L-O-N-G IFR XC

somorris said:
Thanks for posting that, Ron. 5.1 hours in a C-150 is a good while, especially flying in IMC. I usually don't fly our C-150 in IMC because I figure the ATC guys would tire of dealing with me before I got across their sector! What nav/comm radios did the guy have in his 150?
Click to expand...

I do it all the time. They don't mind a bit. I have an IFR 152 based at a busy class C airport. In fact I think the controllers are pleasantly surprised.

/U, Dual Nav/Com radios, one with glideslope.

Don't do anything silly like fly the ILS at 70kts...

My cruise speed is 95 and its 90 down the chute
 
Last edited:
GCA319 said:
I once logged 7.3 in a 150 in one day. I basically had to be carried out of the airplane when I landed at my destination. My long IFR X-C during IR training was 4.something, but that was in a luxurious 172 :D.
Click to expand...

Back in the day I did 6.2 in a 152 for my long solo xcntry. Didn't we have to do 300NM solo xcntry back in the day, not 150?
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
Its 250NM now.

Here was mine
http://myflightbook.com/Logbook/Public/ViewPublicFlight.aspx?id=173815
Click to expand...
BrianNC said:
Ah. For some reason I though it was 150NM.

Mine was from 9a7 (closed down now, just south of Atlanta) to Eufala AL, to Panama City Fl, to Albany GA back to 9a7. That was actually a little over 400NM.
Click to expand...

I think you are referring to the instrument xcntry. I was referring to private.

"One solo cross-country flight of at least 150 nautical miles total distance..."
 
BrianNC said:
I think you are referring to the instrument xcntry.
Click to expand...
Yes, we were. And you have to go a lot more than 250nm for the IFR XC, because that 250nm doesn't including things like procedure turns and holding patterns which will be part of that flight.
 
Ron Levy said:
Nice work on the research. Looks like the Navy lost 2434 officers in training/ferry flights but only 1425 in air combat, and there weren't many non-pilot officer aircrew in the Navy back then. Seems to be the same experience as the Air Force told us the Army Air Corps experienced.
Click to expand...
It's not clear to me how the deaths of the 38 WASPS would be counted in that. They weren't considered military, were they?
http://wwii-women-pilots.org/WASP_KIA/38KIA.html
http://wwii-women-pilots.org/WASP_KIA/38KIA2.html

Statistically, though, that doesn't change the contention that the majority of deaths didn't occur in combat. In fact, it strengthens it.
 
And I still contend that combat flying causes pilots to do things that result in accidents totally unrelated to "normal" life. These are not necessarily "training" accidents as somewhat implied. These are just as likely to be life and death attempts to accomplish extraordinary things under extremely difficult conditions. Maybe not hostile fire, but very hostile environments and very difficult missions. Flying visually in IMC, flying in uncharted areas, landing and taking off from extremely difficult areas. Read what Hoover did to get his DFC. Could have easily resulted in an "accident." Attempting to save an aircraft when you knew it was desperately needed is just one example.

I totally reject the implication that the "not hostile fire" losses were primarily the result of inadequate or improper training. There is also the marginal stuff that happens. Target fixation under fire, for example. My first rescue experience was an F105 driver that exceeded his gun firing limitation and it exploded and went in the engine. He was under fire dueling with an AA gun near Hanoi. He was never hit, pulled up, didn't have enough power left to maintain altitude and had to eject. Accident? Really?
 
Ron Levy said:
You need to look harder.
Click to expand...

You were in the Navy, You must know a very high percentage of flights are other than combat, they include ferry flights logistics flights and training is only one of these non combat type of flying.

Every time you and your pilot grabbed a A6 and went home for the weekend was logged as training, and that has been going on as long as I have been associated with the navy.

When you actually separate the actual training time with an instructor aboard, that segment will be a very small portion of the accidents in the military.

But when you lump them all together and call it training is not a true picture of what really happens.

The naval air station Andrews AFB has been in existence since 1962 they fly proficiency pilot out of the Pentagon, they log thousands of hours and their accident record is very low, the VAW and VAQ squadrons transition pilots into their type of aircraft, (E2 and EA6B/ AE-18-G) their safety record is excellent.

When you group all non combat aviation accidents into one group, you slant the numbers into looking like all the accidents had an instructor in the aircraft. (training)

the front page of the reference shows the proper perspective aviation combat deaths are slightly higher than all the other aviation deaths put together.

You place an instructor in the aircraft, accidents do not happen in real training, you allow a 19-20 year old kid to take the aircraft on a cross country bond drive the accidents will occur, and that is all logged as training, when in fact it is really building solo time.

Want to see a high accident rate? sort out the FCLP and carrier qualification during the 40s on the old straight wooden decks carriers. If you are using those numbers to skew the rate you may have a point. but those numbers will effect the combat rate also.
 
BrianNC said:
Back in the day I did 6.2 in a 152 for my long solo xcntry. Didn't we have to do 300NM solo xcntry back in the day, not 150?
Click to expand...
Back in the day we had to do a 3-legged cross-country with each leg being at least 100 miles. That means the whole thing was at least 300 miles. In California, where I did it, the middle leg was much longer because the geography of California has the Sierras on one side and the ocean on the other.
 
I do it all the time. They don't mind a bit. I have an IFR 152 based at a busy class C airport. In fact I think the controllers are pleasantly surprised.

/U, Dual Nav/Com radios, one with glideslope.
Click to expand...

Thank you. People like you are an inspiration for us C-150/152 flyers. It can be done!
 
Everskyward said:
Back in the day we had to do a 3-legged cross-country with each leg being at least 100 miles. That means the whole thing was at least 300 miles. In California, where I did it, the middle leg was much longer because the geography of California has the Sierras on one side and the ocean on the other.
Click to expand...

I thought it was 300NM. Now it's half that.
 
Ron Levy said:
...and half the solo time, and half the solo XC time. Personally, I don't think any of those are good things in the long run.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize all that. Haven't looked at the requirement in years. I guess if the long solo xcntry is half of what it was that would mean half the time too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top