Risk vs Experience?

Rykymus

Rykymus

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
647
Location
Allen, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Rykymus
I"m a 450 hr PPL PIC and I just got my instrument rating. I had very little actual IMC during my training. (About 0.5 hrs total) Since getting my rating 10 days ago, the only IMC I've had was taking off in the fog (1/2sm & 200 ft VV) and breaking out at 800 ft.

Here's the thing. I feel like I need to get some IMC experience under my belt soon, while the training is still fresh in my mind, and I fear that not doing so has the potential to put me at greater risk later, if and when I actually do get into IMC. On the other hand, going into IMC strictly for the purpose of training feels like taking unnecessary risk now, in the hopes of minimizing the risk later.

We have weather going through the area at the moment. Mild rain with ceilings between 2,000 to 5,000 across the valley, with freezing levels at 7,000. Winds are fairly calm, ranging between 5-10 kts down low and twice that up high. We also get fairly regular fog in the mornings that generally burns off by around 1000. I've tried coordinating flights with my instructors when there are IMC conditions nearby, but it never seems to work out.

At this point, I'm contemplating going up on my own and shooting approaches in IMC. Tomorrow the forecast is for 500-900 ft ceilings at my home airport (KSCK) at 0700, rising up to 1,000 to 1,900 by 1000, and 3,000 by 1300. Similar conditions will exist nearby, although my training airport (KTCY which is 15 mins away) will likely be above the fog. (It usually is.) Considering that the winds will be mild, and better conditions will be available at several airports within 30 mins flying time, I feel like the risk is minimal, and that the reward of getting some experience will be worth it. However, it is risk simply for the sake of experience.

What say you all? Go out and get the experience while the IMC is soft? Or avoid the risk altogether and wait until I get lucky and manage to coordinate some CFII time in IMC?
 
Why not get a safety pilot and put on a pair of foggles?
Some will do practice approaches in actual; good for them. I prefer to avoid it as an unnecessary risk. I also believe you will likely get more benefit out of flying with another pilot with a fair amount of experience flying actual IFR cross country, even if that pilot isn't commercial rated.
 
There is a world of difference between actual IFR (especially during departure and arrival) and flying with foggles (simulated IMC) and IMO the latter is insufficient for gaining and maintaining competency. The experience difference includes among other things:

1) Making the decision to miss at minimums.
2) Transitioning to/from the gauges from/to the view outside in low visibility.
3) Dealing with weather (rain, snow, fog, ice) commonly associated with actual IMC.
4) Stress levels.
5) Real world ATC in unfamiliar areas.
6) Other distractions.

Flying with a view limiting device works well for teaching the mechanics of instrument flying (scan, procedures, etc) but fails miserably WRT preparing a pilot for the "real thing". A common methodology for dealing with this (often called "personal minimums") is to limit your initial actual IFR flying to relatively benign conditions (e.g. MVFR or better at departure and destination airports as well as along the route) and gradually push further into less favorable weather. This has some disadvantages. One is that such conditions can be difficult to find, it's more likely the weather will be significantly better or worse than MVFR over at least part of the route. Another is that a typical inexperienced IFR pilot isn't likely to gain much in terms of "low IMC" competency flying approaches in MVFR conditions that they didn't already get with foggles.

Practicing in a decent (non-motion is fine) simulator with a good visual display is a better way to make the transition from "Instrument Rated" to IMC competent as it can (with a good instructor/sim operator) add most of the "real world" difficulties I listed above. Unfortunately this can involve a significant expense, especially if nothing like that is avaialbe locally. An even better (and often less expensive) option is to make flights in challenging weather, mitigating most of the risk by bringing a competent CFII along for the ride. Of course if you can do this on trips where the CFI can participate in your destination activities or has a personal interest in making.

In a perfect world, a significant amount of actual IMC flying would be required as part of the pre-requisites for taking the checkride but there's just no practical way to make that work.
 
I thought about doing more hood time, but I've accumulated about 80 hrs of hood time in the last 4 months already. I feel like I need IMC time. I did get lucky, however. One of my instructors (the one with considerable IMC experience) had a cancellation tomorrow morning. I will be making the flight from my home airport to my training airport in IMC, but it's a short hop, and I'm extremely familiar with the approaches and departures at both airports. (And the training airport will most likely be in MVFR and not IMC.) Should get a solid 2 hours of practice in with him.
 
Fly with another experienced pilot if you have to. Seriously, though. You know how to do it. Go do it.

Since we're all buzzing about risk, let's talk about the hazards. CFIT- Wont happen on an airway or on a published approach nor at/above min vectoring alt. Spatial D- Trust your instruments. Malfunctions- There's still 1-2000 feet of clear air before you hit the ground.

There's nothing exotic about your weather. Go fly in it. You'll find out that there's nothing exotic in the clouds, but you'll very quickly find the confidence that your training didn't provide.
 
To quote the lead in NCIS New Orleans, "Go places. Learn things."

Just practicing approach after approach in real clouds is too similar to the training you had. Learn new things - go places in the system. You'll soon find real Ifr flying is easier than the training as far as everything almost always works (versus training where almost always something is faked in failure). You will also learn a lot more of the system instead of approach after approach. Which quickly leads to the big secret - IFR is easier than VFR.

And if something does go wrong, you always know exactly where you are and someone else knows that too.
 
Go for it.

Watch the OAT though.
 
n9144p said:
Just practicing approach after approach in real clouds is too similar to the training you had. Learn new things - go places in the system....Which quickly leads to the big secret - IFR is easier than VFR.
Click to expand...

Totally.
 
Seek out days when the bases are about 1000 feet and the tops are 3000-4000 feet (stratus, obviously). File for an altitude that puts you in the soup. You know that there is good VFR beneath you as a safe haven. When in the soup ask for higher and get on top for awhile.You'll be smiling from ear to ear. Then ask for lower again, and when you have had enough, request an approach. Maybe the next time the bases will be at 800...do it again. Repeat as necessary.
Once you have achieved a goal, try to make the next flight better. Challenge yourself.

Bob Gardner
 
Rykymus said:
What say you all? Go out and get the experience while the IMC is soft? Or avoid the risk altogether and wait until I get lucky and manage to coordinate some CFII time in IMC?
Click to expand...

Get up there! Those ceilings and weather conditions are good enough to build up your confidence. Make your approaches in actual but break out well above ILS mins.
 
As others have said, go do it. Foggles suck and are a really poor approximation of actual IMC. You'll build confidence in flying IMC and doing all the other things you need to do (talking with ATC, briefing approaches, etc). Over time you'll then be able to start lowering your personal minimums (you have those, right?).
 
I love to get out and shoot approaches in actual. It's better than with foggles. Best is when I can find weather that requires going missed just to have to do it. Typically that's something just a little too low for a standard GPS approach; non LPV. Getting even the weather just for approaches can be tough when work allows; typically weekends.

I don't know about your avionics stack, but I also like to mix it up with autopilot and hand flying. Good to know how to do both.

If you can't get the weather right, get a safety pilot and get it in that way.
 
I've done practice approaches in 0/0 conditions before (not really a great idea so don't bother arguing the point with me on that.) There was a period of time when I was regularly commuting between the Valley and the Bay where I didn't need to do practice approaches, as there were enough times when I would have to do an approach in actual at one end or the other depending on the time of year.
 
The easiest kind of IMC is where the bottom of the clouds well above the MVA. That way I could just be vectored to VFR. Just do enroute IMC. The takeoff and approaches are VFR.

Then do approaches to 1000' or so.

After doing that, I flew to an airport every day for a week and flew the ILS, practice approach. Then I flew it when it was 200' AGL. I wasnt perfect, but I knew that there was nothing to hit at 200' AGL and above in case I got off course. I looked down at 200' AGL and could see the ground, looked out and could see the runway. I landed. It really helped that I had the confidence of doing the ILS every day for 5 days. I knew I was going to be ok. I knew an airline pilot that flew into Aspen. He did the approach on the sim several times before each flight when he was starting out. Be cool under pressure is the name of the game here. Something to be said for two pilot crews. Single pilot IFR is not easy. You have to be at the top of your game. Familiartity and practice REALLY are essential.

Have VFR alternate somewhere within fuel range so you know you can bail and get to VFR if something goes wrong.
 
Last edited:
Go to a coastal airport, and you'll find lots of actual, almost year round. Half Moon Bay is pretty reliable. Watsonville is almost as much. Both have some real nice approaches, and Salinas has an ILS.

You can fly the WVI VOR-A in actual to get a real missed -- and a long DME arc to go with it. It has a very high minimum. Just make sure you turn the right way in your missed. Out to sea rather than toward the mountains.

I agree this is a good time. Today, the clouds look rather choppy, though. Marine layer works wonders for first IMC, as it's pretty benign, but it's not really the right season for that. I shot my first approach to minimums at Watsonville that way. Using the LPV; the ceiling was reported right at 400 AGL (about 550 MSL).

KJAQ is reporting a broken ceiling below the FAF right now. So is KSNS, but the FAFs are really long/high there.
 
Last edited:
So, with everyone's advice in mind, I went up today as planned. Filed 2 IFR flight plans, one for KSCK to KSCK (home airport) for 0745 local, and the second for KSCK to KTCY (training airport) for 0900 local. I put the approaches I wanted to shoot in the remarks for each flight plan.

Weather at KSCK at launch was broken at 900 ft, scattered at 3000, with the wind pretty much down the runway at around 7 kts. Got clearance from KSCK tower and launched into the clouds. Flew manually the first lap. Got vectors back to the ILS while in the clouds, and got an amended altitude from 2000 MSL to 3000 MSL. Broke out of the clouds at 2900 MSL. Pretty cool skimming along 100 ft above the cloud tops. Was a bit surprised by how bright the sun was (I was eastbound in the dawn) just before breaking out on top. Got vectored to intercept the ILS and came back down through the layer, so I was in the clouds when I intercepted and started tracking the localizer, by hand, which was good practice. Shot the ILS and came out around 1,000 MSL. Executed the missed and went back into the clouds and got vectored back. Second time, they kept me at 2500, so I was in the clouds the entire time. I used the GPS on the way to the localizer, and then went manual once established. This time, broke out around 1300. Landed and taxied back. Picked up a clearance to KTCY. Really no clouds on that trip, except on the way up.

Had a good long talk with my CFII, going over a long list of questions I had developed over the 10 days since my checkride. Overall, my plan now is to fly 3 times per week, always IFR, to someplace different each day, trying to get into clouds whenever possible, and trying to time it so that I have at least some IMC on the approach, but not necessarily to minimums. With this relatively mild system working its way through, finding IMC here and there shouldn't be an issue. And being in the central valley, there are a lot of destinations within an hour flight time. We developed a good list of tasks that I need to master, most of which involve learning how and becoming proficient using my GPS (G430) and Autopilot (STEC-30 w/Alt Hold). I need to get in the habit of using the AP to hold course while I'm programming the GPS, briefing the approach, tuning radios, identifying VORs, etc, as I've been hand flying while doing all of that prior to my checkride.

On the trip from KTCY back to KSCK, I got an IFR clearance, flew the ODP out and spend the flight in and out of clouds between 4,000-5,000 ft MSL. (METAR was broken layers at 1500, 3000, and 3600.) It was more turbulent than the stuff in the morning, and I found it a bit scary to make turns when vectored, but hand flew it without problems. ATC forgot about me and let be blow through the LOC on the ILS into KSCK (while in the clouds), and I immediately thought of my DPE, who told me "sometimes you have to poke these guys to get what you want, when you want it." Broke out around 3,000, waited until the low hanging clouds between me and the runway were past, and then cancelled my IFR and landed.

All in all, I think I got at least 30-40 minutes of IMC. It was a blast, and I feel a little less apprehensive now. I still have a long way to go before I will consider myself proficient, but at least I now have a plan to get there.

I gotta say, IFR is a blast!

Thanks for everyone's help!
 
Why would you cancel IFR when landing at a towered airport? Tower will do that for you, as soon as your wheels touch the ground.

It's a good idea to do that at a nontowered airport, if you can.

Don't forget you have to be 500 feet below (or 1000 above) the clouds to cancel, unless you're in Class G. Most of the local airports have Class E down to 700 AGL. A handful go down to the surface (including some part time towers, when the tower is closed).

Be careful about blowing through the LOC without a prior warning. SCK is benign -- there is no terrain to speak of. But some local airports will have problems. SNS ILS 31 comes to mind. Don't blow through that.
 
My CFII said that ATC and Towers might appreciate the cancel in the air, as it means they don't have to keep as much airspace reserved for you, and it gives them more options. I'm not sure how accurate that is, because the tower seemed surprised.

And I was more than 500 ft below, thanks.
 
Rykymus said:
My CFII said that ATC and Towers might appreciate the cancel in the air, as it means they don't have to keep as much airspace reserved for you, and it gives them more options. I'm not sure how accurate that is, because the tower seemed surprised.

And I was more than 500 ft below, thanks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you CAN do that, but it only really helps stuff if you aren't landing.

I did have one towered airport -- Burbank -- ask me to cancel on final because it made sequencing a bit easier for them. That approach didn't work anyway, as they also wanted best forward speed in continuous light to moderate chop. Unable.
 
ok - first I believe never to cancel IFR until I have the runway in sight VFR or I've landed. But it CAN help a lot of us if you can cancel safely while in the air - planes can be held for release or held back from initiating approaches at your field AND nearby fields that share fixes. I've been in holds many times waiting for a plane to cancel that's already broken out and I'm above a cloud deck.
 
Here is what I was told by both my instructor and DPE when I first got my instrument rating, set high personal minimums until I get confident and proficient. Started out with 1000 ft ceiling and 3 miles, basic VFR minimum. Go out and shoot some approaches on a day like that to gain some confidence. Then find a day with 800 ft ceilings, and so on and so forth to gain experience and proficiency while not biting off more than you can chew. Yes you can legally go fly into 200 and 1/2 right after getting your rating, but not all that is legal is safe or smart.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Here is what I was told by both my instructor and DPE when I first got my instrument rating, set high personal minimums until I get confident and proficient. Started out with 1000 ft ceiling and 3 miles, basic VFR minimum. Go out and shoot some approaches on a day like that to gain some confidence. Then find a day with 800 ft ceilings, and so on and so forth to gain experience and proficiency while not biting off more than you can chew. Yes you can legally go fly into 200 and 1/2 right after getting your rating, but not all that is legal is safe or smart.
Click to expand...

More to the point, not all IMC is the same.

Marine layer, in particular, is really good for first forays, as it's generally very smooth, and has very well defined tops and ceilings. It's also common in summer, so ice is not a factor.

Then there is the nasty windshear IMC with strong fronts, thunderstorms, and ice.

The current conditions in the region are pretty good. It's warm, and the winds aren't too bad. There is some cumulus, but it's not too bad.
 
Yeah, I was about 3 miles out and had the runway in sight before I cancelled. No way I would cancel if there was even a single little puffy anywhere near my approach course.

The main thing I want is to build experience and confidence now, while the training is fresh in my mind. I made a list of things I want to get more adept at, most of which are dealing with GPS and the autopilot, both of which I only used the minimum needed during training. (Hand flew everything as much as possible.)

As for minimums, I think it's a little more complex than just ceiling and vis. As MAKG1 pointed out, all IMC isn't the same. I'm comfortable shooting down to minimums if the winds are calm, or at the very least they are fairly well aligned with the runway. Terrain, and familiarity with the area and the approach are also factors to me. At my home airport, I'd be comfortable shooting to minimums in just about anything, as I've shot all the approaches there dozens of times, and in some extremely windy and gusty conditions, while under the hood.

For now, I'm sticking with flying someplace different 2-3 times per week, always shooting a different approach. I want to get more experience not only shooting approaches in IMC, but also flying IMC en route, working in the system, and flight planning and execution. I need to get proficient and confident BEFORE I start taking my wife with me into IMC. (And she likes to go to Monterey and Half Moon Bay a lot.)
 
Get some actual with a ragged bottom, virga, etc. Have your -II or an Instrument pilot with you. Practice breaking out, looking up seeing the field then losing it, going back to the instruments, looking up for the field, etc. It's an interesting experience . . . And good preparation for when you're out there going places and the weather doesn't match the forecast . . .
 
Rykymus said:
My CFII said that ATC and Towers might appreciate the cancel in the air, as it means they don't have to keep as much airspace reserved for you, and it gives them more options. I'm not sure how accurate that is, because the tower seemed surprised
.
Click to expand...

As a former controller when you land at a towered airport, your IFR flight plan is closed by the tower. At an uncontrolled airport, as you know, you are responsible for cancelling/closing your IFR flight plan. I wouldn't be concerned about cancelling in the air at a towered airport so much, but at an uncontrolled airport it could be helpful to the controller if they have other planes inbound. BUT you are not required to do this. It's your call.

A couple locations I was at provided approach control services to numerous outlying uncontrolled airports. Once cleared for the approach and you land, cancel ASAP as we may have another plane behind you wanting to shoot an approach. If you don't cancel and you're on the ground, we can't clear another plane until we find you. So the next inbounds may have to hold. A few times we'd have to call the FBO and see if the plane was there on the ramp, and if you were there, get you to cancel. A few pilots took off in a car and forgot to cancel. So it causes unnecessary delays for the next IFR arrival if you don't cancel.
 
Last edited:
Sac Arrow said:
I've done practice approaches in 0/0 conditions before (not really a great idea so don't bother arguing the point with me on that.)
Click to expand...
Why would that be a bad idea? I think it is a great idea. I used to do stuff like that all the time in SoCal. I'd take off from MYF with ceilings around 1000' and fly out to do approaches at Catalina in the Duchess. As long as you are confident you can get back to your home field, I think being able to fly an approach and go missed in actual (not under the hood) is important.
 
n9144p said:
ok - first I believe never to cancel IFR until I have the runway in sight VFR or I've landed. But it CAN help a lot of us if you can cancel safely while in the air - planes can be held for release or held back from initiating approaches at your field AND nearby fields that share fixes. I've been in holds many times waiting for a plane to cancel that's already broken out and I'm above a cloud deck.
Click to expand...

That comes with experience, I'd never fault a new instrument pilot from not going 1200, rather they were comfortable and not pushing to stay VMC in near IMC weather, me waiting a few < some poor dude lawn darting.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Why would that be a bad idea? I think it is a great idea. I used to do stuff like that all the time in SoCal. I'd take off from MYF with ceilings around 1000' and fly out to do approaches at Catalina in the Duchess. As long as you are confident you can get back to your home field, I think being able to fly an approach and go missed in actual (not under the hood) is important.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that the training and experience is valuable, but there is the risk factor of taking off and doing approach work at a field where you know you can't possibly land. If something went south I could probably stick a landing with a 100 foot ceiling. If I can't even see the runway as soon as the nose rotates on takeoff, it ain't happening.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I agree with you that the training and experience is valuable, but there is the risk factor of taking off and doing approach work at a field where you know you can't possibly land. If something went south I could probably stick a landing with a 100 foot ceiling. If I can't even see the runway as soon as the nose rotates on takeoff, it ain't happening.
Click to expand...

You can get the same practice at a field with multiple approaches, where the ceiling is higher than some minimums and lower than others. Happens all the time at Watsonville. Or you can just pretend the minimums are higher than they are.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I agree with you that the training and experience is valuable, but there is the risk factor of taking off and doing approach work at a field where you know you can't possibly land. If something went south I could probably stick a landing with a 100 foot ceiling. If I can't even see the runway as soon as the nose rotates on takeoff, it ain't happening.
Click to expand...
Yeah. When I've done it, the ceilings at my departure airport were well above mins, but I flew somewhere that was well below mins to practice the approaches.
 
As a CFI, I do not let my students go for the flight test without at least a couple of hours of actual. Yes my ticket is on the line in actual, but after 15 - 20 hours I am certain that the student can stay within instrument parameters and I go for actual whenever possible. It also depends upon the type of plane. I flew with my friend after he got his instrument rating in a C150 and I asked him if he had practiced in the bonanza. He said he had; however, on a actual approach to Stewart he could not keep the plane on the ILS. I had to take over and he admitted to me he had not practiced in the bonanza.
 
winrose46 said:
As a CFI, I do not let my students go for the flight test without at least a couple of hours of actual. Yes my ticket is on the line in actual, but after 15 - 20 hours I am certain that the student can stay within instrument parameters and I go for actual whenever possible. It also depends upon the type of plane. I flew with my friend after he got his instrument rating in a C150 and I asked him if he had practiced in the bonanza. He said he had; however, on a actual approach to Stewart he could not keep the plane on the ILS. I had to take over and he admitted to me he had not practiced in the bonanza.
Click to expand...

Man, I just cannot fathom even the idea of lying to your CFI. Specially about something like that but really even anything. My safety is tied to being brutally honest with my CFI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top