comfortable IMC ?

[harrisonaero]

For those of you that regularly fly your RVs in IMC, what do you recommend as a minimum for comfortable IFR flying? I'm interested in a bang-for-the-buck panel but want to take advantage of any safety offered by better avionics.

[ronschreck]

Two axis autopilot and XM weather. Given a standard six pack or most any EFIS, the former relieves you of constant heading and altitude monitoring which allows you the time to think. The latter provides situational awareness and helps to avoid nasty surprises. Together they make IFR flight a joy.

[Ironflight]

"Comfortable" is an interesting word.....on the road, I have been comfortable in a Buick, more comfortable in a Lexus, and even moreso in a Jaguar. In the air, over the decades, I have flown IFR in stuff that seemed OK at the time, but now that I have flown more "comfortably", I shudder to think of going back. And I know many airline types who will NEVER be comfortable without at least two engines and a co-pilot (someone has to pull the gear after all....).

It all depends on what makes you comfortable I guess! I personally get more comfortable as tasks are removed from my list. If you are talking the "minimums", I agree that an autopilot in an RV is really pretty much a must. Yup, I flew a twitchy Yankee around IFR for two decades, but it certainly wasn't "comfortable". Beyond the autopilot, having an IFR GPS really reduces the workload, as does a moving map. XM weather - absolutely, as well as anything that enhances your knowledge of your fuel state and capability.

Oh, and you're going to have to get "comfortable" with that whole single engine thing....

Paul

[dsmith1055]

IMHO IFR in IMC condititions can be challenging, fun, & rewarding, but comfortable implies complacent which is not good.
Dwight Smith CFII

[Ironflight]

Originally Posted by dsmith1055

IMHO IFR in IMC condititions can be challenging, fun, & rewarding, but comfortable implies complacent which is not good.
Dwight Smith CFII

I understand the sentiment there Dwight, and certainly you never want to be complacent. but if you are constantly worried about things, and sitting on pins and needles, then you don't have sufficient mental "margin" to deal with the unexpected. I guess I equate "comfort" with removing unknowns - when you remove unknowns, you remove the fear and worry associated with them, and that gives you more available excess brain capacity to get ahead of the airplane and the overall scenario.

Paul

[David-aviator]

Originally Posted by Ironflight

"Comfortable" is an interesting word.....on the road, I have been comfortable in a Buick, more comfortable in a Lexus, and even moreso in a Jaguar. In the air, over the decades, i have flown IFR in stuff that seemed OK at th time, but now that I have flown more "comfortably", I shudder to think of going back. And I know many airline types who will NEVER be comfortable without at least two engines and a co-pilot (someone has to pull the gear after all....).

It all depends on what makes you comfortable I guess!.....

.....Oh, and you're going to have to get "comfortable" with that whole single engine thing....

Paul

Having had a couple unscheduled landings, I am not comfortable VFR without a landing spot in view - not the think of IMC or night flight.

The urge to do IMC is very understandable in this experience, especially when young. The combination of a feeling of invincibility and wanting to do it all is part of it and no amount of advice from elders will much dampen it. Such drive makes for great pilots in war and peace, if they survive their own culpability doing it.

Just be careful any comfortable feeling is not couched in an "ignorance is bliss" mode.

(Now, how's that for a Sunday morning sermon on the subject. We're off to hear our favorite preacher later today and that too is a part of living out this dream.)

[dsmith1055]

Originally Posted by Ironflight

I understand the sentiment there Dwight, and certainly you never want to be complacent. but if you are constantly worried about things, and sitting on pins and needles, then you don't have sufficient mental "margin" to deal with the unexpected. I guess I equate "comfort" with removing unknowns - when you remove unknowns, you remove the fear and worry associated with them, and that gives you more available excess brain capacity to get ahead of the airplane and the overall scenario.

Paul

We are on the same wavelength. I guess comfort is a buzz word to me. I have occasionally gotten too comfortable in an airplane and often see it in professional pilots during recurrent training. The much used term "situational awareness" applys. Too many of us have poor situational awareness not because of incompetence, but simply because we become too complacent to think ahead and look for what you call unknowns and I call surprises.
Sorry for leading the thread off track.
Dwight Smith CFII

[harrisonaero]

Boy, I sure didn't mean to imply that improved equipment leads to complacency. How about if we scratch "comfort".... say "easier", "safer", "tolerable", "confident", "less chance of getting behind the plane" or some verbage like that

What I'm asking is for is empirical advice on how improvements in avionics have led to safer/easier (etc.) flying in IMC.

Several of you have pointed out that autopilot, moving map GPS, and real time weather are must-haves. But how about ILS vs WAAS, steam gauges vs. EFIS, portable vs. panel-mounted backup GPS & COM, etc.?

Or something to the effect of, "Boy am I glad I put a XYZ in my panel, it has made IFR flights so much more comfortable and enjoyable now. I'll never fly IMC again without it...".

I got my instrument rating with steam gauges and ADF/VOR/ILS navigation. How much "better" (etc.) have the newer technologies made instrument flying and is it worth it to pay the money for the upgrades?

Thanks folks!

[L.Adamson]

=I got my instrument rating with steam gauges and ADF/VOR/ILS navigation. How much "better" (etc.) have the newer technologies made instrument flying and is it worth it to pay the money for the upgrades?

I consider myself a somewhat of a walking encyclopedia when it comes to flight into terrain accidents, dating clear back to the 1940's. In my opinion, ADF & VOR navigation pales greatly (stinks!)... compared to what's available today. I also don't think much of instructors that still push the idea of retaining VOR navigation skills, as if it's a right of passage to being a pilot. Of course this applies to flight within the United States. Other parts of the world, still don't have some of the GPS technologies that are so common here. Yes..........these are just my strong opinions on the subject & I'm all for synthetic vision!

L.Adamson --- RV6A

[RV7ator]

To your question: an untumble-able EFIS and no vacuum system, and in an RV a two axis autopilot coupled to a GPS.

I'm comfortable in my 172 with steam, and so with a fancy-paneled RV-7, but I pick my conditions.Seeing you live in Sandpoint (I'm in Boise), IFR is mostly stratus in OR's Willamette or the coast, Puget Sound. I wouldn't even consider IFR in summer T'storms or winter icing and I don't think an RV is an appropriate machine for that sort of flight no matter how well equipped. It takes a pilot to screw up a perfectly good airplane.

Which comes to the real point: If you aren't proficient, current, and can dance through the myriad buttons "modern" pilots are presented without missing a step, then you're the weak link in the IFR situation, you'll feel it and you're going to be uncomfortable. That's your gut warning you.

WAAS is not as simple to use as an ILS or a VOR approach - mainly because of the more complex set-up required. You'll get callouses working a 430W, vs. dial the frequency, push transfer, then fly the ILS or VOR (o.k, you need to twist the OBS, too). WAAS also adds about $5,000 to the panel cost, not to mention the billions and billions you'll spend keeping databases current.

John Siebold