Who Flies Real IFR?

MauleSkinner said:
How did you find the runway?
Click to expand...
Even when conditions are reported as zero zero, you can usually still see enough to find the centerline. If it is really "zero zero", no, we wouldn't go.
 
Bill Watson said:
Whenever I see ‘aggressively lower the nose’ it gives me pause. You’ve obviously been there and done that mote than once so no argument. But when I’ve simulated such an incident I found that it wasn’t all that aggressive in a single.

The optimal pushover needs to start immediately but is rather gentle. That’s consistent with the plane already being trimmed for roughly the right speed. IOTW, it’s easy to be too aggressive if you are already primed to push rather than pull, no?

I guess that zero G is optimal but that is easy to overdo.

Having crashed a dozen or more RC aircraft after engine failures on takeoff, I’m primed but in full scale aircraft I find it easy to overdo it.

What’s your thinking?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
Correct..it depends on the airplane and the airspeed/attitude/weight/speed/etc as to how aggressively you need to pitch down.
 
No, do not aggressively pitch down if you lose the engine on take off. If you do you will get a nose low high descent rate and may not be able to stop the dive before you hit the ground. Think of this, your climb out speed is probably close to your final approach landing speed, and your nose is going to be 5* up or so. You only want to lower the nose near level so it is like a power off landing approach. You don't want to pitch down so much that you go for best glide speed. The figure in my Bonanza is 80K landing and 110 best glide.
Now if you lose the engine in cruise and want to glide somewhere that may be a different case.
 
MonkeyClaw said:
... Now that I'm in AZ, I rarely get the chance, so it's under the hood for me.
Click to expand...

You have to really look for real IMC here in AZ and it is hard to find. Most people who do an instrument rating here get the rating with no actual IMC.
 
Bill Watson said:
Whenever I see ‘aggressively lower the nose’ it gives me pause. You’ve obviously been there and done that mote than once so no argument. But when I’ve simulated such an incident I found that it wasn’t all that aggressive in a single.

The optimal pushover needs to start immediately but is rather gentle. That’s consistent with the plane already being trimmed for roughly the right speed. IOTW, it’s easy to be too aggressive if you are already primed to push rather than pull, no?

I guess that zero G is optimal but that is easy to overdo.

Having crashed a dozen or more RC aircraft after engine failures on takeoff, I’m primed but in full scale aircraft I find it easy to overdo it.

What’s your thinking?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

I don't see the need for aggressively pitching down. The airplane will find the right airspeed if you just let it. Most airplanes will not stall with power off even with trim all the way up. It is the pilot who makes it stall by pulling back. Relaxing the control pressure in the event of an engine failure might be the best course of action.
 
"Aggressive" in typically used in this context to refer to the immediacy of the need to overcome the tendency maintain the climb pitch attitude when there is a sudden loss of power during a Vy climb, not the number of degrees the pitch is changed. Truly a semantic difference. Far more important to accomplish the task than to parse the words used to describe it,
 
Bill Watson said:
Yes, the vacuum failure thing is a real risk that happens. Same with pneumatic gyro instruments. When I had the chance to design and build my own, I kept it all electric (w/mags) and the did a dual bus, dual alternator, dual battery electrical system. I’m electrically dependent but robust.

It works well so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

The airplane is getting a G5 HSI installed right now, and it can also function as an ADI with a button push or two. That gives me some confidence that I will have a backup in the event the mechanical ADI fails.
 
EdFred said:
What happens if it quits when I'm 40 miles from the nearest landout area? What happens when it quits when I'm over the middle of lake michigan? What happens when it quits over a heavily populated area with no wide streets?

If I wanted to be a giant vajayay I'd just flight sim and sit at home in the safety of my couch. IF you're flying aircraft where you're worried the engine is going to quit, maybe you shouldn't be flying that aircraft at all. I realize there's a crap ton of people scared of their own shadow; I'm not one of them.
Click to expand...
Ah, taking more risk is manly. I see. Well, grunt, grunt! :rolleyes:

I am always worried that the engine is going to quit.
 
I have flown plenty of IFR trips with wide spread low overcast. The way I see it, if the fan of life quits turning in the Venture it could happen at night, or in the mountains, or over water, and I would be just as screwed. I do have trouble staying current though. Flying IMC is dangerous no matter how you look at it. Instruments can fail, engines can fail, unexpected weather can pop up. In other words, if I have a trip planned and it happens to be IMC then I will still go provided I have good minimums and even better outs close by. I've never been the type though to see a good IMC day and want to go up for practice approaches. I would rather just have a safety pilot and be under the goggles. What this means is I have lots of simulated IMC, very very few actual.

I also have a very dated analog panel. Sure the necessities are there but the autopilot is rate based, not GPSS so it's not the greatest. The HSI isn't the smoothest and will get to swinging pretty good in turbulence. The GPS is adequate but not WAAS. To complicate matters worse getting configured for landing demands drastic trim changes. It really makes it a handful passing the final approach fix.

Another Venture pilot said it best a few weeks ago. When you fly the Venture, you are flying 3 totally different airplanes. One on the ground, one in cruise, and one in the landing configuration.
 
mryan75 said:
Ah, taking more risk is manly. I see. Well, grunt, grunt! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No, taking more risk is inherent in the activity.

"More" is a combination or objective reality and subjective acceptability. Yes, we take "more" risk of the consequences of an engine failure over Lake Michigan than the flat plains of western Kansas. But we also take on "more" risk when we leave the traffic pattern than when we stay in it. What is acceptable to me may be unacceptable to you, and we are both right.
 
One of the "benefits" of flying a lot of imc is that things will go wrong. Once you lose an control instrument, or comms, or oil pressure, or find some unforecast ice, you realize what can go wrong and the potential consequences. Not that those thing can't be overcome, but it kind of tempers the appetite for regularly accepting high levels of risk, or so it did me.

Some might call it fear, others judgement.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
No, taking more risk is inherent in the activity.

"More" is a combination or objective reality and subjective acceptability. Yes, we take "more" risk of the consequences of an engine failure over Lake Michigan than the flat plains of western Kansas. But we also take on "more" risk when we leave the traffic pattern than when we stay in it. What is acceptable to me may be unacceptable to you, and we are both right.
Click to expand...
I agree entirely that there are many risk factors to consider in all phases of flight and that what may be acceptable risk to you is not to me and vice versa. I entirely disagree that not being willing to fly a single engine piston to minimums in solid IMC makes one a “giant vajayjay”, which is the comment I was responding to.
 
One of my partners is a 787 FO, and he just scrubbed his flight in the Mooney today. The predicted weather is under 500/2 along his route and destination, and that is his personal minimums for GA.
 
Old and oftentimes contentious conversation among pilots with different personal minimums and levels of proficiency. One size does not fit all, so there's really no right or wrong here.

My minimums are "the" minimums. I fly a non known-ice light twin personally so I don't fly in cold/wet conditions which could lead to ice. Obviously I steer around convective activity and make strategic and tactical no-go decisions based on weather. I'll fly over and through wide-spread areas of low IMC, at night, and fly approaches down to published minimums with a legal alternate. Generally I need at least one hour fuel reserve beyond the alternate rather than the legal minimum. For the most part, I don't mix mountain flying with low weather and night operations.

The twin provides me a level of safety and redundancy which cannot be matched by any light piston single-engine airplane, regardless of the performance or safety features. The systems and redundancy of even my small, relatively underpowered twin allows me to safely fly in the weather that I do for the purpose of flying my family to destinations. Were I flying a single -- any single, be it a Cirrus, Bonanza, or even a Cessna 182, my minimums would be much higher. Probably no night IFR at all -- possibly little or no night VFR at all, for that matter, except possibly in good, well-lit night IMC (i.e. moonlight). It's difficult for me to bet my family's life on one engine. Not so difficult to bet their lives on my proficiency flying a light twin.

One day, as I get older, that might change, but right now it's in my wheelhouse to handle those risks safely with that equipment and the amount of flying I do every year. Of course, I'm in an airplane most days out of the week, every week. The average GA pilot does not do that so therefore the calculus could and should be very different for many making equipment determinations with regards to weather and night operations.

I think a light twin can be the right choice for GA pilots if they're truly committed to regular training and maintaining a truly high level of proficiency. If not, better to fly the single-engine airplane and (in my opinion, anyway) lower the risk by flying in better weather.
 
Don't know what light twin you fly, but again I didn't mean this topic to be a debate between singles vs twins. As for which is better, the market choice has strongly swung in favor of singles, including higher end ones. Don't think many buyers are going for a new Seneca or a new Baron. And as for as backups, my Bonanza has duplicates for both pressure pump ( vacuum) and generator. It had a hot prop but inop now.
The idea of being a very proficient pilot to fly real ifr weekly is fine, but I don't think the answer to lower risk is just to fly a single. Some singles might be safer in some ways ifr or any landing because they may approach slower.

The most fun and fulfilling flying I've ever done was 25 years of high performance single engine flying all over the country and some in Canada. If you got enough engine you don't need two of them, and it has enough. What it didn't have was a lot of fuel therefore not a lot of time to waste going to an alternate or getting lost. When I wanted to get a normal airplane with 4 or more seats, I took a look at piston twins. They had quite a bit less performance and as for as I can see they require more training to be safely proficient.
I really am not sure, since I only have few multi hours, never tried single engine in one, don't know if it is a little hard or really hard.
So I have the Bonanza, good airplane, not really that fast but enough to go places.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
No autopilot flown to minimums and even missed a number of times in PA24 and PA
28. If I cant fly to minimums I shouldn't be in the air.
Click to expand...
I agree. I got my instrument rating to fly in instrument conditions. I’ve had the rating 18 months and I’ve gone missed twice. No autopilot either.
 
Bill Greenwood said:
Don't know what light twin you fly, but again I didn't mean this topic to be a debate between singles vs twins. As for which is better, the market choice has strongly swung in favor of singles, including higher end ones. Don't think many buyers are going for a new Seneca or a new Baron. And as for as backups, my Bonanza has duplicates for both pressure pump ( vacuum) and generator. It had a hot prop but inop now.
The idea of being a very proficient pilot to fly real ifr weekly is fine, but I don't think the answer to lower risk is just to fly a single. Some singles might be safer in some ways ifr or any landing because they may approach slower.
Click to expand...

But your original post references SE operations. In order to discuss the hazards associated with SE operations, inevitably one has to point to the blaring difference in one engine vs two. It’s not about equipment or approach speeds, it’s about the fact with one engine, you’re definitely going down, where as two engines, there’s a good chance of continuing flight.

I know a lot of people who won’t do IMC in a single because of that very reason. Just talked to a guy at work a few days ago and he said he wouldn’t do IMC in the new IFR certified B407 GXI. Even though SE IFR helo ops have been done in the military for decades with an impeccable record, in his mind it’s not worth the risk of engine failure. I believe the occurrence of that risk is rare, and it’s condition manageable in most circumstances. To each his own.
 
Hand flying approaches to minimums is the task we all train to do. Any tendency to think ‘real pilots hand fly to minimums and don’t use the AP’ is a bit misgiven.

Fact is, as many pilots of the most modern panels will attest to, flying an approach to minimums using the AP is a challenging task in itself. The button pushing involved requires separate training and proficiency, particularly learning how to get out of problems a button pushing mistake can cause. There are more than a few. Not being proficient or adequately trained in such procedure has bitten more than a few pilots and bitten them hard.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Bill Greenwood said:
Don't know what light twin you fly, but again I didn't mean this topic to be a debate between singles vs twins. As for which is better, the market choice has strongly swung in favor of singles, including higher end ones. Don't think many buyers are going for a new Seneca or a new Baron.
Click to expand...

That has been true for many years. GA is definitely a single engine-centric market.

And as for as backups, my Bonanza has duplicates for both pressure pump ( vacuum) and generator. It had a hot prop but inop now.
Click to expand...

Very helpful to have those backups, but one motor is one motor -- and that's the dividing line for me.

The idea of being a very proficient pilot to fly real ifr weekly is fine, but I don't think the answer to lower risk is just to fly a single. Some singles might be safer in some ways ifr or any landing because they may approach slower.
Click to expand...

Sure, no one is suggesting that "just flying a single lowers risk," at least not that I can see in this thread. That's too simplistic a takeaway for a complex topic.

The general thinking on this subject, and it's where I've fallen after the twenty or so years of being involved in it, is that the level of proficiency required for safe single-engine, single pilot IFR operations is not at the same level as what is needed for safe multi-engine, single pilot IFR operations. That's not to suggest single-engine IFR ops require anything less than a high level of proficiency, but it's something akin to the difference between high level amateur leagues and professional sports teams in terms of commitment to training and currency. I say that fully expecting to rejoin the former category someday.

You can't casually and safely operate a piston twin in single pilot IFR operations as a hobbyist, non-professional GA pilot. It's a real commitment. A lifestyle change in some cases. That's what it boils down to.

When I wanted to get a normal airplane with 4 or more seats, I took a look at piston twins. They had quite a bit less performance and as for as I can see they require more training to be safely proficient.
Click to expand...

I could spend less to go faster and further on one engine, easily. But that's not why I own a twin. I own a twin so I can travel in low weather, weather that would otherwise be below my personal minimums in a single-engine airplane.
 
Velocity, why does flying ifr make it more likely to have an engine failure? You are saying no ifr in a single but vfr ok in a single? Doesn't make sense. By the way, I don't have statistics, but I doubt if engine failure on an approach, either vfr or ifr is very likely and common. You are running the engine at low power usually, my Bonanza for instance 16 in on an ils, so unless you run out of fuel it isn't lilely to quit. The engine doesn't sense if its imc or vmc, doesn't quit due to a cloud.
 
Not to steal Velocity's podium, but I'll give my take before he replies.

Bill Greenwood said:
Velocity, why does flying ifr make it more likely to have an engine failure?
Click to expand...

That hasn't been suggested by anyone.

You are saying no ifr in a single but vfr ok in a single? Doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. Engine failure in a single means you're gliding to a landing... somewhere. If you have VMC, you can see where you're landing. IMC, you don't. Therefore it's common sense risk management to view the operations differently based on the number of powerplants available.

The engine doesn't sense if its imc or vmc, doesn't quit due to a cloud.
Click to expand...

And it doesn't quit because you're crossing Lake Michigan, yet it does. And it doesn't quit because it's a dark moonless night, yet it does. Come to think of it, engines pretty much fail when and where they want to. Luckily it's not common, but when it happens, the options available are extremely limited if there's only one source of power production. It therefore behooves the pilot to stack the deck in his or her favor in case it does.
 
Ryan F. said:
Not to steal Velocity's podium, but I'll give my take before he replies.



That hasn't been suggested by anyone.



Sure it does. Engine failure in a single means you're gliding to a landing... somewhere. If you have VMC, you can see where you're landing. IMC, you don't. Therefore it's common sense risk management to view the operations differently based on the number of powerplants available.



And it doesn't quit because you're crossing Lake Michigan, yet it does. And it doesn't quit because it's a dark moonless night, yet it does. Come to think of it, engines pretty much fail when and where they want to. Luckily it's not common, but when it happens, the options available are extremely limited if there's only one source of power production. It therefore behooves the pilot to stack the deck in his or her favor in case it does.
Click to expand...


The question for me becomes "am I safer in a single engine airplane or a twin should an engine fail considering my experience and proficiency level in a twin?" For me the answer is "safer in a single" because I have no twin experience. It's pretty simple for me, and trust me, getting into a capable twin is within easy reach for many, but I haven't figured out what it would take, or if I would have the necessary time to get proficient in a twin. I think of the recent takeoff accident video of a Technam, where in all probability an engine failed on take off and the airplane rolled and crashed.
 
Bill Greenwood said:
Velocity, why does flying ifr make it more likely to have an engine failure? You are saying no ifr in a single but vfr ok in a single? Doesn't make sense. By the way, I don't have statistics, but I doubt if engine failure on an approach, either vfr or ifr is very likely and common. You are running the engine at low power usually, my Bonanza for instance 16 in on an ils, so unless you run out of fuel it isn't lilely to quit. The engine doesn't sense if its imc or vmc, doesn't quit due to a cloud.
Click to expand...

Didn’t say that, and yes, flying IFR doesn’t make it (B407) more likely to have an engine failure unless you’re talking ice or heavy rain. But that’s a completely separate issue.

I’m saying this particular pilot who flys SPIFR twin engine H-135s, believes the risk associated with an engine failure in a single, while IMC, is outside his comfort zone. Since the FAA won’t let me fly over a cloud layer in a B407, they seem to agree somewhat in his risk mitigation. Personally, as I stated, I think the risk is low, the condition of SE failure is manageable (autorotate) and the benefits outweigh those risks.
 
Bill Greenwood said:
Velocity, Im not flying a helicopter.
Click to expand...

Ok, so this thread is specifically pertaining to your situation then? Your question of single pilot IFR made no reference to aircraft category, class or even type engine.
 
Good stuff!

I just started training for my IR. Cancelled yet another business trip yesterday due to MVFR conditions going to possibly IMC (I drove. Good idea.) I’m starting to get tired of cancelling and that’s a risk factor.

I could see for the time being using my future IR but only in the lowest MVFR conditions. Staying out of anything lower than 1000ft. Why? Because I don’t know any better and I’m risk averse in my older years. Maybe IR training will build confidence.

I have A/P with altitude preselect, tied to the HSI for heading & course, with a GPS and flight director. The only thing I feel lacking is GPSS, so I have to manually set the course on what my IFD-540 tells me. Yeah, I know, many fly IMC down to mins without any of this stuff. I also have a stand-alone KI209 and KX155.

What if something in my A/P chain (including the guy turning knobs and pushing buttons) goes wrong? Staying out of lower than 1000 ft ceilings seems like an out. But then again, I may get sick of canceling some flights as before the IR, just fewer.
 
My personal take on single engine hard IFR (widespread low IFR) is that I avoid it whenever I can. Same thing with single engine night flying. That does not mean I do not fly at night or in hard IFR conditions regularly. I do, I just don't do it unless I need to for some reason. A $100 hamburger is not going to happen if its 400' and 2 (unless its been awhile since i've shot an approach in actual and I feel I need the practice).

I am a CFI/II and I will fly at night or in hard IFR conditions with students to get them the experience they need for their ratings/certificates. If I have a personal pre-planned vacation or business trip I will make the flight as long as I have legal weather/fuel minimums and ice/thunderstorms are not a problem (for sake of conversation most of my x/c flying is in an M20J).

I realize that in widespread low IMC at night or daytime an engine failure in a single puts me in a really bad spot. I flew over the Appalachians twice this year in hard IMC and you bet I was watching the little glide range thing on foreflight and structured my route to try and stay within gliding range of an airport as much as possible, and I was watching the engine analyzer like a hawk. It is extremely rare for a well maintained airplane to have a sudden, catastrophic engine failure without displaying some warning signs first. And usually the weather is good, probably 85% of my flight time is in day VFR conditions. So the likelihood of an engine failure with no warning is rare, and the chance it happens to me at night or in low IMC is even more remote.
 
Last edited:
There are some times when a vrf night flight is really nice, some nights when there is a full moon and especially snow on the ground to reflect light. You could read a newspaper outside. Of course mostly wind is calmer so no turbulence. Now you have to remember that if it is winter, you are facing survival conditions if you cant complete the trip.
Night flying in imc ,is another matter. That is real instrument flying, everything is done on instruments and you don't even have that clue of sunlight overhead as to which way is up. It's not flying in vmc conditions and calling it ifr just because you have an ifr flight plan and are talking to someone in a radar room who is not likely to be a pilot.
Our airport has a curfew, no flying in or out after 11pm to 7am, so I'm not even night current right now. That curfew came about decades ago because musician Glen Frey of the Eagles has or had a house overlooking the airport and didn't like the airplane noise at night, so he raised a big fuss about it, all in the name of safety at first. He secretly gave $100k to county commissioners for the legal fight against AOPA and others who were representing g a pilots. The end result was the curfew as we have it now. By the way the opposition was so well funded that when the FAA would not cave in, actually stood up for gen av and said all have a right to use the airport equally, the anti airplane people went over the heads of FAA and got some congress members to pressure DOT.
Eagles, good music, bad vibes.
P S please don't tell any of my friends that I said something positive about the FAA, I ain't that senile yet.
 
I’ll tackle about anything legal in the Conquest except a severe icing forecast.

In a piston twin I’ll be more cautious with ice and t-storm avoidance, but will still shoot to minimums.

I won’t do night or below 1000-3 in a piston single.
 
James_Dean said:
I won’t do night or below 1000-3 in a piston single.
Click to expand...
I will.

I have already had a piston single engine go Tango Uniform on me in low flight. The odds of that happening again are less than having two vacuum pumps go out at the same time.
 
I thoroughly enjoy night flights, so peaceful and spectacular. I don't understand why more people don't fly in the dark.
 
James_Dean said:
I’ll tackle about anything legal in the Conquest except a severe icing forecast.

In a piston twin I’ll be more cautious with ice and t-storm avoidance, but will still shoot to minimums.

I won’t do night or below 1000-3 in a piston single.
Click to expand...

What about a turbine single?
 
hindsight2020 said:
What about a turbine single?
Click to expand...

I know you didn’t ask me, but my risk tolerance is similar to his and I think I’d treat a pressurized turbine single in the same manner I would a pressurized piston twin. Perhaps even be more comfortable. Big bore Continentals factor into that a bit. ;)

Moot point though. Can’t afford any of it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top