute video. And the problem with jumping ahead is maybe you do miss something.
 
The majority of the videos I've posted in the lasted 5 years have been as you've described. This was an experiment to see if there was value in leaving the quiet moments in there as well for the reasons stated in the first post.

In a perfect world, I'd post two versions. However, it's not always clear what should be left in and what should be left out. Are all radio comms worth keeping? What about a 50ft altitude deviation followed by corrective action?
 
I think the perfect world idea would be good. :)
 
Truth be told, now that I've got a full length IMC flight posted, I wouldn't see any need to do another one along those lines. I'll plan on editing future videos.

Oh, there was one other interesting highlight in this one (I'll add it to the original post), I didn't see the runway when I first broke out on the approach. I had to level off at MDA for a while before it came into view. Not sure if it was visibility or just uneven clouds above and ahead that was blocking the view. 1:27:44 is where the runway came into view.
 
Love it! I always thoroughly enjoy flying videos from our area.
 
Thanks for posting. My first IFR lesson is next week. Looking forward to it.
 
Coma24, great video, thanks for sharing! I've landed at 22 at CDW quite a few times at night, although always VFR ;)
 
I delivered an SR22 up to CDW the other day. Took me until I was nearly over the field to find it and get cleared for the visual.

Look forward to the video.
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
I delivered an SR22 up to CDW the other day. Took me until I was nearly over the field to find it and get cleared for the visual.

Look forward to the video.
Click to expand...

Which direction were you coming from? It's a pain in the ass to find if you're approaching from the south, the worst is south east as you have the big hill completely obstructing view of the field.
 
Maciej said:
Which direction were you coming from? It's a pain in the ass to find if you're approaching from the south, the worst is south east as you have the big hill completely obstructing view of the field.
Click to expand...
North/Northwest. It should have been easy, but, it was overcast with mod turbulence and wasn't surrounded by a lot of land like airports here in the South.
 
UngaWunga said:
Yeah, I listen to that and realized I have a long way to go on my IFR training... :lol:
Click to expand...

If it was the altitude portion, then don't feel bad, the controller used non-standard phraseology when he said, "climb via SID...up to 4000." It should've been "climb via SID," or "climb via SID except maintain [altitude]."
 
coma24 said:
If it was the altitude portion, then don't feel bad, the controller used non-standard phraseology when he said, "climb via SID...up to 4000." It should've been "climb via SID," or "climb via SID except maintain [altitude]."
Click to expand...

I, too, noticed that and would have asked for clarification. I was confident I understood what he meant, but I don't assume in the airplane.
 
Question:

The SID instructs you to climb to 3000 on a 353 heading and then expect vectors.

Tower had you turn to 320 prior to contacting departure and you were around 700-800 feet.

Is it common to get an instruction that deviates from the SID like that? I do realize the SID specifies "or as assigned by ATC", just wondering how common the "or as assigned" part is.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Question:

The SID instructs you to climb to 3000 on a 353 heading and then expect vectors.

Tower had you turn to 320 prior to contacting departure and you were around 700-800 feet.

Is it common to get an instruction that deviates from the SID like that? I do realize the SID specifies "or as assigned by ATC", just wondering how common the "or as assigned" part is.
Click to expand...

Leaving RDU in a piston, I'm ALWAYS assigned the BLUE DEVIL 4, or RALEIGH 7 's. (I'm on the most virus-infested pilot's lounge PC I've ever seen. So, I can't look up the DP's without being redirected 500 times.) I believe those DP's simply state: runway heading to assigned altitude, and then expect vectors to filed route. On my takeoff clearance, I'm usually given some offset heading, essentially rendering the DP useless.

I rarely, if ever, fly a complete DP or STAR. It's amended in one way or another. (I don't fly jets, though. Can't speak for those guys.)
 
I like the full-length, because you can see how it all goes, nothing hidden.

I like the clips too, because you get right to "the good stuff".

Can a guy mark up the video with "the good stuff" (can you add bookmarks to youtube marking the clearance, approaches, etc?).

I enjoyed this video quite a bit, it showed a real-life flight in some complicated airspace.
 
Really enjoyed your video brother. Can't wait to get back in the air and work on my IFR. 2016 will be a better year for me.

Your video is motivation.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Question:
Is it common to get an instruction that deviates from the SID like that? I do realize the SID specifies "or as assigned by ATC", just wondering how common the "or as assigned" part is.
Click to expand...

It's a vectored SID, so there's really no surprise when you start getting turned :) The initial heading it just a starting point.

Perhaps the TRACON called the tower and told them to put me on a 320 heading then send me their way.

Overall, yes, it's common to be vectored on a vectored SID :) It's also common on a pilot nav SID for that matter.
 
SmashTime said:
Really enjoyed your video brother. Can't wait to get back in the air and work on my IFR. 2016 will be a better year for me.

Your video is motivation.
Click to expand...

Happy to hear it. All of it. Get that IR and USE it. Life won't be the same.
 
coma24 said:
It's a vectored SID, so there's really no surprise when you start getting turned :) The initial heading it just a starting point.

Perhaps the TRACON called the tower and told them to put me on a 320 heading then send me their way.

Overall, yes, it's common to be vectored on a vectored SID :) It's also common on a pilot nav SID for that matter.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation, Kirk too... I was ready for the IFR ride and then my engine had a "problem", so I'm just spending the downtime digesting information. It's amazing how much I still have to learn:redface:
 
StevieTimes said:
.....Can a guy mark up the video with "the good stuff" (can you add bookmarks to youtube marking the clearance, approaches......
Click to expand...


Yes, this can be done. I can't give u the step by step right now but it's easy and I like it cause u can quickly jump around a video.
 
In your You Tube notes you put

coma24 said:
Decided to publish the flight portion unedited to show just how rewarding it is to break out after a long stint of IMC.
Click to expand...

Which reminded me of the line "The best part about hitting yourself in the head with a hammer is how good it feels when you stop." :mad2::mad2::mad2: :lol::lol::lol:
 
Excellent posting - thank you.
It did make me wonder about two questions:
1) You were cleared CLOWW to WITNY to HFD, and advised to join V229. Did you add GDM as a waypoint, thus ensuring that you would join V229 prior to WITNY, or did you just fly direct CLOWW to WITNY?
2) More of a general IFR question, but for the KCDW LOC 22 approach, can KOLLI INT be identified by any means other than VOR? For example, if your GPS shows the KOLLI INT waypoint, does that count for the purposes of reducing your minimums, or must it be exclusively identified through VOR 305 from TEB?
 
josh, you're welcome.

1) I was cleared CLOWW, direct WITNY direct HFD, so that's what I planned to fly. GDM was never a factor. It would've been a deviation from the clearance to join V229 prior to WITNY. There is zero ambiguity or wiggle room on this one. CLOWW WITNY HFD V229 is not interchangeable with CLOWW GDM V229. Note: it would also be incorrect to have joined V229 after WITNY, as that would've taken me to DVANY prior to HFD, and my clearance was WITNY direct HFD.

2) Yes, you can use GPS to identify KOLLI, which is what I did in the video. The airplane only has a single VOR receiver (that would be the KX-155, since the GPS is a Garmin 420 GPS/COM, not a 430 GPS/NAV/COM), so it would not be legal to swap from the localizer to the TEB VOR to identify KOLLI since it's inside the FAF.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top