Who Flies Real IFR?

gsengle said:
No, I never roll the dice in an airplane. I fly twins to the limits. It has nothing to do with fear or proficiency. It has to do with not being one common failure away from oblivion. Like the guy and his young daughter in that Bo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is fear. Some people just are afraid to admit it. Again that's fine.
 
EdFred said:
It is fear. Some people just are afraid to admit it. Again that's fine.
Click to expand...

If you knew what I did for a living the last couple of years lol... good luck to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
If you knew what I did for a living the last couple of years lol... good luck to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better. Go for it. If you won't climb into a SE airplane, it's a fear. Not a phobia, but a fear.
 
EdFred said:
Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better. Go for it. If you won't climb into a SE airplane, it's a fear. Not a phobia, but a fear.
Click to expand...

So every airline pilot that follows a checklist or an ODP is just afraid, not prudent. You’re hilarious. Good bye


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah I had a gen 3 on my Glasair and it was total crap as well. My gen4 on the Velocity is quite reliable though. Plus I have a back up altitude indicator.

Met a couple of former BMA employees one day since they used to make them in my area. A sad story about a company that had so much promise.
Click to expand...
I flew into Copperhill and went to the BMA shop back when I had mine. At least the newer generation EFIS's seem to be much more reliable.
 
EdFred said:
What happens if it quits when I'm 40 miles from the nearest landout area?
Click to expand...
I’ve never been 40 miles from a landing area. There’s ground all over the place.
“EdFred said:
What happens when it quits when I'm over the middle of lake michigan?
Click to expand...
If I’m over the middle of Lake Michigan, I’ve got another engine.
“EdFred said:
What happens when it quits over a heavily populated area with no wide streets?
Click to expand...
I crash into wind as slowly as possible, under control.
“EdFred said:
IF you're flying aircraft where you're worried the engine is going to quit, maybe you shouldn't be flying that aircraft at all.
Click to expand...
I’m not worried about it...I plan for it and maintain options. Same reason I wear a coat in the wintertime, even though my car and all of the buildings I go to have heat. When my time comes, I’d prefer it not to be due to a single point failure that I could have mitigated.
 
Last edited:
gsengle said:
So every airline pilot that follows a checklist or an ODP is just afraid, not prudent. You’re hilarious. Good bye


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not what I said. Not even close. I believe that would be called a strawman. Whatever you need to to do convince yourself you "won."
 
EdFred said:
What happens if it quits when I'm 40 miles from the nearest landout area? What happens when it quits when I'm over the middle of lake michigan? What happens when it quits over a heavily populated area with no wide streets?

If I wanted to be a giant vajayay I'd just flight sim and sit at home in the safety of my couch. IF you're flying aircraft where you're worried the engine is going to quit, maybe you shouldn't be flying that aircraft at all. I realize there's a crap ton of people scared of their own shadow; I'm not one of them.
Click to expand...

Its not being afraid, it is risk management and risk mitigation. Different people accept different amounts of risk. Some people like base jumping or doing parkour on top of skyscrapers...others don't.
 
gsengle said:
Hope you don’t self admittedly roll the dice with unsuspecting passengers on board...
Click to expand...

Meh, I've flown with Ed, and I'd fly with him again. He's very competent, and did nothing to scare me in the least.

That said, everyone has their own personal limits, and that's fine. I myself won't fly my SE over broad areas of LIFR, as when you pop out of the goo at 50agl, what you see is what you eat. Others, like Ed, may be fine with it, and that'a great.

I ride sporting motorcycles at peg dragging speeds around curvy mountain roads where the runoff is nothing but trees and cliffs. Some might think that to be nuts, but it's perfectly normal to me.
 
To answer the OP's question I have flown a lot of IMC in a Mooney I had. The plane was capable, and I kept current. I accept that the risk was higher than only flying in vmc, but it was how I wanted to use the plane. Having had an engine failure (in vmc) I understand it's something that can happen. The problem was fixed, I learned something important about mags (Have a pro do the recommended 500 hour inspections!) and I kept flying it in IMC. I fly a twin now, but that choice was more about the number of seats I needed than the second engine.
To get more comfortable I strongly recommend filing IFR every flight even on the most perfect vmc days.
 
I appreciate all your replies, I am trying to use ones that apply to me, so a jet or a big twin may not be same.

It seems a lot, like me don't really fly imc. And some of you that do have more sophisticated avionics. I have never even flown a practice GPS approach though I've looked at it. As for minimums, well that's not my main concern, sure i'd like to have it go vmc at 500 or 600 ft, but I can fly the needles of an ILS pretty well. Where I live here the min approach decision height is bout 2000 and 3 I think,dont have the chart in my hand now. I have only flown the approach into here twice solo in real imc, and that was just to go through a layer. You can get dead real quick if you make a mistake going into an airport at 7800 ft in the middle of 14,000 mountains. Im not any more worried about engine failure than I am any other time.

Where I find it difficult it mostly being solo, lets say I have to divert back to Eagle or Rifle, then I have got to fly the plane with one hand while getting the chart and trying to read the new approach on it. I do some practice approaches with a friend and its at leasT half again easier when he is there to help with the chart and I just fly the instruments. And if you are doing a real trip, say going to Texas, then you have to take off, clime and now you are on the enroute chart, then go back onto the approach chart for landing. AND THERE IS AN LOT OF CHANCES TO MAKE A MISTAKE,FLY THE RECIPROCAL OF A HEADING FOR INSTANCE, AND IT CAN BE DEADLY. look at the Eagle approach for instance it is complicated , not just tracking one ils straight in.
PS I used to be pretty good at NDB approaches which most people aren't ,but then they took out many of the ADF stations.
 
Lance, I have heard it from others, but I really don't see much value of filing an ifr flight plan and flying those altitudes and routes when it is good vmc outside. That's just make believe IFR, you are not controlling the plane and certainly not navigating SOLEY on instruments. That's not much difference than flying to Oshkosh in good vmc while using flight following. I don't have any problem talking on the radio.
 
I've read enough accidents with twins losing an engine on takeoff that resulted in a fireball to know that having 2 engines doesn't mitigate the risks of flying GA. It takes one set of risks and replaces them with others. I think I'd rather be in a single that loses an engine < 50ft above the ground than a twin.

I fly as an incidental part of my employment. The instrument rating has resulted in being able to stick to a schedule as well as facilitating a crap ton of VMC flying that I otherwise wouldn't have been able to do as I would've been stuck on the ground with a 500ft thick OVC004 layer. Seriously, I've lost count of the number of trips where this has happened. Yes, it takes a bit of discipline to launch into those conditions, but if you're prepared, there's really not much too it.

As for extended slogs of IMC, they're rare, but I've done them (1, 2, even 2.5hrs straight IMC). Honestly, most of my workload is making sure I'm not flying into any convective activity. If it's a day with a thick stratus deck and light precip everywhere with no convective activity, being in the soup is perfectly pleasant and smooth.

Single pilot, single engine, no AP (effectively) in a platform that was widely considered to be 'too unstable' for IFR. It's nothing of the sort. It's highly versatile with a speed range that lets you power through approaches in considerably less time than most other 4 bangers.

IMC at night and low widespread IMC have an additional risk profile, certainly, so I try to be aware of my outs when I'm in those conditions, but generally speaking, they've been few and far between. Most of the time, my IFR flights which involve IMC involve some exposure to IMC on the departure end, and/or arrival end, and/or during the enroute phase, but it's rarely continuous and rarely involves widespread LIFR where engine out becomes a significant concern.
 
Several mentions here of flying without an (effective/capable) AP. I learned and flew that way for years. Single pilot, I recall all IMC operations to be rather intense, high energy efforts with much of that effort dedicated to chart and panel management while keeping the plane level.

Flying with a capable AP has been a game changer as the years have gone on. I can still muster the energy required to hand fly an approach in IMC without a problem, but I value the less intense moments when the AP can fly the plane, in VMC and IMC, while I stare at my iPad or setup frequencies. The AP significantly reduces the overall workload of any flight, preserving this pilot’s energy for the more intensive portions of the flight.

Hand flying real IFR, single pilot, from TO to Landing at minimums is a skill, but it’s not the best way to do it. The AP is an important tool that makes the flight safer, even if it’s just used to give the pilot a rest during cruise in VMC.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Coma 24, while I don't have a sim at my house, the FBO at Boulder has a good one and I do most of my IPC renewals on it. The high school here has a sim and I may use it this winter. Still,its really more about practice approaches, you don't really fly a whole trip. Thanks
 
Bill Greenwood said:
Lance, I have heard it from others, but I really don't see much value of filing an ifr flight plan and flying those altitudes and routes when it is good vmc outside. That's just make believe IFR, you are not controlling the plane and certainly not navigating SOLEY on instruments. That's not much difference than flying to Oshkosh in good vmc while using flight following. I don't have any problem talking on the radio.
Click to expand...

The difference is you are in the system using the same procedures regardless of the weather-- it's all about practice and gaining consistency and proficiency. I fly all of my X/C's IFR regardless of the weather although I'll typically cancel near the destination airport and complete the arrival VFR if the weather's VMC. If you don't fly a lot of X/C then perhaps maintaining IFR currency and proficiency has limited value. BTW flying a GPS approach requires no more skill than flying an ILS-- the benefit of GPS approaches, if a GPS LPV approach is available, is having ILS-like precision minimums at airports that would never have an ILS. This gives you options that you wouldn't have otherwise. YMMV....
 
coma24 said:
I've read enough accidents with twins losing an engine on takeoff that resulted in a fireball to know that having 2 engines doesn't mitigate the risks of flying GA. It takes one set of risks and replaces them with others. I think I'd rather be in a single that loses an engine < 50ft above the ground than a twin.
Click to expand...
You’re right...a second engine doesn’t mitigate risks. A second engine with appropriate training, proficiency, and planning, however, can.

Nor is a single engine necessarily more safe than a twin when an engine failure occurs, especially at low altitude. There are plenty of examples of stall/spin fatalities in singles in that regime.
 
Bill Greenwood said:
How many pilots fly single pilot, single engine in actual IMC conditions? I'm not asking about flying around in vcm weather and on an ifr flight plan and the only thing ifr about it is talking to control.

I have not flown much real imc, probably less than 25 hours. Much of it is because I live in the mountains, so its a life and death matter, not so much as if I was in Florida, and also our weather is usually good, but can be awful and what you'd call hard ifr. And much of my flying has been in planes not really designed for imc.

So, if you really get ready to go to Osh or somewhere and its 600 ft overcast for 500 miles around, do you go anyway?

I'd like to hear where you are and what plane and avionics you use. I don't have GPS, am familiar with vor, ils, equiptment but have never done a GPS approach.

Thanks for any help.
Click to expand...

I got my instrument rating in New Mexico, so I didn't have much IMC experience. I've been in the midwest now for some years, and have had plenty of IMC. To be honest, I prefer IMC because it is more relaxing than flying on a clear day.

The concern of engine failure is legitimate, but I feel it is often exaggerated. If you fly VFR at night, or over big cities, or in the mountains, then you are exposed to the same risk. Once I departed from Chicago Midway at night, and realized how unforgiving it was compared to some of the crazy mountain airports I have flown into in the past. If you have an engine failure you will be landing in a sea of concrete and glass, which is worse than trees and rocks.
 
lTodd, I definitely fly cross country, I've been to Oshkosh every year for 39 years, but most of those years I was in a plane not best for IMC, and I have mostly been able to find good weather then anyway. I have had more delays going to SUN N Fun.
As for being what you call in the system. really that's just having someone else tell you what route and what alt to fly. I much prefer to enjoy the trip without them yapping in my ear.
Did you know you can be a great boxer, heavyweight champion of the world, ( simulated)? Just hop up in the ring and bounce around on your toes and throw a lot of punches. You'll win every match, just as long as its only you in the ring. Now if Joe Frazier comes in the ring with you, it ain't gonna be the same.
So, I am a great ifr pilot long as its clear and vis 10 or greater. I know right where the airport is and don't get confused. And I can talk on the radio and sound confident. But it aint ifr flying. It's not in a cloud or with icing. Its just make believe ifr. Lot's of fatal accidents on ifr approaches for real, but not many when it is a practice approach under the hood in vmc weather.
Heard an accident analysis at EAA of ifr fatal accidents and a number were pilots who were used to flying on autopilot and for one reason or another the autopilot would not fly the approach and they could not hand fly it. They had been "in the system" but really could not fly it imc.
 
Operating in lots of Class-B environments, with my two primary airports underneath B-shelves, I almost always file IFR even in VMC, as it simplifies airspace for me.

Not worried about busting Class-B? That's got value-add for me.
 
Bill Greenwood said:
lTodd, I definitely fly cross country, I've been to Oshkosh every year for 39 years, but most of those years I was in a plane not best for IMC, and I have mostly been able to find good weather then anyway. I have had more delays going to SUN N Fun.
As for being what you call in the system. really that's just having someone else tell you what route and what alt to fly. I much prefer to enjoy the trip without them yapping in my ear.
Did you know you can be a great boxer, heavyweight champion of the world, ( simulated)? Just hop up in the ring and bounce around on your toes and throw a lot of punches. You'll win every match, just as long as its only you in the ring. Now if Joe Frazier comes in the ring with you, it ain't gonna be the same.
So, I am a great ifr pilot long as its clear and vis 10 or greater. I know right where the airport is and don't get confused. And I can talk on the radio and sound confident. But it aint ifr flying. It's not in a cloud or with icing. Its just make believe ifr. Lot's of fatal accidents on ifr approaches for real, but not many when it is a practice approach under the hood in vmc weather.
Heard an accident analysis at EAA of ifr fatal accidents and a number were pilots who were used to flying on autopilot and for one reason or another the autopilot would not fly the approach and they could not hand fly it. They had been "in the system" but really could not fly it imc.
Click to expand...

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't look at flying IFR the same way you do so trying to convince you otherwise is going to be a waste of time. Quite frankly, based upon your post above I'm not sure why you even bothered starting this thread to begin with. If you don't like IFR then don't file and stick to what works for you.
 
I've only had my IFR for a couple of months but I fully plan on using our Arrow with a 6 pack and dual VOR's to fly IMC. As we now have to worry about ice, I'm not getting much practice. When I can, I'm keeping my personal minimum on the high side but hope to get them lower as I gain experience.
 
Todd, by the way some of the actual ifr in actual imc was when I was in Florida both first at Flightsafety and later on vacation.
 
I spend 99% of my time over heavily forested areas, or unforgiving mountains. It wouldn't matter if the engine died on a severe clear vfr day, or in solid clouds ifr. Actually ifr is better because I will die not seeing anything, vfr i die having to watch it coming.
Occasionally I could glide to a lake and crash into it...if i survived the crash I might be able to walk out in a couple of months lol.
Basically I take care of my planes, so engine failure is extremely unlikely! I've owned 7 planes, never had to dead stick any of them except for practice with an instructor. I did have a single mag failure once, still flew home safely on the other mag. Most powered planes that become gliders are because of the idiot flying it running out of fuel. I tend to be that guy who always makes sure that I have plenty left when I land, so not a concern for me.
 
tsts4 said:
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't look at flying IFR the same way you do so trying to convince you otherwise is going to be a waste of time. Quite frankly, based upon your post above I'm not sure why you even bothered starting this thread to begin with. If you don't like IFR then don't file and stick to what works for you.
Click to expand...
Yes it seems the OP is leaning towards leaving the IFR stuff behind perhaps because of a lack of utility. That’s cool but I’m personally glad for the post. It’s a good thread.

Though I fly 100% for personal pleasure, that pleasure now lies in transportation. Transportation mainly up and down the east coast and the out islands of the Bahamas. Flying in the system maximizes that pleasure and has for some time. For me, it’s been a lifelong progression from RC to glider racing to tail dragging to IFR to dedicated transportation of my wife and me.

Here’s an admission many may find odd (helmet on): I find VFR cross country a bit disconcerting and downright challenging in denser areas such as the NYC area, DC and FL. I find ATC a helpful partner and best to team with when flying fully within the system.

There’s a certain irony in that I am writing this from an Atlanta hotel room having been bumped from the first commercial flight taken in more than a year! The irony lies in the fact that this hasn’t happened to me in quite some time flying the ‘10 around. Unplanned 1 and 2 day layovers used to happen occasionally even though I was willing to take on more wx challenges than I am now. It seems that I’ve learned how not to get stuck due to wx. If and when I might get stuck, I make sure it’s somewhere I would enjoy spending an extra day or two.

There’s more to using a plane for personal transport than IFR and personal minimums... retiree flexibility perhaps?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
I fly my Cherokee 180 IFR all the time.. just recently flew back from Hilton Head to Indiana and didn't see the ground until I was back home!
 
MauleSkinner said:
You’re right...a second engine doesn’t mitigate risks. A second engine with appropriate training, proficiency, and planning, however, can.

Nor is a single engine necessarily more safe than a twin when an engine failure occurs, especially at low altitude. There are plenty of examples of stall/spin fatalities in singles in that regime.
Click to expand...

If the engine quits shortly after takeoff in a single, you fly straight and set it down. Many runways are more than long enough to allow you to come to a stop. On those that aren't, you may hurt the plane, but you won't die.

This King Air (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Wichita_King_Air_crash) was operated by a guy with > 2800hrs of multi time. It appears that the auto-feather system didn't kick in (or wasn't armed, despite him saying it as part of the pre-takeoff), and he didn't feather the failed engine. So, now he's dead. If this happened in a PC-12, it's very likely he'd still be here.

If a guy with 2800 hours of multi-time flying a King Air didn't perform perfectly, I'm guessing there are other cases with less qualified pilots where something similar has happened.

Yes, twins CAN be safer if flown perfectly. My argument is that the moment after takeoff is a very unforgiving regime. In some cases, the aircraft being single might effectively save your life over it being a twin.
 
I fly a big fancy jet for work, and have no issues taking that to mins. But for now my personal mins in the Bonanza are 1000-3. Yeah that is pretty much VFR, but I'm going to stick to that until I am 100% comfortable with flying the airplane single pilot IFR. I am worried about a complete vacuum system failure as much as I am worried about an engine failure.
 
Groundpounder said:
I am worried about a complete vacuum system failure as much as I am worried about an engine failure.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that. With the family onboard in IMC no less. Fortunately not too long after my IR training; maybe six months. So, flying partial panel was something I did a fair amount before that.

It got my heart rate up, but with two independent GPS systems and an electric turn coordinator and it was not a big deal. Picked an airport reporting good weather and landed there. We got lunch to wait for the weather to improve and flew the rest of the way home in VMC.

I would imagine in the pre-GPS / pre-XM/ADS-B weather days that would have been even scarier. But with both GPS and XM weather data it made it a lot easier to deal with.
 
coma24 said:
If the engine quits shortly after takeoff in a single, you fly straight and set it down. Many runways are more than long enough to allow you to come to a stop. On those that aren't, you may hurt the plane, but you won't die.
Click to expand...
No, you don’t fly straight, you aggressively lower the nose...the pilot still has to act.

“coma24” said:
This King Air (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Wichita_King_Air_crash) was operated by a guy with > 2800hrs of multi time. It appears that the auto-feather system didn't kick in (or wasn't armed, despite him saying it as part of the pre-takeoff), and he didn't feather the failed engine. So, now he's dead. If this happened in a PC-12, it's very likely he'd still be here.

If a guy with 2800 hours of multi-time flying a King Air didn't perform perfectly, I'm guessing there are other cases with less qualified pilots where something similar has happened.

Yes, twins CAN be safer if flown perfectly. My argument is that the moment after takeoff is a very unforgiving regime. In some cases, the aircraft being single might effectively save your life over it being a twin.
Click to expand...
We can come up with all the fatal examples we want to for either single or multiengine airplanes having an engine failure on takeoff. We’re going to be hard-pressed to find examples of successful recoveries either way, because they’re not required to be reported. I’ve had engine failures at 50-75 feet in both a single and multiengine airplane. Both required me to actively fly the airplane for a successful outcome. Both would have resulted in a crash if I hadn’t.

Bottom line is, as I said in my previous post, the number of engines doesn’t determine safety. The training, proficiency, and planning of the pilot is what will make the difference.
 
Speaking for my wife (who has the instrument rating and the valid medical in our family) we often fly in actual IMC. Of course, she doesn't do that alone. I am always in the right seat helping with the radios, GPS and reading approach charts (purely as a helper though, she still reads them herself). We fly a lot of cross country trips and I really do mean "cross country" as in Florida to Alaska or Seattle or Maine or Canada. If we didn't fly in actual IMC, most of those trips would be impossible.

We don't fly in strong gusty winds, high turbulence or icing. And we don't fly if lightning or towering cumulus (or cumulonimbus) is present. We have taken off (once) in zero-zero conditions, but we won't take off if the destination ceiling is reported below Decision Altitude although even that isn't a hard rule because often the reports are wrong. But we make sure to have plenty of fuel and more than one viable alternate.

But yes, we fly in quite a bit of actual IMC. If we die, we die together and somebody else has to clean up the mess.
 
I'm trying to have this topic about real ifr flying. The question of whether a twin on one engine is safer than a single is another topic, though might be interesting.
 
Groundpounder said:
I fly a big fancy jet for work, and have no issues taking that to mins. But for now my personal mins in the Bonanza are 1000-3. Yeah that is pretty much VFR, but I'm going to stick to that until I am 100% comfortable with flying the airplane single pilot IFR. I am worried about a complete vacuum system failure as much as I am worried about an engine failure.
Click to expand...

Yes, the vacuum failure thing is a real risk that happens. Same with pneumatic gyro instruments. When I had the chance to design and build my own, I kept it all electric (w/mags) and the did a dual bus, dual alternator, dual battery electrical system. I’m electrically dependent but robust.

It works well so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, you don’t fly straight, you aggressively lower the nose...the pilot still has to act.
.
Click to expand...
Whenever I see ‘aggressively lower the nose’ it gives me pause. You’ve obviously been there and done that mote than once so no argument. But when I’ve simulated such an incident I found that it wasn’t all that aggressive in a single.

The optimal pushover needs to start immediately but is rather gentle. That’s consistent with the plane already being trimmed for roughly the right speed. IOTW, it’s easy to be too aggressive if you are already primed to push rather than pull, no?

I guess that zero G is optimal but that is easy to overdo.

Having crashed a dozen or more RC aircraft after engine failures on takeoff, I’m primed but in full scale aircraft I find it easy to overdo it.

What’s your thinking?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Groundpounder said:
I fly a big fancy jet for work, and have no issues taking that to mins. But for now my personal mins in the Bonanza are 1000-3. Yeah that is pretty much VFR, but I'm going to stick to that until I am 100% comfortable with flying the airplane single pilot IFR. I am worried about a complete vacuum system failure as much as I am worried about an engine failure.
Click to expand...

My mins are +500 feet on the published and 1 mile vis in actual. Just prudent for where I'm at. Technically advanced aircraft, no vacuum pumps, lots of redundancy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top