Who Flies Real IFR?

[James331]

Reminds me of the multiple times I waited for 737s to go missed before getting a Special "VFR" lol.

Doesn’t Alaska airlines also have some company use only approaches in Alaska?

 

[DavidWhite]

Doesn’t Alaska airlines also have some company use only approaches in Alaska?

Yes they do, and their approaches at the airport in question got them to 200' and a mile.

 

[N1120A]

I've flown plenty in IMC. We get a lot of low, safe IMC in Southern California. I also pay attention to what the VFR chart says, in case there is an issue. I do think it is absolutely silly to restrict yourself in a SEP from doing approaches to minimums that their avionics are designed for.

I'm of the mind that you should 1) have an AP if you are regularly shooting these and 2) be proficient in hand flying them regardless of having an AP. Both my Tiger and Bonanza have AP systems that will fly approaches all the way, with great precision (and the Bonanza will pitch for them as well). My friend's Arrow, which I flew the other day, has a much less capable, ancient, Piper AP that is really only good in heading mode to get a breather in hard IMC. Despite this, I try and fly as many approaches as I can by hand, to maintain proficiency - and everyone should. I took off in the Arrow, which I hadn't flown in quite some time, in 400 and 1/2 mile and landed at 300' above mins and about 2 miles vis, entirely by hand and without using the AP (except to experiment with settings that it failed with). That's something I am confident in my skill to do.

Last week I was leaving San Luis Obispo airport at night it. One-minute weather was saying 1/4 visability, it was closer to 1/2. I had to wait for a Bonanza to land before I was released and just after departing a Lancair landed behind me. Despite the tower being closed, everything was very efficient. There we had 3 singles operating in conditions that the airlines can't operate in. My work rides are Turbo Bonanzas and I fly them ~500 hours a year. If we can avoid ice and convective weather there is a 99% chance we are flying. Night over terrain and night in IMC is generally something I try to avoid but sometimes the mission calls for it. That particular evening we got both. Extra awareness and planning is required in those scenarios.

Have they figured out something for IFR departures off 29, or is the ILS back on? I don't get why they weren't allowing GPS equipped aircraft to use the CREPE when the LOC was out.

Just this past Monday I flew IFR to Canadian Rockies International airport, YXC, the Airliner in front of me called missed approach, and was hesitant about going around for another attempt, or just heading to his alternate. The controller asked me if I had heard the 737 Pirep, I assured them yes I did, and they cleared me to land, it was not bad at all, done much tougher approaches, behind me a private King Air landed no problem. So the 737 decided that since we landed fine, he would try again, and another miss, he left to his alternate after that. A 210 was holding waiting for the 737 to land for his turn, now gone finally, the 210 was cleared to land, and did so with ease. This is not a tight runway either, at 8,000' it doesn't get much better than that, so I was shocked when the 737 missed twice. Later I find out that the crew is not new to coming there either, they are regulars and still couldn't get it done. It makes me wonder if they actually do real IFR often, or are too used to just being on AP or IFR on top which is really just glorified VFR. Before I was in my rental car driving away another plane landed without incident on their first try.

Were you on an RNAV (GNSS) approach? It is possible you had LPV mins and the 737 didn't

A lot of 737 captains have a VFR only restriction on their ATP.

No. They have a circling approach VMC restriction.

Doesn’t Alaska airlines also have some company use only approaches in Alaska?

They have some in other places as well. Like the RNAV (RNP) M 27 at KSAN. I'm not sure what it gives them compared to the RNAV (RNP) Z 27, but they love to use that.

 

[EdFred]

can you explain that?

Only choosing the 520 engine, because my twin had them, not criticizing them.

But if you have a plane with one 520, a twin with 520s is twice as likely to lose an engine. Although chances are really good the single engine will not just grenade itself to pieces either.

It's not quite double. If the engine has a 1% chance of failing on any given flight the chance of either of them failing isn't 2%. Its 1-(0.99×0.99) which is 1.99%

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Have they figured out something for IFR departures off 29, or is the ILS back on? I don't get why they weren't allowing GPS equipped aircraft to use the CREPE when the LOC was out.

No they haven’t. My guess is that the local terrain doesn’t allow that departure to be confidently replaced with gps. But I know nothing on that subject.
I tried departing with a “I’ll maintain my own terrain separation” clearance and they wouldn’t play nice with that either



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[N1120A]

No they haven’t. My guess is that the local terrain doesn’t allow that departure to be confidently replaced with gps. But I know nothing on that subject.
I tried departing with a “I’ll maintain my own terrain separation” clearance and they wouldn’t play nice with that either



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

What a joke. A WAAS GPS, which is now specifically listed in our ICAO flight plans, is more accurate than a localizer. Someone really needs to update that departure. You'd think they could, at least, do some sort of VFR departure procedure that allows you to get cleared on the ground.

 

[Paul Blart]

A lot of 737 captains have a VFR only restriction on their ATP.

Uhh, really?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Uhh, really?

Technically VMC, not VFR.

 

[Paul Blart]

Technically VMC, not VFR.

Yeah but the quote makes it sound like a lot of 737 Captains cannot fly in IMC. That would be a tad silly.

Now if Velocity would have said that a lot of 737 Captains had a circle to land in VMC only, well that is a horse of an entirely different color.

 

[35 AoA]

Two things, isn't 121 only vis mins? I.e no ceilings computed into that equation. Also, what do you mean VMC only restriction on ATP? There is literally no "instrument airplane" endorsement on an ATP cert because it is assumed and tested. Do you mean OPSPECs mean they can't fly instruments? Because the AS pilots I know are fully IR qualified, and they are both ANC based, which means they do all the weird bush fields and RNP approaches to said fields. Not saying you are wrong velocity, just never heard that before

 

[kayoh190]

Now if Velocity would have said that a lot of 737 Captains had a circle to land in VMC only, well that is a horse of an entirely different color.

I'm pretty sure Velocity is well aware of what he said - I took it as a response to the tiny-penis syndrome being exhibited throughout the thread.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Two things, isn't 121 only vis mins? I.e no ceilings computed into that equation. Also, what do you mean VMC only restriction on ATP? There is literally no "instrument airplane" endorsement on an ATP cert because it is assumed and tested. Do you mean OPSPECs mean they can't fly instruments? Because the AS pilots I know are fully IR qualified, and they are both ANC based, which means they do all the weird bush fields and RNP approaches to said fields. Not saying you are wrong velocity, just never heard that before

Many airlines don’t allow circling below 1000&3, and therefore don’t test below that. An ATP or type rating that doesn’t test the circle below 1000&3 has a CIRCLING APPROACH VMC ONLY limitation on the certificate.

 

[noahfong]

Two things, isn't 121 only vis mins? I.e no ceilings computed into that equation. Also, what do you mean VMC only restriction on ATP? There is literally no "instrument airplane" endorsement on an ATP cert because it is assumed and tested. Do you mean OPSPECs mean they can't fly instruments? Because the AS pilots I know are fully IR qualified, and they are both ANC based, which means they do all the weird bush fields and RNP approaches to said fields. Not saying you are wrong velocity, just never heard that before

No. Minimums as charted just like everyone else who is flying IFR. Difference is that part 121 ops cannot commence an approach without reported weather being compatible or better.

Don't know that Velocity was trying to say but whatever he stated is at least verbally wrong. The cert would NOT say VFR only. As Mauleskinner said, there may be a limitation about circling.

Despite all the fun discussion about whether airline pilots can hand fly an approach, etc., you can rest assured that any US-trained airline pilot INDEED can (note emphasis on US-trained). Not that confident about pilots trained outside the US.

 

[FORANE]

We need a thread who flies real VFR.

 

[Kritchlow]

Two things, isn't 121 only vis mins? I.e no ceilings computed into that equation. Also, what do you mean VMC only restriction on ATP? There is literally no "instrument airplane" endorsement on an ATP cert because it is assumed and tested. Do you mean OPSPECs mean they can't fly instruments? Because the AS pilots I know are fully IR qualified, and they are both ANC based, which means they do all the weird bush fields and RNP approaches to said fields. Not saying you are wrong velocity, just never heard that before

Do not confuse landing minimums with a decision height. Ceilings mean nothing for an approach, whether it be 121, 135, or 91.
The ceiling can be ZERO, but as long as you have your required visual reference and RVR, you are good to go. The (normal) 200 feet part of the equation is just a decision height.

 

[mcmanigle]

[pedantic]
Many people now use “exponentially” when what they really mean is significantly or greatly. Exponentially originally meant the growth was exponential, like a base raised to a power, like e^x. It does not really apply to a single number.

In this case, the exponent would be a fixed number, 2, for the square of the number being discussed. It is geometric in the number, not exponential.

Here’s a definition from the Cambridge Dictionary:

An exponential rate of increase becomes quicker and quicker as the thing that increases becomes larger:

[/pedantic]

Just because I'm a sucker for pedantry, I would assert that exponential growth (or in this case decay of failure rate) is appropriate here. Just because most of the debate is over singles and twins, as you add more and more and more and more and more engines, the pattern would be expected to continue...

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Just because I'm a sucker for pedantry, I would assert that exponential growth (or in this case decay of failure rate) is appropriate here. Just because most of the debate is over singles and twins, as you add more and more and more and more and more engines, the pattern would be expected to continue...

That’s right. If one considers it a function of engine number it would be exponential in terms of the probability of all engines failing.

 

[Rebel]

How many pilots fly single pilot, single engine in actual IMC conditions? I'm not asking about flying around in vcm weather and on an ifr flight plan and the only thing ifr about it is talking to control.

I have not flown much real imc, probably less than 25 hours. Much of it is because I live in the mountains, so its a life and death matter, not so much as if I was in Florida, and also our weather is usually good, but can be awful and what you'd call hard ifr. And much of my flying has been in planes not really designed for imc.

So, if you really get ready to go to Osh or somewhere and its 600 ft overcast for 500 miles around, do you go anyway?

I'd like to hear where you are and what plane and avionics you use. I don't have GPS, am familiar with vor, ils, equiptment but have never done a GPS approach.

Thanks for any help.

First, don't plan for a situation that will require 100% of your capability, e.g., the destination forecast will require an ILS down to minimums. Second, be honest about your capability and proficiency, using both to determine your personal minimums. Third, if waiting 24 hours will make your anxiety about the weather go away, then wait. Last, file IFR nearly always, and arrive via an instrument approach whenever possible so capability and proficiency are never in doubt. This works for me.

 

[EdFred]

First, don't plan for a situation that will require 100% of your capability, e.g., the destination forecast will require an ILS down to minimums. Second, be honest about your capability and proficiency, using both to determine your personal minimums. Third, if waiting 24 hours will make your anxiety about the weather go away, then wait. Last, file IFR nearly always, and arrive via an instrument approach whenever possible so capability and proficiency are never in doubt. This works for me.

The key on that is push your abilities so shooting an ILS to minimums isn't 100% capacity. If you can fly an ILS, you can fly an ILS. Shouldn't matter if you break out at 800/600/400 or 200. You're already established, that last couple hundred feet the path doesn't change, the glide slope doesn't change. If you're on the rails, you shouldn't be coming off.

Now, if you are coming out of the clouds at a 45 degree angle at 3000fpm turned the wrong way with a CDI deflection to the opposite side, and your ASI pegged you shouldn't be flying approaches at all. What you should do in that case is start a youtube channel.

 

[azure]

How many pilots fly single pilot, single engine in actual IMC conditions? I'm not asking about flying around in vcm weather and on an ifr flight plan and the only thing ifr about it is talking to control.

I have not flown much real imc, probably less than 25 hours. Much of it is because I live in the mountains, so its a life and death matter, not so much as if I was in Florida, and also our weather is usually good, but can be awful and what you'd call hard ifr. And much of my flying has been in planes not really designed for imc.

So, if you really get ready to go to Osh or somewhere and its 600 ft overcast for 500 miles around, do you go anyway?

I'd like to hear where you are and what plane and avionics you use. I don't have GPS, am familiar with vor, ils, equiptment but have never done a GPS approach.

Thanks for any help.

I did it a lot when I lived in Michigan, where I first got my IR. Mostly solo currency / proficiency runs in conditions where the visibility was good below the bases, which were typically a couple hundred feet above MDA or DA. 600 OVC for 500 miles around would likely prevent choosing a legal alternate, but the conditions I flew in usually were temporary, so it was possible to choose an alternate based on the forecast. I have a CNX-80 (or GNS 480, if you prefer ) with a GMX-200 MFD, a Sandel 3500 e-HSI, and an SL-30 NAV2. Also an STEC-20 autopilot with GPSS, though it does not turn aggressively enough to be relied on for flying approaches hands-off.

Here in central Vermont it is very rare to have conditions suitable for that kind of flying - usually it is either 0/0 or there is ice below the MIA. So far this year I've managed to sneak in one approach this way, and the rest of the time maintain currency with the help of a safety pilot.

 

[35 AoA]

Many airlines don’t allow circling below 1000&3, and therefore don’t test below that. An ATP or type rating that doesn’t test the circle below 1000&3 has a CIRCLING APPROACH VMC ONLY limitation on the certificate.

That makes more sense, if that is what he was trying to say.

 

[35 AoA]

Do not confuse landing minimums with a decision height. Ceilings mean nothing for an approach, whether it be 121, 135, or 91.
The ceiling can be ZERO, but as long as you have your required visual reference and RVR, you are good to go. The (normal) 200 feet part of the equation is just a decision height.

I think that is a good way of explaining it. I get the wx mins for commencing approach (we have that too on the mil side), but yeah, if at DH and you have the requisite vis, the ceiling doesn't matter.....ie you can see the runway environment, continue to 100', see the red bars etc and land.

 

[Ryan F.]

To me it's still a single engine airplane and will be treated as such. I've had enough turbine engine failures to know it can happen.

That's how I treat it too, more or less. Admittedly, it's a little hard to equate a PT-6A equipped airplane with a piston single but the fact is they both have single points of failure.

For all the discussion of turbine reliability, I've had two TFE-731s (often considered the most reliable turbofan motor ever built) lose all of their oil in flight, one due to a manufacturing defect and the other due to an incorrectly installed o-ring. And I've had one of the few precautionary, in-flight shut-downs of an HTF-7000. In all three cases it was a matter of components rather than than the engine itself, but it makes no difference as to the final result. Therefore I still consider two engines to be of much greater value than any single-engine airplane with regards to flying "hard" IMC, irrespective of whether they spin 'round on kerosene or thrash side to side on avgas.

 

[Ryan F.]

So according to the FAA there is a turbine failure every 375,000 engine hours and you've had a few of them? Man you're 'unlucky'.

Stats on multi-engine airplane engine failures are rather like fables. Good stories with minimal information which feature a moral message of some kind, such as "don't run out of gas," "don't skimp on maintenance," or "make sure you keep your OEI flying skills up if you're flying a twin."

Fact is most of these failures are never reported. My in-flight shutdown of a turbofan engine exists in no database you can access. My two other incidents mentioned above don't exist except as maintenance records.

We're not unlucky. We've just been flying a long time.

 

[Tantalum]

I do. But I mean, it's Socal.. so doesn't really count..

 

[Tantalum]

I still consider two engines to be of much greater value than any single-engine airplane

Out of curiosity then, and because we had a thread about it awhile ago.. given your choice, would you rather cross the gulf of Mexico in a TBM or a DA62 or Baron?

 

[Ryan F.]

Out of curiosity then, and because we had a thread about it awhile ago.. given your choice, would you rather cross the gulf of Mexico in a TBM or a DA62 or Baron?

Easy, choice two or three over choice one.

 

[Beatle1967]

My first “Real” ILS was in Santa Rosa. To minimums. I was beginning to push power when I broke out. In a Piper Arrow.

Loved it.

ha, me too. Piper Warrior out of Oakland.

 

[35 AoA]

ha, me too. Piper Warrior out of Oakland.

coincidentally, me too, piper warrior into EUG, next guy went missed

 

[Martin Pauly]

Maybe I've got a million hours in turbine airplanes.

That would make you the oldest pilot alive, hands down!

I fly in low IMC in my Bonanza, and every now and then I seek these conditions for training purposes. How much risk does this incur due to a possible mechanical engine issue? It's non-zero, but looking at accident reports, there are many ways through which we kill ourselves while flying, and while "mechanical engine failure" is on that list, it's not very high on it. Taking off on a good VFR day from an airport in a city (e.g. KMDW) can also leave me without good options in case of an engine failure, and yet most pilots I know would accept that as being "safe".

There is no right or wrong decision here. If you don't feel comfortable flying in low IMC, don't do it. If you do feel comfortable, practice it, know the procedures, know your equipment, make sure you have enough fuel onboard.

 

[Tantalum]

Easy, choice two or three over choice one.

Interesting... thanks!

That's what my gut was telling me, but you always hear about how insanely reliable turbines are and that turbine>piston

 

[Jim_R]

My requirements list when I was shopping for a plane included an autopilot and an IFR-certified GPS, because I intended from the get-go to get an IR and use it. I live on the Gulf coast and in the summer, I want to get above the clouds where the air is cooler and smoother. I don't want to have to worry about there being a hole in the deck for me to get back down at my destination, so an IR lets me fly on those days without wondering how to legally descend.

While that's 75%+ of why I got the IR, I also use it on true IMC days, but I'm choosy. I don't have hard personal minimums; I regularly practice to minimums and have confidence in my ability to fly an approach safely. But I don't launch on days when weather is that low, unless I have a solid out somewhere else. I will accept poorer weather when I'm solo than I will with passengers, but mostly because of comfort considerations rather than safety.

Like others have said, although I've got a single engine, I don't obsess over that single point of failure. I do my best to keep my plane mechanically sound and myself as proficient as practical. The fraction of time I spend in IMC is small, and the fraction in low IMC is far smaller. If my engine quits on me, it'll likely be during the 90%+ of my flight hours when the weather's pretty good. Personally, that's good enough for me, but I can understand and respect how others might choose differently.

 

[Adam Weiss]

I’m in the Midwest. RV-9A, Autopilot and IFR GPS. Just got my IR in September, and had the opportunity to get a half dozen hard IFR XC in before it started getting into icing weather. Still learning personal minimums, but I’m comfortable in the flat land with 1000ft en route and 400ft on approach. I don’t anticipate en route getting any lower.

 

[Shuswap BC]

Out of curiosity then, and because we had a thread about it awhile ago.. given your choice, would you rather cross the gulf of Mexico in a TBM or a DA62 or Baron?

Cessna 206 on amphibs or straight floats.

But if I had to choose one of those, the tbm first, baron second, I used to own a baron, it was just a plane, nothing special about a twin except two engines and props to maintain, and almost twice the fuel burn. I'll never buy another twin.

 

[Tantalum]

tbm first

Cool, I think the consensus on that thread was one turbine still better over two piston.. but I don't know, somehow I'd feel safer having two powerplants.. there was Caravan out of Hawaii (I think) that lost his engine and they ditched in the water. A passenger caught the whole thing on video

Cessna 206 on amphibs or straight floats

haha.. I've often thought if I had a float plane it would alleviate my over water flying fears. Granted.. now you're floating on the water.. what do you do? Also.. ocean swells are going to make a water landing challenging.. but while we're at it.. maybe the ultimate safety for over water flying then is a Catalina.. incidentally someone turned these into LUXURY flying boats at one point:
https://www.messynessychic.com/2014/04/24/all-aboard-the-flying-yacht-circa-1950/

..I was born in the wrong generation with the wrong amount of money..

 

[Doc Holliday]

Just this past Monday I flew IFR to Canadian Rockies International airport, YXC, the Airliner in front of me called missed approach, and was hesitant about going around for another attempt, or just heading to his alternate. The controller asked me if I had heard the 737 Pirep, I assured them yes I did, and they cleared me to land, it was not bad at all, done much tougher approaches, behind me a private King Air landed no problem. So the 737 decided that since we landed fine, he would try again, and another miss, he left to his alternate after that. A 210 was holding waiting for the 737 to land for his turn, now gone finally, the 210 was cleared to land, and did so with ease. This is not a tight runway either, at 8,000' it doesn't get much better than that, so I was shocked when the 737 missed twice. Later I find out that the crew is not new to coming there either, they are regulars and still couldn't get it done. It makes me wonder if they actually do real IFR often, or are too used to just being on AP or IFR on top which is really just glorified VFR. Before I was in my rental car driving away another plane landed without incident on their first try.

So that would have been Monday the 11th. Just for fun I looked up the historical METARs for CYXC (your destination) and found that day, starting at 0600 local time until 1700 local that the lowest weather reported was 25 miles visibility and ceiling 3000 overcast to broken. Then about lunch the ceilings went to 25,000 broken and later 18,000 broken.

Hmmmm.........

 

[GaryV]

I have a Cardinal RG with a Garmin 430 (non-waas) and a second nav-com with ILS and a DME (also an ADF but that’s becoming less and less useful). Real IMC is common at KLBX south of Houston so I don’t have a problem staying current flying actual approaches.

I fly practice approaches to 200’ on the ILS but my personal minimum for planning is 500’ and at least a mile. If I expect LIFR I don’t make the trip until conditions improve. If conditions deteriorate at the destination while I’m in the air I’ll go for an alternate with better conditions.

I try to plan my alternates as locations far enough from my destination to be out of localized LIFR conditions and to places where I can get a rental car. That usually means carrying more than an hour of reserve fuel. That shortens the distance I can fly in one trip but gives me around 150 miles to find an acceptable alternate.

I’ve only had a couple of trips where I didn’t get to my planned destination but I’d rather get to experience a new place than push beyond my personal minimums. I haven’t had enough problems with getting to my destination to make upgrading to a WAAS capable approach GPS a higher priority than spending that money on trips.

gary

 

[chemgeek]

I will fly IFR in IMC as long as there is not ice or T-storms. I routinely did so before GPS, EFBs, and in-flight weather, and before I had an autopilot. Add all those things into the mix, and maybe a couple of G5s, and it's a LOT easier today. I do pay attention to routing over terrain in low conditions, but otherwise utilizing my IFR skills does not bother me. Some days it's on top, other days it's in the clag from departure to arrival. Stay current and proficient, keep your ride well maintained, and the risk is low. I don't fly an exotically equipped plane, just a basic flib with appropriate avionics. It can be done safely.

I know too many IFR rated pilots who are afraid to use their rating. It's either a shame, or those pilots were not well trained enough to be confident in their skills and the system. I marvel with a smile at how well it works every time I break out on approach.

 

[GaryV]

Seeing the runway where it should be when I drop out of the clouds is one of my favorite things. Makes me smile every time.

 

[Datadriver]

I flew IFR regularly for years. 6 pack + G430W. My personal minimums were 600ft ceiling and good visibility below.