N

N316RV

Well Known Member
Of you guys with Instrument tickets that have flying RVs equipped for instrument flying, how often do you actually fly IMC?

I have my Instrument ticket and am in the final stages of my panel design. The $$$ difference between a nice VFR panel and an IFR panel with appropriate fail safes are significant (no surprise right?). I am trying to take a realistic view on how often I would actually fly IFR after spending the dollars.

Thanks
Alan Jackson
N316RV
RV-9A
Hartselle, AL
 
Not Much but ...

If you are going to travel in your RV and you have an instrument rating I think it would be a good idea to include a basic IFR capability for IMC survival - whatever that means to you. If you are going to fly IFR in an RV I strongly recommend an autopilot system with an altitude hold capability. I flew to work every day for 15 years often in IMC with a Piper Archer and I never used my autopilot so I did not install one in my RV-6A. After a year or so of minor to extreme tension because of the attention required to fly the RV on instruments with all of the other ATC and navigation requirements I installed a Tru Trak Pictorial Pilot for directional control and an Altrak for altitude hold and IMC life became much more manageable. I would at least install a VOR/LOC/GS receiver and display and an FAA approved GPS that can be substituted for DME (like the SL-60 which also serves as a communication transceiver) just to give you a way out if things go bad.

We are flying to Key West tomorrow and the trip should go fine except for the planned refueling stop in Alabama. I can't wait for ideal conditions all the way to Key West from northwest Arkansas if I want to make the trip with reasonable scheduling. I don't particularly enjoy it but almost every significant trip we make requires some cloud flying. If I had built our RV to be strictly VFR it would be very limited for travel purposes.

Bob Axsom
 
N316RV said:
Of you guys with Instrument tickets that have flying RVs equipped for instrument flying, how often do you actually fly IMC?
Click to expand...

To answer your directly: I fly IMC whenever it presents itself along any route where I'm operating on an IFR flight plan. (Please note the distinction between IMC and IFR.) The controllers don't know or care where the clouds are. There are still vast areas, even in the east, where the weather conditions in your precise location are known only to you, even with closely spaced (a very subjective term) weather reporting stations. That's why PIREPS are still solicited.

For example: You've been assigned 6000' and you can see the ground occasionally through breaks in the overcast, ATC won't change your altitude because of conflicting traffic for the next 50 miles. You're both IFR and IMC and you have no choice but fly on, if you want to go your intended destination. To ATC, all instrument-rated pilots are expected to fly to the same standards.

To my mind, a better question to ask is: How often do you want to be able to complete a given flight in the planned timeframe, like over a 3 day weekend? and a followup question: What is it worth to you?

We all know you can delay or extend trips when you're VFR, the weather's not cooperating and there's no time critical event, like a wedding or graduation, in the mix.

My flights have run the gamut. I've flown 500 nm cross-countries, all VMC, except for a descent through 3000' of clouds to an approach down to minimums. Others have been the opposite, 2 hrs. of IMC until the weather opened up to clear and 50 miles just 30 miles from my destination.

My .02: Equip the plane to match your comfort level to fly in the conditions you're comfortable with and perhaps a little worse. For example: If your personal minimums limit you to conditions where you won't fly in less than a 500 ft. ceiling and 2 miles visibility, then equip your plane with an ILS receiver to get you down to see the runway well before the typical 200 ft. ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility minimums of many ILS approaches.

In my -7A, I used the spam cans as a baseline for redundancy in IMC conditions. With an operable pitot-static system, I figured that if I could stay upright with a turn coordinator or 2nd ADI; if I could talk to someone, a 2nd radio maybe a handheld; and if I could follow directions with a compass or handheld gps then I'd be allright.

Of course, if you can't talk to someone, you need to be able to follow the NORDO (no radio) procedures detailed in the regs.

That's my comfort level. You'll have to decide what yours is.

Mike
 
Not much here either, but

we do make frequent cross country trips and find it necessary to file. For instance, last Oct we flew from Texas to New Hampshire to visit kids. It is a 4 legged trip for us. We filed IFR one leg of the trip up because the ceilings over the App Mountains was 1-2k and tops were 9-10k, so IFR made it alot easier. On the way home, we filed IFR out of Frankfort, Ky because of low scud and rain, but 200 miles west was clear.

So if you are making cross country trips, suggest you have some capability to file IFR. Bob made some good recommendations. An auto pilot is essential.
 
I'm with Bob

I had a VFR x country plane before this one (no IFR ticket) and to be honest we never dared actually go anywhere for the weekend because we could never trust what the weather would be on the way back.

Now I live in the Willamette valley in W oregon where clouds and rain can happen any day of the year almost.

So yes, while actual IMC time is maybe 10 to 15%..It will always happen when I'm coming back from 1000 miles away.

Frank
 
frankh said:
I had a VFR x country plane before this one (no IFR ticket) and to be honest we never dared actually go anywhere for the weekend because we could never trust what the weather would be on the way back.


Frank
Click to expand...


As a renter, I feel exactly this way. So I am preparing for my instrument training now, even though I don't want to be a student again yet. And I hope to have IFR capabilities in my RV (if I ever start it!!). I want mine for X-C travel. So I don't see having a choice.
 
I'll reinforce the great posts above...it's not about how often you have to use it, it is the fact that it gives you the confidence to use the airplane for cross-country trips that makes it worthwhile having the capability. But that capability will come at a price. I don't like flying IFR with really minimal equipment - I did that for years in ill-equipped and under-redundant Spam cans. I built my RV with more capability than I would need so that I have a level of protection to make it safe.

To answer the question directly - I can count the times I use an Instrument Clearance in a year on my fingers (heck I could count them Stein's remaining fingers!). That's with about 300 hours a year of flying, and lots of cross-county time.

I'd build with the same capability again (well, maybe not the -3).

Paul
 
Capability

I agree with Paul, it is about the confidence that comes with added capability. It also depends on where you live and the mission you have in mind. In my case, on the coast of California, most of my time in actual IFR is in 30 second chunks on a simple IFR to VFR on top clearance. Without the capability, you may wait until noon for a 500 foot thick stratus layer to clear. But, as Paul said, it comes at a price. Not just equipment, remember to factor in keeping current, software updates, and chart subscriptions.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
IFR

I currently fly my Cherokee IFR monthly. Course here in northwest we often have a stratos layer that you merely have to descend down through. But we travel to friends east of the mountains, and south to Portland so I consider IFR rating and capability a requirement. I'm just finishing wings and already looking at EFIS/avionics. I would recommend you think about three things:

1) Garmin 430 period. Gives you Comm, Nav, Loc, Glide Slope, DME, GPS
2) Autopilot with at least wing leveler and vector following
3) Backup AI, consider the various fail modes and have at least one way to have an attitdue indicator if all else fails. This might be gyro, or EFIS or GPS but if primary EFIS goes blank, or you lose alternator and main battery how will you control attitude?

good luck
 
how will you use the plane?

I guess it really comes down to how you plan to use your plane and how you like to fly. Do you prefer to fly locally and short trips in decent VFR conditions, or are you also a traveler who has cross country missions you want to accomplish? Do you enjoy the precision that comes from being an instrument pilot?

I am a traveler. I know this because in my Cessna I flew a ton of xcountry trips to visit friends, pick up/drop off relatives, etc. Also, I love the accuracy required for single pilot IFR flying. As a result, my -7A will have IFR capability with redundancy built in.

You certainly don't want to put yourself in the position of being a traveler and having a plane that isn't properly equipped for IFR. Scud running is not the way to go.

Good luck.
 
Fair amount

N316RV said:
Of you guys with Instrument tickets that have flying RVs equipped for instrument flying, how often do you actually fly IMC?

.....The $$$ difference between a nice VFR panel and an IFR panel with appropriate fail safes are significant (no surprise right?).......

Thanks
Alan Jackson
N316RV
RV-9A
Hartselle, AL
Click to expand...

On average.

As I've written before, I fly more precise IFR in my RV than I did in the Mooney it replaced. I can't explain why, but its a fact. On the other hand, I'm less likely to fly the airplane in driving rain or when more than a brief encounter with light ice is possible. I'm not as sure how the airplane will handle it and I don't want to be the test pilot.

Haven't flown much IFR recently because I have had a problem with my carb heat door opening due to air pressure. And yes, I got some intake ice the day I found out about the problem.

I think I fixed that now so I'll do more again, especially as the weather warms (less ice at my levels)

My opinion:
Equip for IFR
XM weather capability as in GPS496, or other XM capable
Autopilot with at least altitude hold, track, and nav
HSI (I use a 2nd dynon D10 that becomes a backup AI with the push of a button)
SL30 - has tremendous capabilities in terms of frequency storage, listen to standby, etc
Decent GPS, like a 430W. I don't have this - yet

The better equipped you are, the more IFR you'll fly, but for me anything beyond the above list would be diminishing returns in terms of what I would be willing to fly.

Most of my IFR flights are in IMC for relatively brief duration. Mostly departure and arrival, with intermittent en route. That's by choice. I tend not to like being bounced around in the clouds for hours at a time if I can help it. I've done it when necessary, but its not fun.
 
Alan,

From my observations around the airport, it seems there is a variety of "levels of uses" of an IFR panel. The gent with the -8 across the hangar row uses his IFR capability a lot, and has been all over the country with it. Another nearby gent with an IFR -8 has never touched a cloud...but he stays more local and has the capability in a pinch. Sounds like a lot of guys on the forum get great use from the equipment and the rating, and that's very cool.

As a guy with the rating, but not quite the panel, I'm jones-ing a bit for the capability...FWIW in your survey. :)

I bought a VFR -6 with the intention of VFR flying only. Upgraded the panel and have dual EFIS, an AP and a 396...but opted for an SL-40. The more I fly the airplane, the more I see the value-added an SL-30 would bring. After researching, looks like upgrading to that, adding a NAV antenna, and maybe a heated pitot, and I'd probably have close to what Steve above has, and I could file /A and shoot a VOR/LOC/ILS if needed. For my uses and situation, that would be plenty, as my goal would be to get in and/or out of a high mins, docile weather situation (marine layer won't burn, etc.) or be able to land ASAP if the airplane or a pax got sickly...akin to what Paul and others called that added confidence factor.

I have a free airline backup, and plan my trips with max flexibility, so that reduces my IFR needs, IMHO...just don't have the need to fly in all sorts of weather, though I respect those that train for it and do. But that's my situation, and I consider myself lucky to have a cheap backup plan.

If I needed or wanted to do even more with the RV and fly "harder" IFR, or had a little less flexibility or fewer options, I'd want all the bells and whistles...IFR GPS (/G), VOR/LOC/ILS (/A), two radios, etc...and in a perfect world, SV (Paul, I covet your panel, along with others'!) Not that ya gotta have it all...it can be done with less, of course...just gotta decide what you need for your comfort and safety.

But if going that route, I'd also be making a commitment to train to high levels of proficiency on all aspects of that equipment. Being IFR-current at work wouldn't make me current in my RV, so the commitment (to me) would mean time and money. I just wouldn't want to press into a spot where I needed everything in my panel, unless I was well-prepared to use it all very comfortably. And even with all the bells, I'd still have pretty conservative go/no-go criterion.

Fortunately (or unfortunately ;)) my flexibility trumps my budget. But my "have a backup plan" mentality makes me "feel the need".

Guess what I'm saying is (as others have said) equip to your needs and mission (perhaps a little beyond if budget allows, so you don't wish you had later...AMHIK), consider the travel flexibility and options you have, as well as your willingness/abilty to stay current on what you select.

Best of luck...bet it's fun to be considering all the cool gadgets!!

Cheers,
Bob
 
What is "hard" IFR or its opposite? Would that be "soft" IFR or "easy" IFR? Beats me.

C'mon, there aren't degrees of IFR. The FAA or ATC doesn't distinguish. Neither should we. A non-precision circling approach flown to actual minimums at 600 and 1 can be MORE challenging than an ILS approach flown to actual minimums at 200 and 1/2.

To a certain extent, you can pick the weather conditions you want to fly in, but not always. Forecasts have been known to be wrong.

I was trying to imply in my earlier post that if you are going to accept an IFR clearance, you need to be able to fly the weather that's there, whether it is VMC or IMC.

If you aren't ready for it, you can get just as screwed up during 30 seconds in IMC as you can over 3 hours.

IFR is IFR. You only decide what capability that you're willing to pay for and the skill level you're willing to maintain.

I don't seek it out, but my -7A has a metal prop and flies just fine in driving rain, just have a towel to catch the minor drips from the overhead canopy latch and larger towel to catch the larger drips through the slider "doghouse".
 
alcladrv said:
What is "hard" IFR or its opposite? Would that be "soft" IFR or "easy" IFR? Beats me.

C'mon, there aren't degrees of IFR. The FAA or ATC doesn't distinguish. Neither should we. A non-precision circling approach flown to actual minimums at 600 and 1 can be MORE challenging than an ILS approach flown to actual minimums at 200 and 1/2.

To a certain extent, you can pick the weather conditions you want to fly in, but not always. Forecasts have been known to be wrong.

I was trying to imply in my earlier post that if you are going to accept an IFR clearance, you need to be able to fly the weather that's there, whether it is VMC or IMC.

If you aren't ready for it, you can get just as screwed up during 30 seconds in IMC as you can over 3 hours.

IFR is IFR. You only decide what capability that you're willing to pay for and the skill level you're willing to maintain.

I don't seek it out, but my -7A has a metal prop and flies just fine in driving rain, just have a towel to catch the minor drips from the overhead canopy latch and larger towel to catch the larger drips through the slider "doghouse".
Click to expand...

Whooops,

Didn't mean to spark a debate or hijack the thread. Perhaps I should have said "if I wanted to increase mission completion reliability in a wider variety of weather conditions and shoot approaches in my RV down closer to minimums than described above..., I'd want more bells and whistles".

I really don't disagree with either of your posts, and concur, IFR is IFR. If I misused the word hard, please replace with "closer to mins", or something similar. (I won't use lower, 'cause I agree with your statement about circling NP mins...like the NDB circle in snow that night in...but that's another story...;))

All I was tryng to say is, much as you were saying...equip to your likely mission and personal comfort level/personal mins...and like you said, perhaps a bit lower to allow for growth. Was just saying if I equip as such, I'd do this...for that, I'd want more gizmos, and would train to it.

Didn't mean to hit a button...next cold one's on me!

Cheers,
Bob
 
I bought my RV already built and the builder put in a twin screen GRT stack with Garmin 430 and a Icom radio. i have a dynon as my backup EFIS. an autopilot that does everything but tie my shoe...

i file IFR nearly everytime i fly to work.

i fly IMC EVERY chance i can get. if it doesnt have ice or thunderstorms in it, i am going through it.

regarding autopilots. i typically hand fly in IMC. unless i am just droaning and want a break. my autopilot will shoot a coupled approach and i let it do that for my own practice in monitoring the system, but i always hand fly.

my airplane trims up nearly perfectly. i doesnt wander at all.

why do people insist on autopilots being a must? if you are a proficient IFR/IMC pilot, you should be able to handle an instrument approach at 80 knots......

is this an experience thing or what?

curious,

Jeff Ray
RV-9A
 
Stress Reliever

Use the system! You are paying for it! I always file IFR on X-Country's. The controllers will keep you out of the TFR's, MOA's and restricted area's. You always have someone to talk to if you have a problem. You can plan your flight for the best winds and not have to climb or descend to miss a few clouds. Plus, it keeps my wife happy! She is not happy unless we are "seen" (in radar contact)!
Randy Utsey
N55CU / RV-7
Charlotte, N.C.
 
All IFR not created equal

alcladrv said:
......
C'mon, there aren't degrees of IFR. The FAA or ATC doesn't distinguish. Neither should we..........
To a certain extent, you can pick the weather conditions you want to fly in, but not always. Forecasts have been known to be wrong.

I was trying to imply in my earlier post that if you are going to accept an IFR clearance, you need to be able to fly the weather that's there, whether it is VMC or IMC.

If you aren't ready for it, you can get just as screwed up during 30 seconds in IMC as you can over 3 hours.

IFR is IFR........
Click to expand...

I disagree with the basic premise of your post, and so does every book I have read on the subject and every instructor I have ever done IFR training with. Additionally, it doesn't match my personal experience or even pass the sanity check.

A flight out through a thin layer of overcast into otherwise clear skies forces you to file, but is very easy. Likewise a VFR flight that ends with a pop up approach with wide margins to minimum is easy IFR.

On the other hand, continuous IFR en route, with turbulence, at night, is much more challenging. An autopilot helps reduce the stress and workload, but I call this "hard" IFR.

Likewise and ILS with 500' ceiling and 2 miles visibility is easy, but an ILS down to minimums, in driving rain, in turbulence, at night, into an unfamiliar airport: that's hard.

I could go on and on, but the point is that IFR is not IFR. There are many gradations. Knowing that, with an understanding of ones current skill level and airplanes capability is one important key to eventually dying of old age.

Obviously, you need to be able to pilot and navigate by instruments for any IFR flight. However, we are not machines. When I'm well tuned I can handle several hours of solid IFR if needed, but when not so well tuned, the stress of that will take its toll on my skills over time.

So, I could in fact fly IFR for a few minutes just fine, but after an hour start to make mistakes and fall behind the airplane.

Same with down to minimums verses wide margins, etc.

When I do the assessment of whether me and my machine are capable of a particular IFR flight, all of this has to be factored in. The bar is not always the same height.

For the pilot who is only going to do "light" IFR as a practical matter....In my view that is fine as long as they understand all the factors that go into that decision. That includes having a very unambiguous understanding of what is hard or what is easy for them and their machine.
 
jeff122670 said:
I bought my RV already built and the builder put in a twin screen GRT stack with Garmin 430 and a Icom radio. i have a dynon as my backup EFIS. an autopilot that does everything but tie my shoe...

i file IFR nearly everytime i fly to work.

i fly IMC EVERY chance i can get. if it doesnt have ice or thunderstorms in it, i am going through it.

regarding autopilots. i typically hand fly in IMC. unless i am just droaning and want a break. my autopilot will shoot a coupled approach and i let it do that for my own practice in monitoring the system, but i always hand fly.

my airplane trims up nearly perfectly. i doesnt wander at all.

why do people insist on autopilots being a must? if you are a proficient IFR/IMC pilot, you should be able to handle an instrument approach at 80 knots......

is this an experience thing or what?

curious,

Jeff Ray
RV-9A
Click to expand...
Jeff: Take a look at an earlier post by Bob Axsom (I flew to work every day for 15 years often in IMC with a Piper Archer and I never used my autopilot so I did not install one in my RV-6A. After a year or so of minor to extreme tension because of the attention required to fly the RV on instruments with all of the other ATC and navigation requirements...).
You're flying a 9, which is more similar to a Cherokee in terms of stability and control response than the other RV models. Perhaps your two posts should be linked to any question that comes up regarding "What should I build/What type of flying do I expect to do". Two interesting perspectives.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP
 
The answer to your question is the difference between planning to fly in IMC and having to fly in IMC. It simply is a matter of what is it worth to you to have the necessary equipment on board to comfortably shoot that approach you never planned on having to make and now must.

George
N242LP
RV-6A
 
Steve Brown said:
I disagree with the basic premise of your post, and so does every book I have read on the subject and every instructor I have ever done IFR training with. Additionally, it doesn't match my personal experience or even pass the sanity check.

A flight out through a thin layer of overcast into otherwise clear skies forces you to file, but is very easy. Likewise a VFR flight that ends with a pop up approach with wide margins to minimum is easy IFR.

On the other hand, continuous IFR en route, with turbulence, at night, is much more challenging. An autopilot helps reduce the stress and workload, but I call this "hard" IFR.

Likewise and ILS with 500' ceiling and 2 miles visibility is easy, but an ILS down to minimums, in driving rain, in turbulence, at night, into an unfamiliar airport: that's hard.

I could go on and on, but the point is that IFR is not IFR. There are many gradations. Knowing that, with an understanding of ones current skill level and airplanes capability is one important key to eventually dying of old age.

Obviously, you need to be able to pilot and navigate by instruments for any IFR flight. However, we are not machines. When I'm well tuned I can handle several hours of solid IFR if needed, but when not so well tuned, the stress of that will take its toll on my skills over time.

So, I could in fact fly IFR for a few minutes just fine, but after an hour start to make mistakes and fall behind the airplane.

Same with down to minimums verses wide margins, etc.

When I do the assessment of whether me and my machine are capable of a particular IFR flight, all of this has to be factored in. The bar is not always the same height.

For the pilot who is only going to do "light" IFR as a practical matter....In my view that is fine as long as they understand all the factors that go into that decision. That includes having a very unambiguous understanding of what is hard or what is easy for them and their machine.
Click to expand...

You spent the vast majority of your post agreeing with me.

What's with the labelling? It's not productive. Apparently, these general labels of "hard", "light", etc... is simply to describe, in a very subjective and non-specific way, a pilot's personal minimums, which can vary from one flight to another, as you say. Like I said, you can pick the weather conditions you want to fly in, but not always.

IFR IS IFR in that we are expected to perform to a defined standard, all listed in the Instrument Rating PTS. It's our responsibility to those sharing the sky and controlling the air traffic to take each IFR flight equally seriously whether it's labelled "hard", "light", or "easy".

Why is it "hard" to fly an approach to the published minimums? Hopefully, you had to do that to get your Instrument Rating as described in the PTS. Regardless of how inclement the weather conditions might be, the air carrier regulations (both 121 and 135) require that the ceiling and visibility be at or above published minimums prior to crossing the final approach fix inbound. That's a pretty strong endorsement for the notion of accepting the current weather conditions as adequate prior to flying the approach. Then all that needs to be done is to fly the airplane to the standard as defined in the PTS. I ask again, why is that "hard"?

Mike
 
1/3 ifr rated

a recent poll showed 1/3 rv pilots were ifr rated. :) my comuting flights to orlando are done ifr whenever the wx brief shows broken clouds are forcast. this makes the flight easy and fun logging actual time and sharping ifr skills. thunderstorms or heavy rain is another matter. i usually try and time the wx so the arrival airport is clear and the storms are not large scale in size like a cold front passage with frontal lines. i never fly with lower than 800 ft bases. most of my logged approaches are done with pilots friends and simulated time. this is a great way to stay current with your buddys. get rated and be safe out there.
 
"Hard" vs. "Light"

Yes, I firmly believe that "Lite" IFR exists - I do it all the time. It exists in the self-discipline with which we enforce our own personal "Flight Rules". If I say "I have an instrument rating, therefore I can fly file and fly to an airport that is observed, and forecast to be, 200 and a quarter due to thundershowers in the vicinity", then you are engaging in Hard IFR, and better be ready for some serious butterflies in your stomach.

If you decide to file to get out of a local patch of low ceilings and it is clear and a million everywhere else, including your destination which hasn't seen a cloud in months - you are flying IFR light.


There is a huge difference between those two ATTITUDES, and the way you enforce what is smart to fly in with the equipment you have, and what is not. No matter if you are flying an RV with an old six pack and one beat up NavCom, or a Gulfstream with synthetic Vision and a HUD, you CAN find weather that will stump you - and possibly kill you.

The difference is in what you CHOOSE to fly in. Yes, we all have to be able to perform to PTS standards, and should stay current that way. But that does NOT allow you to fly into any weather conditions - you have to apply judgment as to what is safe for your current equipment, and what is not.

Yes, there is IFR Lite - and IFR "way to heavy". You use experience, judgment, and discipline to keep yourself on the safe side of the line.

Paul
 
Light/Hard IFR?

I think that, as usual when there's a disparity of opinion on these pages, it's largely a matter of semantics that separates the opinions.

Here are my two cents.

I regularly fly IFR-equipped airplanes that vary in size and gross weight dramatically. Their Maximum Takeoff Gross Weights range from 1500 lbs to 10,500 lbs to 220,000 lbs to 401,000 lbs. All of them have weather-avoidance capability, all have capable autopilots, all have redundant electrical systems, all have the physical ability to fly in precipitation and withstand a certain amount of turbulence.

Although the specific procedures and operational guidance I am provided for these airplanes varies widely, the thought process that I use to fly them in IMC conditions is the same. It's essentially an infinite loop of questions and answers that I ask myself constantly until the airplane is safely at its parking spot at the destination. A few of the questions are:

1. Is the weather ahead appropriate for me to be flying through with this airplane?
2. Are the conditions at my destination appropriate for this airplane?
3. What are my alternatives, right now, if 'Plan A' doesn't work anymore?

The questions are the same for all the airplanes, but the answers are very different, of course. I wouldn't think of taking the smaller airplanes into icing conditions, nor would I land them at an airport forecasting a 30-knot direct crosswind, or fly them through heavy rain. Or any number of other conditions. The big airplanes? Yeah, I'll accept a certain level of ice. Or turbulence. Or gusty crosswind. At night. To minimums.

Steve, I think that when you say "IFR is not IFR. There are many gradations," what you really mean is "IMC is not IMC. There are many gradations."

The standards and procedures used under IFR are the same, regardless of what's going on outside the windshield. After the flight, you can define it in your logbook as "easy," "hard," "soft," "heavy," "hard," "challenging," "milk-run," or whatever, but IMO, there's simply no such thing as hard and light IFR. If you fly under Instrument Flight Rules, you're IFR.

IMC and IFR and not the same thing. Most of the posts here are saying roughly the same thing, but I think we're hung up on the terminology. These two terms have very specific definitions, and I believe they get misused and interchanged too often.

Regardless of the Flight Rules under which we fly, it's the Pilot In Command's responsibility to determine what conditions are appropriate and safe for his particular flight. Which is just what Paul and others are saying, too.
 
Last edited:
IFR

Time to Spare go buy AIR!!

I have the rating and hardly ever, mostly never, use it. I do not have an instrument ship. I do have an RV8 and the time to spare.

When on any trip, I plan not to be upset if the WX closes in and delays me, I carry a book to read. I have put my IFR equipment $$$ in another airplane. A VFR 180 hp, kit built Super Cub, 31" Alaska Bush Wheels, VFR Com and Transponder, Mod C. I use it too.......... 450 hours since April 2004.

I envy you Instrument fliers, am sure it is fun and challenging,,,,, but,,,,,,! flying for me is purely for fun. When I leave the hanger for a cross country flight, I plan, and have, the luxury to have a cushion of time. When I return, the work is still waiting here as I left it. If, I HAD to be in another place and HAD to be back on a specific date,,, I would go on a burner. (airliner)
 
Last edited:
Agree on the semantics

BuckWynd said:
............
Steve, I think that when you say "IFR is not IFR. There are many gradations," what you really mean is "IMC is not IMC. There are many gradations."

The standards and procedures used under IFR are the same, regardless of what's going on outside the windshield. ..................
Click to expand...

To get specific, IMC relates to weather conditions, whereas IFR relates to the legal status of flying on an instrument flight plan, etc.

That's actually what I meant. IMC is a better word choice, but many of us use the "IFR" term. In fact, a look at an FA (for example) indicates that this usage is generally accepted:

"SEE AIRMET SIERRA FOR IFR CONDS AND MTN OBSCN.TS IMPLY SEV OR GTR TURB SEV ICE LLWS AND IFR CONDS.NON MSL HGTS DENOTED BY AGL OR CIG."

Substituting "IMC" for " IFR CONDS" in the above test would be more correct, but I'm able to understand what it means.

An example of when interchanging is definitely not acceptable is when ATC gives you a traffic warning when you are IMC on an IFR flight plan. "N598SD is IMC" makes sense, whereas "N598SD is IFR" does not.

Anyway, if the differing semantics are the source of this little debate then we are all closer to agreement on the underlying principles than I thought.
 
alcladrv said:
What is "hard" IFR or its opposite? Would that be "soft" IFR or "easy" IFR? Beats me.

C'mon, there aren't degrees of IFR. The FAA or ATC doesn't distinguish. Neither should we. A non-precision circling approach flown to actual minimums at 600 and 1 can be MORE challenging than an ILS approach flown to actual minimums at 200 and 1/2.

To a certain extent, you can pick the weather conditions you want to fly in, but not always. Forecasts have been known to be wrong.

I was trying to imply in my earlier post that if you are going to accept an IFR clearance, you need to be able to fly the weather that's there, whether it is VMC or IMC.

If you aren't ready for it, you can get just as screwed up during 30 seconds in IMC as you can over 3 hours.

IFR is IFR. You only decide what capability that you're willing to pay for and the skill level you're willing to maintain.

I don't seek it out, but my -7A has a metal prop and flies just fine in driving rain, just have a towel to catch the minor drips from the overhead canopy latch and larger towel to catch the larger drips through the slider "doghouse".
Click to expand...

(edited)

Soft IFR? Punching through a layer of clouds to get on top.

Hard IFR? Solid IMC near the freezing level, turbulence, driving rain, low ceilings, approaches to minimums, holding..........

(edited)

I am a professional pilot. I did a lot of hardball IMC in single engines to get my first job.

I don't do hard IFR in a single engine anymore. Why? Because my personal safety margin has become to wide. heck, I don't do night flights unless it's IFR (I fly roads). Engines quit. period.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Out of the last 5 long distance trips I've taken, I've only had 2 legs in VFR conditions. Of the other 8 legs, I've been in solid IMC ranging between 10 minutes and 2 hours.

What I've noticed......The RV is the first plane I've ever had the leans in. What feels level to me is a 30 degree bank to the right. I truly understand what they mean by trust your instruments. Also the auto pilot is invaluable when in cruise. I did have to turn down the lateral response because it was correcting too quickly and was jerky. When it gets rough in the clouds, I end up hand flying because its less turbulant than the AP. Also, once it's trimmed out, it's a pretty stable platform for IMC.
 
To answer the original question - nada, none, never, no way jose.

I'd rather kick back and have a tall cool Bud when the sun sets, a cloud gets too low or the sky begins to spew out precipitation liquid or otherwise.

Flying should be fun and for the most part it was in a previous life in equipment designed, certified, radar equipped, de-iced and ready to take on most any kind of weather. But it can not be fun in an RV - therefore it is outside box, I don't do it. Besides, been most everywhere I care to be and there is no compelling reason to take on mother nature to get somewhere that will be there tomorrow or the next day when the sun is shining. Life is too short to get all tensed up in an RV in weather.

But I understand the need for real pilots to do it. Have at it and be careful because the risk meter really goes up when the sun sets and terra firma is down there somewhere in the soup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.