Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

"Light" IFR???

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

psiegel(at)fuse.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: "Light" IFR???

The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.



Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR is GONE!  IMC is IMC!  (Let's not even consider ice and/or thunderstorms for this discussion.)



Once IMC, you are  essentially at the mercy of the controllers from that point on!



When in  IMC, you better plan on the possibility AND be prepared for any eventuality including an ILS approach down to minimums!  Design you panel accordingly!  Consider radios and an autopilot to which you can literally trust you life! 



Why do I feel so strongly about this?  One flight in my log book stands out:  I was making a trip from Cincinnati Lunken to Detroit City Airport.  Because my light twin was in for maintenance, I decided to make the trip in my Long EZ.   Detroit was supposed to be marginal VFR.  To be conservative I filed an IFR flight plan (with the concept of "light IFR" in mind.)  Got into the soup over Dayton and never saw the ground again until after one missed and finally a second successful approach close to minimums into Detroit.  The concept of "kissing the ground" upon deplaning took on a whole new meaning after that experience!



PLEASE keep this in mind when designing your panel! 



Paul Siegel

richard(at)RILEY.NET
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:23 am Post subject: "Light" IFR???

At 08:24 AM 1/15/06, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.



Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR 

is GONE!  IMC is IMC!  (Let's not even consider ice and/or 

thunderstorms for this discussion.)


	


In southern California airports close to the coast - like Santa 

Monica, Torrance, Long Beach, Orange County, Palomar, Oxnard, Santa 

Barbara - get "early morning and late night overcast."  It's a pretty 

thin layer, 2 to 500 feet thick, that can last till early 

afternoon.  It extends some mile inland.  And it sits.  It's stable, 

it doesn't change quickly or much.  It burns off fairly predictably.



If you can't get through it sometimes you'll sit on the ground from 

March till July.



It's what I consider light IMC.  No rain, no fog, just 30 seconds on 

instruments.  If I'm flying back in and it deteriorates, I divert 

inland where - 5 miles away - it's 20 miles vis  and clear.



I understand that in the midwest it's another thing altogether, 

things change quickly.  But in my climate, light IFR is a reality.



OTOH, my idea of a panel for light IFR is a Bluemountain EFIS 1, 

Garmin 480, EHSI, and backup electric AI and T&S, airspeed and altitude.   

--

highflight1(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:17 am Post subject: "Light" IFR???

I don't think that "light IFR" has as much to do with equipment as it does

with intent.

To fly IFR, you have to be legally equipped to handle whatever equipment the

type of approach you want to shoot requires. Period. Anything else is not

"light IFR", it's just plain suicide.

Light IFR is more to explain a person's intent and how he/she will accept

minimums and alternate minimums. If a "light IFR" pilot gets into heavy

soup, they will still have the equipment they need to land safely if they

are equipped to fly what they filed.

Now, the matter of that pilot being mentally prepared and currently

trained... that's a different issue.

Vern W.

On 1/15/06, Richard Riley <richard(at)riley.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 At 08:24 AM 1/15/06, you wrote:

 >

 >

 >The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.

 >

 >Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR

 >is GONE!  IMC is IMC!  (Let's not even consider ice and/or

 >thunderstorms for this discussion.)

rtitsworth(at)mindspring.
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: "Light" IFR???

 	  Quote: 	
		  

The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.

Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR 

is GONE! ....


	



 	  Quote: 	
		  In southern California airports close to the coast - like Santa 

Monica, Torrance, Long Beach, Orange County, Palomar, Oxnard, Santa 

Barbara - get "early morning and late night overcast."  It's a pretty 

thin layer...


	




My $.02:  The comments/posts got me thinking about ADM, Risk Management,

personally minimum, and the "reality" of IFR flight decisions.  I'm not a

writer, but thought I'd share my thoughts 1) to help personally crystallize

them and 2) to invite/provoke comment with the desire for additional

learning.



I live in Detroit and agree with psiege.  In the Mid-west, we can be IFR

with low ceilings, low vis, multiple layers, sometimes wind/turbulence,

often icing, for days/weeks and 250 miles or more in all directions -

nothing to "play" with.  Many experienced pilots have near-miss stories, a

few others were not so lucky, and there are numerous NTSB reports about VFR

into IMC.  All IFR in the Midwest (or elsewhere) is IFR.  If fact some VMC

is really IFR (over remote areas on a dark night, in the clear over the hazy

great lakes at dusk/dawn, etc).



However, I did my initial instrument training while on an extended work

assignment in SoCal.  As rriley states, the LA "sea layer" overcast is

typically "local" and relatively stable/predictable - more so than a Detroit

VFR day.  It often implies a different IFR scenario and offers various

bailout options.



In SoCal, if we're going to consider different IFR equipment/currency for

Hard vs Light IFR, then the "need", is to be sure we can tell the difference

and have the discipline to respect it.  This is not easy as there is no

real/fixed definition, the Wx briefs aren't necessarily setup to help us

clearly discern it, and many Pilots will occasionally "push" the envelope -

this thread is proof.



The risks with a SoCal coastal sea layer may be much different than a

typical Midwest "white flight", but are not insignificant.  First, there's

lots of traffic, lots of radio congestion, relatively tight/complex complex

airspace, and fewer good off-field options over the congested metropolis -

Little room for less than our full attention.  But wait, the AI/DG/CDI/ALT

or PFD also demand our full attention (even if for only 60-90 seconds) -

Thus, the need for not stretching "field of vision" definitions or selecting

equipment which may not be IFR reliable, or unnecessarily increase our IFR

workload.



While the existence of the sea layer itself is often stable/predictable -

what's sometimes "unpredictable" about the sea layer is the ceiling.  I've

seen it drop from 1000ft/5mi to 0/0 in 1 min (especially on the fringes

and/or close to the ocean).  I've been cleared and landed on a visual

approach at MRY through a (VFR) scattered layer, and then not been able to

see the Ramp/Tower 1 minute later while taxing.  I know MRY is technically

NorCal - same point.



Since the SeaLayer if often very local, the ATIS can become more? important

than the TAR/TAF/AreaForecast.  Yet, I'm sure we've all had an "ATIS

experience" that was less than accurate - either too high or too low - or

"being updated", etc.  Any concept of "light IFR" still demands vigilance to

MDA/MDH and needs to contain the real possibility of missed approaches and

all the workload/discipline that goes with them.



Additionally, SoCal has CummuliousGranite (terrain/mountains).  Many

"sealayer" airports are right next to them (TOA, SBA, SMA,...).  Mix a night

VFR flight over a scattered/broken sea layer and the dark spots/splotches

(clouds and mountains) can look very similar.  This can be very disorienting

- even when technically VFR.  Again, no room for IFR error.



ATC is always there to help.  But again, I've been cleared to "turn 10'

right and incept the localizer...", when the localizer was 10' left.  Yes a

bad clearance and a mistake by ATC, but ultimately the pilot is the guy with

his butt on the line and thus required to be aware of everything - even on a

simple "light IFR" approach.



All said, there might be "SoCal Light IFR" and I might successfully fly

through it multiple times (IFR with minimum equipment/workload).  BUT IT CAN

STILL BE TRICKY/DANGEROUS/DEADLY STUFF.  I'd never imply anything different

to a student and/or fellow pilot!



For a well trained/skilled/current IFR pilot, a "minimally adequate"

aircraft in "SoCal light IFR" may be technically legal and perhaps within

his/her personal minimums.  But, the risks are real, they're still "pushing

the envelope", and adding "some" stress to the entire IFR system.



If we accept that, well ok, we're PIC's, and flying itself is has some risk.

But if we try and convince ourselves (or passengers) of anything less, we're

not being honest.



Perhaps there's another ADM dangerous attitude: "I'm within the letter of

the regulation (or it's ambiguity), so it's ok/acceptable".  The anecdotal

thought would be something like: "the regulations/minimum are just that

minimums, and I should treat/respect them as dangerous ground."



The FAM/AIM are decision floors set by the FAA, they are not perfect and

sometimes/often unclear.  Sometimes they may be/seem too conservative - but

the NTSB stats indicate that, overall, they still allow pilots (like us) to

get into trouble.  It's up to us to take individual responsibility to raise

the bar and set personally honest minimums.  As a group we should be

encouraging each other to honestly review/set/raise these as appropriate -

since the common natural tendency is to build skill/experience/capability to

otherwise lower them.



My $.02



Rick

Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclines
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:11 am Post subject: "Light" IFR???

I think you make a great point about the So-Cal weather.  



IFR is dangerous.  It is a compromise:  increased risk for increased

utility (getting there).



While " CummuliousGranite" provides some additional risk, it also makes

IFR less risky:  If you have problems in the June Gloom, you can most

always get to VFR and proceed to a nearby VFR airport.  The June Gloom

stratus layer is rarely 2000' thick.  Big Bear, at 6700' is always VFR

during these conditions.  As are the desert airports.



This makes IFR-LITE a possibility in So-Cal, where it may not be in

areas with low ceilings stretching for hundreds of miles.



Airplanes are inherently dangerous - that is why we train.  To fly IFR,

we also need to equip airplanes adequately to survive any system

failure.  A single point of failure should not bring down an airplane.

Some planes are designed to tolerate dual failures (ie. Fail the vacuum

and an instrument electrical bus)  The design issue is a compromise:

dollars, weight, pilot work load,etc.



For most of us, the most likely single point of failure is the pilot.

Adding a redundant pilot (or two if we want to take a vote) probably

makes more sense than dual AHRS, unless they are part of completely

redundant systems (separate batteries, separate PFDs, etc.).



Me, I am going EFIS, brand TBD, with a separately powered electric gyro.

--

lhelming(at)sigecom.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject: "Light" IFR???

Light IFR:  defined in the Midwest as being on top of or below an overcast 

cloud layer with AWOS/ASOS info that tells them on the other side of the 

layer there are VFR conditions -- with adequate ceiling near the ground, or 

above a certain level where the overcast top is.  Light IFR pilots have not 

filed IFR or may not be IFR qualified or legally equipped for IFR, but they 

go on the instruments long enough to fly up or down through the clouds to 

the other side expecting better conditions.



Is there another definition of light ifr?  do not archive



Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up  SunSeeker 77 hours



"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and 

at your own risk."

---

gyoung

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 211
Location: Republic of Texas

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject: "Light" IFR???

My god, I hope there's another definition that doesn't involve being

both stupid and illegal... With emphasis on the stupid.



Greg Young

 	  Quote: 	
		   Light IFR:  defined in the Midwest as being on top of or 

 below an overcast cloud layer with AWOS/ASOS info that tells 

 them on the other side of the layer there are VFR conditions 

 -- with adequate ceiling near the ground, or above a certain 

 level where the overcast top is.  Light IFR pilots have not 

 filed IFR or may not be IFR qualified or legally equipped for 

 IFR, but they go on the instruments long enough to fly up or 

 down through the clouds to the other side expecting better conditions.

 

 Is there another definition of light ifr?  do not archive

 

 Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up  SunSeeker 77 hours

johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:11 pm Post subject: "Light" IFR???

Light IFR is the flying done on a computer flight simulator.  IFR is not

light.



John Cox



 	  Quote: 	
		  



 On 1/15/06, Richard Riley <richard(at)riley.net> wrote:

>

> 

> <richard(at)riley.net>

>

> At 08:24 AM 1/15/06, you wrote:

>

> >

> >

> >The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.

> >

> >Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR

> >is GONE!  IMC is IMC!  (Let's not even consider ice and/or

> >thunderstorms for this discussion.)

>

rtitsworth(at)mindspring.
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:45 pm Post subject: "Light" IFR???

[quote] --

brian

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: "Light" IFR???

John W. Cox wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 IFR is not light.


	


There are different levels of difficulty in flying IFR. The skill level

to penetrate a cloud layer and then break out 1000' above the ground

with 2-3 mi visibility is not the same as flying in known ice,

turbulence, avoiding embedded CBs, and then shooting a tricky approach

breaking out at minimums. The former will permit a greater degree of

inaccuracy without endangering the aircraft or passengers.



I know that, depending on how I am feeling and my recent practice, I

will change my go/no-go decision point. I will accept "light" IFR when I

might not be willing to launch into something heavier.



We can be pedantic if we choose to but the bottom line is that there are

degrees of IFR difficulty.



-- 

Brian Lloyd                         2243 Cattle Dr.

brian-yak at lloyd dot com          Folsom, CA 95630

+1.916.367.2131 (voice)             +1.270.912.0788 (fax)



I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .

- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

_________________
Brian Lloyd
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

lhelming(at)sigecom.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:12 am Post subject: "Light" IFR???

---

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:47 am Post subject: "Light" IFR???

All violation of FAR are not stupid, all stupid things are not illegal,

but as you pointed out, this is both stupid and illegal.  The closet I

am willing admit to stupid and illegal was getting caught above an

overcast a couple times before being rated and requesting an IFR Letdown

from Approach, which they gave.  I already knew the cloud cover was

2000'+ agl.  



After being rated, on a flight with flight following, I was above a

layer.  The request for an IFR Letdown was followed by a quiry if I was

rated-and-equipped, which I was able to answer honestly 'yes'.  But

transversing layers while not on and IFR flight plan or in contact with

Approach---no way.  That ain't 'light IFR'.

Chuck Jensen

Do Not Archive



My god, I hope there's another definition that doesn't involve being

both stupid and illegal... With emphasis on the stupid.



Greg Young

 	  Quote: 	
		   Light IFR:  defined in the Midwest as being on top of or 

 below an overcast cloud layer with AWOS/ASOS info that tells 

 them on the other side of the layer there are VFR conditions 

 -- with adequate ceiling near the ground, or above a certain 

 level where the overcast top is.  Light IFR pilots have not 

 filed IFR or may not be IFR qualified or legally equipped for 

 IFR, but they go on the instruments long enough to fly up or 

 down through the clouds to the other side expecting better conditions.

 

 Is there another definition of light ifr?  do not archive

 

 Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up  SunSeeker 77 hours

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:01 am Post subject: "Light" IFR???

Greg is saying "illegal" (and I agree with him) because

Larry said "fly up or down through the clouds to the other

side expecting better conditions".



What Larry basically described, is VFR on top, and plain

VFR.  The blasting through the layer made it illegal.



IFR flying carries with it some pretty heavy responsibilities

and extreme consequences.  It is only through the very high

level of legal procedures that everyone is kept safe.

I think it would be nuts to blast through the cloud

layer without an IFR clearnace.  Why?  Because the only

way you're going to get separation from other IFR traffic

that might be IN that same cloud, is if everyone is

following the rules and in communication with ATC.



Here's a question for you.... Why does the VFR standard

cloud clearance call for only 500 below, 1000 above,

but it looks for a whole 2000 laterally?  2000' isn't

even nearly enough in clear skies to have a 200mph

plane come blasting out the side of a cloud at you.

Being IN the cloud without the clearance does make

it stupid.



VFR is VFR, IFR is IFR.  The worst problems happen

when people try to allow themselves to get caught

where the 2 mix.

Tim Olson -- RV-10  #40170



Greg Young wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 My god, I hope there's another definition that doesn't involve being

 both stupid and illegal... With emphasis on the stupid.

 

 Greg Young

 

 

 

>Light IFR:  defined in the Midwest as being on top of or 

>below an overcast cloud layer with AWOS/ASOS info that tells 

>them on the other side of the layer there are VFR conditions 

>-- with adequate ceiling near the ground, or above a certain 

>level where the overcast top is.  Light IFR pilots have not 

>filed IFR or may not be IFR qualified or legally equipped for 

>IFR, but they go on the instruments long enough to fly up or 

>down through the clouds to the other side expecting better conditions.

>

>Is there another definition of light ifr?  do not archive

>

>Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up  SunSeeker 77 hours

>

Larry McFarland

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 36
Location: East Moline, Illinois

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: "Light" IFR???

Tim,

I must agree that flying between layers is dangerous if you've not got 

flight following

going, even if the legal access and clearances are maintained.  My son 

and I were flying

to southern Illinois in a Cessna near Peoria with an overcast we 

wouldn't climb thru and

a broken layer below us heading south east when we noticed very briefly, 

a C-130 emerging

from the lower layer crossing our path only 100 feet beneath us.  Its 

right wing was not visible

as it passed essentially below us.  There weren't 10 seconds between the 

time we saw it and

the football sized aircraft crossed and disappeared into the white 

overcast on our right.

I don't know if they knew we were there, but since, I've felt uneasy 

about flying "VFR"

between layers of overcast.



Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com

do not archive



 	  Quote: 	
		  



VFR is VFR, IFR is IFR.  The worst problems happen

when people try to allow themselves to get caught

where the 2 mix.

Tim Olson -- RV-10  #40170

_________________
Larry McFarland - 601HDS - Stratus

Eric M. Jones

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 565
Location: Massachusetts

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: Re: "Light IFR"

"Light IFR" is flying through a storm that doesn't have a name.



(do not archive)

_________________
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum