[Steve Brown]

A lot of vocal opinions about flying an RV IFR. I do, curious if I'm the only one

 

[asav8tor]

IFR vs IMC and personal WX minimums might be a more useful survey. I see no problems flying SE IFR in VMC or if a power out decent to VMC conditions provides enough time to identify and select a forced landing site. Trace ice, snow, or other significant precip is a NO-GO. Night flying is also a roll of the dice due to the inability to select a suitable forced landing site.

It's an individual choice on how much risk you are willing to take on. Problem is most do not accurately determine how much risk they are taking on due to ignorance, lack of experience, or machismo. The sad/criminal issue is when poor judgement on part of the pilot results in a tragedy taking a innocent passenger(s) with him and causing grief for friends and family.

Hard core IFR in IMC that goes all the way to the ground would have me check the first choice on your list.

 

[Bob Axsom]

I fly IFR in IMC

I fly IFR in IMC. My restrictions are thunderstorms, ice and expected ceiling and visibility at the destination airport. If I don't feel confident about my ability to safely complete the flight I do not takeoff. Once in flight it is my responsibility to use everything I have available to safely complete the flight. Once I make the "go" decision I will fly the published approaches that the airplane is equipped to fly to the published minimum. I have modified my RV-6A to have 55 gallons of fuel but range/endurance is always a prelaunch consideration and if the destination airport predicted weather is less than 1,000 ft or the visibility is less that 3 miles I really plan the alternate plus 45 minutes flight time to an airport in VMC.

Bob Axsom

 

[Aden Rich]

IFR in an RV

I know of someone who has a business and uses his Rv-8 to travel around a lot. He flies some light IFR in it but says it's a lot of work. He has all the bells and whistles with XM weather and autopilot to take a lot of the work load off. He indicates that if is was not for those two things, he would not attempt it. The RV's (except for the 9 and 10) are very unstable IFR platforms and flying in real IMC would be a workout. I would like to set up my bird for IFR not to fly it all the time but to be able ascend/descend through layers to get out/into airports. I know of times where we waited at airports for fog to clear or a system to pass to get out or into. It would be nice to file, get through the layer and continue enroute to your destination. The one good thing about waiting-it's the safest thing you can do. I didn't wait one time flying back from OSH and got trapped in a system that I was trying to get through VFR. I had to shoot for a blue spot above me in a 9A. If it wasn't for being in a RV with C/S prop, I might not be here.

 

[rv6ejguy]

IFR vs IMC and personal WX minimums might be a more useful survey. I see no problems flying SE IFR in VMC or if a power out decent to VMC conditions provides enough time to identify and select a forced landing site. Trace ice, snow, or other significant precip is a NO-GO. Night flying is also a roll of the dice due to the inability to select a suitable forced landing site.

It's an individual choice on how much risk you are willing to take on. Problem is most do not accurately determine how much risk they are taking on due to ignorance, lack of experience, or machismo. The sad/criminal issue is when poor judgement on part of the pilot results in a tragedy taking a innocent passenger(s) with him and causing grief for friends and family.

Hard core IFR in IMC that goes all the way to the ground would have me check the first choice on your list.

I couldn't have said it better. I agree on every point.

 

[steveKs.]

I am currently uncurrent but will eventually equip my RV8 IFR. I am plan on only light IFR but will retrain to safe and current standards for the day light becomes not so light.

 

[JDRhodes]

SE IFR

I have not flown IFR equiped RV aircraft, but do fly certified single engine IFR aircraft (C-172 / 182, Bonanza, Arrow, Cirrus) on business from time to time. I don't see that flying an RV is any different. I have found the Cessna and Bonanza very easy to hand fly IFR. But, the Cirrus is very fast and light on the controls. IFR flying in the Cirrus is usually done, by me anyway, on the autopilot. An RV would probably need an autopilot for much long duration IMC flying.

My baseline personal weather minimums are 700 ft ceiling and 2 miles visibility. SE night IFR only in severe clear weather. Icing conditions are a no-no. Thunderstorms only if widely scattered and only if I have thunderstorm detection equipment on board (ie. XM or simlar) or if I can remain in VMC.

As a private pilot with a family and a non-flying job, I find that it is hard to stay legally current, much less proficient in hard IFR. I just don't get to do it enough. Even when I do file and fly IFR, 85% of the approaches are in VMC.

Because of this limitation, I take an IFR profeciency check with a CFII every year, regardless of the legal requirement. I think it's good insurance.

I find that for cross country tirps, flying in the IFR system is often easier than VFR, even if the weather doesn't require IFR. Personal preference - I'll strike off in the '46 Taylorcraft, too - I ain't skeered of map in your lap VFR flying , either.

 

[groucho]

An autopilot definitely takes a big chunk of the workload away (provided you know how to make the most of your autopilot), but IFR can be done without one. I personally like flying with the autopilot on for en route stuff, but hand fly during approaches.

WX mins...can of worms. Flying an approach to no-kidding 300/1 or so can be pretty nerve-racking & I don't recommend that for someone new to IFR work. When you're first starting out in an RV, personal mins around 1000/2 is probably a good stepping stone...then maybe 600/2. Pretty much any low ceiling (1000' included) makes it very tough to live through an engine out scenario though. Gotta weigh the risk vs reward.

Also remember that even though pitot heat isn't required, it's a good idea. With any forecast icing I view a non-pitot heat airplane as VFR only. Just my $0.02.

 

[SkywayCaptain]

I fly IFR in my 7 and I am a spoiled jet pilot. I think all the comments here are very wise. Ice can get you in trouble in a hurry. XM weather and autopilot are VERY nice.

As far as engine out risk management, I believe that there are more fatal accidents related to continued VFR into IMC than engine out fatals. Altitude is always your friend, unless you are on fire. Even if you have 2 or more engines, low IFR has more risk for sure.

If you are going to fy IFR, please stay current.

Please don't scud-run.

 

[frankh]

I agree Bryan

My personal mins are a bit lower after a year or so of quite a bit of IMC flying.

Your thought on the pitot tube is interesting....I have pitot heat but now find myself worrting more about the fuel tank vents freezing over...Arn't tank vents more important than a functioing ASI?..Ok rhetorical question I know..

While I'm at it...why can't the vent's be in thepath of the cowl exhaust air??

Frank

 

[deene]

My personal mins are a bit lower after a year or so of quite a bit of IMC flying.

Your thought on the pitot tube is interesting....I have pitot heat but now find myself worrting more about the fuel tank vents freezing over...Arn't tank vents more important than a functioing ASI?..Ok rhetorical question I know..

While I'm at it...why can't the vent's be in thepath of the cowl exhaust air??

Frank

I worried about the vent ice situation and finally decided to at least put the vents (RV8) inboard enough to be in the warm cowling exit flow.

I also put some considerable thought into failure scenarios and equipped my panel and systems according...

As a CFII, I agree with most earlier posts, BUT I would point out that light IFR is an oxymoron unless your are butally honest with yourself during flight planning. If you can't handle or are unsure about any...any possible weather scenarios for the intended flight, don't make the flight.

Also, planning for future IFR flight without the ticket and some experience is a challenge. If at all possible get the rating and some experience before paying the big bucks for the panel.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

Also, planning for future IFR flight without the ticket and some experience is a challenge. If at all possible get the rating and some experience before paying the big bucks for the panel.

Deene, I can not tell you how many times I have tried to extend to a builder this nugget of wisdom....but it often just doesn't take.......the big-$$$$ panel just has to go in the plane....so hard to ignore the "more is better" temptation........

 

[groucho]

Your thought on the pitot tube is interesting....I have pitot heat but now find myself worrting more about the fuel tank vents freezing over...Arn't tank vents more important than a functioing ASI?..Ok rhetorical question I know..

Good point! I'd *guess* that the Pitot tube would freeze over before the fuel tank vents (mine are kinda burried in my gear leg fairings). A warm spot like behind the exhaust makes sense - I don't see why not if you don't mind the extra run of tubing in the cockpit floor to make it happen.

 

[Steve Brown]

Surprising & revealing RV IFR poll results

I wanted to wait until the poll was closed to make any comments. Opinions follow so push delete if you can't take it!
I think the results of the poll are pretty clear - also surprising:

View Poll Results: Do you or would you fly IFR in an RV?
1-I never fly IFR in my RV and only a crazy man would do so 2 1.90%
2-I never have or will fly IFR in my RV 17 16.19%
3-I haven't flown IFR in an RV yet, but plan to do so 54 51.43%
4-I fly IFR in my RV 28 26.67%
5-I fly IFR in my RV, and only a spoiled Jet pilot would be afraid to do so 4 3.81%

So, fully 30% on this list have and will fly IFR in their RV. That is opposed to 18% who haven't and won't. That's nudging 2:1, but even more revealing is that another 51% plan to fly IFR in their RV, presumably after construction or purchase.
Removing the rounding, that is about 82% who have decided its ok to IFR an RV, as opposed to 18% who don't. That's 4:1 !

Also revealing were the written responses. I'm not going to quote any, because I don't want to make this personal. They seem to be consistent with what I have read on other threads. Generally, there seemed to be two broad categories:
a-IFR pilots sharing their limits, strategies for staying safe, and concerns about risk factors
b-Pilots worried about whether other people would exercise proper judgment about RV IFR

Based on the poll results, I would say the category "b" pilots are a small minority, though from RV IFR "debates" I would never have guessed it.

Although the overwhelming majority seem to think RV IFR is OK. There doesn't seem to be many RV IFR accidents (any?). To me that means the category "a" pilots are exercising pretty decent judgment.

My position: I voted #4

I have a full time job keeping myself within my personally acceptable risk limits in the cockpit. I appreciate hearing others strategies for mitigating risk and their concerns for risks less well managed.
I'm happy that flying, as regulated as it is, still allows the individual to make their own decisions about what risks are acceptable or not. That includes deciding that IFR is OK in an RV, or, deciding that it is not.

 

[David-aviator]

A lot of vocal opinions about flying an RV IFR. I do, curious if I'm the only one

Steve, not sure what the reason is for this poll is except you may not be too sure what you are doing is OK and maybe it will be more OK if there is a little company.

I take exception to the last choice, "I fly IFR in my RV, and only a spoiled Jet pilot would be afraid to do so". Maybe it was tounge in cheek but it leaves the impression "I fly RV IFR to prove I have the right stuff, those who don't, don't have the right stuff".

It could be those who don't know a little more about that world and prefer not to end up a smoking hole in the ground some dark rainy night, as this endeavor has enough risk as is on a sunny day.

 

[Steve Brown]

My point exactly

Steve, not sure what the reason is for this poll is except you may not be too sure what you are doing is OK and maybe it will be more OK if there is a little company.

I resent the last choice "I fly IFR in my RV, and only a spoiled Jet pilot would be afraid to do so" and on behalf of all profession pilots say so.

Maybe the choice was tounge in cheek but it leaves the impression "I fly RV IFR to prove I have the right stuff, those who don't, don't have the right stuff".

It could be those who choose not to do so know a little more about that world and prefer not to end up a smoking hole in the ground some dark rainy night as this endeavor has enough built in risk as is on a clear bright sunny day.

David,

Yes and the #1 response implies that the respondent feels their their safety limits should apply to everyone.

The #5 choice was potentially meant to show an extreme view, as was #1. Yes, both the "crazy" of #1 and the "spoiled" of #5 were meant to interject some humor to those extreme positions.

Because the implications of that view (#5) didn't really and hasn't really shown up in the IFR "debates", I suspect the #5 respondents sense, as I do (though I'm #4), that there are some pilots on this list who feel that they are the guardians of what is safe for everyone.

That is because of overwhelming evidence, including your post today, that the #1 view is alive and well.

I am perfectly content with any pilot deciding that IFR in RV or SEL exceeds their personal risk limits.

Also, I think it is an objective truth that flying 167,000 hours in a 747 does not necessarily qualify one to make judgments about what is an appropriate level of risk in an RV for other pilots.

From another angle:
Your choice of an automotive engine is known, statistically, to increase your risk in all flight regimes. For many of us on this list that risk seems too high. In light of your single engine concerns, I find your choice puzzling since you have increased the probability that your one and only engine will malfunction in flight.
Nevertheless, as puzzling as it is too me, it is not my decision to make or even to question yours. It exceeds my current risk limits, but the important thing is that they are MY limits, not objective standards that you are obliged to follow.

And by the way, I am never entirely satisfied that my flying decisions are "OK". They are under constant revision as new information becomes available. I try to be sure my decisions incorporate the best knowledge I have at the time. That is why I read every accident report I can get my hands on, and listen/read very carefully the problems, solutions, etc that other pilots encounter. Even at that, I may, in fact, end up in a "smoking hole".

Statistically, GA MEL pilots end up in a smoking hole as frequently or more than SEL. Commercial jet pilots, though statistically less frequently, end up in enough smoking holes themselves.

Bottom line, the "smoking hole" is a constant threat to all pilots. I'm not looking to eliminate the risk because that would mean giving up flying. I just want to manage it so I can have fun, get utility out of the sport, and become too old to do it before I become too dead to do it.

 

[David-aviator]

David,

That is because of overwhelming evidence, including your post today, that the #1 view is alive and well.

Steve,

I voted #2, the post had nothing to do with #1, just #5.

You are correct in stating no one has the right to set limits for another pilot - except the FAA, they do all the time.

My comments on this subject are based on being alive after a few near misses - most of them in small airplanes. Having been in the heavy stuff doesn't really apply except it gives one a slightly different perspective of how bad really bad weather can be and glad you're not there in an airplane not designed to be there. Once you've heard a Cherokee pilot plead for a resolution as he is descending toward the cold Atlantic all iced up, you don't forget it. Such events can be avoided by simply not being there, especially when there is no compelling reason to be there except to prove it can be done - that simply does not make sense to me.

 

[SkywayCaptain]

IFR

I agree that the best way to aviod problems with icing is to not be there in the first place. I said that I fly IFR in my RV and that is true, but I don't fly IFR in icing conditions. Ice will cause alot of bad things to happen... prop will get out of balance and shake badly, pitot tube will freeze if not heated, ice will block your forward vision through the wind screen and reduce the lift that your wings can make. It might even plug up your fuel vents and cause the engine to quit, among other things. Ice deserves alot of respect and has taken down all types of aircraft, jets and otherwise. It is one thing to start out to fly the North Atlantic in IFR conditions with temps below freezing, but it is quite another to fly IFR over land, with many airports around, in IMC with 1000ft ceilings over corn fields.

I also would not fly around thunderstorms without some type of radar while in the clouds. I did this in my younger (read dumber) days and can assue you that flying through a thunderstorm is not something anyone wants to do.

Anyone flying any aircraft IFR should have at least the following...

At least one IFR current pilot (preferably two and I mean really current and competent, not just FAR current)

If no deice certification, a plan to avoid all icing conditions and a plan in case the forecast is wrong.

I way of avioding all thunderstorms (radar, nexrad, visual, or flight planning a very wide berth)

A realistic plan to operate with a total electrical failure and emergency battery failure if you have only one attitude gyro)

A realistic plan to operate with a vacuum failure (if applicable)

A realistic plan to deal with an engine failure




Things can and will break... the oil pressure can drop to zero, engines fail, gyros fail, vacuum pumps fail, glass panels go blank, deice systems fail, alt/generators quit, wires can short out and cause fire and smoke, pilots even make mistakes. I tell you this from experience.

Is IFR more risky than VFR?? Sometimes.

Should you decide to fly IFR in your RV just because a poll shows that "everyone else does"?? No way.

The reason that jets tend to have a better accident rate that single engine aircraft is simply redundancy. You can build redundancy into your RV and manage the risk of flying IFR.

I don't think that this thread was intended to determine if you should or should not fly IFR in your RV, but rather to see how many people are doing so and what their opinions/advice are.

 

[grantcarruthers]

I took the "spoiled jet pilot" comment to mean systems redundancy including a second pilot at times and ice protection rather than a slam on them. Simply, how much "system" do you require to feel the odds are in your favor enough to go IFR?

2 cents.

Have a plan for each possible failure, be current enough to implement it perfectly, and alert/in the loop enough to know just as soon as action is required. Don't be too proud to bail on the original plan, land/turn around and come up with a new plan safely on the ground.

And best of all I've heard here, "Hope" should never be a part of your plan regarding weather, fuel, or mechanical soundness.

 

[David-aviator]

The reason that jets tend to have a better accident rate that single engine aircraft is simply redundancy. You can build redundancy into your RV and manage the risk of flying IFR.

I don't think that this thread was intended to determine if you should or should not fly IFR in your RV, but rather to see how many people are doing so and what their opinions/advice are.

It is much more than redundancy. It is training, proficiency, recent experience (beyond the meager FAA requirements) and overall design of aircraft. You can load up a single engine airplane with every conceivable system and it remains a one motor operation, usually with one pilot. The accident rate of such airplanes is not good - just start with an NTSB search of the Lance 4, Cirrus and other such high end singles with every conceivable goody. In driving home his point on RV safety, Steve missed the recent RV-10 accident at Seale, Alabama. It was a most regretable event. The RV is not a stable IFR platform, period. It requires a full time pilot who knows what he is doing. And no one is truly IFR proficient doing it just 10 or 15 hours a month. Many struggle maintaining VFR proficiency not to consider IFR.

It can be safe, but only within a very restricted envelope. Such envelopes have been sighted here by guys doing it. The problem is many who have the money to build or buy the ultimate single engine IFR machine think they have joined the airlines in useablilty and safety. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Yes, it is our right and privilege to do it. Part 91 regs are quite simple when compared to Part 121. The problem is wives and kids and friends are involved. They are along for the ride with no control over the out come.

I maintain this is a recreational endeavor and can not be a primary means of transportation. If flying 10 or 15 hours a month IFR is recreational, have at it. It would not be fun for me.

I hate beating this phylosophy to death and for sure many are tired of hearing it, but it is important. It is so easy to slip outside the envelope, whatever it is, and into trouble.

 

[SkywayCaptain]

It can be safe, but only within a very restricted envelope. Such envelopes have been sighted here by guys doing it. The problem is many who have the money to build or buy the ultimate single engine IFR machine think they have joined the airlines in useablilty and safety. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I agree. Anyone who thinks that they can safely operate an RV and ALL the weather conditions that the airlines operate in is a fool.

Having the ability to operate IFR within a restricted envelope makes the usefulness of your RV much greater, but there will still be times that a safe operation will not be possible and you will have to change your plan.

You absolutely need to be at the top of your game to fly single pilot IFR in an RV. The workload involved can be very high, especially if you don't have an autopilot.

I tend to assume that pilots flying IFR will be very current. I fly for a living so I attend simulator training with a checkride every 6 months(in different aircraft), fly IFR regularly(both in jets and the RV)

This is not to say that you need to do the same, but there is no substitute for recent IFR experience and training in any aircraft.

 

[rv7boy]

Poll Caution

I wanted to wait until the poll was closed to make any comments. Opinions follow so push delete if you can't take it!
I think the results of the poll are pretty clear - also surprising:
So, fully 30% on this list...

Steve,
This is an interesting poll, the subject of which has come up several times in several threads in one form or another.

I would only caution you about saying "...fully 30% on this list..." responded this way or that way. Your poll sampled 105 people of 7,943 members. I asked the statistician down the hall and he said your poll may be influenced by something he called "Response Bias." In other words, folks interested in certain things (IFR flying) probably responded, but is that representative of the whole membership? He felt like it could be; however, it may have considerable error in it. So be careful about the conclusions drawn.

He indicated if you could contact a random group of 105 people in the 7,943 members and get them to reply, then you would have a more representative sample.

FWIW,

Don

 

[Steve Brown]

Good point

Steve,
......I would only caution you about saying "...fully 30% on this list..." responded this way or that way. Your poll sampled 105 people of 7,943 members. ........

FWIW,

Don

True. I suppose only those to whom the subject is important responded, and that is a very small percentage of the overall forum members