What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RVs vs Spam Cans for IFR

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ed_Wischmeyer

Well Known Member
After flying the RV-9A mostly with autopilot, I've started trying to bring my hand flying skills back up to where they ought to be and where they used to be.

One thing I noticed today is that it takes very little pitch attitude change to establish a vertical velocity. I learned originally in a Cessna 172, and when I started flying Cherokees, I noted that the Cherokee was easier to fly IFR because there was more of a pitch change required for a comparable vertical velocity, so small pitch errors did not generate much vertical velocity. Seems to me that the RV-9A is gives more vertical velocity for a small pitch change than the C172.

Yes, the RV-9A handling is great for VFR, but it seems a bit pitch sensitive for IFR.

So here's the question: looking at how much pitch change gives how much vertical speed, how do RVs compare with other planes? I've not flown a C182 or C210 in decades, so I can't answer my own question...

Ed
 
Nothing beats seat time doing it.

I did the large majority of my IFR training hand-flying my 9A after I demonstrated mastery of the autopilot coupling to my instructor. The first 10 or 12 hours were a little rough, then next 10 were better, and by the time I took my checkride I was downright smooth.

You get used to whichever tool you have - it just takes time in the seat. No substitute for that.
 
The 182 and 210 are like driving a truck, but because of that very good for IFR. Once the trim is set, it takes a big effort to move the nose up or down. In contrast, the RV's are harder to trim just right, and a very slight push or pull is all that's required to move the nose and the airspeed.
 
So here's the question: looking at how much pitch change gives how much vertical speed, how do RVs compare with other planes? I've not flown a C182 or C210 in decades, so I can't answer my own question...

Less pitch change for similar vertical speed in comparison to an Archer or similar. On the other hand, I recently had to hand-fly a much larger spam can from Detroit to Toronto due to autopilot failure and that is very pitch sensitive in relation to vertical speed as compared to the RV. But then again, the CRJ-700 was filed for 300kias at FL230.

And that right there, I believe, tells the tale. Going 150kts at a 2º pitch will result in about half the vertical speed of going 300kts at the same 2º pitch. An Archer droning along at 110kts and climbing at 200fpm would have the same pitch attitude as an RV doing 160kts and climbing at 290fpm. During the approach into Toronto, at 150-ish knots, I don't believe the CRJ was any more or less pitch-vs-vertical speed sensitive than the RV at that same speed.
 
Last edited:
IMC

Former professional heavy iron pilot here!

This may not be a popular opinion, but if you're flying IMC in a single engine aircraft w/out de-icing capabilities, and you don't have a mission critical reason (ie: lives at stake), then you've probably screwed up big time. At the very least, you're asking for trouble. Even flying at night over the mtns in a single engine aircraft is not that smart.

We're talking about sport aerobatic fun fast planes here. If you absolutely have to get somewhere for business, etc, and the weather is iffy, just buy an airline ticket. Otherwise, it's not worth the risk. Van's are meant for fun - not critical transportation vehicles.

That said, I'd pick an RV with modern experimental avionics over any span can for IFR flying. The SA is unmatched vs TSO'd equip.

The issues are icing, and a single engine, though. Don't push it when it comes to weather. It's not a matter of if something will go wrong, it's a matter of when. And, you want to stack the deck in your favor.
 
Last edited:
Nothing beats seat time doing it.

I did the large majority of my IFR training hand-flying my 9A after I demonstrated mastery of the autopilot coupling to my instructor. The first 10 or 12 hours were a little rough, then next 10 were better, and by the time I took my checkride I was downright smooth.

You get used to whichever tool you have - it just takes time in the seat. No substitute for that.

+1 Yes, no matter what your total time. I joked that my first 5 instrument recurrence training flights I improved 100% each time. Mostly true actually. I found the small movement advice for my 7 was tiny and very very frequent movements. Just don't let the indicators stray and all is good. My stick is not short and the top moves maybe 1/4 inch constantly to maintain desired. Not good for reading a map though. The most difficult learning for me was the huge amount of information on the panel and learning what to monitor, getting it all set right. Then there is buttonology. Huge amounts of study and testing how stuff works in many difference scenarios. All great fun!!

One thing, you know all the RV's tend to climb when turning, but when flying with the HSI my dot (attitude) is about 3-4 deg over the horizon, but when turning I have to push to down to the horizon line or it will climb.~120kts no flaps. Is that real or a result of some EFIS characteristic? Do you guys see the same thing hand flying?
 
Last edited:
Former professional heavy iron pilot here!

This may not be a popular opinion, but if you're flying IMC in a single engine aircraft w/out de-icing capabilities, and you don't have a mission critical reason (ie: lives at stake), then you've probably screwed up big time. At the very least, you're asking for trouble. Even flying at night over the mtns in a single engine aircraft is not that smart.

We're talking about sport aerobatic fun fast planes here. If you absolutely have to get somewhere for business, etc, and the weather is iffy, just buy an airline ticket. Otherwise, it's not worth the risk. Van's are meant for fun - not critical transportation vehicles.

That said, I'd pick an RV with modern experimental avionics over any span can for IFR flying. The SA is unmatched vs TSO'd equip.

The issues are icing, and a single engine, though. Don't push it when it comes to weather. It's not a matter of if something will go wrong, it's a matter of when. And, you want to stack the deck in your favor.


I tend to agree with all that. I found the heavier the plane the more stable it was. ALL flying is a risk, what is acceptable to one pilot is not to another. I've flown 150's to buses, personally I'd never fly at night or IMC in a single, I value my life too much! Each to their own I guess��
 
Last edited:
Former professional heavy iron pilot here!

This may not be a popular opinion, but if you're flying IMC in a single engine aircraft w/out de-icing capabilities, and you don't have a mission critical reason (ie: lives at stake), then you've probably screwed up big time. At the very least, you're asking for trouble. Even flying at night over the mtns in a single engine aircraft is not that smart.

We're talking about sport aerobatic fun fast planes here. If you absolutely have to get somewhere for business, etc, and the weather is iffy, just buy an airline ticket. Otherwise, it's not worth the risk. Van's are meant for fun - not critical transportation vehicles.

That said, I'd pick an RV with modern experimental avionics over any span can for IFR flying. The SA is unmatched vs TSO'd equip.

The issues are icing, and a single engine, though. Don't push it when it comes to weather. It's not a matter of if something will go wrong, it's a matter of when. And, you want to stack the deck in your favor.

I tend to agree with all that. I found the heavier the plane the more stable it was. ALL flying is a risk, what is acceptable to one pilot is not to another. I've flown 150's to buses, personally I'd never fly at night or IMC in a single, I value my life too much! Each to their own I guess��

To each his own. Yes there is more risk flying single engine IMC but it still can be done safely--thousands of pilots, myself included, do it all the time. It just boils down to proper planning, aeronautical decision making, and proficiency to mitigate those risks to an acceptable level.

As Clint said, "a man's got to know his limitations", and I'll add "and his plane's as well."
 
The RV series are quite fine in IMC, remember IFR flying is still done in CAVOK brilliant conditions so what you really mean is yucky IMC.

The deal on pitch sensitivity is simple, TRIM and use the IVSI. Trim is everything in an RV and the best way to hold an altitude in any aircraft is to follow the VSI, most of our modern EFIS machines are actually not the old school VSI but an IVSI.

Keep that in check and your life becomes far betterer! :) ;)


PS........probably 1000+ hours of IFR flying an RV10, of which 10% will be in IMC.
 
the best way to hold an altitude in any aircraft is to follow the VSI

Couldn't disagree more......

Whilst the VSI must come in your scan, the key to good IF is to set attitudes. Having done that, check your performance instruments to see the effect and then correct. It's called selective radial scan. AI - speed - AI - heading - AI altimeter - AI - VSI ..etc etc.... You should not move the control column in response to what is showing on a performance instrument - limited panel being the exception.

This from someone who flew night visual idents under radar in the F4 where the Nav would ask for changes of 1 degree, 1kt or 10' ...... Pitch attitude changes would be 1/2 degree .....
 
If you think the 9 is sensitive in pitch, you should try the 6:) I got my rating in the 6 and found the learning curve to be a bit steep in regards to holding altitude and pitch control in general. However, once I got it, it wasn't hard to keep it. Just a bit of practice. I hand fly all of my approaches, including 15 minutes of level/decending prior to the approach. I do this to keep those skills, as I am sure they would decline without practice.

I will say that, for me, the VS becomes much more dominant in the scan while making pitch changes, especially at higher speeds. The 6 reacts fast and you need the feedback to make adjustments to dial in the the desired velocity. I struggled to dial in a decent with the AI. I imagine this might work on a span can, but not a 6. This is with an EFIS. I imagine it may not apply with a 6 pack.

Larry
 
Last edited:
One thing, you know all the RV's tend to climb when turning, but when flying with the HSI my dot (attitude) is about 3-4 deg over the horizon, but when turning I have to push to down to the horizon line or it will climb.~120kts no flaps. Is that real or a result of some EFIS characteristic? Do you guys see the same thing hand flying?

I do, but more so when VFR than IFR. I have never understood why. It seems that I still have some muscle memory from the old days, where I give a little pull when turning. and apparenly the RV doesn't need or want it when less than 30* banks are used. When IFR, I am more fixated on the airplanes response and rarely climb during a turn. The immediate feedback sub-conciously has me ease off the stick. I imagine this is a "time in seat" thing.

Larry
 
Last edited:
When hand flying IFR or VFR I find the Flight Path Marker (bumble bee) on the Skyview to be the best indicator to maintain constant altitude both straight and level and turning. Just keep it on the line and all is good.

Fin
9A
 
Last edited:
Former professional heavy iron pilot here!

This may not be a popular opinion, but if you're flying IMC in a single engine aircraft w/out de-icing capabilities, and you don't have a mission critical reason (ie: lives at stake), then you've probably screwed up big time. At the very least, you're asking for trouble. Even flying at night over the mtns in a single engine aircraft is not that smart.

We're talking about sport aerobatic fun fast planes here. If you absolutely have to get somewhere for business, etc, and the weather is iffy, just buy an airline ticket. Otherwise, it's not worth the risk. Van's are meant for fun - not critical transportation vehicles.

That said, I'd pick an RV with modern experimental avionics over any span can for IFR flying. The SA is unmatched vs TSO'd equip.

The issues are icing, and a single engine, though. Don't push it when it comes to weather. It's not a matter of if something will go wrong, it's a matter of when. And, you want to stack the deck in your favor.

Opinions are like anatomical parts. Everyone has one. You either trust you aircraft and your experience, or you don?t.
I?m sure many here would disagree that RV?s are not critical transportation vehicles. Mine has carried me across this country both IFR and VFR many thousands of miles very safely. Know your and your aircrafts limitations and adhere to them.
Blanket statements like that are just not helpful to the conversation.
Former professional heavy iron pilot here too.
 
Last edited:
Agree

My previous IFR experience was in a Warrior, and the 9A is noticeably more sensitive in pitch (or perhaps it just seems that way because it climbs a lot faster!).

My autopilot took a nap on me once as I was doing a climbing left turn into some summer cumulus. I was able to hand fly in the clouds within acceptable limits but it was a TON of work. Up to that point, my training in the 9A had included some actual, and a good bit of hood work, but neither with significant up and down drafts. Very eye-opening.

Yes, the RV-9A handling is great for VFR, but it seems a bit pitch sensitive for IFR.
 
Know your and your aircrafts limitations and adhere to them.
Blanket statements like that are just not helpful to the conversation.
Former professional heavy iron pilot here too.


I am very comfortable flying my experimental airplane to many places in the western hemisphere both VFR and IFR. But, with more than 1,100hrs just in my airplane, I "Know my and my aircrafts limitations and adhere to them."

FWIW; most (NOT ALL) heavy iron pilots I have flown with are not very good at flying small airplanes. Not because they are not excellent pilots, but they don't get much hands on flying in small airplanes to be very proficient in how different sthey handle. Just my "Blanket Statement" :D
 
Last edited:
Couldn't disagree more......

Whilst the VSI must come in your scan, the key to good IF is to set attitudes. Having done that, check your performance instruments to see the effect and then correct. It's called selective radial scan. AI - speed - AI - heading - AI altimeter - AI - VSI ..etc etc.... You should not move the control column in response to what is showing on a performance instrument - limited panel being the exception.

This from someone who flew night visual idents under radar in the F4 where the Nav would ask for changes of 1 degree, 1kt or 10' ...... Pitch attitude changes would be 1/2 degree .....

SPOT ON! Everything revolves around the AI specifically attitude/pitch, the VSI is the last inst to follow. The ASI is the 2nd most important inst -:)
 
I think we should incorporate like, dislike, eye roll buttons in here. I could stop writing out posts if I had the option of clicking an eye roll button every time a self proclaimed expert comes in to tell all of us we are going to die. :)

I love flying my RV8 IFR. Makes me smile every time.
 
Couldn't disagree more......

Whilst the VSI must come in your scan, the key to good IF is to set attitudes. Having done that, check your performance instruments to see the effect and then correct. It's called selective radial scan. AI - speed - AI - heading - AI altimeter - AI - VSI ..etc etc.... You should not move the control column in response to what is showing on a performance instrument - limited panel being the exception.

This from someone who flew night visual idents under radar in the F4 where the Nav would ask for changes of 1 degree, 1kt or 10' ...... Pitch attitude changes would be 1/2 degree .....

Did you assume I said focus on nothing but the VSI???

Disagree all you like, but get the scan right, as you say, and then in your scan take note of the IVSI.....if it is trending up or down, you should consider why?

Answer me this, a tiny fractional change in pitch, which cannot be seen on the AI (you cant tell half a degree), will take some time to affect the airspeed (several seconds or more), take maybe a minute to change altitude 100 feet so the Altimeter is useless, so what have you got left? the trend arrow on the IVSI. It is the fastest reacting to your inputs.

Confucius say.....don't tell man something impossible when he already doing it.

Every pilot (military and airline) I know agrees. YMMV.
 
My wife and I both fly 737s for our day jobs. We also fly single engine IFR to get to places we want to get to.

The difference in our Single IFR is that we have incorporated another personal minimum. While flying in IFR wx is fine, we try to avoid ever flying over anywhere where the lowest ceiling is 1,000 AGL or lower.

Things can happen and we are not interested in gliding down to 200' just to hit what ever is infront of us.

So we use the Foreflight map and somtimes slightly re-draw our course to miss those low IFR areas.

Other than that, I agree autopilots are super nice, but you better have your skills ready in case the autopilot goes inop.

At work, the training department has a skill set they call "Automation Agility". This skill is also right up there with stick inputs. Minimal time of "what's it doin now" and being able to efficiently join the course to the STAR, change approaches, and enter fixes past the FAF all require practice
 
Last edited:
Did you assume I said focus on nothing but the VSI???

Disagree all you like, but get the scan right, as you say, and then in your scan take note of the IVSI.....if it is trending up or down, you should consider why?

Answer me this, a tiny fractional change in pitch, which cannot be seen on the AI (you cant tell half a degree), will take some time to affect the airspeed (several seconds or more), take maybe a minute to change altitude 100 feet so the Altimeter is useless, so what have you got left? the trend arrow on the IVSI. It is the fastest reacting to your inputs.

Confucius say.....don't tell man something impossible when he already doing it.

Every pilot (military and airline) I know agrees. YMMV.

I find your argument laughable because if you have an IVSI, you probably also have a flight director. Why wouldn't you just follow that instead of trying to work raw data?

Also, I'd disagree that a half degree of pitch isn't discernible - it certainly is on most modern PFDs, and is even selectable on modern systems with pitch mode autopilots that let you specify pitch in ½ degree increments.

Maybe share that with "every pilot (military and airline)" you know as well.
 
I follow the flight director yes......

And the AP follows it well too.

But anyone hand flying, without an FD, ....... it works.

Anyone with an old school six pack the VSI is very useful. I just don't get why you guys are so down on it. Whatever works for the individual.

What happens if you do nothing, pitch remains perfectly nailed (VFR Hand flying and no FD).....but you end up 300-500 feet above your assigned altitude? How did that happen? No engine power output changes. What would have helped as you bumped and named around in a hot thermal day?

Maybe you guys didn't learn to fly on instruments without a FD, and in cloud bouncing around in nice thermal driven CU's I found the VSI to be most useful. Maybe I needed more help than you guys.
 
SPOT ON! Everything revolves around the AI specifically attitude/pitch, the VSI is the last inst to follow. The ASI is the 2nd most important inst -:)

Individuals reading this thread would be wise to read this comment and remember it for it is correct.
 
I think...

I think you should clarify; in one post you are using an IVSI, another you are talking about a VSI...there is a difference...

The IVSI depicts an instantaneous change and trend.

The VSI depicts only a trend and generally lags a bit. I have many thousands of hours in "spam cans" with six packs. I can count on one hand the number of those with IVSI instruments; nearly all have standard VSI instruments. Considering the time lag in a standard VSI, it is a considered a secondary instrument...
 
I think for us, the RV is twitchy for hard IFR. People do it with a standard six pack and no auto pilot and my hats off to them.

I helped 3 people get their initial IFR cert in RVs and each of them had glass and auto pilots. Their training was enjoyable and quick.

I helped another friend earn his initial IFR in a 1957 Bellance Cruisemaster. He had a 6 pack, no autopilot, and one OBS receiver. His rating took every weekend for over a year. He was also successful on his initial checkride attempt.

I sometimes fly a bonanza IFR and it honestly takes dedication to practice multiple approaches with out using the autopilot.

When I got in touch with the original builder of my 6 pack 6, the first thing he asked was if I was going to put an autopilot in. He flew the plane all over America in hard IFR, including ice in one story. Said it was a handful.

Being able to use your airplane with the whole tool belt takes work but is a great asset of being a complete pilot. At least that's what I try to tell myself when I try and practice.
 
Last edited:
Pitch and power settings

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Remember, the performance instruments are LAGGING indicators.

The correct technique is fly off of your attitude indicator and scan the performance/navigation instruments and make adjustments to your pitch and power settings to fly the desired parameters. That's why they are arranged in the six pack. It's designed for your eye movement with the ADI in the center.

Also, I'd like to clarify my earlier comment by adding that I'm no stranger to taking risks. I have 900+ combat hours, 350+ skydives, and a few BASE jumps. I just wanted to bring it up because flying single engine, non-deicing equip'd aircraft in the weather is a huge gamble that I've seen a ton of GA pilots severely underestimate.

I'd still trust my -7 in the weather over any Cessna, though :D.
 
flying single engine, non-deicing equip'd aircraft in the weather is a huge gamble

I'd still trust my -7 in the weather over any Cessna

On the first point, if you're never near the freezing level, de-icing is irrelevant.

On the second point, I'd much rather hand fly IFR in a C210 than in my RV-9A. However, the -9A has abundant functionality with the glass. For what it's worth, the nicest flying instrument platform I've flown was a Grumman Widgeon. Didn't get it into much turbulence, though.

Ed
 
Opinions are like anatomical parts. Everyone has one. You either trust you aircraft and your experience, or you don?t.
I?m sure many here would disagree that RV?s are not critical transportation vehicles. Mine has carried me across this country both IFR and VFR many thousands of miles very safely. Know your and your aircrafts limitations and adhere to them.
Blanket statements like that are just not helpful to the conversation.
Former professional heavy iron pilot here too.

Very well said!
I will add my voice to the people on this forum who disagree that our RV aircraft are not "critical transportation vehicles". My RV-10 has taken my wife and I from coast to coast, several times, in both the US and Canada. Traveled from Moosonee on James Bay in Northern Ontario to Grenada in the Caribbean, From NY City to San Francisco and Halifax NS to Vancouver Island. All of these trip were conducted on IFR flight plans with perhaps less than 10% in IMC with only a few low approaches in 1200 hrs of TT

I trust my airplane implicitly. I know its limitations as well as my own and adhere to them on every flight. TS's, Icing, fog and approaches below 500' are no go's for me.

I once had a good friend tell me "fuel is a good replacement for brains" I thought that was good advise and have adhered to it all these years...
 
I think that one of the reasons you see heavy iron pilots using some high personal minimums (and advising others to do the same) is this:

10 days. That’s my number. Others are more, some are less. That’s the number of days I can go without flying at work when I begin to feel the rust coming back. Nobody sees it, but I feel it.

The performance of a typical airline crew is pretty high by any standard. Even those who shape the lower half of the bell curve are typically very good. And although I fly a lot of GA (and always have), I know that I will never be anywhere near that level when I’m flying single pilot IFR. It’s just not possible for me given the relative lack of currency and the fact that I’m alone. I truly believe most GA pilots aren’t aware of how much of a disadvantage they’re at by not having another pilot to share the load.

I’ve always thought the FAA had it backwards. I can go almost six months without flying an approach and be IFR legal. I’d be dangerous by any measure, but I’d be legal. Yet I need to make three landings every 90 days to stay current for VFR. That’s completely backward from the reality of IFR vs. VFR flying. Instrument flying is one of the most perishable skills on the planet.

I have one of the most stable IFR GA airplanes on the planet - a single engine Cessna with a modern panel and an autopilot. Yet for the reasons above I limit my IFR flying to punching up or down through a marine layer. I’m sure my minimums are higher than most, and I’m fine with that. A divert just adds to the adventure.
 
Last edited:
I truly believe most GA pilots aren’t aware of how much of a disadvantage they’re at by not having another pilot to share the load.

giphy.gif

I fly for a pt121 carrier as well as flying my RV. I feel like the benefits of having a second pilot in the cockpit are sometimes matched by the drawbacks of having lots of extra communication and process. For a piston single, it's not needed - unless you aren't comfortable, current, or used to flying single pilot IFR.
 
giphy.gif

I fly for a pt121 carrier as well as flying my RV. I feel like the benefits of having a second pilot in the cockpit are sometimes matched by the drawbacks of having lots of extra communication and process. For a piston single, it's not needed - unless you aren't comfortable, current, or used to flying single pilot IFR.

Bingo.

Just because it's YOUR way, doesn't mean it's the ONLY way.
 
Look, everyone is free to do and believe what they want - that?s one of the great things about aviation in this country. Unfortunately, the fact is that single pilot IFR is a very challenging task to do well, and in my experience, most pilots (myself included) do not fly anywhere near enough to be one of the few who can.

For a piston single, it's not needed - unless you aren't comfortable, current, or used to flying single pilot IFR.

The NTSB database strongly suggests otherwise. And there are a lot of dead people who thought the same as you as they took off on their last flight.

Every instrument rated pilot lost due to spacial disorientation (there are lots of them) was convinced they were ?comfortable and current?. Every VFR pilot who took off into low ceilings and became a VFR into IMC statistic thought this as well.
 
Bingo.

Just because it's YOUR way, doesn't mean it's the ONLY way.

I never said it was. I simply shared my feelings and observations in an attempt to make people realize that we often don?t know what we don?t know.
 
For a piston single, it's not needed - unless you aren't comfortable, current, or used to flying single pilot IFR.
The NTSB database strongly suggests otherwise. And there are a lot of dead people who thought the same as you as they took off on their last flight.

I would offer that it suggests exactly that. The accident chain links are broken by people who have done an honest self assessment based on data such as recency of experience and equipment capabilities to determine that they are current and most of all comfortable (i.e "proficient") with the conditions to be encountered.

What the NTSB database does suggest is that individuals who glossed over those details or who made decisions not based on facts or evidence but rather on intentions and emotions ended up in a situation that demanded more skill or capability than they or their equipment could offer.

As an aside, in my experience, I've heard many more airline pilots say they wouldn't get into a piston single ever again than say they still flew GA. I don't think the average airline pilot is a very good reference - it's simply a completely different world with different demands, requirements, and environments.

Perhaps this would be a good topic for the never-ending debate section. What kind of primer should be used for an airplane that will be flown single pilot IFR? ;)
 
Last edited:
Look, everyone is free to do and believe what they want - that?s one of the great things about aviation in this country. Unfortunately, the fact is that single pilot IFR is a very challenging task to do well, and in my experience, most pilots (myself included) do not fly anywhere near enough to be one of the few who can.



The NTSB database strongly suggests otherwise. And there are a lot of dead people who thought the same as you as they took off on their last flight.

Every instrument rated pilot lost due to spacial disorientation (there are lots of them) was convinced they were ?comfortable and current?. Every VFR pilot who took off into low ceilings and became a VFR into IMC statistic thought this as well.


Thank the Good Lord for sending such a wise and experienced prophet to save us poor ignorant pilots from ourselves.
 
Every instrument rated pilot lost due to spacial disorientation (there are lots of them) was convinced they were ?comfortable and current?. Every VFR pilot who took off into low ceilings and became a VFR into IMC statistic thought this as well.

Assumes facts not in evidence. You interviewed every single one of them? Personally?
 
We all make our own go/no go decisions in Part 91 ops.

However, while the Part 121 Captain is PIC once airborne, to get to that point another person has to agree that the flight is safe to depart and that person is the dispatcher. No dispatch from the dispatcher means the flight isn't going anywhere regardless of what the Captain may think.

In the end, there are at least 3 people who control whether a flight departs or not: The dispatcher, the Captain and the First Officer. Without the concurrence of any one of them, there is no flight.

It almost takes a village to get an airliner flight going. Whereas, in my RV, I am dispatcher, PIC and mechanic, and gladly take responsibility for the outcome. I rather like that instead of the group effort.
 
My 2 cents - The RV is fine for IFR flying (however, I would be really careful to avoid icing conditions). The single engine IMC decision depends on individual experience, skill, currency, and the application of risk management - all of which is up to the pilot.
 
I would offer that it suggests exactly that. The accident chain links are broken by people who have done an honest self assessment based on data such as recency of experience and equipment capabilities to determine that they are current and most of all comfortable (i.e "proficient") with the conditions to be encountered.

What the NTSB database does suggest is that individuals who glossed over those details or who made decisions not based on facts or evidence but rather on intentions and emotions ended up in a situation that demanded more skill or capability than they or their equipment could offer.

This is exactly my point. Those in your first paragraph above are not the issue. It?s those in the second category that, by your own admission, got in over their heads because they weren?t as good as they thought they were. None of them took off expecting to die that day.

Perhaps this would be a good topic for the never-ending debate section. What kind of primer should be used for an airplane that will be flown single pilot IFR? ;)

Agreed. I?ve said my piece.

Obviously I ruffled some feathers by even suggesting that we GA pilots aren?t as good as SE IFR as we could/should be. It wasn?t my intent to insult anyone. It really wasn?t. Na?vet? on my part? Probably. But if even one person makes an honest self-evaluation that they might not have otherwise, I?ll take the heat every time.

I guess I?m just tired of people dying in airplanes for entirely preventable reasons (not just WX). It especially breaks my heart to hear about the loved ones who died with them.

Be careful out there.
 
Oh no!

Yet ANOTHER reason to crave a Grumman Widgeon. As if I needed another reason. Those things are SO cool.

True, when I mentioned that I might want a Grumman flying boat some day, my insurance agent just belly laughed... :)

For what it's worth, the nicest flying instrument platform I've flown was a Grumman Widgeon. Didn't get it into much turbulence, though.
 
Brought to you by Grumman Engineers

Yet ANOTHER reason to crave a Grumman Widgeon. As if I needed another reason. Those things are SO cool.

True, when I mentioned that I might want a Grumman flying boat some day, my insurance agent just belly laughed... :)

FWIW, the Grumman engineers - or some of the team, went to Lake Aircraft after the war years. The LAKE 250 Renegade has a lot of similar handling characteristics to the classic Grumman birds. Super stable and docile , but not an ice flying machine. They will take you places no human can walk to or drive any 4WD.
 
Time to put this thread to rest

Looks like the thread has served its purpose, and has now turned to great post-war watercraft. Excellent discussion by all!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top