Instrument rating in the winter?

Hi,

So - I'm contemplating getting an instrument rating, for three reasons:

1. Popping through the stratus that frequently covers the bay area
2. Bopping up and down the coast during spring
3. Flying to go snowboard in the winter

Now my question is about item #3 - flying to snowboard destinations (for me that means Lake Tahoe). In practice how often would icing preclude flying an RV from San Francisco to Tahoe?

I've heard mixed reports of how important the RVs climb ability is for inadvertent icing encounters. Is it true that most icing layers are only a few hundred feet thick?

Does clouds plus above freezing level mean ice is likely or does it depend more on the particular weather system involved?

I should probably have a better understanding of this stuff, but in practice as a VFR type I've basically said - not my problem, I'm not going in clouds. Of course I want to better understand all of this weather now that I'm thinking IFR.

I'm probably going to get the IFR even if ya'll say that #3 ain't really feasible, but I'm curious on the whole 'can I really fly much in winter' thing.

Bonus points: How hard is it to stay current in California? It seems that of the IFR rated pilot friends, most aren't current. From reading through the FARs it doesn't sound that difficult to stay current - but am I missing something?

Kevin

Instrument Rating

First a few personal observations: an instrument rating is difficult to get; I find an RV is difficult to fly in IMC; an autopilot is very important for RV IFR flying; the GPS phenomenon is making it difficult for the "slant uniform" suffix airplanes to participate in the system.

I have only tried to fly to Tahoe once in the winter as part of a flying club trip. I was not instrument rated at the time but everyone flying independently (several on instrument flight plans) from Santa Ana anandoned South Lake Tahoe and landed at Sacramento Executive or Cameron Airpark and drove up highway US 50 in rented vehicles. Two guys, one in an Arrow and one in a Dakota said that they accumulated so much ice that they could not maintain altitude. I would only fly there in winter on clear days but I would guess there are plenty of them. I do not believe that an instrument rating would do you any good whatsoever for trying to get into Tahoe in the winter.

I don't know whether most icing layers are only a few hundred feet think but my rule is if there are clouds above the freezing level there is ice. I cannot remember ever being disappointed. Once after reading Robert Buck's book "Weather Flying", wherein he says the best way to learn about weather flying is to fly in weather, I was flying up the coast by Morrow Bay in the 7 to 8 thousand feet range near the top of the clouds. I was on an IFR flight plan and I was accumulating ice. I notified the controller but I decided to stay there for the experience with the climb escape route. I had waxed the left wing the night before but didn't have time to do the right one. The ice accumulated with all sorts of irregular protrusions on the left wing but the right wing buildup conformed smoothly to the the shape of the wing. After and inch or more of build up I was at near full throttle to maintain level flight and I told the controller I needed to climb. I was barely able to climb up out of the clouds and once in the sunshine the ice did not go away. When I descended on the instrument approach to Monterey the ice started coming off below the freezing level. This was in my trusty old Archer II (great airplane). Last year flying back from Bowling Green, Kentucky on an instrument flight in my RV-6A I encountered ice over western Arkansas near the Mississippi River. I accumulated approximately 1/4" while I was getting a clearance for lower. The ice melted away at the lower altitude fairly quickly. I noticed no difference in the flying of the plane but I do have an extra 1.5 feet of wing so others may not react the same way. I avoid possible ice encounters as much as possible and do not think that climbing out of an ice layer while remaining in the clouds is a realistic expectation.

When I flew to work every day in Los Angeles I had no trouble staying current with the recurring coastal stratus layer but I find it much more difficult when not subjected to to some kind of schedule. If you have a friend that will ride as a safety pilot you can establish a safe routine to stay current.

With an autopilot for course and altitude hold you can fly the cruise portion of an IFR flight in an RV very easily but takeoffs and landings with low ceilings are very demanding because the plane is so quick and maneuverable. Last week I was asked, with some urgencey in the voice of the controller, to maintain maximum forward speed on the ILS Rwy33 approach to Winston-Salem, NC. I never received the glideslope so I was flying a Localizer approach and I didn't have an ADF so I was having to intercept and maintain the localizer and determine the final approach stepdown fix with my GPS. I came out of the clouds, supposedly at 1,100 ft AGL, on my 160kt approach and I had my hands full, finding the runway and getting the plane slowed to land on the 6,600 ft long runway. Oh by the way, the RV does a low altitude forward slip for max drag very well.

For today's environment I think you need an approach approved GPS, properly certified in your airplane, to effectively participate in the IFR system and the situation is going to get worse.

God forbid you think I am an instructor or anything but an average GA pilot trying to make use of my airplane when the weather isn't CAVU but maybe that is the perspective you are looking for. Good luck on your pursuit of an instrument rating it can be a life saver as well as increase aircraft utility.

Bob Axsom

Thanks Bob. Good information that approximately matches what I was thinking...

Bob Axsom said:

the GPS phenomenon is making it difficult for the "slant uniform" suffix airplanes to participate in the system.

Click to expand...

Huh? How has it become any more difficult to fly IFR with /U?

Kevin, I fly with VFR-only pilots who often have to make contingency plans for getting to or from an event. Occasionally they cancel otherwise fun trips only because they can't pop up out of the marine layer and then pop back down into it when they get home. More often than not, these pilots have to fly out to the destination the afternoon/evening before the event, because otherwise they may get stuck under the marine layer in the LA basin. It's kinda lame. These pilots want the instrument rating but don't have the time to do it.

If you have the time and the desire, DO IT. You won't ever regret having an instrument ticket.

Regarding flying to Tahoe in the winter, it's not a huge deal. What is a huge deal is flying at or near the freezing level in precipitation. So...you avoid flying in the rain when you'll have to penetrate the freezing level. And what that means is that the IFR ticket does NOT really translate into making it "easier" for you to get up to Tahoe and back to SQL during the winter. The instrument rating will probably not change the way your flying/skiing goes in the winter.

If your priority is getting up to Tahoe and back in precip in the winter, the IFR ticket won't help you imho.

But it will improve your flying skills. It will enable you to pop up and back down when a marine layer or stratus prevents you from doing that otherwise. It will make trip planning easier most of the time.

In LA /U works fine

Dan you ask about my stratement on /U difficulty. Well it is not because the approaches are any more difficult to fly. The difficulty is in trying to fine an approach at airports where I now fly that have approaches that can be flown with a simple minimum VOR/localizer/GS equiped airplane. I can't tell you how many airports I have had to dismiss from my flight plans here because they do not have an approach for my limited equipment. If you are telling people to avoid getting an approach approved GPS in a new airplane that is a mistake.

Bob Axsom

Bob Axsom said:

Dan you ask about my stratement on /U difficulty. Well it is not because the approaches are any more difficult to fly. The difficulty is in trying to fine an approach at airports where I now fly that have approaches that can be flown with a simple minimum VOR/localizer/GS equiped airplane.

Click to expand...

So Bob, what has changed? Nothing. It has always been that way. Most airports had NDB or VOR approaches, a handful have ILS approaches. GPS "overlays" have been added, and several standalone GPS approaches have been added.

But it's not like anything has been taken away. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

What it comes down to is that most new homebuilt airplane builders are not in their right minds gonna put an ADF in their panel. But anybody who is serious about flying IFR in their RV is at least gonna put a NAV/VOR receiver in, and preferably a LOC/GS/marker receiver as well.

I have a TSOC129a GPS in my RV-7. I'm glad I do. But I don't use it very often for approaches.

IFR GPS are highly overrated and overpriced. A simple VOR/LOC with a handheld GPS for awareness will get you lots and lots and lots of places. A VOR or LOC approach will get you "in" 99.9% of the time based upon my 6000 hours in the seat.

I plan on putting the GPS money in the gas tank.

rd

I have no choice, my home airport KPMV only has GPS or NDB approaches, It's a easy choice that I will have a IFR GPS.

dan said:

So Bob, what has changed?
But it's not like anything has been taken away. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

.

Click to expand...

Dan, Here in the midwest, many if not most of the NDB's are being decommissioned. Thus the only way to get into some of these airports is with an approach certified GPS. Still can get into most with a VOR or ILS approach, but many of the ILS or LOC approaches require either an ADF or GPS to identify the MAP holding fix. Anyway, I'm glad I have an IFR approach capable GPS in my -9e.

Nathan Larson
N217JT RV9E 481 hours

IFR In RV

Kevin:

I am in Dan's court on the instrument ticket and flying instrument approaches in an RV.

Here is my impression from only a year and a little of having an instrument rating and from a few instrument approaches in an RV7:

1) An instrument rating increases the amount you can use your plane in "shoulder" seasons. Here in Maine we have a lot of fog near the coast in spring and fall. The three airports I fly out of are near the coast and frequently have fog and low cloud. My instrument rating allows me to fly when others are not able.

2) an instrument rating increases your precision and skill as a pilot. Why do I say this? Because you now hold yourself to a different level of performance. For example you hold altitudes within 0-20 feet, not 50 or 100. You fly headings within a few degrees, not 10. You get to know your airplane better. You will know what flap/power/prop/pitch setting gives you what airspeed and descent/climb rate.

3) The instrument rating was not hard to get. There were skills to master, and you can master them with patience and practice. Once they are mastered (or learned anyway) you then need to practice to keep them sharp.

4) Staying current isn't the challenge, staying proficient is (unless you own or are able to rent on a consistent basis). I am current, but since we sold our club airplane in October of last year, I would estimate my proficiency at 60 - 70% of what it was when I was flying IFR regularly. I frequently file IFR when flying VFR just to stay in practice.

5) Flying instruments in an RV is not difficult. I have flown practice approaches under the hood in my friend's RV7, and found it as easy as flying instrument approaches in, say, a Diamond DA40 (if not easier). If your scan is good you don't have to worry about the light controls. In fact I don't find the controls particularly light at approach speeds (unlike in the Lancair Legacy ;-) -- good natured dig at Legacy FG guy). I have only flown instrument approaches in the RV using VOR, localizer and glideslope equipment, never GPS; and I didn't think it was any more difficult than other planes I have flown. I have also not found it necessary to have IFR certified GPS equipment to fly approaches in the northeast (NY to ME). /U equipment is fine. There are plenty of ILS, localizer and VOR approaches to suit my needs. In fact it is more difficult from a situational awareness perspective to fly /G IFR flights because I think it is more difficult to find intersections on an IFR chart than it is to follow airways to VORs. I assume this perception will change as I become more comfortable with /G equipment.

6) As you allude to in your message, one of the big draws in having the instrument ticket is being able to climb to VFR on top conditions. I can't tell you what an incredible attitude adjustment it is to put an end to days of grey weather by going to the airport and filing to get above the cruddy weather. Days like this are when you truly appreciate how fortunate we are as both pilots and Americans to enjoy the freedoms that we have. (yipes -- did I just wax poetic?).

7) Regarding flight in icing or precipitation. As far as flight into suspected or known icing goes, I would say just don't. Why take that chance? As far as IFR flight in precipitation goes -- as long as the icing level isn't near your cruise level AND as long as you have an definite option to escape if icing does begin (like descending into warmer, marginal VFG conditions), that sounds like a reasonable situation to me. However I would be even more comfortable in that situation if I had onboard weather. Finally IFR flight in snow I would say is also okay as long as the temps prevent accumulation on the plane, the snow isn't too heavy, and you are flying into improving rather than worsening conditions. I have a few hours of flying in snow, and it is very peaceful. This is really an area where you will have to set your personal minimums. Personal minimums are set by taking a hard look at your skill level, the quality of your equipment and the weather situation. Certainly, though, penetration of known icing in almost any single engine plane is crazy.

8) One last comment -- I am less enthusiastic than some in using an autopilot to fly an approach. I simply don't trust the equipment, and I don't like the ride. I think the AP is a great tool to reduce your workload. I envision using it to fly enroute segmets and the last legs of a trip that ends in an instument approach so that I have time to rebrief on the approach and then fly it manually. This perception may be shortsighted and may change as I gain experience with my plane, but for now I am not impressed with the autopilots that I have seen in light singles. I have found them less sensitive in their course/glideslop guidance, and as a result they seem to consistently "hunt" to get you back on track. In addition, much like the cruise control in a car, the autopilots that I have used don't have the ability to anticipate patterns in turbulence and thus don't soften the ride with variable control inputs. I am far from being an expert on this subject though, so I will defer to someone who is.

Man that was long winded. Hope it was helpful.

Antony

Thanks Antony and Dan for the extra info. I'm really looking forward to getting an IFR ticket.

Kevin

FWIW: I installed a GNS430 and CDI in my RV with eventual IFR flight in mind. I even went through all the various compliance checks in the installers manual (i.e. tune xxx.y on COM, verify no needle deflection, etc...)

I hand fly all approaches as well

I hand fly all approaches as well - my preference. Yes things are being taken away and in different areas of the country. I have not flown in the Northeast for several years but in the midwest and southeast the approaches that are legal with VOR/LOC/GS & marker beacon receiver are in the minority and MANY airports have no instrument approaches I can fly with that limited set of equipment in my RV-6A. The "12-xx" Jep set keeps getting bigger and the others often require some creative rationalization to use. I have had an instrument rating and stayed current for well over 20 years and when I designed my panel I rationalized my way around putting in an approach approved GPS. Now that I have moved out of California and I am starting to travel in a lot of new areas, I am finding the approach restrictions just too binding. I am now going to have to retrofit an approach approved GPS in. That personal experience is why I say any new airplane that is being built to fly in the IFR system should have an approach approved GPS included in the panel design.

Bob Axsom

Bob Axsom said:

(snip) I was accumulating ice. I notified the controller but I decided to stay there for the experience with the climb escape route. I had waxed the left wing the night before but didn't have time to do the right one. The ice accumulated with all sorts of irregular protrusions on the left wing but the right wing buildup conformed smoothly to the the shape of the wing. After and inch or more of build up I was at near full throttle to maintain level flight and I told the controller I needed to climb.(snip)

Click to expand...

Bob--please understand that I'm not picking on you, but I feel compelled to interject here.

Ice is deadly serious in small airplanes.

RVs reportedly carry ice well (a combination of the naca 23013.5 airfoil and very high power:weight ratios) but no light plane is suitable for flight into icing conditions.

Many pilots (I'm among them) even have serious reservations about piston twins with known-icing certification.

In response to the first post, I think the instrument rating is very useful in coastal California (I was based in Socal for a year in the mid '90s) and the marine layer will keep you current. For going to Tahoe in the winter, I think you go VFR or not at all.

There are a ton of reasons to get the instrument rating, not the least of which is that it will likely improve all of your flying, and make you a potentially safer and more precise pilot.

I think you need to be realistic about the capabilities of the RVs as all-weather travel airplanes though.

James Freeman

p.s.

I respectfully disagree with those who feel the RVs are not suitable instrument platforms. Properly setup up, especially with an autopilot, they are easily manageable, as long as you stay away from ice and internally lit clouds ;-)

As a CFII, I do feel I have a basic knowledge of the IFR system and requirements for it. A few things I would say on this matter...

1. A very thorough knowledge of your aircraft is very important. You should know what power setting/pitch attitude/airspeed gives you certain climb rates, descent rates, level flight, etc....all very important when flying IFR. As dumb as it may sound, even though basic aircraft control is the most important part of flying, when flying IFR, only a small portion of your attention will be given to the actual flying. Most of the time you will be flipping maps, approach plates, tuning and identifying radios, setting up approaches, talking on radio, etc.

2. I've never flown an RV, but I have done instrument training in Grummans and Grob's...both fairly light controls. Having a "sporty" airplane isn't a deal breaker, but you do have to be cautious until you get used to it. Even in VFR conditions start training yourself to hold altitude to 50 feet or less, headings to 5 degrees or less, etc....and for goodness sake, trim the airplane out for level flight as you're doing it!! I can't tell you how many students fight the airplane under the hood when all they have to do is trim the thing out...drives me nuts!!

3. I agree that an IFR GPS is not required for basic instrument flying, but it definately is a HUGE help. The ability to go 'Direct' to a waypoint (this is my opinion) is just as nice as the ability to shoot a GPS approach, and you also get the benefit of a substitution for DME and NDB (in certain cases). I know that the price is very high for Garmin stuff, but I've seen King KLN-89B IFR approved GPS's for pretty cheap...there are plently of slightly older IFR GPS's that will work just fine.

4. You could always consider renting a 172/Warrior/etc. for some of the initial training to get used to the system. Easy to fly, more stable, etc...might be easier to start getting used to the system.

Best of luck to all those in instrument training

RV's and ice

>>RVs reportedly carry ice well (a combination of the naca 23013.5 airfoil and very high power:weight ratios) but no light plane is suitable for flight into icing conditions.

High power to weight ratios yes, but I certainly wouldn't give any credit to the airfoil if these papers have any merit.

see my post on the 23012 airfoil (rv3):
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=3870

It faired significantly worse in ice than the other airfoils tested.

I don't see how 1.5% greater thickness (a percentage of the chord) is going to make the airfoil a completely different animal in ice.

Good Books

kevinh said:

Hi,

I've heard mixed reports of how important the RVs climb ability is for inadvertent icing encounters. Is it true that most icing layers are only a few hundred feet thick?

Does clouds plus above freezing level mean ice is likely or does it depend more on the particular weather system involved?

Kevin

Click to expand...

You are starting to think like an IFR pilot. Once you get your IFR rating you do outgrow the abilities of typical GA planes, of course the RV is not a typical plane. However as you observed just because you have an IFR rating, you obviously can't fly into known ice safely or legally. Even IFR pilots are not aware of all the in and outs, but if there is mention of ice in an airmet, sigmet, prirep you are grounded. In parts of the country ice is perpetual report in clouds and visable mosture almost every day. Even airliners with "known ice" equipment are grounding from airport operations with reported freezing precipitation greater than light.


Than there is convective activity in the summer. Although not illegal it is a dumb idea, but you can see a build up if your in cloud. Now with XM weather you have a poor man's radar. But IFR ticket does not mean anytime anywhere, unless you have the right equipment. For the record, I would not penetrate a line of convective weather without on-board radar.

Icing and weather is a pet topic but I am not going to try to answer your question in detail. However I will tell you flying into known ice is dangerous and illegal. Pilots do get caught. The best outcome is a violation and temporary revocation of certificates. The worst is fatal. I was just looking at a report of a Turboprop that came out of the sky from icing. A Cirrus in the last few months also stalled for ice and in this case the BRS saved their lives.
As far as how practical you Lake Tahoe run in, start watching the weather. Get briefs, look at the trends.

Personally as a CFII I flew lots of single engine IFR. I am talking about my personal opinion, I don't think HARD BALL IFR single pilot, single engine is a great idea. The idea of popping up, popping down, some enroute is fine. I know lots of folks that do hard IFR from rotation to touch down but not me, at least with out a co-pilot and two RR RB211's.

There are so many great books on Weather and IFR flying weather. Check the aviation book stores, Sporty's, Pilot shop and start reading.

Good Luck with your training.

George ATP/CFI(I-ME)

PS: There is lots of IFR training stuff in the archives, do a search

Bob Axsom said:

... The difficulty is in trying to fine an approach at airports where I now fly that have approaches that can be flown with a simple minimum VOR/localizer/GS equiped airplane. I can't tell you how many airports I have had to dismiss from my flight plans here because they do not have an approach for my limited equipment. ...

Click to expand...

Bob, I just got this from AOPA:

AOPA said:

YOUR FEEDBACK NEEDED ON APPROACH CANCELLATIONS
The FAA is proposing to cancel some 270 instrument approach procedures that it considers underused or redundant. If you don't agree about one of those procedures, you need to write the FAA (postmarked by May 31). The FAA says the number of available instrument approaches has nearly doubled in the last decade, primarily because of the addition of GPS and GPS-WAAS procedures. The money to chart and maintain all of those approaches has not increased significantly. "We want to help the FAA reduce costs, but not at the expense of things pilots need to safely use the National Airspace System," said Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president of government affairs. "Local knowledge is important. Only you know for sure if the approach the FAA thinks is unneeded still serves a useful purpose. So tell the FAA and AOPA, and we'll help fight to keep it if you need it." Download the list of approaches. Letters should be sent to: National Flight Procedures Group, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125.

Click to expand...

I fly to tahoe all the time in a rented cessna from VNY (still building my RV). I ski about 30 days a year. TVL is a very tricky airport. It is about 6000' and makes things very difficult in a cessna. RV would probably do better. You also have to be prepared to be stranded for sometimes up to a week. I am half way through my instument ticket and I don't think it will make things that much easier. In april the weather usually clears up quite a bit, making a weekend trip (or maybe day trip for you) much more feasable. When I finish my plane I will probably park it down in minden which is only about a 20 minute drive from tahoe. It is usually below the snowline.

dan said:

What it comes down to is that most new homebuilt airplane builders are not in their right minds gonna put an ADF in their panel.

Click to expand...

OK, I might not be in my right mind... but I am working towards an instrument rating and I am working towards an RV-7a... why wouldn't I want an ADF? Too much money? Seems like one more useful navaid to me...

-- John Babrick, RV-7A empennage, Shelbyville MI

OldAndBold said:

OK, I might not be in my right mind... but I am working towards an instrument rating and I am working towards an RV-7a... why wouldn't I want an ADF? Too much money? Seems like one more useful navaid to me...

Click to expand...

I presume the line of thought is: An IFR GPS can do everything that an ADF can do, but do it better (if the sats are working). If the sats ain't working, you still have VORs to depend on.

In fact, except for the regulatory requirement - I'd trust a VFR handheld GPS over an ADF.