Some interesting IFR lessons...

Hi there,

Any thoughts on this story would be appreciated.

Part 1:
I was flying back from Medford Oregon last August IFR to Paine Field in Seattle. It took me about 2hrs 45mins and I spent a good 80% in IMC enroute. I flew at 6000ft once I got past the hills as I knew there was ice above me between 8 and 10k.
O.k. so about 1.5 hrs in my plane was working great with my trutrak was doing all the work, when suddenly the plane dropped out from under me in a rapid dive momentarily. Simultaniously my altimeter swung up and down and my VSI did the same. Yea, one could say that this definitely got my attention in solid IMC! I should point out that I was in moderate precip at this time. I obviously rapidly caught the descent overriding the autopilot to bring myself back to level. I disconnected the autopilot as it was obvious that it this caused the decent but it was clearly a result of something going wrong with my static system..

Q: Did I get water in my lines? If so, then why the oscilation? Water flowing up and down the line maybe?

In any event, this happened one more time, but my attitude indicator was fine and my altimeter and VSI returned the the correct position almost immediately. My plans obviously changed to landing at Portland, but once I left the precip it stopped happening, so I continued to Paine Field.

Part 2:
As I continued on towards Paine, I noticed some static building in my radio's. Not enough to cause a major issue, and it appeared to dissappear when I touched the frame of the aircraft. I was now in a position to avoid any significant cloud and it soon completely disappeared. Another lesson here with another questions.

Q: Has anyone installed static wicks on an RV6 before? If so, where as I am very reluctant to put them on my ailerons as i have had to work hard to insure I did not have a heavy wing in the past. Thoughts here or pictures would be appreciated.

Part 3:
So as I approached the IAF for the ILS 16R after verifying the weather at Paine to be 800 OVC, I accepted my clearance and switched to tower. Tower then reported that a CRJ had just broke out a miniumums due to some moving cloud over the approach end of the runway. I decided to attempt the approach anyway but did not use the trutrak to help with the LOC (GPS overlay) as I was unsure about its reliability after the static port problem and while I was confident I could fly a stabilized approach, I did not want to recover a dive at 500ft it it came. I was ready for my alternate of BFI if I had to go missed and continued down the ILS. Now this is where I learnt something. People who fly short wing RV's IFR really need to keep their IFR skills sharp, and I was thankful that mine were. Just as I hit DH and began to power up, I broke through a cloud to visual and landed. I have to say that this was the most work I have had to do on an ILS since my training and I would urge anyone flying an RV IFR not to rely on the autopilot to always be there. Its absolutely critical that you practice flying under the hood manually to miniumums as much as you can.

Great advice

Good writeup, Hugh. Yep, they're a handful but not too bad in IMC. Jenny and I descended through a couple thousand feet of cloud last week and I asked her not to speak while I was doing so.

I'd also suggest at least a half hour of hood time with a safety pilot if you're going IFR in IMC and haven't done so in a while.

Regards,

Trutrak/altrak and static source

"Simultaniously my altimeter swung up and down and my VSI did the same."

The builder of my RV9A left the Altrak staic open rather than connecting it to the system. At first I though that was a bad idea, but decied it was a good way to protect against what happened to you.

I has a similar event to your in heavy rain in 2005 in a 172. The alimeter, and VSI all got funcky. Later after some reading I concluded that the static port got either water or ICE in it.

Bad idea to use the cabin as a static source. It is ok in an emergency for ALT static. The reason it is bad is because the air pressure in the cabin changes every time you open an air vent or cabin heat, or if you are slipping. Also the cabin pressure changes with airspeed. Your best bet is to use a proper static system and a valve for alternate static. Using the cabin as the source will drive the altitude hold crazy. Your air speed will read wrong and the altimeter will also read wrong.

hughfi said:

Hi there,

Any thoughts on this story would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

I have a few thoughts on the story but a simple question first, why are you doing it?

The pitch event with the auto pilot and static build up with the radio are happening because the airplane was not designed for hard IFR flight. Installing some radios and an autopilot do not make it a good IFR platform. It is impossible for anyone to give you a definitive answer on either question because such questions only get answered after much design work and flight testing.

The RV is a basic VFR airplane. You've demonstrated that it can be flown in rain, near freezing rain, and successfully landed with minumum visibility and ceiling, but what's the point? An electric failure, an engine failure, too much water going into the engine intake, freezing level not where it supposed to be, and you become a smoking hole in the ground.

You did a great job flying the machine, but don't push your luck. No RV is suited for hard IFR in my opinion, which of course many will disagree with, but to each his own. I wouldn't do it for love or money because I know things can and will go wrong and the back ups are mighty thin or not at all.

Good night on this one, Irene. I say no more.

My Trutrak digiflight II gave out on me on my first long cross country a month ago. At 100hr. hobbs time. The compass head just kept rotating and wouldn't grab a heading. (While I was climbing and departing IFR thru a 4000 ft layer to VFR on top in Texas.) I punched the button on climb out and thought I'd have an easy climb with the convenient Trutrak. NO Joy, had to fly the plane.

I'm waiting for an RMA so I can return it per the company.

I met a guy, mark, from AZ who has a Trutrak auto pilot in his RV-7 and he asked ME how mine was doing? His failed in the first year of operation and had to be sent in for repairs. And has since been working flawlessly.

So-- TruTrak definitely doesn't have a perfect record from all appearances.

Hey, maybe it's us. Water, moisture? I think I've used it a couple times during every flight.

Tru trak rep

Unless Trutrak changed their outlook they do recommend NOT connecting it to the static port but directly to the cabin. I talked to the rep a couple of years ago at the LOE flyin and they said their plane was just vented to the cabin and that's what they recommended. The deviations that did occur when vents were opened and such were deemed minor.
This would help in avoiding the stated problem of water/ice etc in the static port.
Let me know if they changed their recommendation because it was a couple of years ago.

David-aviator said:

The RV is a basic VFR airplane. You've demonstrated that it can be flown in rain, near freezing rain, and successfully landed with minumum visibility and ceiling, but what's the point? An electric failure, an engine failure, too much water going into the engine intake, freezing level not where it supposed to be, and you become a smoking hole in the ground.
...
I wouldn't do it for love or money because I know things can and will go wrong and the back ups are mighty thin or not at all.

Click to expand...

I guess I'm not sure why a properly-equipped RV with a properly-trained and very current IFR pilot at the controls is any more likely to become a smoking hole than a Cessna 182 in the same conditions. I agree that additive negative factors always add risk to a flight, but an "electric failure, engine failure, too much water going in the intake, freezeing level, etc." would be factors for any general aviation airplane.

Saying "the RV is a basic VFR airplane" is like saying "the RV is not an aerobatic airplane." For trained people, under certain carefully-chosen conditions, in the right location, with the right attitude, it is a fine aerobatic airplane. For others, it's not.

Everybody had different levels of comfort, and eveyone's airplanes are different. If you build an RV for truly robust IFR redundancy and fly it conservatively, I think the occasional foray into certain IFR conditions is just fine. A recent example: Filing to an airport with a ceiling forecast to remain overcast at 1000' AGL all day, with good visibility above and below the clouds (which are only 1000' thick.) Would I rather dodge towers and Class C/D airspace at 500' AGL all day to get to my destination, or cruise at 7500' MSL in the sunshine and do an ILS when I get there? That's the kind of scenario that's idea for IFR in any kind of single-engine airplane -- yes, even an RV.

My opinion, of course. Just want to throw it out there.

can you pass a Pitot static check like that?

mark manda said:

can you pass a Pitot static check like that?

Click to expand...

Mark,

I don't see why not since it is not tied into to the instrument static lines. I have never heard of an AP static check. Just AS and Alt.

David-aviator said:

The RV is a basic VFR airplane. You've demonstrated that it can be flown in rain, near freezing rain, and successfully landed with minumum visibility and ceiling, but what's the point? An electric failure, an engine failure, too much water going into the engine intake, freezing level not where it supposed to be, and you become a smoking hole in the ground.

Click to expand...

I respect your opinion on flying our planes in IFR. Here is my experience that causes me to give you an alternate point of view.

In the last 4 years I have had two vacuum pump failures, one on a missed approach making a climbing 180deg turn to the hold (thank goodness it was under a hood with a CFII right seat) and constant DG precession with a heading bug that drives crappy old auto pilots. These in certified C182s. I'll take an all electric with back up system any day coupled to an auto pilot that actually works without making me motion sick and can follow a heading with some semblance of accuracy.

Each pilot needs to assess their own individual skills and competency while having confidence in their systems before deciding what minimums they will fly to regardless of the aircraft.

To the original post, it is good to know that moisture and ice can build up in our static system installed as designed by Vans. I will use your experience to help in my decision making process when I need to spend extended period of time in the clouds. I currently do not have an alternate static source valve installed but my static line runs where I can reach it. Perhaps I should install some type of t-valve there and cap off one of the openings to the cabin for the just in case scenario.

BuckWynd said:

I guess I'm not sure why a properly-equipped RV with a properly-trained and very current IFR pilot at the controls is any more likely to become a smoking hole than a Cessna 182 in the same conditions. I agree that additive negative factors always add risk to a flight, but an "electric failure, engine failure, too much water going in the intake, freezeing level, etc." would be factors for any general aviation airplane.....

.....My opinion, of course. Just want to throw it out there.

Click to expand...

I should have said SEL, Buck, not just RV's - I don't like any of them for hard IFR - a 1000 and 3, have at it; but 200 and 1/2 mile, you're pushing shorts.

Legal SEL IFR under Part 91 is a safety compromise in favor of the economics of the industry. If those same rules were permitted under 135 or 121 operations, the air transport system would be a disaster. Some do not understand that difference. That's why there have far too many SEL IFR wrecks even with very expensive equipment. There is an artificial comfort level running parallel with the amount of money spend on goodies.

Young guys feel the need to do this stuff and that is very understandable, we've all been there. The log book has to get filled with experiences - we're driven as aviators to do our thing. But it also is a time when pilots die because their risk management is not developed - or not even on the radar.

So when I see a guy doing a precision approach to minimums in a non certified experimental airplane just for the heck of it, it is difficult not to comment, especially since he asked for comments. If he understands the risk, have at it, but it is a risky business and IMHO not conducive to long life.

Serious Business

David,

I agree with most of what you said. On the other hand, the scud running that most low-timers do is just as dangerous as filing. Good judgement is just as important in either activity. Buy an airline ticket when the weather is stinko.
They're cheap nowdays.

Speaking of airlines.......I don't get warm fuzzies flying in the clouds with 140
people behind me, knowing that there might be an RV driver 1000 feet below me with his autopilot connected to cabin air! Come on guys, follow the rules
when you build and fly IFR. This is serious business.

David-aviator said:

The log book has to get filled with experiences - we're driven as aviators to do our thing. But it also is a time when pilots die because their risk management is not developed - or not even on the radar.

Click to expand...

Amen to that. Like the old saying says: "Good judgment comes from experience. Unfortunately, the experience usually comes from bad judgment."

As I've been designing my IFR RV-8, I've kept in mind all the 'interesting' experiences I've had with certified airplanes -- vacuum pump failures, battery failures, alternator failures, and even a very subtle attitude indicator failure. Not once was there a backup for any of it. Thanks goodness we can design a level of redundancy into our own homebuilts than Cessna, Piper, Mooney, etc., could not financially justify.

Of course, there is that minor issue of only one engine...

IFR Twin?

BuckWynd said:

Of course, there is that minor issue of only one engine...

Click to expand...

That does it.. I'm pitching my 1/2 finished -7 and going with the full IFR Cri-Cri.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CriCri

Yukon said:

Speaking of airlines.......I don't get warm fuzzies flying in the clouds with 140 people behind me, knowing that there might be an RV driver 1000 feet below me with his autopilot connected to cabin air! Come on guys, follow the rules when you build and fly IFR. This is serious business.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on IFR - it's serious business. Mess things up and there are a lot more consequences than VFR.

On the autopilot issue, is there any problem with using cabin air for static if you're only using altitude hold?

TODR

the_other_dougreeves said:

On the autopilot issue, is there any problem with using cabin air for static if you're only using altitude hold?

TODR

Click to expand...

I don't think there is much static pressure variation in the cabin. I did some extensive ASI comparisons once upon a time with 3 indicators hooked up, 2 lying on the right seat, 1 on the panel and could not detect any change in speed when switching from outside static pressure to inside pressure. For sure this is not true with all airplanes but at our speeds, I don't think it matters much.

I have the Altrak altitude hold unit from Van's and it works very well, like it will hold within plus or minus 20 feet, which is just fine for my VFR on top life style going somewhere but I wouldn't trust it IFR with lots of turns and turbulence. The unit does not have a big brain and is slow with simple turn G loads. It is hooked up to the static system. I have not tried it on cabin pressure but since it simply locks on to a give pressure, it should work just fine.

David-aviator said:

I have the Altrak altitude hold unit from Van's and it works very well, like it will hold within plus or minus 20 feet, which is just fine for my VFR on top life style going somewhere but I wouldn't trust it IFR with lots of turns and turbulence. The unit does not have a big brain and is slow with simple turn G loads. It is hooked up to the static system. I have not tried it on cabin pressure but since it simply locks on to a give pressure, it should work just fine.

Click to expand...

In the course of rigging my Trio EZ-Hold, the idiot working on my plane inadvertently left the autopilot static connection open for one of the test flights. This was discovered when I noticed that opening a cabin vent caused the EZ-Hold to quickly adjust to a new altitude. Variation was probably in the range of 15-20', but since I had calibrated the capture of the EZ-Hold to be fairly aggressive, it was noticeable as the plane flew to the new altitude.

I would not expect as noticeable a change with the AlTrak since it is pretty soft in the way it latches onto the set altitude. But it is so easy to connect a pitch autopilot to the static system I don't know why a builder shouldn't do it in order to achieve the best possible performance.

David-aviator said:

I should have said SEL, Buck, not just RV's - I don't like any of them for hard IFR - a 1000 and 3, have at it; but 200 and 1/2 mile, you're pushing shorts.

Legal SEL IFR under Part 91 is a safety compromise in favor of the economics of the industry. If those same rules were permitted under 135 or 121 operations, the air transport system would be a disaster. Some do not understand that difference. That's why there have far too many SEL IFR wrecks even with very expensive equipment. There is an artificial comfort level running parallel with the amount of money spend on goodies.

Young guys feel the need to do this stuff and that is very understandable, we've all been there. The log book has to get filled with experiences - we're driven as aviators to do our thing. But it also is a time when pilots die because their risk management is not developed - or not even on the radar.

So when I see a guy doing a precision approach to minimums in a non certified experimental airplane just for the heck of it, it is difficult not to comment, especially since he asked for comments. If he understands the risk, have at it, but it is a risky business and IMHO not conducive to long life.

Click to expand...

I think your post is absent accident statistics. My recollection is reading that MEL accident statistics are slightly worse than SEL.
What typically kills pilots in IFR are things like icing, thunderstorms, disorientation (lack of proficiency), not being IFR rated, etc.

How many pilots really die in IFR because they have one engine instead of two? I would say the number that die in twins because of mishandling an engine-out far exceed that.

Age is a relative thing. When I first started flying in my early 30s I tended to push the limits more than I do now (51). I tend to pay very close attention to the human factor now, such as fatigue, recent experience, health, stress, etc. I also am more apt to consider equipment failure as a real possibility. If I start to get even light icing now I'll take action immediately rather than ride it out. In my 30s I never used an autopilot, even in pretty extreme conditions of flight and fatigue. I still don't use them for an approach, but en route I use it constantly. It frees me for management duties and reduces fatigue, making me a safer pilot on approach. (all for example)

Somehow with age I have not reached the conclusion that I should not fly SEL IFR.

My 9A has a second D10 I normally dedicated for HSI. With the push of a button it is a backup AI. Both are battery backup. I worked into IFR with it very slowly. I have found that it is a good instrument platform.
I use "On Top" to fly simulated approaches, unusual attitudes, etc. I configure the 172 to be light enough to resemble flight characteristics of my 9A. I have found that I fly the airplane better than the simulator.
I wouldn't want to do 3 hours of hard IFR in it, but I don't really want to do that in any airplane. Would I? Yes, as long as my autopilot was functioning and the other parameters of the flight were ok.
200 & 1/2? I flew one of those in the 90s with my M20E in a situation where much better weather was available relatively close by. I'd do the same today in my RV9A.
I have found my instrument flying in the 9 to be more precise than in the M20J I sold before I bought it. On the Mooney's side, it was better for turbulent air and I had more confidence that it would carry a load of ice in a jam.
Anyway, bottom line is that on balance I believe I am as safe or safer in the 9A in IFR than any of the certified airplanes I have previously owned or flown.
The MEL verses SEL debate is really an open question in my view. I see the advantages of MEL, but the theoretical safety advantage doesn't seem to be born out in the accident statistics.

I'm glad you guys don't work for the FAA. Otherwise you would be enacting legislation protecting us from ourselves. Then our airspace system would be like Europe. Americans would have to got to (China?) for flight training just as much of the rest of the world come here for it today--or use to before 9/11.

We all take some risk and what may be acceptable for one, may not be for another. For example, I would fly a Lycoming powered metal airframe single to minimums in IMC, I would not fly that same airframe with Subaru power over a small mountain range on calm VFR day--but that's just me.

The statistics do NOT show that light multi engine IFR is more safe than single engine IFR. I don't know where you fly but on the east coast where I fly, IFR is IFR. There is no light or hard. You can be in VMC for a hour of flight, then IMC for two more hours until you reach your destination. By your definition, is this light or hard IFR?

Yukon said:

Speaking of airlines.......I don't get warm fuzzies flying in the clouds with 140 people behind me, knowing that there might be an RV driver 1000 feet below me with his autopilot connected to cabin air! Come on guys, follow the rules when you build and fly IFR. This is serious business.

Click to expand...

So which rules are being broken here? You might not want to use cabin pressure for determining altitude, however, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using it for maintaining altitude.

You guys live in a black or white world, the reality is that the world is infinite shades of colors and we have to find our own comfort levels.

So why is he doing it? Because he finds the risks acceptable to him. I would not ask any builder why they are installing a converted auto engine in an aircraft. I know why, they are comfortable with it--and that is fine with me.

Thanks for the feedback...

Firstly thanks for the feedback. Its a good discussion, and I certainly appreciate different perspectives on this.

I must say however that there is nothing in the design of the RV that I can see that makes it any different from an Archer or Cessna in terms of its ability to fly IFR. The cowl is similar in its construction, air intake sizes etc., and the rest of the aircraft is a solid design also. Sure, its got short wings but so does a Piper Tripacer and they are certified to fly IFR.

As for my decision making, its probably worth noting here that I always had a exit strategy in mind at all times while doing this flight and was always legal during all phases. My route took me over many airports and I could almost always see those runways through breaks in the cloud. I also knew that VFR was available above the MVA below so ATC could have brought me safely down if necessary. My IFR proficiency is also pretty high as I fly a lot of IFR in many types of aircraft, so I don't believe I was ever in a dangerous situation. There was just a lot going on during a long IFR flight, but that could be said for any IFR flight from my experience as you never really know what you are going to get or how things end up. I could tell you all a story about freezing rain, an old twin, electrical failures and some fuel leaks but I will leave that for another day...

I love flying my RV in IFR as it makes it a really usable aircraft around the Seattle area where we have lots of weather.

w1curtis said:

....You guys live in a black or white world, the reality is that the world is infinite shades of colors and we have to find our own comfort levels....

Click to expand...

Sir William,

In a sense it is a world of black and white, you're either dead or alive after the flight. A few years back a Bonanza took off IFR at night here in St. Louis, lost his AI and that was it about 3 miles from the airport. If that fellow had a chance to do it all over again he probably would be making different decisions concerning such flight.

Coming into JFK one cold rainy night in a warm, well equipt Boeing, we overheard a Cherokee on V4 about 10 miles off shore - he had iced up and declared an emergency as he was headed down toward the cold Atlantic Ocean. ATC gave him a quick vector toward the coast and as luck would have it he broke out at a couple hundred feet over a dark beach and landed. We thought he ditched but there was an article in the NYTimes the next day about the beach landing. A very lucky pilot. I wonder if he ever flew night IFR in a Cherokee again?

Sometimes you get a second chance, sometimes you don't. That's what this discussion is all about. Some guys, knowing what they know, have a different perspective of the risk. That's all.

yeah, what's that saying? about being down here....

I drove three hours(versus 45 mins.) last night rather than a possible rain night IFR landing.

those accidents/incidents dave were not with EFIS or dual EFIS though. good examples at any rate.

Survival rate at night goes to just about zero anyway.

David-aviator said:

Sir William,

In a sense it is a world of black and white, you're either dead or alive after the flight. A few years back a Bonanza took off IFR at night here in St. Louis, lost his AI and that was it about 3 miles from the airport. If that fellow had a chance to do it all over again he probably would be making different decisions concerning such flight.

Click to expand...

Just last month on a pristine VFR day, a Subaru equipped RV pilot fatally crashed about 3 miles from the airport-what would he do if he had to do it over again? How would things have changed if the Bonanza pilot had two engines? How would things have changed if it was daytime? IMC and no AI or backup-the only thing this example proves is that this guy was not proficient at partial panel. Other than that, I'm not sure what the relevance of this example is. What do you suggest we outlaw to protect against accidents like this? Night flying? Single engine IFR? Again, what is the point of this example?

David-aviator said:

Coming into JFK one cold rainy night in a warm, well equipt Boeing, we overheard a Cherokee on V4 about 10 miles off shore - he had iced up and declared an emergency as he was headed down toward the cold Atlantic Ocean. ATC gave him a quick vector toward the coast and as luck would have it he broke out at a couple hundred feet over a dark beach and landed. We thought he ditched but there was an article in the NYTimes the next day about the beach landing. A very lucky pilot. I wonder if he ever flew night IFR in a Cherokee again?

Sometimes you get a second chance, sometimes you don't. That's what this discussion is all about. Some guys, knowing what they know, have a different perspective of the risk. That's all.

Click to expand...

Again it sounds like you are uncomfortable with night IFR, probably night flying in general--again I ask, what would change if this was day IMC? We all have our comfort levels but just as the early F-117 fighter statistics show, a lot of "sharp" pilots loose it for no good reason other than they stop trusting thier instruments at night. The air force is now much better at weeding out these "sharp" pilots who loose it in the night. Your examples above say nothing about the safety of night IFR vs day IFR other than some pilots choose NOT to trust their instruments when its night.

If YOU are uncomfortable with night IFR, or IFR in an experimental, or IFR in a single, or night flying then don't do it. But clearly some are comfortable and you should not inhibit them with your personal restrictions. What is risky for one pilot who is uncomfortable in an environment may not be so for one that is comfortable and is well trained--perspective has little to do with it.

mark manda said:

I drove three hours(versus 45 mins.) last night rather than a possible rain night IFR landing.

Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable. Remember: the only vote that matters is yours if you're PIC.

TODR

w1curtis said:

If YOU are uncomfortable with night IFR, or IFR in an experimental, or IFR in a single, or night flying then don't do it. But clearly some are comfortable and you should not inhibit them with your personal restrictions. What is risky for one pilot who is uncomfortable in an environment may not be so for one that is comfortable and is well trained--perspective has little to do with it.

Click to expand...

Perspective has everything to do with it. Pilots die doing dumb things. That's one of my perspectives. Flying a SEL spam can at night in or out of the weather is a dumb thing to do - another one - and that's why I don't do it. If you don't want to read about such perspectives, don't read it, but do not infer I have no right to express an opinion on the subject just because it may make someone feel uneasy or question their judgement doing it.

And William, I have night IFR time, a lot of it, and never feared a minute of it. But it was with appropriate equipment and when it was single engine in the military, we wore a parachute. If things got dicey, you were too busy to be scared. How can one coming from such a background feel comfortable in a spam can at night without a parachute? If something goes wrong, you die almost for sure. How does one train for such an environment? Not even the military in time of war will compromise on such an issue.

OK. Spam cans do not fall out of the sky very often, day or night - maybe this has slipped off the table. But I won't do it because there is no place I need to get to that bad and I just don't feel up to a night engine out landing anywhere. I've had a couple in day light and know I don't want to do it at night. I'd rather kick back, have a beer and wait for the sun to shine.

David-aviator said:

Flying a SEL spam can at night in or out of the weather is a dumb thing to do - another one - and that's why I don't do it.

Click to expand...

I have a lot of respect for your opinions and experience David. And I believe that you have good reason for stating what you believe, and your right to do it. I guess my only objection in reading these posts is your use of the word "dumb". I fly IFR in single engine airplanes. I also fly them at night. For some reason, my comfort level is exceeded trying to fly IMC at night...and I can't explain exactly why that crosses the line. But I really don't consider myself "dumb" for doing so.

I will NEVER label you "dumb" for flying behind a Subaru, although many people might. You absolutely have the right to expound on your own limits, and you can even site good reasons why you think that it is not wise for other people do exceed them - I routinely let people know how I feel about risk management and pilots doing things beyond a reasonable scope.

But in getting to know you through your posts here over the years, name calling is beneath you. And it starts flame wars, which we try to avoid!

Paul

Ironflight said:

I have a lot of respect for your opinions and experience David. And I believe that you have good reason for stating what you believe, and your right to do it. I guess my only objection in reading these posts is your use of the word "dumb". I fly IFR in single engine airplanes. I also fly them at night. For some reason, my comfort level is exceeded trying to fly IMC at night...and I can't explain exactly why that crosses the line. But I really don't consider myself "dumb" for doing so.

I will NEVER label you "dumb" for flying behind a Subaru, although many people might. You absolutely have the right to expound on your own limits, and you can even site good reasons why you think that it is not wise for other people do exceed them - I routinely let people know how I feel about risk management and pilots doing things beyond a reasonable scope.

But in getting to know you through your posts here over the years, name calling is beneath you. And it starts flame wars, which we try to avoid!

Paul

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, using that word was inappropriate. Risk or risky would have been better and could have been substituted.

We do have differing levels of risk acceptance and need to be tolerant of each other, whatever those levels are. But as you say, sometimes it is difficult not to say something when it begs commenting on.

I talked a friend out of flight this week when there was a break in the fog, a few hours later he e-mailed to say I was right, he would not have made it home as the fog returned big time.

Sometimes we are right, but not always.

Perspective of a dumb RV pilot

David-aviator said:

Perspective has everything to do with it. Pilots die doing dumb things. That's one of my perspectives. Flying a SEL spam can at night in or out of the weather is a dumb thing to do - another one - and that's why I don't do it. If you don't want to read about such perspectives, don't read it, but do not infer I have no right to express an opinion on the subject just because it may make someone feel uneasy or question their judgement doing it.

And William, I have night IFR time, a lot of it, and never feared a minute of it. But it was with appropriate equipment and when it was single engine in the military, we wore a parachute. If things got dicey, you were too busy to be scared. How can one coming from such a background feel comfortable in a spam can at night without a parachute? If something goes wrong, you die almost for sure. How does one train for such an environment? Not even the military in time of war will compromise on such an issue.

OK. Spam cans do not fall out of the sky very often, day or night - maybe this has slipped off the table. But I won't do it because there is no place I need to get to that bad and I just don't feel up to a night engine out landing anywhere. I've had a couple in day light and know I don't want to do it at night. I'd rather kick back, have a beer and wait for the sun to shine.

Click to expand...

David,
You're entitled to your opinion and your risk assessments are completely valid for you.
I do not believe they are objectively "correct".
If they were, we'd see the NTSB citing your views on this subject when assigning blame in an accident. We don't.
In other words, your personal limits do not translate into a standard we should all live by.
Actually, taking your position to the limit, many of us who live in cities wouldn't fly at all because if you loose the motor, you've got nothing but buildings to land on. No flying over mountains either.
Flying involves risk and each pilot needs to fly within the risk limits they feel comfortable with. Different people have different tolerance for risk. some people think flying a small airplane is too much of a risk.
So, am I right, are you right, or are they right? The answer is: yes.

Let's simplify things

Mornin' all,
An old-timer gave me some good advice during a multi-Cessna Agwagon ferry flight. He said that there are three basic dangers in flying:

1. Low fuel.

2. Bad weather.

3. Night flight.

"As long as you never experience any two of the above, at the same time, you can successfully cope with any one by themselves", he went on to say.

I have personally never forgotten those comments and share them here. I had a Cherokee muffler come apart and partially block the exhaust on a clear night and it was fresh out of annual, and barely made it back to the airport with only partial power So, I added number 4. to the above list. Mechanical failure. I don't want to have another nighttime mechanical failure to cope with and since I don't know when or if that might occur, I agree with David, not much night flying SEL anymore.

Regards,

Night flying and snakes

It is interesting when this subject comes up, folks get passionate about night flying. Night flying is analogous to snakes. Most people have an irrational fear of snakes and it is the same with night flying. Even though we may have an irrational fear of snakes, if we rationally examine them in comparison to another genus of animals, we would find that fear largely unfounded. So it is with the night, for a majority of the population-pilot and otherwise.

So if you have a fear of snakes, don't have one as a pet, but don't say it is any more dumb or risky for someone who does not have that same irrational fear (they still have respect) to own one as a pet. Again I go back to the F-117 example; we had sharp pilots with top of the line hardware that still lost it in night IFR flying. It basically proved that the man had more to do with it than the machine. The Air Force can now determine if a potential F-117 pilot would be comfortable having a metaphorical snake as a pet.

The photo-receptors in our eyes consists of rods and cones. The rods which are important to night vision does degrade with age and even more so with reduced oxygen. The reduction of one of our major sensory inputs is disconcerting for most people and rather than just operating as they should, they panic and change their behavior -usually for the worst. My rod density has always been high, as is my night comfort, but at some point I may make the determination that I no longer have the night visual acuity or comfort so I will no longer operate at night --VFR or IFR. That decision will however be for me only and I will not dictate what is best for another. I realize night comfort and night acquity varies with each individual.

Just think how different most people's behavior would be if confronted with the following:
or
If you are unfamiliar with both then you should treat them with the same respect. The snake could be poisonous and the dog could be rabid. Most however wouldn't hesitate to kill the harmless King snake (red NOT next to yellow) but would hesitate to do the same with the Boston Terrier. Both potentially safe or potentially dangerous.

And while I would do night IFR in IMC in the summer, I will not do it in any aircraft, single or multi, in winter unless I had anti-icing hardware. Those are my personal risk standards. An airframe, engine or instruments do not know if its day or night and aren't any less reliable at night. Certainly there are factors at night that you need to be aware of such as being able to see ice and have an "out" for it. In some places spotting a rotating beacon at night is easier than trying to find another black strip of asphalt. But that's just my opinion. When a pilot does come to grief at night, it most cases its because they panicked and changed their behavior from what they should have done. Once you get a grip on the human factors issues, having the proper equippage, and proper decision making, -just as with day IFR- night flying should be just as safe.

w1curtis said:

It is interesting when this subject comes up, folks get passionate about night flying. Night flying is analogous to snakes. Most people have an irrational fear of snakes and it is the same with night flying. Even though we may have an irrational fear of snakes, if we rationally examine them in comparison to another genus of animals, we would find that fear largely unfounded. So it is with the night, for a majority of the population-pilot and otherwise.

So if you have a fear of snakes, don't have one as a pet, but don't say it is any more dumb or risky for someone who does not have that same irrational fear (they still have respect) to own one as a pet. Again I go back to the F-117 example; we had sharp pilots with top of the line hardware that still lost it in night IFR flying. It basically proved that the man had more to do with it than the machine. The Air Force can now determine if a potential F-117 pilot would be comfortable having a metaphorical snake as a pet.

Click to expand...

You've lost me with this analogy, William. Night flight in weather is nothing new for military pilots, it certainly was not invented with the F-117. Maybe the USAF became a bit too focused on academy graduates and failed to identify individuals with outstanding flying skills because of it. There was a time when a guy could become a pilot in the USAF simply because he loved to fly. Bob Hoover and Chuck Yeager are examples of men who did just that in time of war - both were products of the original aviation cadet program. All that changed when the academy began graduating young men in the early 60's. They got the first shot at training slots whether they wanted to fly or not. There is no worse experience than flying with a professional pilot who wishes his entire life he were a dentist. Yes, he can get the job done but it isn't with same spirit as with a guy who loves flight and not much of anything else.

So how do guys not suited for flight (afraid of snakes) end up in the F-117? That would not have happened when I went through the all-weather interceptor school. We had so much hood and weather time, you wondered if the sun still rose. There's no way anyone not suited for such flying could have made it through the school. It was 6 months of nothing but instrument work, most of it in the back seat of a T-33. We took off under the hood and 1:45 later landed under the hood.

You keep using the word fear whether it be snakes or night flight. When I think about taking off in a spam can on a dark rainy night, something does crawl up my spine. Maybe it is fear or maybe it is a healthy respect for the risk meter in my brain. Doing the same thing 70-80 hours a month in a properly equiped airplane, the only thing I wondered about was when the first cup of coffee would be coming up. IFR flight, day or night, is safer than VFR because there was a much less chance of running into someone not in the system.

But that is only true with proper equipment and training. And therein lies the difference of opinion on this subject. I simply do not believe part 91 is up to the task of assuring an acceptable level of safety under the conditions a pilot is permitted to fly. It is as simple as that. It has nothing to do with snakes which I respect (but will admit to an irrational fear of spiders).

I flew up to St. Louis IFR yesterday

Yesterday, after a couple of years of perfect service, my Pictorial Pilot (Tru Trak) digita read out was correct but the plane slowly turned to the left each time I engaged it. S-o-o-o I turned it off and continued on hand flying to St. Louis & ILS Rwy 8R at SUS. I had become so comfortable with the autopilot over all this time that it was a struggle to hold heading & altitude, communicate, comply with changes in clearance, change frequencies, find the proper approach plate in the terminal procedures book, change navaid frequencies & radials, get the ATIS, etc. in my maneuverable little ship that was peaking at a ground speed of 203 kts at 5,000 ft MSL. I found it hard to accept going back to the vacuum pump activated DG but that and the wet compass was what worked fo me yesterday. I do not find the RV-6A to be fun to fly in IMC without an autopilot and if you get an approach controller with whimsical vertors playing with my mental picture it definitly knots my drawers.

Bob Axsom

re: night

I love night VFR flying (and don't mind night IFR within my limits
)but I don't have a twin or the rating.

I fear the night SEL engine out.

I flew down to Whiteman one night for a "FAA safety seminar on night flying".

Lots of good suggestions but the stats showed a very low survival rate for night off field landings.

I still have several IFR actual and night flights in the last two months but the inexplicable engine out scenario is always present in my mind.

Snakes n planes

This thread has got me thinking again about how I would react in two scenarios of day vs. night IFR flight. My conclusion is that anyone that considers IFR flight in daytime as safer or less risky than IFR IMC flight at night are ill prepared for either. IFR/IMC flight is unforgiving both day and night.

Consider the below two flights in a reasonable well equipped single engine aircraft with moving map GPS, appropriate flight instruments, etc:

Scenario A
An IFR flight with 1000 foot ceiling over much of the route of flight, solid IMC in the day.

Scenario B
An IFR flight with 1000 foot ceiling over much of the route of flight, solid IMC at night.

Now consider you had an engine failure on either of these scenarios. To me, the options, actions and risk are about the same. Assuming you do the right thing and immediately establish the best glide speed to the nearest airport--you were paying attention on your moving map right? Requesting vectors from ATC at this stage, you are already behind the event. You should be telling ATC what you are about to do, not asking what to do. Does night or day make any difference yet?

OK, you have established best glide in IMC to the nearest airport which may or may not have an instrument approach. You would not want to fly the full approach since you are now a glider, however you can use the depicted approach to get you lined up with a runway. If there is no approach to get you lined up with the runway then determine the runway alignment and continue your glide toward it. Does night or day make any difference yet?

Now you can start troubleshooting to see if you can restart your engine. Does night or day make any difference yet?

Let's assume you cannot restart your engine, and you break out of the clouds a mile from the airport. Now you are either VFR night or VFR day with an engine failure. Up to this point what you do should be the same be it night or day. The reality is that most pilots do not consider them the same and so act differently which is why the results are usually different.

We can debate about the ease of spotting an airport beacon at night or an asphalt slab in the day but the same situation would exist if the flight was VFR.

Bottom line is that if you are not confident flying night IFR --I say confident and not comfortable since it is human nature to be somewhat uncomfortable with the night, you probably should not fly day IFR/IMC either. You have to objectively ask yourself, how does the night change the situation? There were some examples given of mishaps due to night IFR and I still did not get a response to the question of "how would the situation have been different if it was day?"

In some cases such as not being able to adequately see the buildup of ice, or "my night vision sucks", you can validly say "not at night." All things being equal however, if we look at it objectively, the risks are mostly the same; except in our minds, just as in the dog and snake example above.

Personally, I prefer flying at night (usually IFR) on long cross countries in the summer. The ride is usually much smoother, ATC and airports traffic less busy and traffic is certainly easier to spot. You can further mitigate risk by making sure your equipment is reliable and well maintained. Nearly 25% of my total flight time is at night. I guess that makes me dumb or a risk taker by some definition. Because I'm comfortable with the night and for the above stated reasons, I view it as less risky in a lot of cases.

That's a pretty good way to analyze it William, and i won't argue with it. I guess that I can identify one difference in your scenario between day and night, and that is the case where you AREN'T in range of an airport. In that case, when you break out at 1,000', in the day, you have a chance of picking where you're coming down - if you're over the great gitchigoomee swamp or solid forests or mountains, it probably makes little difference, but farmland or settled areas with highways, you might have a choice. At night, well "turn on the landing light - if you don't like what you see, turn it back off..."

I tend not to worry too much about engine failure - good maintenance and being honest with yourself about the condition of the engine and accessories make the odds of an "out of the blue" Lyclone failure pretty remote, and that is why I am willing to fly one IFR. I don't fly as much at night because I am just usually too tired to do it....

Paul

IF you believe ...

If you seriously believe night flight is the same as day flight you should be in the market for a glass belly button so yopu can see outside.

Bob Axsom

Bob Axsom said:

If you seriously believe night flight is the same as day flight you should be in the market for a glass belly button so yopu can see outside.

Bob Axsom

Click to expand...

Can you show me where I said it was the same?

if we look at it objectively, the risks are mostly the same

You would have to define 'mostly'.

A engine out in the dark would involve more risk. A engine failure in a well maintained, carefully preflighted aircraft would be unlikely, that slight risk is accepted by some, not by others.

You pays you money and you take you chances...

Was going through the recently published NALL report. http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2007/07nall.pdf Here is an excerpt from page 19.

Night and Weather

Flights conducted at night and/or in adverse weather are more challenging than daytime and/or VMC operations. In spite of this, accidents are more likely to occur during the day than at night (7.1 vs. 6.6 accidents per 100,000hours), and are also more likely to occur in VMC than IMC (7.2 vs. 5.7 accidents per 100,000 hours). Figure 32 presents 2006 accident data sorted by day vs. night and VMC vs. IMC.

Though the total numbers are lower, accidents at night and in IMC are more likely to be fatal. Only 19.2 percent of daytime accidents resulted in Fatalities, but over one-third (34.6 percent) of all night accidents were fatal. Though only 16.9 percent of accidents in VMC were fatal, in IMC nearly three-fourths (73.9 percent) claimed a life.

Looking at the combined factors, day VMC accidents had the lowest fatal accident rate of any light/weather condition, with 16.3 percent resulting in death. Day IMC accidents totaled 39.3 percent. At night, nearly half of the accidents in VMC conditions were fatal (45.0 percent), compared to nearly three-fourths of night IMC accidents (74.1 percent).

Click to expand...

So I am less likely to have an accident at night or IMC, however if I did have an accident it is more likely to be fatal at night-yup, I accepted that just as I accept that if I have an accident in the plane as opposed to my car, the plane is more likely to be fatal. And day IMC is safer than night VMC.

As to the original poster; his day IFR flight would have been less likely to have an accident than a day VFR flight, however if there was an accident, it would have been more likely to be fatal.

w1curtis said:

So I am less likely to have an accident at night or IMC, however if I did have an accident it is more likely to be fatal at night-yup, I accepted that just as I accept that if I have an accident in the plane as opposed to my car, the plane is more likely to be fatal. And day IMC is safer than night VMC.

As to the original poster; his day IFR flight would have been less likely to have an accident than a day VFR flight, however if there was an accident, it would have been more likely to be fatal.

Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true. You're overlooking the correlation between the conditions (VMC/IMC/day/night) and the type of flying that's done. I'm guessing that night and IMC conditions have a greater proportion of more experienced crews and better equipment flying, which is more responsible for the lower accident rate. The accident rate doesn't say that the same pilot flying the same route in the same aircraft is less likely to have an accident in IMC than VMC (and I think most people would agree the opposite is the case).

To illustrate this point with an extreme example, imagine that there was a requirement that you could only fly in night or IMC if you're an airline flying a Boeing 737. The accident rate would be minuscule in those conditions as compared to day VFR, but that doesn't mean a C-172 is safer in IMC than in VMC.

RV10Rob said:

That's not necessarily true. You're overlooking the correlation between the conditions (VMC/IMC/day/night) and the type of flying that's done. I'm guessing that night and IMC conditions have a greater proportion of more experienced crews and better equipment flying, which is more responsible for the lower accident rate. The accident rate doesn't say that the same pilot flying the same route in the same aircraft is less likely to have an accident in IMC than VMC (and I think most people would agree the opposite is the case).

To illustrate this point with an extreme example, imagine that there was a requirement that you could only fly in night or IMC if you're an airline flying a Boeing 737. The accident rate would be minuscule in those conditions as compared to day VFR, but that doesn't mean a C-172 is safer in IMC than in VMC.

Click to expand...

*Most* people may agree but the data says otherwise. What are you saying is "not necessarily true", the conclusion of the NALL report? This is their conclusion not just mine. Did you read the report? I gave the page number and everything. Your extreme example is a non-sequitur. The NALL report only looks at GA (part 91) safety and aircraft.

*Safer* is a relative term and neither the NALL report not I used it, but the numbers say; an IFR pilot flying a 172 in IMC is less likely to be in an accident than a VFR pilot, flying that same 172 in VMC. If that IFR pilot does have an accident however, it is more likely to be fatal than the VFR pilot in VMC.

Thanks for the feedback again...

Thanks again for the feedback and I definitely do appreciate apposing views to mine on this.

At the end of the day, most people who do their IFR ticket do it in an SEL and fly under the foggles to minimums, approach after approach. They fly an aircraft that has a lot less redundancy that mine and in my view a lot less safe (as you don't know how the last renter flew that aircraft). In my view at least, minimums exist to be just that. We train to that level in an SEL aircraft over and over again and one must be able to fly to those time and time again to be credible as an IFR pilot in my mind.

Having said that, I know for sure that I will probably not go that low again in solid IMC as it was clearly more work and probably risk that I would like to put myself through again, but I want to know that my skills are strong enough to allow me to do so if and when I had too.

As for SEL vs MEL. In my experience, one can get into much more trouble in a twin (even the larger variety) flying IMC to miniumums but airlines do it all the time. The statistics prove that out. Another thought is that IFR is not so much about aircraft type, but rather training, retraining and experience. I worry more about those who do not believe they can fly a solid precision approach with the needles or HSI nailed to minimums. I know some of these people and I feel much more concerned for their safety, than I do my own.

Again, this is my comfort level and I fully respect everyones point of view on this.

H.

w1curtis said:

*Most* people may agree but the data says otherwise. What are you saying is "not necessarily true", the conclusion of the NALL report? This is their conclusion not just mine. Did you read the report? I gave the page number and everything. Your extreme example is a non-sequitur. The NALL report only looks at GA (part 91) safety and aircraft.

*Safer* is a relative term and neither the NALL report not I used it, but the numbers say; an IFR pilot flying a 172 in IMC is less likely to be in an accident than a VFR pilot, flying that same 172 in VMC. If that IFR pilot does have an accident however, it is more likely to be fatal than the VFR pilot in VMC.

Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with the report; I'm saying that you're reading too much into the numbers. Look at the day/night numbers. The report says that there are 7.1 accidents per 100,000 hours of daytime flight and 6.6 accidents per 100,000 hours of nighttime flight. The key is that the 100,000 of daytime flight are different than the 100,000 hours of nighttime flight. The 100,000 hours of daytime flights have more aerobatics, more student pilots, more takeoffs/landings, less experienced pilots, and who knows what else? All these things affect the accident rates. Is the average daytime flight more likely to result in an accident than the average nighttime flight? Absolutely--this is what the statistics in the report say. But remember, the average daytime flight isn't the same as the average nighttime flight.

Now look at any given flight. Is this flight in the daytime more likely to result in an accident than the exact same flight (same airplane, pilot, origin, destination, and everything else the same) at night? The statistics in the report don't address this.

Maybe someone else can explain it better than I can. I'm just making this point because I don't want someone to think they'll statistically be less likely to have an accident by moving a particular trip from day to night, for example.

I have to agree

I have to agree with David on this subject. Flying around in bad weather day or night can be an interesting experience. I have lost more than one friend because the ground broke their flight path. Hard IFR presents many opportunities to kill yourself. Please don't push yourself. I hope this doesn't annoy too many people, but there is a huge difference between professional pilots and weekend pilots when it comes to IFR flying. Things can get messed up so quick that you can get overwhelmed. I have been flying in the weather for 30+ years and I just don't think a private pilot flying hard IFR in a small plane is good idea. For that matter I have no plans to fly my RV with less than 800-900 foot ceilings day or night.
Thankfully, it is still a free country, so do what you want. But please be careful.

I just know that if i bought the farm flying at night for any reason or any airplane---

my family and particularily my father would say I was DUMB!!!

mark manda said:

I just know that if i bought the farm flying at night for any reason or any airplane---

my family and particularily my father would say I was DUMB!!!

Click to expand...

And if you bought the farm flying an RV, they would almost certainly say that you were dumb for flying in an aircraft that you built your self. If you died after an engine failure in a C172, they would say you were dumb for flying an aircraft with only one engine. If you died after an engine failure in a C310, folks would say you were dumb for flying a light twin, when everyone knows that an engine failure in a SE is much more survivable than one in a twin.

I'm not suggesting that SE flight at night is or is not a good idea. All I am suggesting is that you have to make up your own mind on that, after properly considering all the issues. If you worry too much about what someone might say if you killed yourself, you would never do anything.

Kevin Horton said:

If you worry too much about what someone might say if you killed yourself, you would never do anything.

Click to expand...

And to be fair about it - if I'm dead because of something that I did, I'm really in no position to care about what people are saying about it.