Hard and soft IFR

[CFIse]

Some time ago, somewhere else, I suggested that pilots with an instrument rating could choose to fly only in "soft IFR". That this was perhaps a good idea for people who didn't fly IMC all that often and didn't feel fully proficient - and that an approach to a ceiling of 1,000ft was less risky than an approach to a ceiling of 200 ft.

I got jumped all over - the reasoning being that if you fly IMC eventually you'll end up shooting an approach to minimums no matter what so you'd better be up to snuff. Hence the concept of "soft IFR" was rubbish.

I still think if we can watch the weather and fly and stay VFR then we ought to be able to watch the weather and stay "soft IFR".

Thoughts?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

There's certainly a bit of gradient in the degree of difficulty scales of different types of flight rather than being stark black & white cutoffs except for REGs but, VFR/MVFR/MIFR/IFR, when the PIC says, "Oh S...!" then it's best that the PIC knows what to do to fly out of it when they say "Oh S...!"

Some time ago, somewhere else, I suggested that pilots with an instrument rating could choose to fly only in "soft IFR". That this was perhaps a good idea for people who didn't fly IMC all that often and didn't feel fully proficient - and that an approach to a ceiling of 1,000ft was less risky than an approach to a ceiling of 200 ft.

I got jumped all over - the reasoning being that if you fly IMC eventually you'll end up shooting an approach to minimums no matter what so you'd better be up to snuff. Hence the concept of "soft IFR" was rubbish.

I still think if we can watch the weather and fly and stay VFR then we ought to be able to watch the weather and stay "soft IFR".

Thoughts?

 

[bbchien]

There's certainly a bit of gradient in the degree of difficulty scales of different types of flight rather than being stark black & white cutoffs except for REGs but, VFR/MVFR/MIFR/IFR, when the PIC says, "Oh S...!" then it's best that the PIC knows what to do to fly out of it when they say "Oh S...!"

This depends entirely on how cutting edge the pilot is. For example, Night operations into ASE, Winter, Ice. That has to be planned down to the the executability of the Miss on a single blower in the conditions at hand. 10,800 may not be high enough. Climb gradient out to EGE- or better yet, GJT. Fuel load, etc.

It's left to each of us and it needs to be left that way. I was behind a Lear 35 one bleak night and they missed. "Lear 23J, say intentions!" "Uh.....uh, Aspen approach, standby...." was followed by a lonnnnggg silence in which I asked for and got direct SNX for EGE. They ended up having to follow me in...

Crews that are not prepared face a hard taskmistress. Improper IFR is 90% fatal.

 

[grattonja]

As a fairly newly IR pilot, I am mostly still poking around in "soft" IFR. I practice full approaches, of course, and so far have actually done one. My minimums are fairly high, and do somewhat vary depending on what I am doing. For example, practicing at the local strip where I know the approaches by heart? I will work somewhat lower ceilings. New places with ILS and close by airports with ILS if first doesn't work out? Somewhat higher, but not much. Out in East Overshoe on a non precision approach that I have not flown before? Much higher. IFR at night, in the mountains, circling approach? I think not. Weather? Well. I was in ice with a CFI and will not be doing that again, either alone or with someone. Thunderstorms? No on board weather in the 'hawk I fly and not a lot of experience. I am going to be landing well short and watching a screen on the ground until I know I am good to go.

I personally think it is ok for a pilot to fly only soft IFR. But. They have to be current and proficient to be prepared for things to go south. Fly soft IR but be ready to fly full and hard IR if the un-forecast happens.

My 1/10th of a cup of coffee worth.

Jim G

 

[gismo]

As a fairly newly IR pilot, I am mostly still poking around in "soft" IFR. I practice full approaches, of course, and so far have actually done one. My minimums are fairly high, and do somewhat vary depending on what I am doing. For example, practicing at the local strip where I know the approaches by heart? I will work somewhat lower ceilings. New places with ILS and close by airports with ILS if first doesn't work out? Somewhat higher, but not much. Out in East Overshoe on a non precision approach that I have not flown before? Much higher. IFR at night, in the mountains, circling approach? I think not. Weather? Well. I was in ice with a CFI and will not be doing that again, either alone or with someone. Thunderstorms? No on board weather in the 'hawk I fly and not a lot of experience. I am going to be landing well short and watching a screen on the ground until I know I am good to go.

I personally think it is ok for a pilot to fly only soft IFR. But. They have to be current and proficient to be prepared for things to go south. Fly soft IR but be ready to fly full and hard IR if the un-forecast happens.

My 1/10th of a cup of coffee worth.

Jim G

I think a lot of pilots tend to categorize IFR as "hard/soft" based soley on the ceiling height(s). From my perspective I'd say the real differentiators are things like visibility, terrain, traffic levels, and severe weather issues like TRW, and ice. If you can intercept and fly a foggled ILS to 200 without pegging the needles, you really shouldn't have much trouble doing so whether the ceiling is 2500 or 250 AGL. OTOH that same ILS with 500-1/2 can be a lot tougher and things like ice and thunderstorms add all sorts of complications.

Also IME unless you are flying xc professionally (I don't) you just won't see much low IFR even if you never cancel a proposed flight for low ceilings, so proficiency isn't likely to be way up there even if you practice with a hood regularly.

The one aspect of IR proficiency that bothers me the most is someone who gets the rating with the idea that having the words "Instrument-Airplane" on their certificate will give them an out someday if the weather happens to deteriorate. When that day comes the statistics say those words won't help without continual practice to keep the skills honed.

 

[Ken Ibold]

The one aspect of IR proficiency that bothers me the most is someone who gets the rating with the idea that having the words "Instrument-Airplane" on their certificate will give them an out someday if the weather happens to deteriorate. When that day comes the statistics say those words won't help without continual practice to keep the skills honed.

And the equipment up to snuff, including databases, VOR checks, pitot/static maintenance ...

 

[grattonja]

I think a lot of pilots tend to categorize IFR as "hard/soft" based soley on the ceiling height(s). From my perspective I'd say the real differentiators are things like visibility, terrain, traffic levels, and severe weather issues like TRW, and ice. If you can intercept and fly a foggled ILS to 200 without pegging the needles, you really shouldn't have much trouble doing so whether the ceiling is 2500 or 250 AGL. OTOH that same ILS with 500-1/2 can be a lot tougher and things like ice and thunderstorms add all sorts of complications.

Also IME unless you are flying xc professionally (I don't) you just won't see much low IFR even if you never cancel a proposed flight for low ceilings, so proficiency isn't likely to be way up there even if you practice with a hood regularly.

The one aspect of IR proficiency that bothers me the most is someone who gets the rating with the idea that having the words "Instrument-Airplane" on their certificate will give them an out someday if the weather happens to deteriorate. When that day comes the statistics say those words won't help without continual practice to keep the skills honed.

Your points are well taken. I would rather, even locally, fly down to minimums on an ILS with good visibility under the clouds, than 3 or even 400 feet higher into minimum vis below. I find the visibility much harder than the cloud heights. And I stay away from night actual, actual in the mountains, even the east coast mountains for now, and actual that necessitates circling to land. I will practice all of those that I can with foggles, but in actual? Not yet. And you MUST practice. I absolutely agree with that.

And I also agree that equipment is a big factor. That is one of the reasons that I like the new skyhawks that I rent. Current, new. Digital flip flop radios, times 2. A good GPS with a current database. And I have a subscription for all the charges that I routinely use, and I buy new the ones that I don't routinely use, when I need them.

As to "hard" actual, the local charter pilots tell me the same thing. You don't get nearly as much of it as you would think, even flying professionally.

Jim G

 

[lsimonds]

"Some time ago, somewhere else, I suggested that pilots with an instrument rating could choose to fly only in "soft IFR". That this was perhaps a good idea for people who didn't fly IMC all that often and didn't feel fully proficient - and that an approach to a ceiling of 1,000ft was less risky than an approach to a ceiling of 200 ft.

I got jumped all over - the reasoning being that if you fly IMC eventually you'll end up shooting an approach to minimums no matter what so you'd better be up to snuff. Hence the concept of "soft IFR" was rubbish.

I still think if we can watch the weather and fly and stay VFR then we ought to be able to watch the weather and stay "soft IFR".

Thoughts?"

Interesting anecdote: I was in the FBO one day when this Cessna salesman came in who happened to have been a controller at Minneapolis Center in another life. He told a story about a pilot botching an approach several times until the the controller finally asked the pilot, "Are you instrument rated?" The pilots answered, "Yeah, I'm just not very good at it."

Hey, I think that soft IFR shoe probably fits a lot of GA pilots. Besides all the factors mentioned thus far, I think a biggie is how busy the ATC portion can become for the single-pilot GA driver.

So, I think it's excellent advice to put on the table. The name of the game is risk management.

Lisa

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

......a pilot botching an approach several times......

During my instrument ride my d/e told a story about a recently rated i-student of his who came across some unexpectly very low weather here (we are 90% cavu but get occasional lifr) and attempted the ils about 6-7 times before he finally was able to get in! I can't imagine the relief; or the stress. Not sure the whole situation but my guess is he got too low on fuel to go elsewhere (it is can be over a hundred miles to vfr, or a usable ils when its like that here), somehow bad decisions were made - but the point is can you imagine repeating that same approach, knowing you had screwed up or gone missed on so many before?!

 

[John J]

I think a lot of pilots tend to categorize IFR as "hard/soft" based soley on the ceiling height(s). From my perspective I'd say the real differentiators are things like visibility, terrain, traffic levels, and severe weather issues like TRW, and ice. If you can intercept and fly a foggled ILS to 200 without pegging the needles, you really shouldn't have much trouble doing so whether the ceiling is 2500 or 250 AGL. OTOH that same ILS with 500-1/2 can be a lot tougher and things like ice and thunderstorms add all sorts of complications.

Also IME unless you are flying xc professionally (I don't) you just won't see much low IFR even if you never cancel a proposed flight for low ceilings, so proficiency isn't likely to be way up there even if you practice with a hood regularly.

The one aspect of IR proficiency that bothers me the most is someone who gets the rating with the idea that having the words "Instrument-Airplane" on their certificate will give them an out someday if the weather happens to deteriorate. When that day comes the statistics say those words won't help without continual practice to keep the skills honed.

I could not agree more; Practicing to keep skills honed is so important for all IR pilots. I constantly practice as much as I can, fly partial panel, practice simulated equipment failers and full approaches without the vectors.
Fly to new airports to practice approaches. Also fly without the auto pilot on the approaches. They are nice but someday it may not be there when you are looking for it. Study and learn weather systems. I decided to take meteorology courses while in college for I felt I needed to learn as much as I could about the weather. I still get as much refresher training in that area today. Practicing and learning constantly is what makes it work and it is a great feeling to know your skills and limitations to have a safe and enjoyable flight.

John J

 

[Ed Guthrie]

IFR at night, in the mountains, circling approach? I think not.

Perhaps it is just my personal background (I learned IFR in the Sierras), but I have always had trouble with the thought that somehow mountains make IFR "hard" (or whatever else you want to call it). Just my opinion, but perhaps we delude people by telling them that non-mountain IFR is safer. If a pilot can keep the needles in bounds and accurately follow the procedure then it doesn't matter whether the airport is in the Sierras or the plains of Kansas--nothing bad will happen. OTOH, if the pilot can't keep the needles in bounds and can't accurately follow the procedures--well, bad things may happen no matter where that pilot might go. When the chart reads "Circling north of RWY 25 NA", it really doesn't matter if it's a radio tower in Kansas, or a mountain ridge jutting from the valley floor in Wyoming. Either way, the pilot is dead and the transgression killed, not the location. IOW, if a pilot can't read the chart and circles north of RWY 25 that pilot may eventually die for his/her ineptitudes. The fact that a mountain ridge does the job instead of a radio tower is just trivia detail.

FWIW, YMMV, but if I didn't feel comfortable flying approaches in the mountains I wouldn't fly IFR anywhere.

 

[BruceAir]

You can find some useful resources that are relevant to this discussion at:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/online_courses/single_pilot_ifr/

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa05.pdf

http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfquiz/quizzes.cfm?SA=Quizzes&QuizId=23

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2003/ifr0308.html (requires AOPA membership)

 

[gismo]

Perhaps it is just my personal background (I learned IFR in the Sierras), but I have always had trouble with the thought that somehow mountains make IFR "hard" (or whatever else you want to call it). Just my opinion, but perhaps we delude people by telling them that non-mountain IFR is safer. If a pilot can keep the needles in bounds and accurately follow the procedure then it doesn't matter whether the airport is in the Sierras or the plains of Kansas--nothing bad will happen. OTOH, if the pilot can't keep the needles in bounds and can't accurately follow the procedures--well, bad things may happen no matter where that pilot might go. When the chart reads "Circling north of RWY 25 NA", it really doesn't matter if it's a radio tower in Kansas, or a mountain ridge jutting from the valley floor in Wyoming. Either way, the pilot is dead and the transgression killed, not the location. IOW, if a pilot can't read the chart and circles north of RWY 25 that pilot may eventually die for his/her ineptitudes. The fact that a mountain ridge does the job instead of a radio tower is just trivia detail.

FWIW, YMMV, but if I didn't feel comfortable flying approaches in the mountains I wouldn't fly IFR anywhere.

You're right in that as long as you correctly follow the procedures, the rocks aren't a factor, but typically, mountains limit the options when things don't work out as planned. I also still think the margin for error and/or the chances for serious mishap when a mistake is made is often (but not always) worse in the mountains. There are plenty of flatland airports with nothing to hit for 20 miles above 1000 AGL. One way airports and multi thousand ft MDA's are pretty rare in the flatlands as well.

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

You're right in that as long as you correctly follow the procedures, the rocks aren't a factor, but typically, mountains limit the options when things don't work out as planned. I also still think the margin for error and/or the chances for serious mishap when a mistake is made is often (but not always) worse in the mountains. There are plenty of flatland airports with nothing to hit for 20 miles above 1000 AGL. One way airports and multi thousand ft MDA's are pretty rare in the flatlands as well.

I agree. Something that may shed more light: even in multiengine turbojet airplanes, mountain IFR operations are often avoided. I view the Aspen VOR/DME-C no differently from the cockpit of a Hawker 700 than I do from my little Twin Comanche. This is due to the very limited second segment climb capabilities of nearly all light, medium, and large cabin business jets (some Dassault Falcons - three engines - not included.) Our company SOPs require VFR+ to operate there, and many other mountain airports. Many Pt. 135 operators negotiate 4,000 feet or higher mountain mins with their POIs and insurance companies, and that can be on the low side in many cases.

The equipment is far more capable, the crews demonstrate proficiency on a regular basis and are usually much more current, but that particular corner of general aviation still avoids mountain IFR. That should tell us something.

 

[grattonja]

I see your point Ron. Certainly, I can fly the needles and keep them centered, and fly a procedure properly. And a rock will kill you no more quickly than a powerline. Perhaps it is my circumstances (PP and IR training in central PA, where there is little to hit that is granite infused and the elevations are low), but the whole idea of a missed approach in an environment like ASE makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck. Then again, I am not yet HP signed off, and my little skyhawk can just about handle mountain VFR flying. Forget IFR. I have seen what the Rockies can do to 180 Horsepower performance. IFR ain't happening up there in what I fly.

But my ultimate point was that I will not stir up a mix of circling approach, at night, in actual, in mountains. Too many risk factors added together for this fairly low time, IR dude. Circling approach with decent weather minimums? Sure. Night IR? Not so much unless I know I have a VERY low likelihood of staggering into either a boomer or ice or ground fog.

I like flying IFR. But I also like continuing to breathe. Risk management is what it is all about. At 270 hours, I just don't have the experience to throw combinations like the above together yet. Someday, maybe.

In the meantime, I keep working to make my comfort level with "hard" IFR conditions higher.

Jim G

 

[Ed Guthrie]

You're right in that as long as you correctly follow the procedures, the rocks aren't a factor, but typically, mountains limit the options when things don't work out as planned. I also still think the margin for error and/or the chances for serious mishap when a mistake is made is often (but not always) worse in the mountains. There are plenty of flatland airports with nothing to hit for 20 miles above 1000 AGL. One way airports and multi thousand ft MDA's are pretty rare in the flatlands as well.

Lance, I agree with your comments, but reading your's and Ryan's comments I think you both missed my point (which would unanimously suggest I did a poor job of expressing it). I believe the comments about mountains and hard IFR lull folks into thinking that the flatland airports consistently tolerate a lesser skill level, that one can only get bit out of bounds in the mountains, but the flatlands will always tolerate errors. My point wasn't that the mountains don't bite, nor that the mountains don't bite more often, my point was that the flatlands can bite, too, and we diminish that point with the distinction between mountains and flatlands. I think folks should train and fly to a mountain mentality everywhere. There are approaches in the flatlands where, for example, circling north can kill, too. Since I learned to fly IFR in the Sierras in a C172, from the first planning session I learned to consider aircraft performance factors such as climb gradient and service ceiling, as well as subtle chart notations on every approach & departure. As a result, I don't appy a different thought process when I get to the flatlands, I just find that some factors I always consider are not normally critical when operating in the flatlands. The mentality that only mountains are "hard IFR" creates what I believe is an illusion of false safety in the flatlands. We should plan each approach as if the most minor deviation or the most minor attention lapse will kill--regardless of where we fly. After all, that radio tower is out there, somewhere.

 

[Carol]

.....After all, that radio tower is out there, somewhere.

At KPVG, Hampton Roads Executive, Norfolk, VA. My passenger took this photo on downwind.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

At KPVG, Hampton Roads Executive, Norfolk, VA. My passenger took this photo on downwind.

Carol, thanks for a great example. The chart notation reads "Cat. C and D Circling not authorized NW of Rwys 10 and 20." As a procedure quiz, what warning does this note hold for a Cat A or B aircraft circling NW?

 

[gismo]

Lance, I agree with your comments, but reading your's and Ryan's comments I think you both missed my point (which would unanimously suggest I did a poor job of expressing it). I believe the comments about mountains and hard IFR lull folks into thinking that the flatland airports consistently tolerate a lesser skill level, that one can only get bit out of bounds in the mountains, but the flatlands will always tolerate errors. My point wasn't that the mountains don't bite, nor that the mountains don't bite more often, my point was that the flatlands can bite, too, and we diminish that point with the distinction between mountains and flatlands. I think folks should train and fly to a mountain mentality everywhere. There are approaches in the flatlands where, for example, circling north can kill, too. Since I learned to fly IFR in the Sierras in a C172, from the first planning session I learned to consider aircraft performance factors such as climb gradient and service ceiling, as well as subtle chart notations on every approach & departure. As a result, I don't appy a different thought process when I get to the flatlands, I just find that some factors I always consider are not normally critical when operating in the flatlands. The mentality that only mountains are "hard IFR" creates what I believe is an illusion of false safety in the flatlands. We should plan each approach as if the most minor deviation or the most minor attention lapse will kill--regardless of where we fly. After all, that radio tower is out there, somewhere.

I can certainly agree that there's plenty of stuff to hit in the flatlands, just take a look at the St. Paul airport. Missing or departing to the NW puts you smack into a bunch of buildings that seem to stick up right into the pattern.

http://download.aopa.org/iap/20050609/NC-1/stp_ndb_or_gps_rwy_31.pdf

OTOH, you can miss a 2000 AGL radio antenna purely by luck most of the time, but a 14,000 MSL ridge near a 5000 ft runway will stop almost any airplane that heads in it's direction directly from the airport. I guess I agree that it would be foolish to consider all flatland IFR ops to be very forgiving of poor skills, but in general they tend to be more forgiving than most airports in the mountains. And you and I both know that there are plenty of pilots out in IMC with marginal skills who get away with a lot. AFaIK, while collisions with man made obstructions in IMC do occur, they are pretty rare. Maybe the best advice for someone seeking "easy" or "lite" IFR is to avoid combinations of low vis and stuff to hit above the MDA within 15 miles of the airport.

 

[kath]

Carol, thanks for a great example. The chart notation reads "Cat. C and D Circling not authorized NW of Rwys 10 and 20." As a procedure quiz, what warning does this note hold for a Cat A or B aircraft circling NW?

I don't have the plate for this one... but Cat A and B have closer-in circling distances from the airport, so maybe that big tower is outside a Cat B's radius but inside the Cat C's radius? So the warning for Cat A and B says "Stay inside your circling radius, dimwit!" or something to that effect? Just guessing.

--Kath

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I don't have the plate for this one... but Cat A and B have closer-in circling distances from the airport, so maybe that big tower is outside a Cat B's radius but inside the Cat C's radius? So the warning for Cat A and B says "Stay inside your circling radius, dimwit!" or something to that effect? Just guessing.

--Kath

Good guess. The protected space is 1.3 nm from the runway for Cat. A, 1.5 nm for Cat. B, 1.7 nm for Cat C, 2.3 nm for Cat. D. IOW, don't stray the extra 0.2 nm beyond Cat B distances.

 

[grattonja]

I think the discussion of mountain IFR and how it differs/is or isn't more dangerous than flatland IFR is an interesting one, and not just because my post seems to have started it

I think the thing for me in mountain IFR is the performance of the aircraft. If I get badly off the localizer at LNS, for example, one thing that I know I can always do at the drop of a hat is firewall the throttle and go immediately missed. Even on a day like today (density altitude 2500), I will still get a solid and immediate rate of climb. Probably in excess of 500 fpm at first.

In the planes I fly, IFR in the mountains would be a much more dicey proposition. I am not High Pro signed off yet, so I do not have boatloads of power to load on to go missed somewhere like ASE. For me, the granite around the runway there would put me at serious risk for fatality, whereas I can maybe pull off a botched approach here in flat country and safely climb out missed with an emergency blow. Now, there are no excuses for half-baked IFR flying, and I acknowledge what Bruce says, that poorly executed IFR is 90 percent fatal. I am not suggesting that I would fly a poor approach here and not worry about it. I am, however, suggesting that, if things go badly at high altitude on an approach, you have, with lower performing GA aircraft, less options to get up and away from the pointy stuff around the airport.

It's not so much the granite that I think makes it more dangerous, it's the altitude that I think can lure one into a trap. Then again, I have yet to IFR in the Rockies. So my opinion is based solely on the performance that I have seen in the Rockies in VFR conditions.

Jim G

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

In the planes I fly, IFR in the mountains would be a much more dicey proposition. I am not High Pro signed off yet, so I do not have boatloads of power to load on to go missed somewhere like ASE.

Perhaps you didn't mean to quite phrase it that way, but if you're referring to using a high-performance piston single to fly an actual missed (IMC) at ASE, forget it. That level of capability is such a miniscule gain over your lower horsepower single that you can essentially ignore it. At ASE and other high altitude mountain airports, you'll want to avoid missing in IMC, approaching in IMC, and departing in IMC in everything up to and including most large-cabin business jets.

For me, the granite around the runway there would put me at serious risk for fatality, whereas I can maybe pull off a botched approach here in flat country and safely climb out missed with an emergency blow. Now, there are no excuses for half-baked IFR flying, and I acknowledge what Bruce says, that poorly executed IFR is 90 percent fatal.

I dunno if that's really true. I think back on all of my "improper IFR" and if the odds were really 90% against my survival of those mistakes, I'd be deader'n Fred, no question. But the basic concept is great... make good decisions, execute well, and you'll be fine. Sometimes those two things take place exclusively on the ground. They're a lot more important when you mix in terrain.

 

[bbchien]

Perhaps you didn't mean to quite phrase it that way, but if you're referring to using a high-performance piston single to fly an actual missed (IMC) at ASE, forget it.

When the guy before me misses, I just immediately ask for a turn to SNX (Snow, the IAF for EGE). No brainer.

I dunno if that's really true. I think back on all of my "improper IFR" and if the odds were really 90% against my survival of those mistakes, I'd be deader'n Fred, no question.

I shoulda died about five times as a young pilot...

But the basic concept is great... make good decisions, execute well, and you'll be fine. Sometimes those two things take place exclusively on the ground. They're a lot more important when you mix in terrain.

90% fatal in reported accidents in the NTSB database. I can't put the text up here because Aviation Safety owns it- but I did a ten year search, and it'd make your skin crawl to read the transcripts (March 2004).

 

[Ryan Ferguson]

90% fatal in reported accidents in the NTSB database. I can't put the text up here because Aviation Safety owns it- but I did a ten year search, and it'd make your skin crawl to read the transcripts (March 2004).

Okay, out of actual accidents, that's logical. Good stat. I think we get considerably more leeway than that most of the time, leading to close calls and self-scrutiny. But when it comes to airplanes being bent due to pilot error in IMC, I'm surprised it's not closer to 100%!