What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Don't do it. Just, don't. Please.

BCP Boys said:
Jon, you are absolutely correct. I remember it like it was yesterday. It's not a pleasant thing to admit that you've done something stupid but if just one person can learn from that mistake it will be well worth .
Click to expand...

And I am glad you shared your story, Amir. Please do not think that because I quoted you I was referring to you - I was not. I quoted you because your description of the concentration required was spot on. Even with a fair amount of instrument time, there is the occasion that I get into a disorienting situation that requires the same focus you described. Everything else becomes secondary to aircraft control.

David - that's an interesting technique. Most of my IMC has been in helos, so I never thought to use the wing, when in the RV, in the manner you described. Great idea.
 
There are several EFIS and autopilot manufacturers which have incorporated "straight and level" protection and envelope protection. I know the TruTrak Vizion 385 which we have in our panel came with a nice blue push button that's even properly labeled.

A previous poster made reference to what is, I believe, a huge mental bias that we might handily call the "Cirrus effect" wherein we believe we can do anything stupid, then hit that button and the gee-whiz avionics will pull us out of the soup.

We're trying to build into our preparation a means of avoiding that mental bias with respect to the "Straight and Level" button. In our case that button is "reserved" for my non-pilot wife's use should I become incapacitated. I'm hoping this approach will lead me away from the temptation of the "Cirrus effect.
 
YellowJacket RV9 said:
... In fact, GPS is so accurate now that I hear some airlines have pilots fly a small amount off the centerline of their routes to lessen collision risks.
Click to expand...

It is called Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure (SLOP), and it it is used exclusively over the ocean where there is no radar, in case mistakes are made that can't be caught by someone looking at a radar scope.

Over the ocean, minimum lateral separation is between 30 and 60 NM, so an offset of 1 to 2 miles is not a big deal. However, domestically lateral separation is 3 to 5 miles, and a 1 mile offset represents 20-33% of the required separation. Technically federal airways are 4 miles wide, but it would behoove you to track as close to the center line as you are capable, because the radar controller will see it.
 
gc1016 said:
Technically federal airways are 4 miles wide, but it would behoove you to track as close to the center line as you are capable, because the radar controller will see it.
Click to expand...

I can also see a potential issue on an IFR clearance when the controller clears you across a fix - not 1 mile south or west or whatever. He's expecting you to cross over the top of the fix.
 
Low Pass said:
No idea if the condition is true or was said by Rutan, but he's an engineer. Engineer's work with statistics and facts. Feelings, emotion and opinion typically don't play a role. Further, I agree with the thought about flying at odd/non-standard altitudes (when not assigned). Have had a couple of unintended fly-bys at commonly flown altitudes. Last, statistically, you're much worse off from the mid-air risk perspective on clear, VMC days. Reconcile that with these concerns of flying in IMC.
Click to expand...

i would say a good half (if not more) of the airplanes i watch flying around the bay area all day not talking to anyone are at 4700, 3300, etc...


so there's that ;)
 
gc1016 said:
It is called Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure (SLOP), and it it is used exclusively over the ocean where there is no radar, in case mistakes are made that can't be caught by someone looking at a radar scope.

Over the ocean, minimum lateral separation is between 30 and 60 NM, so an offset of 1 to 2 miles is not a big deal. However, domestically lateral separation is 3 to 5 miles, and a 1 mile offset represents 20-33% of the required separation. Technically federal airways are 4 miles wide, but it would behoove you to track as close to the center line as you are capable, because the radar controller will see it.
Click to expand...

Back when I took a lot of flights to Japan, I got cockpit tours in the 747's. Up front I noticed several contrails in parallel to our path. The Cap'n said they offset to avoid the constant chop of the craft just ahead of us. All I-nav at that time. I never knew it had a name. Only once, from ORD to Narita, did we fly north of the Kamchakta (sp?) peninsula. The first officer got weird when I commented about it.
 
As usual I'll offer a contrary opinion. Well, not about VFR in IMC conditions. Legally it's stupid.

But technically?

I really wish the FAA and the alphabet organizations (looking at you AOPA and EAA) would push for a simpler IFR ticket. Something like legal to depart into IMC but with higher ceilings than the currently legal zero-zero for Part 91 ops. Legal to descend only with quite high ceilings. No commercial ops of course. And importantly, no expensive certificated navigation device, make our non-certificated GPS moving-maps legal.

Modern glass panels and GPSs are quite arguably much more reliable and safer than the old round gages, dry vacuum pumps, and VORs. A less demanding, less capable VFR ticket should be available to use these.

But a 3rd-class medical should also be old history.
 
Buggsy2 said:
I really wish the FAA and the alphabet organizations (looking at you AOPA and EAA) would push for a simpler IFR ticket. Something like legal to depart into IMC but with higher ceilings than the currently legal zero-zero for Part 91 ops. Legal to descend only with quite high ceilings. No commercial ops of course. And importantly, no expensive certificated navigation device, make our non-certificated GPS moving-maps legal.
Click to expand...

We have this in Australia plus you can add all the approaches etc on to the basic PIFR (Private Instrument Flight Rules) rating, however we still need a certified IFR GPS. www.casa.gov.au/download/caaps/ops/5_13_1.pdf

Fin (PIFR)
9A
 
Last edited:
Buggsy2 said:
As usual I'll offer a contrary opinion. Well, not about VFR in IMC conditions. Legally it's stupid.

But technically?

I really wish the FAA and the alphabet organizations (looking at you AOPA and EAA) would push for a simpler IFR ticket. Something like legal to depart into IMC but with higher ceilings than the currently legal zero-zero for Part 91 ops. Legal to descend only with quite high ceilings. No commercial ops of course. And importantly, no expensive certificated navigation device, make our non-certificated GPS moving-maps legal.

Modern glass panels and GPSs are quite arguably much more reliable and safer than the old round gages, dry vacuum pumps, and VORs. A less demanding, less capable VFR ticket should be available to use these.
Click to expand...

Other than departing into IMC, what you describe sounds like VFR (one mile vis, clear of clouds in class G). If you do launch into IMC and you need to return to the airport you just left from but can't descend without "quite high" ceilings, what then?
 
larrynew said:
Already done. Skyview autopilot has a "Level" button that immediately returns the aircraft to straight and level flight. They also have a 180 turn button.
Click to expand...
There's also a pin-in that would enable an external switch on the panel (as opposed to fiddling around trying to get at the "soft" key) - I've thought about installing one. But.... you have to keep in mind that a recovery button will only work up until the time you have lost control. The autopilot servos don't have the grunt to pull you out of a mess that has caused high control loads. Heck, the pitch servo can't even always override an out of trim condition caused by the RV-12's (and likely other RVs) higher than normal climb rate.
 
Last edited:
ChiefPilot said:
Other than departing into IMC, what you describe sounds like VFR (one mile vis, clear of clouds in class G). If you do launch into IMC and you need to return to the airport you just left from but can't descend without "quite high" ceilings, what then?
Click to expand...

I think Buggsy2's talking about an "enroute IFR" ticket; I've heard it proposed before. It proposes a rating either between private and instrument, or as part of the private ticket, that allows flight in the IFR system during the enroute/cruise phase. Some proposals also allow flight in IMC (through clouds) during cruise. However, it would require at least minimum VMC in the terminal areas. In effect, it would allow one to climb through solid layers, fly through scattered clouds enroute without having to dodge around them, and descend through solid layers back to VMC for approach and landing. It would also encourage more people to get "in the system" for cross-country flights. (incidentally, this is mainly what I plan to get an instrument rating for--getting through high layers)

Obviously, there are some concerns like guaranteeing VMC at the destination, and the whole flying on instruments thing doesn't go away. I'm not sure how much utility there would be with it, and perhaps for all the work going in you might as well do the rest of the rating, too.

But, it's an interesting topic for discussion...
 
ChiefPilot said:
Other than departing into IMC, what you describe sounds like VFR (one mile vis, clear of clouds in class G). If you do launch into IMC and you need to return to the airport you just left from but can't descend without "quite high" ceilings, what then?
Click to expand...

You do the same as current IFR pilots who depart in very low or zero-zero conditions, or the same as the IFR pilots whose dry vacuum pump or mechanical gyros fail them: you realize you're screwed. Not every possible problem has a good outcome.
 
Buggsy2 said:
You do the same as current IFR pilots who depart in very low or zero-zero conditions, or the same as the IFR pilots whose dry vacuum pump or mechanical gyros fail them: you realize you're screwed. Not every possible problem has a good outcome.
Click to expand...

IFR pilots who lose the vacuum gyro aren't automatically screwed - there are processes and procedures to handle this, and they work. I know, I've lost the vacuum pump and was still able to bring it back on an approach.

In any event, this topic is not really relevant to the main thread topic. If someone doesn't have the instrument rating, they need to stay out of the clouds.
 
Tooch said:
I agree with Canada and other countries that require an IFR ticket to fly at night.
Click to expand...


To be clear, Canada does not require an IFR ticket for night flying. A night rating is required on top of the PPL, which does require a total of 10 instrument hours, but falls far short of a full instrument rating. Likewise, we require an additional rating to fly VFR over the top; definitely not allowed with a basic VFR license.
 
gerrychuck said:
To be clear, Canada does not require an IFR ticket for night flying. A night rating is required on top of the PPL, which does require a total of 10 instrument hours, but falls far short of a full instrument rating. Likewise, we require an additional rating to fly VFR over the top; definitely not allowed with a basic VFR license.
Click to expand...

If I take my US registered airplane to Canada with my US pilots license with no IFR rating, can I fly VFR at night and/or over the top or do I have to follow the Canadian regulations with regard to this? (I would think the later but thought I would ask.)
 
Buggsy2 said:
You do the same as current IFR pilots who depart in very low or zero-zero conditions, or the same as the IFR pilots whose dry vacuum pump or mechanical gyros fail them: you realize you're screwed. Not every possible problem has a good outcome.
Click to expand...

This ignores the fact that much early instrument flying was done with just a turn and bank, airspeed and altimeter. Sometimes a vertical speed but not always. Lindbergh flew the Paris flight that way, Bob Buck taught himself to fly instruments with just a t & b.
 
N941WR said:
If I take my US registered airplane to Canada with my US pilots license with no IFR rating, can I fly VFR at night and/or over the top or do I have to follow the Canadian regulations with regard to this? (I would think the later but thought I would ask.)
Click to expand...

You can fly VFR at night, and you can fly VFR over the top however you must take off and land in normal VFR conditions. AOPA and COPA have jointly produced a document that discusses the differences flying in each country, available to members on their websites.
 
SMO said:
You can fly VFR at night, and you can fly VFR over the top however you must take off and land in normal VFR conditions. AOPA and COPA have jointly produced a document that discusses the differences flying in each country, available to members on their websites.
Click to expand...

Same as how it works here in the States. Thanks for the info.
 
Just don't do it Please

Speaking to IFR pilots,
I have personally been in aircraft on IFR flight plans, where the Single pilot
Has been sleeping, seat slid back and letting the auto pilot do the flying. To be woke up by the radio or a passenger, or a nudge on the shoulder when I saw the
Artificial horizon roll over and die. Some were private, some were 135
I know I'm not the only person that has seen that over the years so please if you are PIC don't do it. I quit going along.
 
I don't mean to reanimate a zombie thread, but I think this one is perfect for what I have to say here.

I just returned from flying practice approaches in IMC with my instructor. ATC vectored us around a bit while a life flight helicopter flew an opposite direction approach. Once cleared for the ILS approach at our intermediate destination, we were given a frequency change, of course. The AWOS was reporting a ceiling of 600 overcast. We were in solid soup the whole way from our departure airport (ceiling there was about 800 AGL).

When we got on the CTAF, we announced our position, 9 miles out. While we were near a 3 mile final, a faint transmission on the CTAF was heard, no call sign, asking for "position of the traffic on the ILS approach." Surprised anyone was flying, thinking maybe the helo had gone missed for some reason, we gave a position report. The reply (at about the time we went missed) was "I'm on a left downwind for 08 about 2 miles north of the field, I'll extend my downwind for you." Of course he was basically directly crossing the published missed approach course for our approach.

Mind you, we had broken out at 600 ft (the ILS minimum there was 254 AGL). Serious IMC all around, and this numb nut was messing around in the pattern, flying directly in the path of any traffic on the published missed.

PLEASE don't do this. It causes needless concern and frustration for legitimate IFR traffic, and clearly there was no way this guy was in legal VFR conditions. We never did get a visual on him. Keep in mind he was low enough that ATC couldn't see him (or at least didn't mention him to us) and he probably didn't have his transponder on, and this was within the Mode C veil.
 
Last edited:
1001001 said:
When we got on the CTAF, we announced our position, 9 miles out. While we were near a 3 mile final, a faint transmission on the CTAF was heard, no call sign, asking for "position of the traffic on the ILS approach." Surprised anyone was flying, thinking maybe the helo had gone missed for some reason, we gave a position report. The reply (at about the time we went missed) was "I'm on a left downwind for 08 about 2 miles north of the field, I'll extend my downwind for you." Of course he was basically directly crossing the published missed approach course for our approach.

Mind you, we had broken out at 600 ft (the ILS minimum there was 254 AGL). Serious IMC all around, and this numb nut was messing around in the pattern, flying directly in the path of any traffic on the published missed.

PLEASE don't do this. It causes needless concern and frustration for legitimate IFR traffic, and clearly there was no way this guy was in legal VFR conditions. We never did get a visual on him. Keep in mind he was low enough that ATC couldn't see him (or at least didn't mention him to us) and he probably didn't have his transponder on, and this was within the Mode C veil.
Click to expand...

"no way this guy was in legal VFR conditions"

Well, maybe and maybe not. Did this uncontrolled airport have a dotted magenta line around it on the sectional? If so it was class E to the ground and you're right. But if it didn't, controlled airspace probably started 700' AGL, and in uncontrolled airspace "clear of the clouds" is all that's required. It's asking for potential trouble, but there are a lot of instrument approaches that take you down into uncontrolled airspace, where you can meet, head-on, legal VFR traffic "clear of the clouds".
 
BobTurner said:
"no way this guy was in legal VFR conditions"

Well, maybe and maybe not. Did this uncontrolled airport have a dotted magenta line around it on the sectional? If so it was class E to the ground and you're right. But if it didn't, controlled airspace probably started 700' AGL, and in uncontrolled airspace "clear of the clouds" is all that's required. It's asking for potential trouble, but there are a lot of instrument approaches that take you down into uncontrolled airspace, where you can meet, head-on, legal VFR traffic "clear of the clouds".
Click to expand...

Controlled airspace in that area indeed begins at 700 AGL so technically you are correct. Very good point.

I still don't believe he was legal since he probably wasn't running a transponder within the mode c veil. I would have expected ATC to call him out to us as traffic before the frequency change. Generally in this area they are able to see traffic pretty close to the surface even when only as a primary target.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like my own airport. Uncontrolled, clear of clouds at 700 AGL. ATC only guarantees separation from other IFR traffic. Sounds like the system worked as intended. At my field, there is no radar coverage down to 2500 ft AGL, so they cant see anyone below that anyway whether your transponder is on or not, within a mode C veil even.
 
1001001 said:
The reply (at about the time we went missed) was "I'm on a left downwind for 08 about 2 miles north of the field, I'll extend my downwind for you." Of course he was basically directly crossing the published missed approach course for our approach.

...

PLEASE don't do this. It causes needless concern and frustration for legitimate IFR traffic, and clearly there was no way this guy was in legal VFR conditions. We never did get a visual on him. Keep in mind he was low enough that ATC couldn't see him (or at least didn't mention him to us) and he probably didn't have his transponder on, and this was within the Mode C veil.
Click to expand...
It may well be that the VFR pilot was flying in conditions in which he shouldn't have been. Dumb move, if so. And of course he may or may not have had his transponder on, and may or may not have even had a transponder. Even within the Mode C veil, you're not always required to have one. If you only heard a faint transmission from a few miles away, he may well have been using a handheld radio in one of the thousands of planes that have no electrical system. On the other hand, if he's 2 miles north on a left downwind for 08 I'd expect to see something more like a B-52.

Keep in mind that we lowly VFR pilots may not know what the instrument procedures are for a particular airport. I've looked at approach plates and quite frankly they don't make a lot of sense when you have no idea what you're looking at. I have pretty much zero training covering instrument approaches. I know from listening that the approach is straight in from an intersection somewhere a few miles out, and I learned from experience that guys will occasionally come straight in without much in the way of communication. I thought the missed approach procedure was usually to climb straight for some distance, then turn and hold. How is a guy on the downwind leg of the VFR traffic pattern (even an unusually wide one) in the way? Just trying to figure this out.
 
DaleB said:
It may well be that the VFR pilot was flying in conditions in which he shouldn't have been. Dumb move, if so. And of course he may or may not have had his transponder on, and may or may not have even had a transponder. Even within the Mode C veil, you're not always required to have one. If you only heard a faint transmission from a few miles away, he may well have been using a handheld radio in one of the thousands of planes that have no electrical system. On the other hand, if he's 2 miles north on a left downwind for 08 I'd expect to see something more like a B-52.

Keep in mind that we lowly VFR pilots may not know what the instrument procedures are for a particular airport. I've looked at approach plates and quite frankly they don't make a lot of sense when you have no idea what you're looking at. I have pretty much zero training covering instrument approaches. I know from listening that the approach is straight in from an intersection somewhere a few miles out, and I learned from experience that guys will occasionally come straight in without much in the way of communication. I thought the missed approach procedure was usually to climb straight for some distance, then turn and hold. How is a guy on the downwind leg of the VFR traffic pattern (even an unusually wide one) in the way? Just trying to figure this out.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm still a "lowly VFR pilot" myself, too, just training for my instrument rating. I'll be honest, around here I have never seen anyone flying in conditions with ceilings that low before. After thinking about how I may have overreacted to the incident, I reviewed a video that I made during the flight. We broke out of the clouds at about 450 feet AGL, and the AWOS was reporting 500, not 600 as I had said in my OP. This would have put the ceiling at 1700 MSL. The published missed approach is climb straight ahead to 1700 then climbing left turn to a fix up to 3000. That climbing left turn, at the time would have been initiated just as we entered the cloud deck again. If the other pilot had been maintaining minimum ground clearance, he would have been at about 1750 MSL, which would have put him just in the haze at the bottom of the overcast layer.

Honestly I don't want to make this an argument about strict legal compliance because frankly, I suppose it might be legal to fly like he was doing all day long with a razor's edge between the cloud deck and the 500 ft AGL ground clearance. Keep in mind there is one charted obstruction roughly in his flight path that extends over 200 AGL.

I suppose I could argue all day about the relative wisdom and safety of flying with such thin margins and get beat up about the strict legality of it, but that's not really the point.
 
It works both ways

I'm not validating the VFR pilot's action in your example since I wasn't there and don't know the exact circumstances, but I can tell you that just this past Saturday I had the exact opposite situation occur to me and my flying buddies.

Here we are departing a normally sleepy airport after attending a fly-in breakfast hosted my the local Lion's Club. There is traffic landing and departing but it's not like it's a steady stream. However, it's clear from the radio traffic that there are airplanes around and everyone is landing on 19. I am doing my run up when some guy calls up and says that he's over some intersection and he's on the ILS approach to runway 01!! Now why on earth does this guy pick this time, with all this traffic, to call in against the prevailing wind and pattern? My first thought was IDIOT. Then I got to thinking, this is normally a dead airport and maybe he wasn't monitoring the frequency and just switched over. I don't know, but I politely reminded the guy that there were three aircraft waiting to depart on 19 and he may want to break off the approach due to conflicting VFR traffic. He obliged and all was well.

All I'll say is that it has been my experience that pilots on IFR approaches tend to believe they own the sky at that point and everyone else should get out of their way, or at least it seems like that.

So all you IFR pilots out there practicing on nice sunny days, DON'T DO IT. JUST DON'T. PLEASE.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
There is also the possibility that the pilot was IFR rated with an airplane that had IFR capabilities.

If that was the case, he would have been legal to even fly actual IFR without an IFR clearance as long as he stayed in class G airspace.
 
f1rocket said:
...I am doing my run up when some guy calls up and says that he's over some intersection and he's on the ILS approach to runway 01!! ...
Click to expand...

This has been a big burr under my saddle for a long time. A position call using only the approach name and intersection not a position call - it is just is a bad idea regardless of the weather conditions. Give a true position report. Maybe not essential if in Class D or higher but if there is a chance of VFR traffic in the area, give a real position report.

I'm Commercial licensed and instrument rated but not current, but this bothered me even when I was current and regularly flying IMC.
 
1001001 said:
We broke out of the clouds at about 450 feet AGL, and the AWOS was reporting 500, not 600 as I had said in my OP. This would have put the ceiling at 1700 MSL. The published missed approach is climb straight ahead to 1700 then climbing left turn to a fix up to 3000. That climbing left turn, at the time would have been initiated just as we entered the cloud deck again. If the other pilot had been maintaining minimum ground clearance, he would have been at about 1750 MSL, which would have put him just in the haze at the bottom of the overcast layer.
Click to expand...
Interesting. It sounds like maybe a better idea would be "climb straight ahead until 1700 and more than 2 miles past the runway" or something. Making a turn while still in the VFR pattern just doesn't sound to me like a good idea at all, regardless of conditions.
Honestly I don't want to make this an argument about strict legal compliance because frankly, I suppose it might be legal to fly like he was doing all day long with a razor's edge between the cloud deck and the 500 ft AGL ground clearance.
Click to expand...
Maybe, possibly. I wouldn't have. with a 500' ceiling it's just not smart, you're right. You wouldn't have found me out there on a day like that, but then I'm such a newbie I don't know nuthin'. I gotta say, though, after spending a few months talking to owners of old Champs, T-craft and such, I have a new perspective on what you're likely to encounter, and how likely it is to encounter it.
 
f1rocket said:
So all you IFR pilots out there practicing on nice sunny days, DON'T DO IT. JUST DON'T. PLEASE.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

f1rocket said:
So all you IFR pilots out there practicing on nice sunny days, DON'T DO IT. JUST DON'T. PLEASE.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Randy, two comments: 1-if you don't practice on nice days, when are you supposed to practice? In the soup? 2-he could have been setting up for a circling approach. I've used this technique when I don't want to have to fly completely around the airport to make an approach and the ceiling allows.

Lastly, I don't know if this pilot was in contact with ATC or not, but if he was, he should have been advised of known traffic by the approach controller. In any case, keep in mind that he probably called in at the FAF which could have been as much as 5 miles out anyway. Scarcely the hair raising death-defying situation you imply. In addition, he had the same right to make that approach as any other pilot had to operate around that airport. Keep in mind that he had to have a safety pilot as well.
 
control said:
When you fly IFR you follow the procedures on the plates... if you dont then you are not protected from terrain, nothing to discuss.
Click to expand...
Understood, but isn't there a minimum rate of climb or a slope to be maintained? There's a big difference between where an RV-8 and a 172 at gross would end up after climbing out.
 
Bubblehead said:
This has been a big burr under my saddle for a long time. A position call using only the approach name and intersection not a position call - it is just is a bad idea regardless of the weather conditions. Give a true position report. Maybe not essential if in Class D or higher but if there is a chance of VFR traffic in the area, give a real position report.

I'm Commercial licensed and instrument rated but not current, but this bothered me even when I was current and regularly flying IMC.
Click to expand...

Wow, do my thoughts ever resonate well with those of Bubblehead on this topic!!!!

Last year I had to request that a helicopter pilot provide a VFR position report when she had just announced that she was on the VOR approach to our airport. No altitude, no direction, so speed, no ETA to the field, and, most importantly, no actual location information was given in her initial report. I literally had no idea where she was, only that she was headed for our airport.

Now for the real kicker... The pilot was an employee of our Canadian aviation regulatory authority, Transport Canada, flying with another Transport Canada check pilot, in a helicopter owned and operated by Transport Canada!

The exchange over the radio was terse as the instructor pilot came on to give the VFR position report. I responded with a "thank you - please keep in mind you are approaching an active VFR airport in VFR conditions with VFR aircraft already in the circuit." I think that helped get the message through as all further position reports were given in VFR format.

IFR traffic does not have priority over VFR. All instrument-rated pilots started out as VFR pilots. Enhance everybody's safety by giving a VFR position report when approaching an airport, irrespective of weather conditions. There's always a chance there might be some bonehead like me out there doing "crash and dash" VFR work!:cool:
 
Mark Dickens said:
Randy, two comments: 1-if you don't practice on nice days, when are you supposed to practice?
Click to expand...

On nice days. I get it, I'm just saying you don't just bust into an airport against the flow of a bunch of traffic just because you want to practice an IFR approach from that end. I implied, but didn't say so expressly, that this airport is normally empty and practice approaches are probably very common here. While I understand the IFR crowd being worried about a VFR guy who's 1 mile and clear of clouds in the pattern messing with their approach, I was pointing out that the door swings both ways.

Mark Dickens said:
Lastly, I don't know if this pilot was in contact with ATC or not, but if he was, he should have been advised of known traffic by the approach controller. In any case, keep in mind that he probably called in at the FAF which could have been as much as 5 miles out anyway. Scarcely the hair raising death-defying situation you imply. In addition, he had the same right to make that approach as any other pilot had to operate around that airport. Keep in mind that he had to have a safety pilot as well.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply it was a death-defying situation because it wasn't. We talked on the radio and he broke off the approach which in my mind, was the proper thing to do given the fly in and all the traffic REGARDLESS if he had the right to do it or not.

I'm really not trying to stir up a "us against them" argument. We both have to live and fly in the same airspace at the same time and I am more than willing to alter course to allow for practice IFR flying. It's all part of the system and I am happy to be a willing participant. My comment was more tongue in cheek given the thread title. Sorry if my intent was misconstrued.
 
VFR pilots should never have to worry about an IFR practice approach because, by law, there will be a safety pilot on board, which essentially means that the approach is really VFR and the instrument approach has to fit into the traffic flow in the same way that any other flight fits in. When I've flown practice approaches into busy uncontrolled airports, 9 times out of 10, the approach is broken off and/or coordinated with any pilots in the pattern. My point is that there should never be a case where there is conflict...coordination and communication yes, conflict no...and that's all I have to say about that.
 
Bubblehead said:
This has been a big burr under my saddle for a long time. A position call using only the approach name and intersection not a position call - it is just is a bad idea regardless of the weather conditions. Give a true position report.<SNIP>
Click to expand...

Canadian_JOY said:
Wow, do my thoughts ever resonate well with those of Bubblehead on this topic!!!!

Last year I had to request that a helicopter pilot provide a VFR position report when she had just announced that she was on the VOR approach to our airport. No altitude, no direction, so speed, no ETA to the field, and, most importantly, no actual location information was given in her initial report. I literally had no idea where she was, only that she was headed for our airport.<SNIP>
Click to expand...

This has been a burr under my saddle, too! It wasn't until after I began taking instrument lessons about ten years after obtaining my PPSEL that I understood what an Instrument pilot meant when he/she said, "Pryor Traffic, November 3456, on VOR 36 approach." I suggested to an instructor friend of mine that a position report would be more descriptive, especially for low time VFR pilots.

At our airport the VOR 36 approach depicts the course as 019. Actually my suggestion was that he teach the student pilots what the IFR language for each Instrument approach means for our particular airport. That way the low time pilot would have a clue as to the whereabouts of the Instrument pilot.

And don't get me started on VOR-ALPHA approaches. Neither the typical student pilot nor the low time VFR pilot has a clue what it means when the instrument pilot says, "Hicktown traffic, November 3456, on VOR ALPHA approach to Hicktown." I am thankful we don't have a VOR-A approach to our airport.
 
Perhaps...

Discerning whether or not the other aircraft was VFR legal or not remains irrelevant IMHO. IFR or VFR, while in VMC all aircraft have the responsibility to 'see and avoid'.

ATC's one-and-only-true function is to seperate 'participating' aircraft, IFR aircraft. Your scenario has repeated itself since the earliest days of our system, head on a swivel. Happy flying.
 
Make that 4 burrs

rv7boy said:
This has been a burr under my saddle, too! It wasn't until after I began taking instrument lessons about ten years after obtaining my PPSEL that I understood what an Instrument pilot meant when he/she said, "Pryor Traffic, November 3456, on VOR 36 approach." I suggested to an instructor friend of mine that a position report would be more descriptive, especially for low time VFR pilots.

And don't get me started on VOR-ALPHA approaches. Neither the typical student pilot nor the low time VFR pilot has a clue what it means when the instrument pilot says, "Hicktown traffic, November 3456, on VOR ALPHA approach to Hicktown."
Click to expand...

Make that 4 burrs, and I don't even own a saddle. Imagine how a burr feels when there's no saddle between you and the burr. And b/t/w, this practice has also been the raspberry seed in my wisdom tooth, to quote a line from The Music Man.

Reminds me of an equally useless position report I received at a nearby airport: "Hicktown traffic, I'm over the junkyard..." Made me want to respond, "well golly gee, who would've thunk an airport might be used by anybody other than the locals who know where the local junkyard is" (or where the local IFR approaches are). But I didn't, cuz I'm not the sarcastic type.
 
Last edited:
Weasel said:
There is also the possibility that the pilot was IFR rated with an airplane that had IFR capabilities.

If that was the case, he would have been legal to even fly actual IFR without an IFR clearance as long as he stayed in class G airspace.
Click to expand...

In this circumstance, absolutely NOT. While you (instrument rated) may make an instrument departure, and cruise, in class G, you are still bound by the cruise MEAs of 1000' agl above the highest obstacle (2000' in mountainous areas). And you may only fly published approach procedures. So no, being instrument rated does not allow you to fly around at 500' agl in less than VMC, even in class G.

As a cfii I am constantly reminding pilots than on an approach to an uncontrolled airport that ATC has arranged for there to be no other ifr traffic inbound, so their position reports are for vfr traffic. "On the vor alpha approach" is meaningless, much better to say, "4 miles west".

For vfr pilots who hear an ifr plane approaching to the runway opposite the one in use, speak up. They should be happy to break off early and 'circle to land' on the runway in use. This is a maneuver required on the instrument flight test but seldom practiced. Finally, understand that some things, like simulated emergencies, are best done on vfr days.
 
BobTurner said:
As a cfii I am constantly reminding pilots than on an approach to an uncontrolled airport that ATC has arranged for there to be no other ifr traffic inbound, so their position reports are for vfr traffic. "On the vor alpha approach" is meaningless, much better to say, "4 miles west".

For vfr pilots who hear an ifr plane approaching to the runway opposite the one in use, speak up. They should be happy to break off early and 'circle to land' on the runway in use. This is a maneuver required on the instrument flight test but seldom practiced. Finally, understand that some things, like simulated emergencies, are best done on vfr days.
Click to expand...


Where I fly, there are always planes making practice instrument approaches and they/we mesh quite we with the VFR traffic. My instructor made it a point to say that CTAF announcements are for the benefit of VFR traffic, and they may not know the approaches, so make a real position report including range and direction from the airport. Around here, the VFR and practice IFR traffic mesh quite well. Part of it is that we are all close to or under the PIT Class B (admittedly not the busiest of Bravos) and so we all have a lot of experience
dealing with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top