H

harrisonaero

Member
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.
 
Two things...

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.
 
"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
 
Last edited:
Comfortable IFR/IMC

IMHO IFR in IMC condititions can be challenging, fun, & rewarding, but comfortable implies complacent which is not good.
Dwight Smith CFII
 
dsmith1055 said:
IMHO IFR in IMC condititions can be challenging, fun, & rewarding, but comfortable implies complacent which is not good.
Dwight Smith CFII
Click to expand...

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
 
Ironflight said:
"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
Click to expand...

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.) :)
 
Ironflight said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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!
 
=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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
Last edited:
your plane

You must define your mission and then equip your plane for that with your budget.
I fly a 6 and have steam with a TT VSVG and 430 and am very happy in IFR. Would suggest that the 400 would be as good I have not used VOR ILS in this plane the WAAS is very good and lots more airports. I have 396 for weather and backup you can pick these up very cheap now. Garmin does charge $380.00 for updates.
I use foreflight on an IPAD for plates and charts $100.00 per year great back up for 396.
If I had lots of money the AF stuff is very cool but adds little capability to what I have now and costs.

Good luck with whatever you choose.
 
harrisonaero said:
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!
Click to expand...

Consider that Part 135/121 requires an auto pilot (or a co-pilot) for IFR. The reason being IFR is work for a singe pilot, sometimes about as much as any pilot can handle.

GPS magic is nice but a good auto pilot with altitude hold is more than nice, it is smart. If money is an issue go for the auto pilot. It will couple with VOR/ILS steam gages and that's all you need.

GPS flight must be programmed on the ground and one must know how to change things in flight as not all flights go as planned. That is a major challenge if the pilot is not totally familiar with the system. And even at that, an auto pilot would be nice to have when that happens.

Your word "comfort" is OK. It is not unlike being relaxed. It does not infer complacency but rather confidence in knowing the equipment and what it can do. It certainly is a better mental state than being a "nervous nelly" who worries about anything and everything constantly. That state of mind comes from a lack of confidence in oneself. A relaxed (comfortable) pilot will always deal with unusual situations more effectively than one with marginal confidence and a rattled mind.
 
My IFR mins

I agree with all of the good comments made in this thread by pilots who are actually doing it. Notice most of them address the importance of pilot integration/proficiency in the "equipment" list. I fly my 6 single pilot IFR probably 6 trips per year, of that some relatively small portion is IMC.

Equipment is a GNC 300xl (GPS/Comm), KX 155 nav comm (VOR, ILS) one glide slope and CDI with an annunciator switch. Two axis auto pilot. Dynon D10A with steam partial panel back-ups. Two axis autopilot - GPS coupled.

First off the auto pilot is a must - no workee, no fly IMC!

The GPS is nice, but keeping current on switchology and data bases is tough. Try to keep the equipment and methods simple and repeatable. I have an approach checklist that helps me set-up for approaches. It makes it the same methodology each time. It instills confidence that you haven't forgotten anything and you can therefore trust the needles. Also remember the critera for a legal alternate is a ground based (non GPS) approach.

With all of this, I was moderately comfortable in IMC approaches. Moderately comfortable also means moderately apprehensive. Not to the point of distraction, but to the point of heightened awareness. I am certainly always happy to hear "This will be radar vectors to the visual approach" from the controller.

I recently added Anywhere map Duo with geo referenced approaches. This is a quantum leap in situational awareness and therefore a quantum leap in comfort!!!

So my min list for "comfortable" IMC -

1) Fully functioning two axis auto pilot
2) Two radios
3) GPS/VOR/ILS
4) A good checklist
5) Moving map with geo referenced approaches

This assumes that you have a good, reliable basic instrument package that you trust and can aviate on the gauges as second nature. You have current charts (paper or electronic, your choice as long as you trust it).

I would go without 5, but I am now much less "comfortable" without it. I spend a good part of my local flight time shooting practice approaches. I have 3500 hrs flight time with good training (military) as background. I mention this to give perspective. I like having the IFR/IMC capability but it is scary to use without good currency and good equipment.

Once during some recurrent instrument training, my instructor (an ex-military airline pilot) told me to consider IMC approaches as an "emergency procedure". At the time I thought this was a bit drastic. But if you approach it with that mind set, it is not a bad idea - train for it, use a good checklist, expect a high level of performance from yourself and the airplane and practice practice practice!! You have to work at it!!

Oh yea, and my "gee am I glad I got that" piece is the geo referenced moving map approach display. Comfort in a box!!

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Aside from your choice of round dial or EFIS instruments I've found the one thing that makes me "comfortable" in IMC in an RV is a good dual axis autopilot.

I earned my instrument rating in a Warrior with no GPS or autopilot. Flying that stable Piper in IMC with no autopilot was nothing like trying to stay ahead of an RV in actual IMC with no autopilot.

Save money where you can but don't skimp on the autopilot. I've never known anyone to be sorry they put in a dual axis TruTrak.

- Peter
 
I fly IMC all the time in larger aircraft ? but I hardly ever do so in my personal airplane. Whereas my fun airplane is a homebuilt, it is not an RV ? so I do not strictly qualify for your original question, but I?ll pitch in anyway :)
My short answer is that RVs, or similar planes, should not be routinely flown in IMC. Let me first give you the conservative perspective. In order to have an aircraft that is ?comfortable IFR?, it should be a stable airframe that does not get knocked around in the weather, it should have more than one engine, equipment for flight into known icing, a turbo charged/normalized or turbine power plant so you can punch through layers of freezing precip at altitude, redundant systems (like electrical, ignition etc.), a good 2 axis autopilot and optionally a pressurized cabin with standby oxygen. This may sound extreme to some and of course you can legally fly IFR without any of these things??., but IFR flight is not so much about shooting approaches or cruising through IMC when all is working well?.as it is about how you and your equipment are capable of handling pilot fatigue, hazardous conditions that seem to come out of nowhere (like icing), and equipment failure.
So, if you want to be less conservative, maybe you can get by with a subset of the above. And if you want to be on the wild side  then you have only one of the above i.e. the autopilot.
Like others have also pointed out, a 2 axis autopilot is not something nice to have ? if you are going to be single pilot in IMC, it is a necessity. And, since you cannot have any of the other things, it is best to only fly into IMC as a last resort and not as a matter of course. You certainly could implement redundant electrical and ignition systems in your RV, so I recommend you do that ? plus if you can have a panel that does not require a vacuum system all the better ? basically, strive for minimum points of failure.
Even with a ton of Instrument time, I seldom fly into IMC in my small SEL plane ? only if the weather is above my ?personal minimums?, and never at night. You are Pilot in Command of your spaceship so you get to decide what your personal minimums are for the equipment you fly.
Good luck with your equipment decisions and Fly Safe.

Jim
 
I flew some approaches with a Dynon setup (EFIS/EMS) coupled with GNS430 and it was easy. Almost like I had a hud. Going to mins in the WX on an ILS certainly not a problem.

I dont know how many people do this, but if you look at your GPS ground track and use that for your heading on a LOC/ILS, you wont S turn all the way down final, so you can focus more cross check on attitude, altitude, VVI.

Also, go practice to get a known pitch and power. You should be able to set your MP, RPM, and X degrees nose low and get the VVI you need to fly a 3 degree ILS. After you have that set, TRIM hands off. If you cant do that in your RV (or any plane youre flying I guess), Id say that you are not proficient and indeed flying to Mins should be considered an emergency for you.

An autopilot is a luxury that you should be proficient without. If its your crutch, then flying to Mins should be an emergency there as well. If Mins might be an emergency for you, increase your fuel reserve so all you have to do is climb and go somewhere else.

To sumarize, I'd say you need a GPS (its waaaay past the 90s, so come on) and your standard 6 pack to fly comfortable approaches.

To top it off, PRACTICE. Do 3 ILS or LOC approaches per month or so...or at least until you feel competent with your aircraft/equipment/self.

All that being said, I avoid flying instrument approaches where my life depends on it as much as possible. So pray for clear skies :)
 
Last edited:
gereed75 said:
I agree with all of the good comments made in this thread by pilots who are actually doing it. Notice most of them address the importance of pilot integration/proficiency in the "equipment" list. I fly my 6 single pilot IFR probably 6 trips per year, of that some relatively small portion is IMC.

Equipment is a GNC 300xl (GPS/Comm), KX 155 nav comm (VOR, ILS) one glide slope and CDI with an annunciator switch. Two axis auto pilot. Dynon D10A with steam partial panel back-ups. Two axis autopilot - GPS coupled.

First off the auto pilot is a must - no workee, no fly IMC!

The GPS is nice, but keeping current on switchology and data bases is tough. Try to keep the equipment and methods simple and repeatable. I have an approach checklist that helps me set-up for approaches. It makes it the same methodology each time. It instills confidence that you haven't forgotten anything and you can therefore trust the needles. Also remember the critera for a legal alternate is a ground based (non GPS) approach.

With all of this, I was moderately comfortable in IMC approaches. Moderately comfortable also means moderately apprehensive. Not to the point of distraction, but to the point of heightened awareness. I am certainly always happy to hear "This will be radar vectors to the visual approach" from the controller.

I recently added Anywhere map Duo with geo referenced approaches. This is a quantum leap in situational awareness and therefore a quantum leap in comfort!!!

So my min list for "comfortable" IMC -

1) Fully functioning two axis auto pilot
2) Two radios
3) GPS/VOR/ILS
4) A good checklist
5) Moving map with geo referenced approaches

This assumes that you have a good, reliable basic instrument package that you trust and can aviate on the gauges as second nature. You have current charts (paper or electronic, your choice as long as you trust it).

I would go without 5, but I am now much less "comfortable" without it. I spend a good part of my local flight time shooting practice approaches. I have 3500 hrs flight time with good training (military) as background. I mention this to give perspective. I like having the IFR/IMC capability but it is scary to use without good currency and good equipment.

Once during some recurrent instrument training, my instructor (an ex-military airline pilot) told me to consider IMC approaches as an "emergency procedure". At the time I thought this was a bit drastic. But if you approach it with that mind set, it is not a bad idea - train for it, use a good checklist, expect a high level of performance from yourself and the airplane and practice practice practice!! You have to work at it!!

Oh yea, and my "gee am I glad I got that" piece is the geo referenced moving map approach display. Comfort in a box!!

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...


Per your comment: " Also remember the critera for a legal alternate is a ground based (non GPS) approach".


I believe that in the newly revised FARs (part 91), aircraft using a WAAS approved GPS may fly that GPS as sole source IFR (including alternates), meaning that the requirment for a ground based approach as a legal alernate does not apply...

Victor
 
Rather than answer the question, "what makes me comfortable," I will approach this from the reverse perspective - when do I start sweating.

First, the equipment I usually fly with: GNS 480; 496 (no XM, but terrain); TT 2 axis coupled AP; EFIS + Steam; hand-held emergency Comm with connection to external antenna for acceptable performance if used; Paper charts (today - anticipate switch to iPad or other suitable soon).

Flying single panel comm does not make me uncomfortable. I did have a comm failure once in flight caused by a poor canopy seal resulting in water leaking onto my radio - I now have splash guards on all avionics for belt-and-suspenders.

So, when do I get uncomfortable?

- When ATC starts vectoring me around down low. From high, I'm generally confident that I can glide to an airport in an emergency. Nothing about my equipment can fix this.
- When my AP fails. It's happened twice - once an actual unit failure, another time pins that simply don't seem to make tight enough contact.
- When my engine suddenly starts to lose power (once back when I had a carburated airplane and forgot carb heat in the soup; another time when an injection line broke)
- When vibration suddenly sets in (once when a wood propeller tip departed the airplane VFR - would have been worse IFR - and another time when the above mentioned injection line broke)
- When I lose GPS lock in the soup. For some odd reason, although my panel mounts (current 480; prior 430) suffer from occasional loss of integrity, my handhelds NEVER have. Really love the cross-fill to the 496, because it doesn't leave me surprised if the primary takes a nap.
- When suddenly everyone on the channel starts reporting icing!!!!!
- When the turbulence gets so rough my head starts banging the canopy
- Any time lightning strikes less than 10 miles away (and I can see it - ignorance is bliss in this circumstance)

Given the above, of those issues related to panel:
- I don't consider loss of a single primary comm terribly disquieting. Simply fly your clearance. Maybe someone can chime in here - I heard a rumor they were going to discontinue use of 7600 squawk? I would do it anyway intermittently so they would be aware that I knew I had comm failure, and listen up / try to contact them on the hand-held. They can yell at me later if that ever becomes "nonstandard practice."
- Loss of Autopilot really makes you work. More so in my plastic demon than most of you guys' wonderfully stable RVs, but even so in turbulence you will earn your pay maintaining course and altitude. Definitely a good idea to get an excellent AP and really work out any bugs before flying IFR.
- Loss of Primary GPS is a definite concern since the handheld is not legal for an IFR approach. It's especially annoying because both of my IFR legal GPSs were professionally installed, and the puck is on top of the airplane so should have unobstructed view, while my hand held antenna is under plexi and never seems to quit. Guess my conclusion is, have a Garmin x96 backup as a minimum, and if your life depends on landing immediately and minimums dictate be prepared in your mind to zoom that sucker in and cheat just a bit on the nonprecision approach to get down. There are some who say they've figured out a way to use the 496 to perform a precision approach, but I'm not certain how well that works.
- Loss of EFIS. Certainly an annoyance, but not a concern at all if the AP is working (it is independent of both EFIS and steam). It would be a bit concerning in a complete failure of my EFIS that I also lose engine instruments; however, as long as the engine is running smoothly it seems to me unlikely that anything the engine instruments would tell me could a) PREVENT an engine failure or b) INCREASE my comfort in a situation where I'm already intent on landing as soon as practical.
- Loss of both EFIS and steam gauges. Ok, I'm concerned, but only need to take a deep breath if Otto is still on duty.
- Complete electrical system failure (e.g. master relay and alternator both belly up). EFIS and 496 and hand-held all have battery backup; I'm comfortable as long as I only need to shoot a non-precision GPS approach; I'll start sweating if it's worse than that on the ground.
 
Lots of opinions. No surprise. Everyone has their comfort level. You have to decide what your's is.

The absolute necessities that have been stated make me cringe, such as 2-axis autopilot, 2 comm radios, never at night, etc. Establish your comfort level, proficiently use your equipment, meet the requirements of the regulations and blast off when they all converge.

For me, I operate with the basics and have backups if something fails.:

A handheld comm radio backs up a single SL30. With IFR clearance in hand, "Cleared for takeoff" is the only ATC contact we need to hear. After a comm failure, the regs allow us to proceed to the clearance limit, usually the destination, or VFR conditions without talking to a soul.

A Garmin 155XL panel mount GPS backs up the SL30 nav or vice versa. If you fly in NE corridor it's VOR nav all the way. ATC could care less that you can go direct anywhere. Elsewhere, the GPS is primary.

Steam gage airspeed and altimeter along with TruTrak ADI Pilot I single-axis autopilot back up the EFIS. Kinda like the old needle and ball when the vacuum pumps failed in Pipers or Cessnas, but the ADI Pilot I makes a pretty good backup ADI, so its better than a turn coordinator.

Handheld GPS backs up panel mounted nav units.

I'm hoping to upgrade the EFIS in the near future, but if I put all of my money into the panel, I'd have a lot less money for avgas. Using the equipment you have and staying current does more for you than having a costly panel that's used infrequently.

It works for me for about 100 hours a year.

Good luck,

Mike
 
Thanks for all the advice.

What are folk's thoughts on the 430w vs an older non-precision IFR certified GPS like a KLN-90B along with a separate nav (VOR/ILS)?

It appears that unless used very regularly, the 430W is complicated enough that it would be pretty easy to get behind, especially if ATC decides to switch things up on you in the thick of it.

Or is the 430w new enough that it's easier to use than the early IFR GPS units despite the increased complexity?
 
The 430 / 530 is simpler to use than most of the older stuff, and given that so many have been made it seems unlikely that you can go wrong with a 430 from a maintainability standpoint. The huge advantage of the newer WAAS IFR certified sets is that you can shoot a precision GPS approach to many airports not served by ILS.

If you fly hard IFR much of the time along the east coast where they always want to put you on the airways, the 480 would be a better choice because the 430/530 does not understand airways - but since they've gone out of production they are at a premium, with used units selling in excess of $12,000 on EBay (they could be bought for under $10k new).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.