IMC topics

[RFguy]

Quote

 

Facthunter said :

"My days of flying in IMC without a reasonable cloud base on a piston single are well over (I hope) You are trusting everything to your engine IF you don't get visual before hitting the ground.  The only way to cope with ice like that is to  descend and get above freezing by a couple of degrees.. You have to be aware of LSALT in those situations. Using a Flight Level Below 10,000 feet? Transition height/level is 10,000 feet onto a valid QNH.. THAT way you have separation with other traffic  That vid made it look easy. The weather at destination would have required an alternate  on the x wind alone especially when the runway is wet.  Nev"

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking from zero experience , and I have little knowledge of IIMC proceedures and IFR , my interest in flying IMC is certainly not  crossing the mountains in cloud - I can stay at home that day. no commercial imperative !   

 

A couple of instances I can think of - Bass Strait, seems you want to go high for glide, but high often has cloud.  but say,  is  BLW FRZLVL

Over water, If the conditions are VMC below  3000', and cloud 4000-10000, and you have a wx report that ther cloud does NOT extend over land and or is VMC over land, why not just cruise in the cloud at 9000?  Does this require a specific IFR clearance from ATC  when OCTA (I need to do somr reading) , as how can separation be assured/maintained  ?  and if Class E got lowered below 10k feet, would this preclude ad-hoc  ops in IMC at 9000' without specific clearance to IFR traffic in Class E ?

Edited May 24, 2021 by RFguy

[F10]

The VMC criteria, 5115’ 1000ft above or below cloud, 1500m horizontal clearance and 5000m visibility, define VMC, if you are not within these parameters you are IMC. Flying in clouds mean you can’t visually separate from other traffic, you need to change category to IFR, for ATC traffic separation. Flying in cloud. You will lose control of your aircraft in less than 30 seconds I think it is, if not trained. If trained....well what does that mean? Hopefully enough training so you can turn around and get out. True vertigo, or”the leans”, is not only very scary, but is very incapacitating and happens fast. I know...I once had it climbing out in dense cloud, in a Kiowa. All I could do, was grip the cyclic with two hands, brace my two elbows on my legs and just stare at the AI, I could not look away for a second, as the feelings were so strong, despite willing myself not to, automatic impulses went to my arms, banking the aircraft over. I was not capable of doing anything else in that cockpit, but stare at the AI. Yes, the fact a Kiowa is not a stable aircraft didn’t help, but don’t be fooled. It happened to me in an Oryx (Super Puma) helicopter, at least after selecting a S&L attitude on the AI, I could hit the trim release, locking in the aircraft stabilisation system, and then relaxing my grip on the cyclic, as she held the attitude. The feeling is so strong, when you look at the AI, you simply don’t believe it, when it shows 5 deg nose up and 35 deg of bank. Rolling the aircraft level.....gives you a very strong physical sensation, you have just rolled it into a 40 degree bank, 10 deg nose down ....it’s very scary. Luckily...it only lasts for a minute or so...holding a steady correct attitude, soon settles your inner ear down. Don’t mess around in cloud...if you do, have the correct instruments and have the training.

[RFguy]

Yeah I know  intentional   flying in cloud is  IFR.  I think you got a bit off course there, but the story is a good reminder.

 

Back to  my question- does any intentional flying (whatsoever )  in IMC conditions require an ATC clearance ? (by   flight plan or en-route)   ?

time to go and read up. 

 

 

 

[F10]

Sorry, wasn’t commenting on your post, more on the topic. As far as I know, the only time you could fly IFR without a clearance, is if you were unable to contact Centre for a clearance, whilst taxiing for take off at a Class G airfield. In that case you can contact them once airborne. They have your flight plan, so Centre should be aware, you will be calling them at some stage. The system of SAR flight following and traffic separation, all becomes ATC responsibility, under IFR. Another interesting one is an IFR Dash 8 arriving at a Class G airfield. If the weather is bad, an instrument approach is flown, and in bad weather, no VFR aircraft should be bashing around the circuit. But for a Dash 8 out at let’s say Moree, when descending to join the circuit, radar contact will be lost at some stage. All centre can say is they “have no reported traffic”. In good weather however, the Dash 8 will be speaking on the CTAF, for normal Class G circuit traffic procedures. My experience at Tamworth (after hours) Armidale and Dubbo for example, is, they come in pretty fast, preferably on a straight in final, and most people just extend upwind, downwind or orbit on downwind, traffic permitting, to get out of their way, in respect and understanding of every minute extra airtime, eats into the profit margin! 

Edited May 24, 2021 by F10

[Bosi72]

You can fly VFR in all classes of airspaces except class A, which is above FL180 or FL245 at some parts over the Bass strait.

 

https://vfrg.casa.gov.au/operations/general-information/classes-of-airspace/

 

Exceptions are Prohibited, Restricted areas, as well as Transition layer which is between FL100 and FL125 (depending on QNH)

 

https://vfrg.casa.gov.au/operations/general-information/vfr-altimetry/

 

No need a clearance to enter class E, which is above FL125 over Bass strait, but contacting ATC is a safety measure. You can request Flight Following in both class E and G but subject to ATC workload.

 

Rules about distances from(or between) clouds in class G are clear: 1000ft above/below, 1500m laterally and visibility 5km. So legally you could fly at FL100 providing cloud tops are at 9000ft, however I wouldn't be flying VFR on that day.

 

https://vfrg.casa.gov.au/operations/general-information/visual-meteorological-conditions/

 

IMC is anything else other than VMC.

 

Also when above FL100 you have to carry supplemental oxygen.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005B00777#:~:text=8.7 During flight in a,are distributed throughout the cabin

 

Finally, make a decision prior to flight if you have to choose between flying into IMC and breaking the rules..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bosi72]

40 minutes ago, RFguy said:

Back to  my question- does any intentional flying (whatsoever )  in IMC conditions require an ATC clearance ? (by   flight plan or en-route)   ?

time to go and read up. 

There is no clearance to enter IMC.

 

You practice diversions for such reasons during Nav flights.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Bosi72

[F10]

4 minutes ago, Bosi72 said:

There is no clearance to enter IMC.

Yes technically, but if your in IMC, you should be operating under the IFR.

[RFguy]

Thanks for those comments. The DASH-8 scenario would be well assisted by everyone having ADSB IN-OUT. Skyecho provides  sufficient distances for circuit awareness. If you are operating in IMC ad-hoc without a clearance over bass straight at say 8500 (say you don't have any oxygen carried), ADSB would assist not running into anyone.  . But I guess Bass Strait is not the best example, since there is good ATC coverage when high, so you would get  assistance from ATC.  That's probably the most likely location I can think of where IMC exists 7000-10000' and is otherwise benign, IE just a thick layer of stratus  rather than flying around say Darwin IMC in the wet season where that cloud is not friendly.

 

Oh- and it goes without saying-, yes, if operating in IMC, operating under IFR.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by RFguy

[turboplanner]

20 hours ago, RFguy said:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking from zero experience , and I have little knowledge of IIMC proceedures and IFR , my interest in flying IMC is certainly not  crossing the mountains in cloud - I can stay at home that day. no commercial imperative !   

 

A couple of instances I can think of - Bass Strait, seems you want to go high for glide, but high often has cloud.  but say,  is  BLW FRZLVL

Over water, If the conditions are VMC below  3000', and cloud 4000-10000, and you have a wx report that ther cloud does NOT extend over land and or is VMC over land, why not just cruise in the cloud at 9000?  Does this require a specific IFR clearance from ATC  when OCTA (I need to do somr reading) , as how can separation be assured/maintained  ?  and if Class E got lowered below 10k feet, would this preclude ad-hoc  ops in IMC at 9000' without specific clearance to IFR traffic in Class E ?

IFR is not just learning how to fly in cloud; it's an extensive and expensive suite of skills that require a qualified pilot, qualified aircraft, and currency training several times a year, so a very expensive proposition and not worth it unless you are flying commercially and doing it usually weekly.

 

 

[RFguy]

I know lots of IFR qual PPLs  . I can't vouch for the competence though ,  Certainly the aircraft quals cost extra to run.....  Maybe they're IFR qualified, but perhaps not terribly proficient  - is that your gist ?  Yes, I know plenty of IFR qualed PPls but I think while they practice IFR approaches etc and flying under the hoods maybe , 4 times per year, they're maybe only a couple of times per year intentionally flying  in IMC, such as getting down to the coast from Canberra. IE not flying in IMC for real too often.

How many disorientation related accidents are their in IMC with IFR qualed pilots ? (disorientation rather than just flying into the side of a hill due to a lack of procifiency)

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by RFguy

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, RFguy said:

I know lots of IFR qual PPLs  . I can't vouch for the competence though ,  Certainly the aircraft quals cost extra to run.....  Maybe they're IFR qualified, but perhaps not terribly proficient  - is that your gist ?  Yes, I know plenty of IFR qualed PPls but I think while they practice IFR approaches etc and flying under the hoods maybe , 4 times per year, they're maybe only a couple of times per year intentionally flying  in IMC, such as getting down to the coast from Canberra. IE not flying in IMC for real too often.

How many disorientation related accidents are their in IMC with IFR qualed pilots ? (disorientation rather than just flying into the side of a hill due to a lack of procifiency)

 

PPLs tend to thing IFR is all about disorientation, but there's much more to it than that. I haven't heard of accident where a pilot qulified to fly on instruments lost it, but plenty where the planning wasn't up to scratch. For example when you can't see through the windscreen you have to plan your way through the hills and mountains, and the start of that is setting the lowest safe altitude for the flight for a planned tracking with of 3 NM. That should be faily simple since you can fly up into the cloud; you don't have to visually follow valleys, but six skydivers were killed a few years ago when the pilot flew into the only mountain for many mile around. I haven't done any IFR training other than the three hours under the hood, and that doesn't count as full blackout, but IMO IFR is 90% Planning and Procedures, particularly as you approach airports. The people you are referring to are probably the ones who want to fly visual, but decide to take out some extra insurance by training IFR in the belief that if caught out by the weather, they aren't going to suffer disorientation, and can continue with the flight to find a clear way out. Quite a few of these have died through hitting high ground or hills, because when the aircraft is bucking around it's not so easy to pick a hill-free route on the run, whereas the Commercial Pilot has the skills and currency to come up with a routine IFR flight plan right from the start. I was going down this route for business flying where VFR with regular stop overs due to weather just wasn't viable, so I booked commercial flights plus a hired car or aircraft to destination.

 

 

[RFguy]

great write up , Turbs. I have read a few accidents that have occurred in IMC on descent into one of the  Melbourne airports, where the need to stay under some airspace class step and above   the height of the terrain, (descending also into the MEL basin) in a few approach cases, the room for error  (the sandwich) is very small indeed.

 

All those accidents were before GPS and real time mapping . IE maps and ADF  etc NAV aids.

Edited May 24, 2021 by RFguy

[turboplanner]

12 minutes ago, RFguy said:

great write up , Turbs. I have read a few accidents that have occurred in IMC on descent into one of the  Melbourne airports, where the need to stay under some airspace class step and above   the height of the terrain, (descending also into the MEL basin) in a few approach cases, the room for error  (the sandwich) is very small indeed.

 

All those accidents were before GPS and real time mapping . IE maps and ADF  etc NAV aids.

Well in this level of flying some people will have the qualifications and aircraft to be up in those steps anyway; the step issue seems to irritate some RA pilots. 

At one stage RA pilots who started out limited to flying under 300 feet, well awa7y from any airports, then were upgraded to some airspace and airports at a safer minimum of 500 feet, excitedly decided they should be given access to CTA and thousands of words were written on social media, not all of them based on reality. I can remember posting a CTA map with the holding areas and pointing out that you could be inbound one minute and called into one of these loops the next and have to maintain your position in that circuit relative to the other aircraft in it the exit and complete a landing when called. My Point is the qualified pilot flying hundreds of hours a year in charter will be doing this on his ear due to currency, whereas the private pilot who flys off what he's required to will have trouble remembering procedures and the never ending changes.

I was thinking more of Weather dictating a departure from flight plan en route, when I talked about staying clear of hills.

There's not a lot of point in cherry picking some execeptions; if your interest lies there, better to read through the hundreds of pages of training data to see what a qualified IFR pilot does.

[facthunter]

Recency is a part of the requirements to file an IFR flight plan. It may be 35 days on some let down and approach procedure . You log all instrument approaches as part of the record.  Above FL 210 is all IFR  regardless of the weather. You should all know your VFR rules. Below 3,000 ft you can be just touching the base of the cloud but clear of it. I don't think you can fly over more than 5/8 (octa's) of cloud and still be VFR.  You may be trained to keep control of a plane in a zero vis situation  but that's not a rating. It's logged as  Instrument time though. It may get you out if strife IF you have the weather close behind you in a blind valley but it's not supposed to be planned and many in that situation hit solid rock. get iced or lose control . If you have radar with ATC use them to [provide tracking info and help.. You will be doing paperwork later but may (more importantly) survive. As Turbo emphasises there's a lot of procedures to be aware of like Radio Fail procedures. Min sector altitudes circling minimums day/ night RVR (runway visual range).   Provide endurance when requested to and latest divert time to a suitable alternate with up to date weather ,entry to holding patterns,  track distance to run etc,to name a few.  It's very hard to maintain these skills if you aren't flying frequently and you have to renew your rating in a suitably equipped aircraft you provide and pay for, regularly.  You really need to be in a job to justify it . Nev

[Bosi72]

Instrument Rating is great skill to have regardless of your licence. For Command Instrument Rating (CIR), both CPLs and PPLs have to go through the same process: flying 50hrs solo cross country before lessons, passing IREX, then another 40 hours of IFR lessons of which some can be done in a simulator.  

There is also a Private IFR rating with slighgly lower requirements, PIFR exam is shorter, 20 hours of IFR lessons including sim sessions, therefore there will be some restrictions with PIFR vs CIR.  

 

Single-pilot instrument rating is both mentally and physically more demanding than multi-crew instrument rating due to shared workload in a multi-crew environment.

 

[RFguy]

Thankls for the info Bosi , Turbos, Fact and F10.

. My intention is to go RPL-PPL + IFR, and likely CPL.

Edited May 25, 2021 by RFguy

[Yenn]

I think the idea that having an IFR rating to get you out of trouble if the weather goes sour is not a good idea. To be able to handle a plane in cloud and turbulence when you took off expecting VFR is going to take some hard work and you need to be current, not just using it as a backup.

[Bosi72]

2 minutes ago, RFguy said:

My intention is to go RPL-PPL + IFR, and likely CPL.

Good choice !

 

You can skip RPL and go straight to PPL: Study and pass the theory, do the Flying lessons, pass the Licence test.

Alternatively you can skip everything and go straight to CPL: Study all 7 CPL books and pass the theory, do Flying lessons, pass the Licence test.

 

IREX theory exam is separate and no prerequisite is required, but in my opinion it is the hardest exam in aviation (haven't tried ATPL yet).  

 

Books, theory, exams don't cost too much, but flying as you know does. 

Enjoy the journey !

 

[RFguy]

WHat's the difference between Command Instrument Rating  and Instrument Rating  ? is CIR associated with CPL?

 

I have the full CPL book stack. I dont have the IREX book yet.

All my work on RAAus XC endorsement came from the CPL book. Seems that diff between PPL and CPL nav is precision.

Edited May 25, 2021 by RFguy

[Bosi72]

31 minutes ago, RFguy said:

WHat's the difference between Command Instrument Rating  and Instrument Rating  ? is CIR associated with CPL?

 

CPL licence does not include any of instrument ratings. 

CPL is "very similar" as PPL (I will get bashed on this statement), however it does have additional 7 theory exams, plus ~150-200hours which allows you to do flying for money. Also CPL standards / tolerances are much more stricter than PPL. So yes, CPL gives you more knowledge and experience.

 

However, most CPL gratuates realise the CPL licence is not much of use to them unless they are instrument rated, therefore they proceed towards the Instrument rating (IR).

There are two major IR ratings, and both PPLs and CPLs can obtain either: Command Instrument Rating (CIR) and/or Private Instrument Rating (PIFR).

 

If you are PPL+CIR you are bound by the same rules as CPL+CIR, no differences.

 

Then, there are MECIR (multi engine), helicopter.., then there are procedures 2D, 3D, etc.. but don't get confused with that yet.

 

However I suggest doing CPL exams regardless. 

 

[MattP]

6 hours ago, RFguy said:

My intention is to go RPL-PPL + IFR, and likely CPL.

Might be a good idea to get your class 1 medical sorted before hand too, as dependent on your ability to hold one may limit your path.

 

My advice would also be to knock off the IREX first then do the flying as there is a lot to the theory and getting it out of the way lets you concentrate on the flying, although opinions vary on this.

 

6 hours ago, Bosi72 said:

Single-pilot instrument rating is both mentally and physically more demanding than multi-crew instrument rating due to shared workload in a multi-crew environment.

I've mentioned this before on another thread, but the flying in cloud is the "easy" part. Keeping a mental picture of it all, juggling systems and navigation as well as keeping ahead of the aircraft takes practice and currency. Doing it frequently is key.  Once you embark down the Instrument path, assuming you're not flying for a living, you need to be disciplined to keep flying and using those skills, more so than you would flying as a PPL visually. This takes effort to work around all the things going on in life.

 

Another aspect often not appreciated is the idea of just because you can, it doesn't mean you should. Planning not to get yourself into a situation that relies on your awesome piloting skill is critical, so understanding what the weather is doing, where and how you need to get somewhere and how much margin you'll give yourself will occupy a lot more time than just blasting off VFR on a whim. Not that it needs months of planning, more awareness of many factors that you might only casually consider as a VFR pilot, such as NOTAM's (those pesky obstruction and airfield works notices), planning requirements (such as specific routes / altitudes in and out of some areas), weather, weather and weather etc.

 

That being said, I hold the first time I broke through some overcast to brilliant sunshine on top as close as my first solo memory wise, and it definitely makes you feel like a grown up pilot.

 

Very rewarding and a good thing to have to give you options. Its even less stressful a lot of the time to file IFR than scud run visually.

 

Go for it! 

 

 

[facthunter]

The last time I got into the details the CASA recommended the PIFR in lieu of a night VMC rating. I wholly agree with that sentiment. All  relevant Instruments have to be serviceable too. You had to have some extra instrument back up. You can't have only one but GNSS may be seen differently.  It all makes sense. With IFR the first "I" means Instrument(s) and as you will always be told you must TRUST your instruments or you are gone. Nev

Edited May 25, 2021 by facthunter

[F10]

7 hours ago, Bosi72 said:

 

CPL licence does not include any of instrument ratings. 

CPL is "very similar" as PPL (I will get bashed on this statement), however it does have additional 7 theory exams, plus ~150-200hours which allows you to do flying for money. Also CPL standards / tolerances are much more stricter than PPL. So yes, CPL gives you more knowledge and experience.

 

However, most CPL gratuates realise the CPL licence is not much of use to them unless they are instrument rated, therefore they proceed towards the Instrument rating (IR).

There are two major IR ratings, and both PPLs and CPLs can obtain either: Command Instrument Rating (CIR) and/or Private Instrument Rating (PIFR).

 

If you are PPL+CIR you are bound by the same rules as CPL+CIR, no differences.

 

Then, there are MECIR (multi engine), helicopter.., then there are procedures 2D, 3D, etc.. but don't get confused with that yet.

 

However I suggest doing CPL exams regardless. 

 

Sadly true, CPL basically useless unless you want to fly charter for the rest of your life, or sufficient to instruct on. However, any airline job or any good helicopter job, all companies require ATPL. The CPL day VFR basic licence is pretty close to the PPL. You just can’t fly for a living with the PPL. The IREX is a seperate exam as such. Similar to air law really, but you need to know the AIP’s, ERSA and the TERMINAL charts really well! You need to work fast...I managed to pass...only just! Not maintaining the rating however...too expensive, and correct, you only really need it for a flying job. Yes I talked a lot about vertigo in cloud, but as has been said, planning is a big thing. Airways charts make it easy using standard routes. R-Nav approaches have been an interesting development, fairly easy to fly. 

[RFguy]

All very interesting, thanks for everyone's effort to write.

Have no interest in NVFR.  I hear a few flying up and down the east coast at night just out to sea  not far away from lit airports.

IFR useful. --- IFR ---yes I want to at least achieve the rating.

 

While I'll get my RPL, CPL, I might still fly RAaus planes for the most part  for  the near future (12-24 months) , anyway. unless I win the lotto , or decide to get a VH plane.  IE still finding my feet on exactly what I want to do, but also what I need  to do (to be able to do).  

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by RFguy

[MattP]

If you go the PIFR route, note that to fly at night you need to add the Night FPA to the rating, but if you do a CIR you get night as part of it, and you can fly night VFR, whereas PIFR and night FPA means you can only fly at night under the IFR.

 

Don't ask me why, but that's what's written in the rules...

53 minutes ago, F10 said:

R-Nav approaches have been an interesting development, fairly easy to fly.

On this, they are generally (compared to NDB!) but there's still traps if you get complacent. RNAV/VNAV is nice, especially if you have something with BaroVNAV capability.