What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Personal IFR limits?

pierre smith

Well Known Member
Yesterday, I needed to fly a 24 mile trip for some minor repairs and the destination showed 500' overcast and 6 miles visibility.

Even with my new Vizion/coupled for approaches, I didn't feel comfortable since I've only flown an approach with it once...that and my concern about icing...it was 38? F. A former Georgia governor did the same approach yesterday with his -7A, so I considered it but didn't go.

Where do you instrument-rated guys/gals draw the line?

Thanks,
 
I think you made the right decision for all the reasons you mentioned. And, like you, I would never make what I think is a dicey flight just because someone else did it.
 
Well, I'd depart as long as the destination was at or above approach minimums, BUT:
1. I want a solid gold alternate. 500' is below alternate minimums even for an ILS. What was the wx at the departure airport?
2. What was the forecast ( or better, pirep) temperature at the enroute MEA? If that was below freezing, where are the tops? If you encounter icing on departure is it easy and quick to return? In an emergency could you descend into vfr conditions and above freezing temps without hitting anything? These are some of the things I'd consider.
3. Autopilots are to relieve fatigue, not to let you abdicate piloting to a machine. For a 24 mile flight I might not even bother engaging it.
 
Sorry for my post but...

I'm not even near being IFR rated... yet I think it's an interesting topic so will bore you with my "limits".

I'm a non-current, less than 200hr pilot.

1. Will not even consider taking a non-pilot passenger until 500hrs and even that would have to be with recent PIC time.
2. If I ever do get my IFR ticket, it would be enroute IFR only. I just don't see myself ever maintaining IFR proficiency to LAND at minimums.
3. Phase 1 testing, I am not and will not ever be a test pilot. I will hire someone to do my initial phase 1 testing and maybe some of the more complicated test cards too.

Didn't mean to undermine your thread but I think your topic covers other limits too.

Based on your decision, I would feel comfortable flying with you and might even be able to take a short nap. ;)
 
I don't like to wear a hood so when the days are 500' I go flying to stay current. I will fly to minimums but must always have an out.
I also don't have a problem with 0-0 departure if I know it is a thin ground layer with at least 50' RVR. Not really a 0-0.
 
I have completed three years of IFR flight after almost 30 years of VFR only. My minimums have gone up over the last three years. I am comfortable departing in less then ideal conditions if there is blue sky within one or two thousand feet. I am not really comfortable with an approach with less then 800 to 1000'.
I do not like flight in cumulous, convective, clouds.
Thus I do not get much actual IMC flight and I am ok with that.
What it has meant is that on long cross country flights I do not have to worry about that cloud in front of me as much as I used to. Do I go up, under, around? and if I do what will I find on the other side?
I really enjoy being in the system as the controllers really do hold your hand and look after a lot of the things I used to worry about, things like MOAs, restricted areas, TFRs etc. Of course I do not totally rely on them as sometimes I think that little slow planes tend to not get forgotten, but do not have the priority of the large carriers, and I am ok with that as well.
IFR flight has been very rewarding, frightening, enlightening, and most of all challenging.
 
I also don't have a problem with 0-0 departure if I know it is a thin ground layer with at least 50' RVR. Not really a 0-0.

So pardon a newbie question from a low time, non instrument flyer. I gather you can depart under conditions well below approach minimums. What happens if you do that and have some problem that requires you to land immediately to sort out? Tough luck, hope you can make it somewhere else?
 
I don't like to wear a hood so when the days are 500' I go flying to stay current.
0.

Just remember that there's "current" as in legally curent per the FARs; and there's "really current".
Flying to 200' is twice as hard as going visual at 500' (e.g., the ILS needles are twice as sensitive).
When was the last time you initiated a miss at 200' agl (see above post)?
When was the last time you flew with partial panel or backup instruments?

IMHO the six approaches/holding/tracking is woefully inadequate.
 
Depends on conditions around

Possible icing would make it a no-go, 500' would make it questionable. If there was good weather forcast near then I would, if all of Georgia was 500 or less, then I would stay on the ground.

Had a flight down to OPN one day (50 miles from my home airport LZU), clear as a bell at LZU, about 15 miles from OPN a low cloud deck formed. Called up approach and in-flight filed IFR. ATIS was reporting 200' overcast. Shot the ILS 3 times, going missed at minimums (hand flying, no autopilot in a C-182). Finally saw the rabbit on the third approach just at minimums. It was a fun chalange. But the whole time I knew there was plenty of good weather all around, and the tops were 1500', so I knew I had plenty of outs.

Don't think I would go for the 23 mile hop, with the expectation that I might have to go missed all the way to Florida or Alabama.
 
I do fly commercially and from my perspective, I would not consider anything without a plan B. For me taking off in low vis condition single engine or shooting an approach with less than 800-1000ft ceiling is like cheating death. Doesn't offer too many alternative if things go south.
If you don't have the practice of flying low vis approach, how much practice do you have landing an airplane with 200ft after an engine failure.
I would fly an approach if I had to, but would certainly not plan to do it.
I love flying, but the fun goes away quickly when I start to feel uncomfortable.
Just the opinion of a humble chicken :)
 
Same wx

Our weather was also 500' and 6 miles BUUUT, my airport doesn't have any published approaches, so how would I get back?

Best,
 
So pardon a newbie question from a low time, non instrument flyer. I gather you can depart under conditions well below approach minimums. What happens if you do that and have some problem that requires you to land immediately to sort out? Tough luck, hope you can make it somewhere else?

This is exactly correct. You can depart from a runway with visibilities below the minimums for the approach back to that runway. Your concern is valid, for sure.

There was an accident at PAO a couple years back where the pilot and two passengers took off in a near 0-0 condition. The fog was so thick that the tower controller could not even give them a take off clearance because the controller could not see the plane nor the runway. It did not end well.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...596e827-e6df-420b-b40b-bb559f845f77&pgsize=50
 
The basic (abbreviated) rules I have operated by in my work for Uncle Sam have worked well in that world:

I can plan to an airfield where the forecasted WX is at mins for the approach to be flown at ETA thru 1 hr after ETA. I can initiate the approach in any conditions. If it's forecasted less than 400' ceiling and/or 1 mile vis above mins I need an alternate. An alternates forecast must have better than 400 and 1 mile above mins at ETA thru 1 hr after ETA. Must have 45 minutes (30 minutes rotary wing) fuel reserve at destination or alternate as applicable. Lots of other stuff involved here but we'll just keep it to the wx. For Fixed wing I have some departure alternate things to calculate as well. With over 50 hrs PIC in actual WX I have no Army departure minimums.

So I've comfortably flown this way for years, but I cannot, as a rule, see myself operating a light single of any type using the same criteria. The terrain flown over would have a significant impact on my personal weather mins and I would be VERY careful about temperatures and icing conditions. I would carefully consider my personal condition and proficiency at that moment.

Sounds like you made the right decision Pierre based on the conditions and how you felt about your proficiency at the moment. Based on no approach at the home field you need to have your departure alternate planned and ready to execute in advance as well.
 
What was the icing forecast? I think it is actually against the regs to fly an airplane that is not certified for flight into icing conditions if light or heavier ice is forecast at your planned altitude for your route.

Just about done with my IFR training. I've followed this conversation with much interest.

My personal mins will be pretty high for a while but I do feel relatively current flying with partial panel :)
 
With no approach at your airport, you would be required to hold an alternate, which in a -10 is rather easy on full tanks.

So long as the aircraft was fully serviceable and there were airports within range above the "Alternate Minima" (I assume you guys have that rule?) then launching would be quite OK if you expected to get in off the approach.

If the weather was known to be right on the minima and potentially degrading, I would not bother as the likely diversion is just simply annoying. No point launching from A to go to B knowing you will likely be at C.

The big kicker however is ice. Icing and me avoid each other?..or I avoid it. I can fly for hours in IMC, but not when the ice is building. We are not FIKI equipped and have no right being there. Not sure about there, but here that is illegal and any deliberate flight into known icing (and it would be) is simply a no-go.

Piere?.you made the right call. Purely by the temperature as the LSALT would have had you in ice for sure. (unless it was a very thin warm layer)
 
IFR MINIMUM

Pierre

'' I didn't feel comfortable''

You made the right call, regarless of the weather.....
----------------------------------------------

For those of you doing or comtemplating taking off in 0/0 weather...give your head a shake...When you see Airliners with triple everything and autoland capability staying on the ground, do you sincerly believe you should be taking off in a puddle jumper???
I spent 12 years in the Air Force in a SAR Sqn. and I picked up way too many of you..Please be careful....

Bruno
[email protected]
 
This is exactly correct. You can depart from a runway with visibilities below the minimums for the approach back to that runway. Your concern is valid, for sure.

There was an accident at PAO a couple years back where the pilot and two passengers took off in a near 0-0 condition. The fog was so thick that the tower controller could not even give them a take off clearance because the controller could not see the plane nor the runway. It did not end well.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...596e827-e6df-420b-b40b-bb559f845f77&pgsize=50

But note this accident had nothing to do with "a problem that requires an immediate return". NTSB says both engines were running fine. The pilot simply failed to climb, for unknown reasons.
It does point out that, as always, when operating close to the ground the tolerance for pilot error is small.
 
The basic (abbreviated) rules I have operated by in my work for Uncle Sam have worked well in that world:

I can plan to an airfield where the forecasted WX is at mins for the approach to be flown at ETA thru 1 hr after ETA. I can initiate the approach in any conditions. If it's forecasted less than 400' ceiling and/or 1 mile vis above mins I need an alternate. An alternates forecast must have better than 400 and 1 mile above mins at ETA thru 1 hr after ETA. Must have 45 minutes (30 minutes rotary wing) fuel reserve at destination or alternate as applicable. Lots of other stuff involved here but we'll just keep it to the wx. For Fixed wing I have some departure alternate things to calculate as well. With over 50 hrs PIC in actual WX I have no Army departure minimums.
.

Wow, your rules were a lot more liberal than civil (part 91) rules.

As I'm sure you know, we need 2000' and 3 miles forecasted (plus an approach!) to be able to go without an alternate. And the alternate forecast has to be 600-2 (precision) or 800-2 (non precision).

So it sounds like Pierre would have had to carry a lot of gas to get anywhere with okay alternate weather; and then he couldn't get home! A good day to stay home to begin with.
 
Timely thread

Wow. I just landed at an airport 9 miles from my home, as it is the first time in 11 years I have not been able to land at the home field. I flew over to Bessemer Alabama to license a Carbon Cub today. They had been waiting for 3 days, as it's been miserable here in Atlanta. Below my minimums, and below alternate minimums. It gradually improved today, as forecast, and I left in a 900' ceiling, IMC the whole way with an easy GPS approach at EKY, breaking out with 2 miles to go to the runway. Easy and smooth IMC, 1 degree below the freezing level. Yes, I checked on forecast and reports of icing before I left. None. The forecast for the return was supposed to be for 2K' scattered by the time I arrived. Instead I ended up breaking out at 400'. No scud running for me. I parked it and Carol came to get me.

The message in all of it is to have minimums like a number of people here have posted. BUT, make sure you are prepared and proficient for the worst, as the weather doesn't always do what it is supposed to do. Make sure your equipment works and brief yourself on failure modes and how you would react. No time to wonder when you are coming down final to minimums. IN IMC flying there are usually long periods of boring cruise. That's when you take the time to carefully study the approaches and choose the right one for you and your equipment.

And with all of this synthetic vision is is really hard to not want to scud run. DON'T DO IT. But it is so cool to look up at minimums and see the runway just like in the screen.

Vic
 
The big kicker however is ice. Icing and me avoid each other?..or I avoid it. I can fly for hours in IMC, but not when the ice is building. We are not FIKI equipped and have no right being there. Not sure about there, but here that is illegal and any deliberate flight into known icing (and it would be) is simply a no-go.

I absolutely agree. But:
How do you know? If there are pireps on icing where I want to go, I stay on the ground. But the official FAA wx is useless. Around here every single area forecast in the winter says "Chance of icing in clouds and precipitation above the freezing level". If you go to<aviationweather.gov> there are "supplementary" icing forecasts which are the best we have, although they all carry the disclaimer "not for official use". My personal policy is that I'm okay sticking my nose into it and seeing what's there (not freezing rain, of course) as long as I have an immediate exit available. Around here that's common, there's often several thousand feet of warm, vfr weather below the clouds. OTOH I have declined to depart ifr out of West Yellowstone, just because I didn't see a quick way back and it was right at freezing on the ground. So it takes some judgement. Most pilots who get into icing trouble are those who run into it, and do nothing but continue on!
 
I've been a professional pilot for 45 years and always stay IFR current and comfortable. I do not plan to takeoff, cruise or land a single engine airplane with less than 1000' ceiling and a mile vis. We have lots of backup systems for everything except the engine. The backup for the engine is to glide to a landing. With an engine failure and a 200' ceiling you probably will have to rely strictly on luck to survive. With 1000' you at least have a chance to hit a soft spot. Yes, I've had to shoot approaches to 200-1/2 but that was due to un-forecast wx.
 
Personal mins

My view as a current professional pilot with lots of time and ratings. In a piston single I don't plan to take off, fly over or shoot an approach in wx less than 800' ceiling & 2 miles vis. And that's only in a plane that I either maintain myself or know enough about it to have some faith in. The 800 & 2 number came about after much practice doing simulated engine failures down to probable landing areas. In the end I felt that if the engine failed and I descended into the wind down to 800' before seeing the ground the landing would probably be survivable. 800' gives some choice on what you are going to land on. Was flying Mooneys in those days which glide well and have robust structure that offers some protection in mishaps.

Don Broussard A&P, IA, ATP

RV 9 Rebuild in Progress
 
Pierre, I think your decision making on this trip was right on the money. I imagine I would have made the same decision given the conditions you described. I don't have personal "hard minimums", but go through that same decision making process. The last hurdle is that old gut feeling that something you are considering doing is a bit dicey. I flew professionally for 40 years. When I retired, I planned on staying IFR current in my RV-10. I found out pretty quickly that it takes a LOT of discipline and work to maintain legal currency. And, as someone mentioned in a previous post, "legal" may not be even close to "really current". Single pilot IFR, in low IMC conditions, is one of the most demanding things we do, IMHO.
We had a commercial instrument pilot crash into the ocean in a Cessna 152 here the night before last. It appears that she departed an uncontrolled field in pretty lousy weather conditions in an airplane that she was checked out in, but the owner had not given her permission to fly solo yet. She did not survive, and looking at the wreckage after it was dragged up on the beach was sobering.

As Stein would say, "my $.02 worth"
 
Engine out on T-O?

Pierre, you did the right thing. I have a lot of respect for anyone flying in the soup like Vic said he did today. Honestly I can't ever convince myself to fly a single engine plane in conditions that we have had here in the Atlanta area for the past few days. All I can think of is if I lose an engine and have to land off airport or even if I have enough altitude to get to an airport that may or may not have a published approach, will I be able to put it down safely if I have less than 300' after I break out of the soup. In all honesty this is a fear that I can't seem to shake.
 
I absolutely agree. But:
How do you know? If there are pireps on icing where I want to go, I stay on the ground. But the official FAA wx is useless. Around here every single area forecast in the winter says "Chance of icing in clouds and precipitation above the freezing level". If you go to<aviationweather.gov> there are "supplementary" icing forecasts which are the best we have, although they all carry the disclaimer "not for official use". My personal policy is that I'm okay sticking my nose into it and seeing what's there (not freezing rain, of course) as long as I have an immediate exit available. Around here that's common, there's often several thousand feet of warm, vfr weather below the clouds. OTOH I have declined to depart ifr out of West Yellowstone, just because I didn't see a quick way back and it was right at freezing on the ground. So it takes some judgement. Most pilots who get into icing trouble are those who run into it, and do nothing but continue on!

Bob, How do you know if you have icing conditions? Really simple. IMC and temperature in the freezing range. For us low level bug smashers the temperature only has to be below 8dC on the ground and by 4000' you are at 0dC and in cloud you will get ice. Some clouds like healthy CU's you will get plenty.

It is just a no brainer as Piere has found. He did the right thing.

Someone said earlier, Single Pilot IFR is the hardest form of operations. Nothing wrong with tackling weather, weather that your aircraft is capable and legally allowed to fly in. If you hold an instrument rating you should know what that means in terms of weather and capability. There are not any "Buts" involved in my mind.

I like this saying?."If you only think you can, you can't" You have to know.

Be careful up there?as JD used to say. :)
 
One thing that I started to do last year was to include, on my flight plan, the note "single pilot IFR". I flight plan 210 knots and it occurred to me that there are probably not that many aircraft flying that fast that do not have two pilots on board. With that note on my flight plan it did seem that the controllers spoke a bit slower, that they often started a clearance with a vector and once I got going in the right direction they would follow up with the waypoints. Although I might be imagining it, it also seemed that they were a bit more interested in my flight.
Perhaps they were just a bit worried about what I might do! Anyways it seemed to work for me.
As for icing, if it is close to freezing, and there is a cloud, I do not go through it.
 
I am a recent retired airline pilot with significant Cat 3 approach (RVR300') experience. My IFR minimums to file/fly are 500/1 with at least the same or better at my alternate. If I arrive with less than that, I would consider an approach down to approach minimums if wind, rain, and runway conditions were not a factor. Autopilots in these little airplanes are wonderful, but a hand flown approach, at least for me in my -8, can be challenging... especially at night or in adverse weather.

Toga
 
I have a question that I think is deeper than the question of "what are your minimums". Several of you have touched on my question. That is:

What is the purpose of mniimums? A couple of possibilities:
1. Time. Minimums buy you time to do things, such as acquire the landing site and make some amount of maneuevers to line up
2. Precision. Your equipment (or you) won't allow enough precision to maneuver as accurately as you wish so higher minimums may gain you enough clearance to avoid hitting things (granted, this is probably not an issue in a published approach but could be at the local class G airport not too far from the grain elevator).

Other? A number of you have given numbers that we accept are acceptable to you, but what do those numbers give you? How would those numbers change under various conditions? Several have alluded to this approach to the question but I thought it might be worth asking people what the numbers do for them.

It seems to me it is mainly time that the minimums give - time to identify, orient and safely maneuver for a better alignment or perhaps time to configure the airiplane or maybe time to select a crash site or something else.

If time is what we are seeking, it would seem that it would be situation dependent and we should have some kind of protocol that fits us, our mission, our aircraft, the weather and more. Does anyone know of such a protocol or decision process for setting an given minimum, or would that be counterproductive?
 
My personal minimums for IFR flying:
I don?t take off if the airport is below minimums for a return to the airport.
I don?t take off if I will have to fly above the freezing level in visible moisture.
I don?t take off without full tanks and enough fuel to fly to the intended destination plus at least another hour at cruising speed.
I don?t take off unless there is at least a 500 foot ceiling all along the route.
I don?t fly at night.
So far, so good. I don?t do much long distance flying in the winter, but once the freezing level has climbed to 7 or 8 thousand feet, my trip completion percentage within a few hours of planned is near 100 percent. (I?m in Ohio and haven?t ventured out west, but I?ve been all over east of the Rockies.)
I try to abide by the ?always leave yourself an out? philosophy.
LeRoy Johnston RV-6A Esperanza 900 hours
 
Coming from military aircraft, and having flown CAT II ILS down to mins, there is a big difference when flying a fully capable IFR airplane vs flying any GA airplane (and sometimes I get the FAR's vs USAF regs mixed up, so I'll try not to quote FARs). One thing that you nailed on the head is icing. I live in New England, and in the winter time, even 500' below the clouds, ice can accumulate. If I think there's going to be icing, I avoid flying IFR.

As far as take-off minimums go, I saw a post earlier that someone is ok with taking off at 0-0, or 50 RVR. Personally, I would not even come close to that in a GA airplane (we aren't even allowed to do that in the Air Force, mission and airframe depending). My personal takeoff minimums in a GA airplane is somewhere between 1000' - 1500'. This would allow me to takeoff, and if I had a problem I could stay VFR and pull closed to land. With that being said, it would be situation dependent. If it was a spring morning haze level, I would takeoff in less than that, because I know I'll be VFR at pattern alt.

For takeoff, I would NEVER takeoff below minimums for the airport I'm departing. If I really had to get out of there, if I had a problem, I'd at least like to get in the radar pattern and land on backup instrumentation. An option if you're really in a bind could be to takeoff below mins, with a sufficient departure alternate (if there was an airport within the same radar terminal area reporting better weather). You really have to do your homework if you're going to do that.

For landing, it's going to depend on your experience and comfort level. Maybe if you're new to the IFR would, set a personal minimum to 500' above lowest compatible approach minimums, and 2 miles of visibility. As you feel more comfortable, you can lower that down to 300' above minimums and 1.5 miles, or 200' above mins, etc. Having gone missed on a CAT II ILS, and seeing 75' on the radar altimeter without seeing the ground creates a pretty significant pucker-factor :eek:

Happy flying!
 
I wont' go unless the wx is absolutely guaranteed, rock solid good enough that I won't need to fly (I still may need to file) to an alternate. That doesn't mean it must be 1-2-3 or better. A good example is a stratified low inversion layer, a common wintertime feature of my home territory. These things are as close to predictable weather as you're going to find. My restriction comes from two reasons: My destination is where I want to be - that's why I'm traveling. Two. I probably really need to pee.

No possibility of icing.

No convectivity.

Wx fragmented enough that getting out VFR somewhere can be done. Living in the west is a weather blessing compared to east coast crud.

Pitch/roll autopilot an absolute must in an RV. I practice hand flying, but my track looks like a ball rolling down a pinball machine. Being Captain, F and S O, things are just too busy and intense if deviation, or a missed, is a distinct possibility.

In other words, I'm chicken.

John Siebold
 
IF IN DOUBT----DONT.....One of my early instrument instructors was retired marine who had flown in everything....His wisdom I have never forgotten :
NEVER BE IN A RUSH TO KILL YOURSELF.........tomcatrv4
 
IF IN DOUBT----DONT.....One of my early instrument instructors was retired marine who had flown in everything....His wisdom I have never forgotten :
NEVER BE IN A RUSH TO KILL YOURSELF.........Tomcatrv4
 
Good thread. 26 miles, iffy conditions, drive. I just upgraded to the Vizion as well, great unit, but like others with much more experience, no night, no deteriorating conditions, single engine or even twin(we just lost a twin two weeks ago, pilot was doing everything right(reportedly) killed four people flying into marginal conditions and darkness. The below 500' ceilings at any point along the route good idea. It is just really not necessary for any of us to prove something out there. Really good thread.
 
This one is easy

I've read all the threads here and find it interesting.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter what others are doing. Set YOUR personal limits and stick to them.

More than likely, the more experience you get with your plane and the system, you will be comfortable with lower minimus than a new guy with a new ticket.

Asking "what others do" is valuable just for what if-ing, but what "you" do is the only thing that matters.

One thread above rang true. If it makes "you" uncomfortable you are probably better off going to the bar that day.

Just my .24 cents worth. I figure my advice is at least 12 times more valuable than Steins :)
 
Icing?...., that was the show stopper right there.

The best advice Iv'e seen on this thread:
"Set YOUR personal limits (far above the legal limits) and stick to them."

Additionally, when flying, always have plan "B" and plan "C".

Good decision.

G.T. Cole
777 Captain
LAX Safety Committee
 
Personal Minimums

After 17000 hours I can tell you 3 rules I use to keep me out of trouble:

1) When in doubt, do NOT do. (Listen to your spidey sense)

2) It is much more difficult to decide NO than it is to try it.

3) What is your answer to the question, "What am I going to do if _____"?
If you don't have an adequate answer to that question it is better to quote Confucius . . .

"Better to be on ground wishing in flight, than in flight wishing on ground."
 
IFR Limits

I've been flying IFR for 10 years in a Cherokee with a Garmin 430 and my personal limits are far higher than the equipment can do. Flying is fun. If I have to depart in IMC to get out I will if destination is VFR. I use my IFR ticket to climb and descend thru stratus layers. If destination isn't at least MVFR I don't go. And ice is an automatic no go. But living in Seattle IFR is handy when returning from east of the mountains and finding a stratus layer stretching from 3000 feet up to 9000 feet. Fun and easy to descend thru and plenty of vis underneath to land and keep it safe and fun. One other thing, I consider is what would family do without me. Just not worth flying to 200' on an ILS. Have Fun
 
After 17000 hours I can tell you 3 rules I use to keep me out of trouble:

1) When in doubt, do NOT do. (Listen to your spidey sense)

2) It is much more difficult to decide NO than it is to try it.

3) What is your answer to the question, "What am I going to do if _____"?
If you don't have an adequate answer to that question it is better to quote Confucius . . .

"Better to be on ground wishing in flight, than in flight wishing on ground."
I agree with John, I am also a retired Captain with AmericanAirlines and if you have to ask if you should or not than you should not.

FlySafe
 
Weather Flying

I'm not an IFR pilot yet, but slowly developing the knowledge and skills to become one. The best source I've found on how to fly weather is "Weather Flying" now in it's Fifth Edition by Robert N. Buck and his son Robert O. Buck. Both were airline pilots, and Robert N. Buck started in DC-2s, flew weather research aircraft during and after WW II. It discusses what weather is and how to fly it from a pilot's perspective. More important, it tells the beginner IFR pilot how to start flying IFR. I got my copy used for less tan $15. Worth 10x that.
 
Robert O Buck

I'm not an IFR pilot yet, but slowly developing the knowledge and skills to become one. The best source I've found on how to fly weather is "Weather Flying" now in it's Fifth Edition by Robert N. Buck and his son Robert O. Buck. Both were airline pilots, and Robert N. Buck started in DC-2s, flew weather research aircraft during and after WW II. It discusses what weather is and how to fly it from a pilot's perspective. More important, it tells the beginner IFR pilot how to start flying IFR. I got my copy used for less tan $15. Worth 10x that.

Bob Buck taught himself to fly instruments in a Pitcairn Mailwing with only a turn and bank. On his first actual instrument flight he climbed into the cloud and flew cross country to an area where the weather was better.
This is documented in Bucks last book, North Star Over My Shoulder, one of my all time favorite books.
I wonder how many of todays pilots could survive for even five minutes with just a turn and bank, airspeed and altimeter??
 
I agree with John, I am also a retired Captain with AmericanAirlines and if you have to ask if you should or not than you should not.

FlySafe

Bob, in all fairness to Pierre, it is was a tough choice using his own judgement.
The airline pilot does not usually have to make such decisions because the entire operation is cut and dried by company policy. You either go or don't go based on policy.
Pierre made a decision without benefit of an all mighty policy for guidance - and it was a good choice.
 
Not so

Bob, in all fairness to Pierre, it is was a tough choice using his own judgement.
The airline pilot does not usually have to make such decisions because the entire operation is cut and dried by company policy. You either go or don't go based on policy.
Pierre made a decision without benefit of an all mighty policy for guidance - and it was a good choice.

While company policy and procedures must be followed - as they have the same weight as the FARs - the Captain is THE BOTTOM LINE.

I hate to tell you that you are dreaming if you believe our decisions are made by policy and procedure. They are made by pilots doing the best they can with what they have; based on their training and experience.

The airline Captain makes such decisions on a near constant basis.

See FAR 91.3(a) if you need further amplification.

Outstanding job Pierre.
 
Last edited:
It's a Hobby

Never been a professional pilot. IFR for me is a lot of work. It cuts into the fun factor by a bunch.
I have not had an IFR airplane for about 20 years and rarely have wished I was IFR currant. So it is VFR for me all the time.
 
single engine IFR very IFFY

I'm an airline guy 737 captain too but flew checks in barons and commuter passenger turboprops....the more I know, the more it scares me to fly single engine IFR. Single engine is an emergency in the airlines, let alone flying raw data approaches or even coupled approaches to minimums in a dinky spam can with no real fuel reserves and no real speed to get to good weather. You're kidding yourself thinking any different.
One alternator, one fan up front, one battery, again you're kidding yourself...and departing zero zero...crazy...where are you gonna go with a problem? I did it when I was young and stupid, but dont consider anything IFR except punching through a 2000 ft ceiling to vrf on top in warm air...there's no outs with anything less unless your on an all weather legitimate twin or turboprop certified all weather and known ice with redundancies and plenty of fuel and a trained pilot flying 4 days a week that can land zero zero on an ILS TIL the wheels touch the ground if things sock in or the weather goes down....unless that's you, you've got no business.
 
I'm trying to gain confidence in myself and my plane. With just 25hrs actual IFR and most of it years ago I don't depart with less than 600', a VFR destination and VFR within 1 hour of my departure point. I'm current by the rules, but really need to start spending time in the system. I'm going to start filing IFR on clear days and fly the RNAV approaches. XM weather is a huge benefit over the "old days" by the way. There's nothing like flying into the edge of an imbeded thunderstorm to wake you up. So, I don't want to see a lot of yellow or worse on the GPS and no ice. John
 
Last edited:
While company policy and procedures must be followed - as they have the same weight as the FARs - the Captain is THE BOTTOM LINE.

I hate to tell you that you are dreaming if you believe our decisions are made by policy and procedure. They are made by pilots doing the best they can with what they have; based on their training and experience.

The airline Captain makes such decisions on a near constant basis.

See FAR 91.3(a) if you need further amplification.

Outstanding job Pierre.

True, the Captain is the bottom line. But the line is always on thin ice.

If company policy or an FAR are ignored while exercising command authority, there better be a good reason for doing so or the pilot will be unemployed. At least those were the rules when I worked for a living.

Policy was don't fly through thunderstorms, so don't do it. Decision made for you. With regard to IFR flight conditions, you were either legal to proceed or not, it was a no brainer.

Yes, there were decisions on every flight, like make sure the FAA check air man got coffee and a meal first. Beyond that, if the flight was operated in accordance with policy and FAR's, the operation was not a big deal and took no heroics. Policy and FAR were decision makers 98% of the time. When the situation was not covered by same, the Captain decided what action to take, that's what he got paid to do - like land in the Hudson River with no power.

But if the Captain decides to bust minimums with no emergency, his butt will be hung out to dry. The decision to go around is mandated by policy and FAR's not his judgment or decision making authority.

My point was Pierre did not have the benefit of an operation so well defined. He made a good decision without all that help.
 
Back
Top