- Joined
- Aug 18, 2017
- Messages
- 2,537
- Display Name
Display name:
Hang 4
So much wrong here. Honestly, I'd get a new friend/advisor, whatever role this guy has in your life.
Newly minted IFR pilot
- Thread starter ahmad
- Start date
sarangan
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,904
- Display Name
Display name:
Andrew, CFI-I
I am curious to know what airplane he flies.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 19,562
- Location
- Oakland, CA
- Display Name
Display name:
Bro do you even lift
I mean yeah, redundant AI's, obviously, and also yeah, don't fly into icing. he's a real smart feller.
midwestpa24
Final Approach
Obviously one with more than one engine, more than one AI, and probably always more than one pilot. This guy is kind of proving my point.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 6,524
- Display Name
Display name:
3G
Boundaries are what concerns me; however well intentioned he is, he’s continued to jump to a lot of conclusions.
For example, flight into known icing is prohibited in any model 172; as an instrument rated aviator, this means you honor the limitations of the aircraft and not fly into known or forecast icing conditions. That he addressed it with you indicates he either doesn’t trust your judgement as an appropriately rated aviator.
I would kindly thank the man for his input and politely let him know the subject is off-limits going forward.
One of the really important differences between his type of flying and most GA flying is that most of the latter has far less dispatch reliability expectations, if any. That drastically reduces the need for the level of redundancy that your airline-pilot friend has gotten used to, because you can always wait for better conditions. Of course, managing passenger expectations is very important for GA pilots.
It's also important to remember that the airlines have a much better safety record than GA flying. I find that that realization helps motivate me to avoid unnecessary risks.
It's also important to remember that the airlines have a much better safety record than GA flying. I find that that realization helps motivate me to avoid unnecessary risks.
I wouldn't fly actual IMC with only one vacuum gyro AI. But, there's also a turn coordinator. I'd get above a thin layer with the prior mentioned.
I'm comfortable flying IMC in my plane, but it has 3 electric AI's all with backup batteries, AND a turn coordinator. I also stay WAY away from icing, but I live in Florida, so I can do that....
If the engine fails, well that's a problem. I do avoid low IFR along the route as much as possible to mitigate that issue.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Having 3 AIs doesn’t guarantee anything, either…
Accident Canadair CL-600-2B19 Regional Jet CRJ-200PF SE-DUX, Friday 8 January 2016
A Canadair CRJ-200 cargo plane of West Air Sweden was destroyed when it impacted remote terrain near Akkajaure, Sweden. Both pilots were killed. The aircraft departed Oslo-Gardermoen Airp...
aviation-safety.net
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2019
- Messages
- 1,933
- Location
- Chicago suburbs
- Display Name
Display name:
The Little Arrow That Could
I'd have politely asked the captain/FO which multi-engine, dual-AI equipped, GFC700 outfitted, FIKI aircraft he got his instrument rating in to begin with. Follow up and ask if he logged all his actual IMC in the uber-safe 737 he's flying now? Must be nice!
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Curious… are the three AI’s all on independent batteries? If so, that’s a nice set up for a GA plane.
Yep
These days externally attached and internal battery backup in small electrical AI's is commonplace. I have a Garmin G5 and Dynon D3 to backup my primary EFIS. Both backups have their own battery backup power.
RussR
En-Route
It's interesting to me how different pilots assess risk differently depending on their background.
At work, the pilots I fly with have a wide variety of backgrounds. Some, like me, came up through GA with a lot of time in SE pistons, then twins, then in to the turbines. Some come from the airlines, with the usual GA-training background, but no "real" GA flying. Some come from the military, and while some of those have extensive GA backgrounds too, some have virtually zero GA background.
For instance, one pilot I fly with always comments on how many different models of airplane I have flown (something like 60). I figure that's just pretty normal for a long-time CFI working in owner's airplanes. But his experience amounts to a grand total of 5 different models, and the only piston time he has is the 10 hours in a Seminole so he could get his ATP. The rest is in turbines (I think his military time went T-6, T-1, then AWACS).
Some of these guys don't even have a single-engine rating on their pilot certificate. But all of us are multi-thousand hour, experienced professional pilots.
All this to say, that our risk acceptance is largely dependent on our background. I've flown single-pilot IFR with round gauges and no autopilot for years. Not fun but doable. But you can imagine if a pilot has only ever flown in well-equipped turbine aircraft with all kinds of backup systems, AND a "backup pilot", they would understandably be very concerned about flying IFR in a minimally-equipped single engine airplane by themselves. It IS much riskier than what they're used to, and accepting that level of risk takes time and experience in that environment.
But we see this in ourselves too. The first time you fly IFR with an autopilot, you think it's the greatest thing ever. You probably say something like "man, I'm never flying IFR without an autopilot again!" You probably don't really mean it, but then after a few years of IFR autopilot use, you get used to it, and eventually it resets your risk tolerance. Then the autopilot breaks, and maybe you no longer feel comfortable enough to decide to depart IFR. It isn't even really a matter of the hand-flying skills necessarily, it's simply that your risk tolerance has changed.
People who have never parachuted probably think it's way too risky. But to some who BASE jumps, normal skydiving probably seems pretty ho-hum.
So while I still think the OP's acquaintance is sounding like a pompous jerk, I can see where he's coming from. HE doesn't feel comfortable, and therefore scoffs at anybody else who DOES feel comfortable.
At work, the pilots I fly with have a wide variety of backgrounds. Some, like me, came up through GA with a lot of time in SE pistons, then twins, then in to the turbines. Some come from the airlines, with the usual GA-training background, but no "real" GA flying. Some come from the military, and while some of those have extensive GA backgrounds too, some have virtually zero GA background.
For instance, one pilot I fly with always comments on how many different models of airplane I have flown (something like 60). I figure that's just pretty normal for a long-time CFI working in owner's airplanes. But his experience amounts to a grand total of 5 different models, and the only piston time he has is the 10 hours in a Seminole so he could get his ATP. The rest is in turbines (I think his military time went T-6, T-1, then AWACS).
Some of these guys don't even have a single-engine rating on their pilot certificate. But all of us are multi-thousand hour, experienced professional pilots.
All this to say, that our risk acceptance is largely dependent on our background. I've flown single-pilot IFR with round gauges and no autopilot for years. Not fun but doable. But you can imagine if a pilot has only ever flown in well-equipped turbine aircraft with all kinds of backup systems, AND a "backup pilot", they would understandably be very concerned about flying IFR in a minimally-equipped single engine airplane by themselves. It IS much riskier than what they're used to, and accepting that level of risk takes time and experience in that environment.
But we see this in ourselves too. The first time you fly IFR with an autopilot, you think it's the greatest thing ever. You probably say something like "man, I'm never flying IFR without an autopilot again!" You probably don't really mean it, but then after a few years of IFR autopilot use, you get used to it, and eventually it resets your risk tolerance. Then the autopilot breaks, and maybe you no longer feel comfortable enough to decide to depart IFR. It isn't even really a matter of the hand-flying skills necessarily, it's simply that your risk tolerance has changed.
People who have never parachuted probably think it's way too risky. But to some who BASE jumps, normal skydiving probably seems pretty ho-hum.
So while I still think the OP's acquaintance is sounding like a pompous jerk, I can see where he's coming from. HE doesn't feel comfortable, and therefore scoffs at anybody else who DOES feel comfortable.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,963
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
I was with you right up to the point where you apparently think it's ok that he " scoffs at anybody else who DOES..." We can understand why he would be uncomfortable, but he doesn't have justification to dismiss others that are.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Unfortunately his risk tolerance appears to be based in ignorance more than anything else, and he is scoffing at someone (anyone) who doesn’t 100% share his view of risk tolerance.
RussR
En-Route
I'm not sure where you got that I thought it was okay that he scoffs.
At the outset of this saga, did you ask him for his opinion?
Mongoose Aviator
Line Up and Wait
I had one helpful feller go on an rant at me about how nobody should be flying piston engines and only turbines should be allowed.
At a certain point, I just ignore the idiots.
At a certain point, I just ignore the idiots.
ateamer
Pattern Altitude
I was going to take a relative flying in a 172. He owned and flew a PC-12, and was taken aback as I told him we’d be between 800 and 1500 AGL, and keeping speed around 75 knots for better sightseeing along the coast. He reallyreally did not like that. He said that 100% of his flying is on an IFR clearance and the only time he’s that low is on takeoff and landing. On the other hand, 80-90% of my flying was down there at that speed, done weekly or more often, and I knew the terrain and safe landing areas like the back of my hand. But if I’d stepped into his world back then, it probably would’ve generated an NTSB incident number.
(We wound up not flying. The previous renter had the plane back two hours late following a leisurely lunch; he hadn’t bothered to check the schedule when he checked the plane out and the desk clerk didn’t bother to tell him. Shortly afterward I bought into a partnership and vowed to never again descend into rental hell.)
(We wound up not flying. The previous renter had the plane back two hours late following a leisurely lunch; he hadn’t bothered to check the schedule when he checked the plane out and the desk clerk didn’t bother to tell him. Shortly afterward I bought into a partnership and vowed to never again descend into rental hell.)
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 877
- Display Name
Display name:
JM
I think it was very wise of you to consider this person’s opinion and seek other wise counsel. Maybe in the end you decide to keep flying ifr ( I would ) but you show a lot of character to listen, evaluate and reflect on their opinion.
It probably reflects on the good ADM you employ while flying ( or driving instead because conditions ) .
Joepilotmsp
Pre-takeoff checklist
i thought I was the only one!
Nope. When I got my instrument rating, my instructor had me on partial panel so much of the time that for years afterwards I barely looked at the AI. later, when I went for my multi rating, I had to train myself to treat the AI as primary again, in order to have any hope of succeeding at one-engine-out approaches under the hood!
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Same, except I went through turboprops and got into jets before I learned to use an AI.
Pinecone
En-Route
He trained some in single engine. Either T-34C or T-6A. And if old enough, he may have flown the T-28C a bit.
USAF pilots either have their Private when the start or went through some screening flying in a T-41A (early C-172) or DA-20. Then, for a while, they fly the T-6A.
His FAA Certificate may have been Multi Only because he was not SE current when he got his Commercial based on his military flying.
But anyway, all my military flying was in aircraft with a single nav (TACAN) and no autopilot. And a lot with only a single seat.