Stepping out of the comfort zone

[flyingcheesehead]

Lots of good advice in this thread, and I'm really in agreement with Tim, Ted, and Dan. I've said it before and I'll say it again, with a twist this time:

To become a better pilot, you must push the envelope. To do so safely, you must only push one corner at a time.

If you've only flown on days with 10-mile vis, ceilings above 8000 feet, and winds less than 15 knots, do NOT go flying on a day with 25G30KT 3SM OVC015. Find a day with light winds, 8000-foot ceilings, and 8 mile visibility, for example. Eventually, you'll determine the limits that you'll stick with - For example, 3-4 mile visibility VFR is really uncomfortable for me, so I'll go IFR when the vis is that low unless it's just a hop to the other airport across town or something where I know the area like the back of my hand.

As you gain experience in this manner, you'll not only find some minimums for each of the individual weather puzzle pieces, you'll also find that there are combinations of factors that may stop you when the individual pieces are all OK. For example, I once cancelled a flight to meet some other PoAers for lunch because, although I didn't have a problem flying IFR on a windy day with a fairly low overcast and moderate turbulence, when I looked at the fact that this was supposed to be a FUN flight and it didn't sound like fun any more, I scrubbed.

Another thing is that it's not about weather alone - It's also about what your outs are when things don't turn out as expected. You should ask the "what if" question many times before a flight. What if the weather gets worse? What if my engine quits? You should have, for a given flight, answers to all the what if's you can come up with, and be willing to change your plan.

Finally, on the day you initially described - It doesn't sound like you had a destination in mind, you just wanted to fly. Right? In that case - I would suggest you jump in the plane, and fly towards the bad weather (assuming it's coming towards your home field). See what it looks like. If it's a single solitary rain shaft, you might be able to fly around it and look at it. If it's line of rain that you can't see through, just get up to it, and then fly away from it. The 180 degree turn is a wonderful tool! If you can make a 180, if you are on the bad-weather side of your airport, and if you have some other airports in the area you can go to if need be, you can dip your toes in the bad-weather water without increasing your risk unacceptably. If you're still uncomfortable, take a CFI - It'll be money well spent.

 

[denverpilot]

Whats kind of funny is that wind doesn't phase me. I got a lot of good crosswind practice during training so I have no issues with that. Where I need to get more comfortable is primarily with haze/lower visibility and cloud cover.

I finally got used to haze and smog when I spent a summer in L.A. Flying out of KVNY.

That and always being on Flight Following lest Ye be smited by 250 knot large hollow turbofan powered aluminum tubes that are apparently everywhere in the L.A. basin.

For every one aircraft I saw, there were two more called out to me that I didn't see out there.

The haze was eerie for this Colorado boy used to 300 days of sunshine a year, often with 50-80 miles of visibility. 5 miles in smog felt really claustrophobic with the CFI checking me out in the rental Skyhawk. Then he shared, "Oh this isn't all that unusual here."

The only thing weirder so far for me was VFR in light snow with a CFII filed IFR to do practice approaches. Landing light on makes it look like you just went to light-speed in the movies.

I assume Spaceball One can out-run not only a flying Winnebago, but also that Skyhawk XP we were in, by going to Plaid, though.

 

[nddons]

I'd argue that overly careful pilots can be as dangerous as more risk-welcoming types since they never develop judgement, skills, and knowledge required to become and maintain proficiency.

You may have a point. I was one of those. That's why I got my IA, and obtained about 10 hours of actual (including at least 4 hours of hard IFR) during my training.

I'm still a little chicken of Wx (esp. winter and ice) but whenever I am, I make a point of grabbing my CFII to go exploring outside of my comfort envelope.

 

[Jaybird180]

I'm suprised with all the heavy weight expertise on the board no one's mentioned

http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/media/ga_weather_decision_making.pdf

or any of the other reference material available, for free, on the FAA website related to weather for aviators.

Good one. Now here's a question:
Why do I need to be concerned about turbulence? What's the risk? (assuming I can remain below Va, above AGL and right side up)

 

[Ted]

Good one. Now here's a question:
Why do I need to be concerned about turbulence? What's the risk? (assuming I can remain below Va, above AGL and right side up)

That's most of it. If you look at turbulence definitions, severe turbulence is defined when you can't maintain your directional and altitude control. I've hit bumps bad enough to send things flying through the cabin. When you're dealing with that continuously, especially on an instrument approach, it can be questionable whether you can safely get in or not. I've never been unable to maintain heading or altitude, but I've had times when I've had to work hard to do it.

Then there are the parts about whether you have the mental capacity to keep up with it, and whether or not you get sick from dealing with it. After dealing with a lot of turbulence for a trip, you will end up back on the ground physically exhausted. The plane might be able to handle it fine, but you may not.

That said, turublence or winds don't deter me on the flights I make, which are pretty much all limited to the eastern half of the country in piston twins. Never deterred me in the Mooney, either, although I had a few times when I hit my head on the ceiling.

 

[wabower]

You call it conservative, I might call it paranoia. The safest thing a pilot can do is never fly at all.

The one thing about which a VFR pilot can never be too conservative is the weather.

 

[Bob Noel]

Good one. Now here's a question:
Why do I need to be concerned about turbulence? What's the risk? (assuming I can remain below Va, above AGL and right side up)

for me, the risk of turbulence is fatigue. and having that fatigue sneak up on me.

 

[wabower]

I just make a deal with myself of anybody else on board. The novelty of getting bounced around wears off pretty quickly, so I tell them we'll land whenever the first person wants out of this miserable sumbitch.

Usually it's me. Life is too damn short.

That's most of it. If you look at turbulence definitions, severe turbulence is defined when you can't maintain your directional and altitude control. I've hit bumps bad enough to send things flying through the cabin. When you're dealing with that continuously, especially on an instrument approach, it can be questionable whether you can safely get in or not. I've never been unable to maintain heading or altitude, but I've had times when I've had to work hard to do it.

Then there are the parts about whether you have the mental capacity to keep up with it, and whether or not you get sick from dealing with it. After dealing with a lot of turbulence for a trip, you will end up back on the ground physically exhausted. The plane might be able to handle it fine, but you may not.

That said, turublence or winds don't deter me on the flights I make, which are pretty much all limited to the eastern half of the country in piston twins. Never deterred me in the Mooney, either, although I had a few times when I hit my head on the ceiling.

 

[steingar]

You call it conservative, I might call it paranoia. The safest thing a pilot can do is never fly at all.

Someone who doesn't fly isn't really a pilot. And I stand by what I said. You just can't be too careful, aviation is dangerous. I haven't been in the air wishing I was on the ground yet, and I intend to keep it that way. Nobody ever died from scrubbing on a questionable day. Lots of folks have died by going out in them. Lots.

 

[ChrisRikli]

I'm a 75ish hour pilot as well. I don't know how your CFI operates, but whenever I want to talk through my go/no-go decision I call mine. I'd advise you to do the same. It's valuable to have more experience on the other end of the phone as you're talking through things.

 

[wabower]

That's not true. They may not be currently active pilots, but with a few minutes to get comfortable they could be better than most. You're certainly entitled to your level of comfort and the conservatism spawned thereby. But the "you can never be too careful" bromide simply doesn't hold water if GA is the subject under discussion.

sQUOTE=steingar;694234]Someone who doesn't fly isn't really a pilot. And I stand by what I said. You just can't be too careful, aviation is dangerous. I haven't been in the air wishing I was on the ground yet, and I intend to keep it that way. Nobody ever died from scrubbing on a questionable day. Lots of folks have died by going out in them. Lots.[/QUOTE]

 

[steingar]

That's not true. They may not be currently active pilots, but with a few minutes to get comfortable they could be better than most. You're certainly entitled to your level of comfort and the conservatism spawned thereby. But the "you can never be too careful" bromide simply doesn't hold water if GA is the subject under discussion.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[Everskyward]

But the "you can never be too careful" bromide simply doesn't hold water if GA is the subject under discussion.

I would say that is true with any kind of aviation. If you don't want to see any more airliners crash then ban airline travel. There is always a risk. You just need to draw your own line as to how much you will take for the pleasure or utility of flying.

 

[fgcason]

The safest thing a pilot can do is never fly at all.

Hogwash. Haven't driven a car in the last 15 years have ya? At least flying hazards are self inflicted most of the time.

 

[wabower]

Hogwash. You haven't followed the accident rates in GA vs surface travel, have you?

Hogwash. Haven't driven a car in the last 15 years have ya? At least flying hazards are self inflicted most of the time.

 

[Danos]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm currently based at KDXR (Danbury, CT). iFlyTwins could not have said it better: "The problem with testing the waters now is you don't know what you don't know." This is exactly what makes me hesitate about just going for it. I've flown on worse days than today during training and didn't think twice, but I had my CFI with me. Making the decision by yourself is a lot tougher. As far as IFR training I plan to start the instrument rating next year. Right now I'm working on the 50 hours of PIC XC which is a learning experience in itself.

I find that there's a decent buffer between what you're capable of and what you're comfortable with. What might help as an intellectual exercise is to plan a long cross country and decide if you would go or not. Do this every couple of days or so. If the answer is no then ask yourself why. Do the same if the answer is yes. For example, if there is rain somewhere and you see that you are able to circumnavigate it, then you could make the trip. The benefit of a long trip is that you can see weather patterns and there is more planning involved it the timing of everything. The trips I've learned the most about weather have been more than 300 km in distance. Also, if you are still in contact with your CFi, run it past him or her and get advice. When you do take trips ALWAYS HAVE AN OUT! Even if it's just landing if you don't like what you see. There is no shortage of airports in the area. Also take your limitations and the plane's limitations into account and NEVER exceed them.

 

[Ted]

I would say that is true with any kind of aviation. If you don't want to see any more airliners crash then ban airline travel. There is always a risk. You just need to draw your own line as to how much you will take for the pleasure or utility of flying.

I'd take it one step further and say that it goes far beyond GA to pretty much any activity.

Go to the shooting range: You might get shot
Go to the South Bronx: You will get shot
Ride a motorcycle: You might get run over by a truck
Drive a truck: Someone on a motorcycle might shoot you for running over his buddy with your truck

Tongue-in-cheek examples, but just getting in your car has a high level of hazard to it.

"You can never be too careful" is hogwash, regardless of what you're talking about.

 

[gismo]

I'd take it one step further and say that it goes far beyond GA to pretty much any activity.

Go to the shooting range: You might get shot
Go to the South Bronx: You will get shot
Ride a motorcycle: You might get run over by a truck
Drive a truck: Someone on a motorcycle might shoot you for running over his buddy with your truck

Tongue-in-cheek examples, but just getting in your car has a high level of hazard to it.

"You can never be too careful" is hogwash, regardless of what you're talking about.

Fly a bunch of dogs around the country and you might get bit.

 

[fgcason]

Hogwash. You haven't followed the accident rates in GA vs surface travel, have you?

After careful observation and listening to the statistical data arguments for years, I simply don't have a lot of faith in those numbers anymore - as in no confidence in the numbers at all. Accident data tends to be extremely generalized.
I mean if the datapoints are going to count VFR into IMC and severe TRW penetration against pilots who fly only on calm sunny afternoons, the validity of the data is pretty much total bunk. The same goes for motorcycle crashes. Survivability of wreckless no helmet, shorts and flip flops only being counted against cautious full crash gear rider is silly beyond reason.
About the only statistical data that I agree with is that over a sufficiently long enough time period, the survival rate of all life drops to zero...then again no one has come up with an immortal life form yet to counter that observation.

Ground travel, externally inflicted. Not much control of those situations short of not driving at all at which time you'll likely get run over walking on the sidewalk.
Air travel, mostly self inflicted. The pilot has a lot of control of whether that happens or not. Most of those crash situations are completely avoidable. If the pilot crashes himself, he gets what he deserves.

 

[wabower]

Or one wife, if you just want to get snapped at.

Fly a bunch of dogs around the country and you might get bit.

 

[steingar]

Or one wife, if you just want to get snapped at.

My wife does not snap at me in the aircraft. She has a better sense of self-preservation than that. The fact that yours has an apparent death-wish is not entirely surprising, however.

 

[Ted]

Fly a bunch of dogs around the country and you might get bit.

Happens rarely, but yes, I have the scars to prove it.

 

[Ted]

My wife does not snap at me in the aircraft. She has a better sense of self-preservation than that. The fact that yours has an apparent death-wish is not entirely surprising, however.

She might just have more faith in Wayne's prowess as an aviator.

 

[Jaybird180]

This is a question I get a lot...from 75 hour pilots like yourself and from 2,000 hour instrument rated pilots as well. Let me dispel a myth from the beginning. Most pilots believe that as they gain flight experience, they will become more knowledgeable when it comes to weather-related decisions. Sure, experience is important, but it's not what will take you to the level you are looking to achieve. The key is formal training.

A few years ago I was a passenger in a 172 and on the return trip (KFFA>KOAJ) we saw a column of gray sky approaching our destination. The FAA article cited above says to avoid areas of darkness (black or grey) sky.

In this experience, in fact there were 3 (believe it or not) columns converging on our destination from about 10 , 2 and 6 o'clock positions. We decided to press-on based on the estimation that we could make it before those columns did.

Obviously we made it through. The rain showers began as we were tying down the aircraft.

Were we in any "real" danger?

 

[EdFred]

A few years ago I was a passenger in a 172 and on the return trip (KFFA>KOAJ) we saw a column of gray sky approaching our destination. The FAA article cited above says to avoid areas of darkness (black or grey) sky.

In this experience, in fact there were 3 (believe it or not) columns converging on our destination from about 10 , 2 and 6 o'clock positions. We decided to press-on based on the estimation that we could make it before those columns did.

Obviously we made it through. The rain showers began as we were tying down the aircraft.

Were we in any "real" danger?

As with just about every question in aviation the answer is.... "It depends."

 

[Jaybird180]

Maybe. I can't say for sure without knowing what was "driving" those columns that you described. Sounds like potential rain shafts. They may be harmless even if you happened to run into one. However, add a strong low-level jet maximum and those showers can draw down some of the momentum of those strong winds and produce downbursts or even microburst.

I prefer to "characterize" the weather and try to avoid "generalizing" the weather. Often the FAA documentation pushes you to general conclusions that may not always be valid.

"I see" said the blind man.

 

[Danos]

A few years ago I was a passenger in a 172 and on the return trip (KFFA>KOAJ) we saw a column of gray sky approaching our destination. The FAA article cited above says to avoid areas of darkness (black or grey) sky.

In this experience, in fact there were 3 (believe it or not) columns converging on our destination from about 10 , 2 and 6 o'clock positions. We decided to press-on based on the estimation that we could make it before those columns did.

Obviously we made it through. The rain showers began as we were tying down the aircraft.

Were we in any "real" danger?

Here's a video of me racing a storm in at Albany in a Twinkie. I was headed in from Great Barrington where I saw the cell on the radar and decided to go for it because I knew that if the cell beat me there I had enough fuel for an about face and there were many options for alternate fields. The picture is the curtain of rain coming by the time we taxied to the ramp. As for danger, it depends on what your out's were if things went awry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCFSGktT6z0

 

[Jeanie]

It's not so much rain that bothers me as hail... as hail can get thrown a long ways from what would appear to be the "bad weather" area.

 

[Dr. O]

To the OP... I have been flying for a long, long time... A steely eyed fighter ace, I ain't... I do have an instrument rating... I have an airplane with two motors... And I still make the decision not to challenge the weather at times (the Great Lakes will eat you if you let your ego make the calls)...You are doing good and you showed good judgment by not going when you were not comfortable... If someone is going to criticize you for what you decided, he is the one who has bad judgment, not you...

So, how do you improve your minimums for weather? Well, the best way is to have a safety pilot (CFI or not) and the two of you deliberately make a some flights into weather that is just a little beyond your comfort level (but not his)... I would even urge you to get some help and time in the pattern when the field is close to minimums for visibility so you get used to the runway being obscured part of the time... Experience will quickly help you set new weather thresholds for going...

denny-o

 

[wabower]

She rode with me in the G-V for some of the legs when we were in Europe, and said the cabin "was about right." Since then she's been hard to trap in the little birds. She got 30-some years and many uneventful GA trips out of the deal, so I got no beef. And she doesn't care if I go and I don't care if she doesn't. Win-win deal for everybody.

She might just have more faith in Wayne's prowess as an aviator.

 

[wabower]

I see. What do the numbers that you believe credible show the difference in rates to be? Can they be easily obtained?

After careful observation and listening to the statistical data arguments for years, I simply don't have a lot of faith in those numbers anymore - as in no confidence in the numbers at all. Accident data tends to be extremely generalized.
I mean if the datapoints are going to count VFR into IMC and severe TRW penetration against pilots who fly only on calm sunny afternoons, the validity of the data is pretty much total bunk. The same goes for motorcycle crashes. Survivability of wreckless no helmet, shorts and flip flops only being counted against cautious full crash gear rider is silly beyond reason.
About the only statistical data that I agree with is that over a sufficiently long enough time period, the survival rate of all life drops to zero...then again no one has come up with an immortal life form yet to counter that observation.

Ground travel, externally inflicted. Not much control of those situations short of not driving at all at which time you'll likely get run over walking on the sidewalk.
Air travel, mostly self inflicted. The pilot has a lot of control of whether that happens or not. Most of those crash situations are completely avoidable. If the pilot crashes himself, he gets what he deserves.

 

[Ted]

She rode with me in the G-V for some of the legs when we were in Europe, and said the cabin "was about right." Since then she's been hard to trap in the little birds. She got 30-some years and many uneventful GA trips out of the deal, so I got no beef. And she doesn't care if I go and I don't care if she doesn't. Win-win deal for everybody.

Not unlike my mom. She keeps on talking about wanting to fly with me, but she hates getting to the airport, she hates climbing on the wing, and she hates paying for her share of the fuel. And she really wants me to fly a G-V instead of a 310 (which she also doesn't want to pay for).

Not surprisingly, she's only flown with me four times, and still complains about each one of those four times.

 

[gismo]

A few years ago I was a passenger in a 172 and on the return trip (KFFA>KOAJ) we saw a column of gray sky approaching our destination. The FAA article cited above says to avoid areas of darkness (black or grey) sky.

In this experience, in fact there were 3 (believe it or not) columns converging on our destination from about 10 , 2 and 6 o'clock positions. We decided to press-on based on the estimation that we could make it before those columns did.

Obviously we made it through. The rain showers began as we were tying down the aircraft.

Were we in any "real" danger?

Hard to tell from your description of the flight but it's rather important to understand that just because you got away with something doesn't mean you'll be as lucky the next time. I'm not saying you cheated death that day, just that it's human nature to become conditioned to "real danger" and discount it, something you should try to avoid WRT aviation.

 

[wabower]

Mom loved it. Her last trip was when she was 94. I took her to Odessa to visit her 97 y/o brother. The day before we arrived he had installed a new hot water tank and changed the oil in his Buick. They both made it to 98.

Not unlike my mom. She keeps on talking about wanting to fly with me, but she hates getting to the airport, she hates climbing on the wing, and she hates paying for her share of the fuel. And she really wants me to fly a G-V instead of a 310 (which she also doesn't want to pay for).

Not surprisingly, she's only flown with me four times, and still complains about each one of those four times.

 

[Ted]

Mom loved it. Her last trip was when she was 94. I took her to Odessa to visit her 97 y/o brother. The day before we arrived he had installed a new hot water tank and changed the oil in his Buick. They both made it to 98.

You're lucky. My mom is 66 going on 106. "Why don't you fly something with an air stair door? I can't climb up this thing!" "Do you want to buy me a 421?" "No, you buy it!" "Ok, well, I'm not buying it."

I hope I got my dad's logevity genes... into his 80s and still working his 80+ hour/week job.

 

[AdamZ]

I'll add: a lot of people seem to think the point of an instructor is to get you ratings and sign you off for your flight review. The reality is instructors should be for more than that. Your rating doesn't mean you know everything you really should know, it just means you know enough to get started.

.........

Ryan that right there above is supurb advice. Instructors have helped me so much after I got my ratings especially during my IPCs. They are able to fine tune things with you. So again repeating what many above have said, get with an instructor for a little extra work. My first time after getting my IR I was a bit skiddish about flying solo IMC so I made it a short flight and took a local POAer ( thanks arnold) who was also an ATP. It helped expand my comfort zone

Also as others have said don't kick yourself for cancelling due to Wx at 75 hrs. You will get there it just takes time. Actually one of my best learning experiences was flying through a warm front that I was a bit nervous about.

keep asking good questions.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Not unlike my mom. She keeps on talking about wanting to fly with me, but she hates getting to the airport, she hates climbing on the wing, and she hates paying for her share of the fuel. And she really wants me to fly a G-V instead of a 310 (which she also doesn't want to pay for).

Not surprisingly, she's only flown with me four times, and still complains about each one of those four times.

Wow. If my mom complained like that, she wouldn't have ever made it to the fourth time.

As it is, I think that's exactly how many times she's flown with me. She doesn't try too hard to fly, but she seems to enjoy it when she does go - And I've even gotten one nice "utility" flight with her, including an ILS down to about 400 AGL.