Single pilot IMC IFR ops. What is your view?

[Fuji Abound]

Flying IFR single pilot.

I am interested in peoples views about how things are developing.

At one end of the scale there are plenty of light singles that meet the minimum requirements for IMC IFR. Add some oxygen and they can just about struggle up into the airways.

Typically these aircraft have “traditional” instrumentation, are not de-iced, have no means of weather avoidance (other than the pilot’s skill) and marginal performance at best.

At the other end of the scale (in terms of light non turbine aircraft) are twins with glass cockpits, storm and weather avoidance, de-icing, the “comfort” of a second engine and reasonable performance, on both engines at least.

In terms of pilot workload (in single pilot ops) the workload at the other end of the scale is a fraction of that at the front end. This is not least because the cockpit becomes paperless, with all the airways information and procedures being available on the glass, fully coupled to a three axis auto pilot. Whilst it does not have the redundancy of a bus, or the auto throttles, it comes close in terms of cockpit efficiency.

So long as you are really familiar with aircraft of this type situational awareness is superb, the ability to re-plan should this prove necessary is simplicity itself, and there is a degree of redundancy and ability to cope with weather.

So where do we draw the line in terms of what you would accept as an aircraft suitable for single pilot ops - aside from whether or not the aircraft is technically certified for this use?

And will the time come perhaps when restricted IRs are issued on the basis that they may only be used whilst in aircraft of the second type much as applies to multi crew ratings?

[IO540]

Firstly, I would not suggest there should be any additional regulation, in what is already a bizzarely (considering the negligible 3rd party risk) over-regulated business.

I've just done a 5hr flight, partly at FL190, in a non-pressurised plane (TB20) which was doing 140kt TAS at the time, and we were in VMC and thus not in any icing. The OAT was also -22C so the likelihood of ice in stratus cloud would have been very low. So I don't think the subject title is wholly right since in IFR/airways the objective is to climb to VMC and sit there. Paradoxically, it is the pilots without oxygen who have to sit in IMC at airways levels and they then need to be flying the heavy twins which can carry a lot of ice and which have rubber boots so they can get rid of the worst of it.

I also don't think a paperless cockpit makes much difference to pilot workload. I always print off all approach plates etc because any electronic display device would need to be backed up, in case it packed up. IMHO, once one has a decent big IFR GPS, there is very little additional reduction in pilot workload and situational awareness.

The capability to display the aircraft position over the approach plate is very nice though but AFAIK is not available (using Jepp data, anyway) for SIDs/STARs and these can easily be much more complicated than approach plates.

The really important stuff is an autopilot which can do lateral and vertical flight, fly an ILS, and for real mission capability (still, in the unpressurised piston context) one needs a turbo, full de-ice, and a radar for tactical CB avoidance.

[DFC]

I think that there is already adequate restrictions under the UK CAA with regard to pilots who obtain an IR on single power lever and/or integrated efis types who want to go on to fly traditional equipped aircraft.

Under the current system if you obtain your IR on a for example DA42, you have to undergo differences training before being allowed to fly for example a PA34.

As for suitability for IR operations, then how long is a piece of string!

The problem with automatic cockpits in the commercial world and what the CAA titles over reliance on automation, is beginning to creep into the light GA world.

In a multi crew commercial operating environment, you have the other person in the cockpit who can observe your operation on a daily basis, flight data monitoring and 6monthly proficiency checks among other things to try and keep important ( and in some cases not often practised) skills current.

Put the solo GA IR holding PPL in the same high technology situation. They have no support system and simply have the annual multi/IR proficiency test.

Planning diversions are so easy when everything is working but a few system failures and some rubbish weather and lack of practice can have people in danger very quickly.

One must also remember that the execution of an IFR flight is only a small (and relatively easy often) part of what is required to ensure safety. No matter how many weather radars, storm scopes or strike finders you have, if you can't plan properly in advance with regard to weather, routing, performance (single engine as well as twin) and keep that plan up to date enroute while making appropriate decisions then there is no place for you in the IFR system because you are a liability to everyone.

If you give over command to technology then you are simply a passenger so why bother having a licence in the first place.

Regards,

DFC

[Chilli Monster]

I fly a conventional cockpit (levers & instruments) single and twin (the twin de-iced) but both with moving map GPS. I'm perfectly happy in both for single pilot IFR ops

What makes the workload easiest, no matter what the cockpit displays, is the 3 axis autopilot. The most difficult thing, believe it or not, is proper engine and speed management.

So - on that basis I think, as others have said, the current status quo is right. Differences training is a must moving from a DA42 to a Seneca or similar, simply because of the engine (mis)management differences during a single engine failure. In addition, it's not the ordinary flying that ever causes the problem - it's the ability for tactical decision making when things out of the ordinary happen. Again - this has no bearing on type of aircraft, but on whether your command abilities are up to the standards they should be.

[Fuji Abound]

Interesting views so far.

I0540 - glad you had a good trip :).

I think it is fair to say I was looking at the greater extremes than those too which you refer. The TB is very well equipped. I more had in mind those aircraft that are a the "bottom end" of IFR certification.

DFC - yes, but the view you express is reasonably traditional.

We talk of systems failure - and of course they can and do happen. However glass systems will improve greatly over the coming years until I suspect "traditional" cockpits will become the exception rather than the norm. Perhaps, rather as is the case with cars, more systems will become available to protect the pilot form himself even in the GA cockpit.

I agree with the comments you make about planning. However, once again technology has its part to play. XM real time weather, real time winds aloft, METARs and TAFs combine to refine and define whether the flight is proceeding according to the plan. Has the pilot become redundant - I am not sure he has, or is just that he is now able to make decisions based on having far more information at his finger tips and with far more mental capacity at his disposal.

Single pilot IMC, no autopilot, basic traditional instruments, whatever anyone says its hard - I know after a three hour flight - and I don’t do it now. If things go really wrong there is little spare capacity. I know, I know real men can deal with an AI failure when there is only a turn and slip left having planned the diversion and whipped out the ever ready diversion plate from their marked "list" of alternates, without a bead of sweat.

I am not saying its there yet, but I find it interesting comparing a G1000 at one end with traditional and basic systems at the other. In my opinion they are already light years apart. An unexpected diversion with a hold and an approach is a doodle - a complete non event, even if a serious systems failure is just as much a handful however the aircraft is equipped.

[mm_flynn]

Fuji,

I think you question is 'how do people feel about single pilot IMC ops in minimum IFR equipped "PA-28" type aircraft (no autopilot, no moving map GPS)"

My answer - Not happy for anything other than a few minutes of tactical IMC - no way for slogging through IMC for 3-4 hours.

Personal view, a two axis autopilot (or a second pilot) + moving map GPS are on my list of "required items" for IFR flights.

[S-Works]

A 3 axis AP and moving map GPS for anything more than 100nm is preferred. I took a twin down to Guernsey and back to drop a pilot off collecting an aircraft a couple of weeks ago. All steam gauges and KNS80, it is the IR trainer of a school with a U/S AP. Fine for training but not a serious tourer, it makes a trip like that harder work. I would not fly any of the average school PA28 etc for a serious IFR trip.

I fly a lot of single pilot IFR both in my Cessna and the twin which are well equipped and last week did over 30hrs in the airways around Europe by Cessna, including crossing the Alps at FL150.

[Droopystop]

Depends on experience and type.

Autopilot essential for serious SPIMC.


If flying complicated SIDs STARs etc, GPS (not necessarily moving map) but must be coupled to autopilot.

Glass vs Analogue. Depends on what you are used to. Certainly if you have been trained and have experience in the use of glass it is useful. But it takes time when first converting to achieve the reduction in workload.

All weather capability depends on what you want to do and how much you want to spend.

But the most important is a set of weather parameters within which you plan to fly. Outside those parameters, you don't fly.

My answer to the question is:

Depends on what I am doing, what the weather is like, where I am going and how important the flight is.

[mm_flynn]

I find the moving map part actually pretty critical.

When I get some random 5 letter location as a direct (not just a short cut on my planned route) I get instant visual feedback if ATC has a fundamentally different view of where I am going than I do.

When I load a STAR and approach I can quickly check if the path the magic is going to follow matches what I think it should be.

Both of these can be checked without the MMGPS - but it takes time and faffing about - with a second pilot no big deal, but alone on a high workload flight - don't need it.

Of course the MMGPS makes general situational awareness easier, but this is nice to have rather than critical.

[scooter boy]

The Aircraft: single is fine by me, 3 axis autopilot (mandatory), de-iced (preferably) with an integrated glass cockpit and stormscope as a minimum. M20-R is my personal choice, (a properly deiced single that has less difficulty climbing up into and eating up the airways than many twins :cool:).

The pilot: level of experience and currency - current IR of course. Also level of currency in that particular aircraft.

The weather: huge difference between 2 miles vis in light mist and OVC from 12000' down to minima with mod trb, lots of ice and significant winds. Best to get above most of the rough stuff from the point of view of pilot fatigue. Night is another factor to consider from a safety point of view.

If it is too horrible to be enjoyable I let the professionals fly me.

SB

[rmac]

SB, I absolutely agree with your last comment :ok:

Thoughts;

When flying the average airways equipped light aircraft, as well as being PIC, you are also flight engineer, navigator, radio op and airborne meteorologist. At critical moments if you have a technical problem or two, you quickly come to overload. :eek:

Murphys law dictates that the 3 axis AP always decides to go on strike just when you need it most, for example to plan and programme a complete re-routing for weather while in turbulent cloud, or a last minute change of approach when you are in the late stages of an arrival procedure. :{

When you are alone in the cockpit there is no one else to tell you what a stupid fu#*ing decision you have just made.

From my side I have different personal weather minimums when I fly single pilot as to when I fly two-up.

[IO540]

for example to plan and programme a complete re-routing for weather while in turbulent cloud

Can you give a specific example of the above? Course changes "due weather" do not involve any route replanning. One reverts to original route, in general.

Also, the last thing one would be doing when having problems due to turbulence is replanning the route. One would be flying a heading, wings level, well below Va.

[foxmoth]

And will the time come perhaps when restricted IRs are issued on the basis that they may only be used whilst in aircraft of the second type
I started out on Air Taxi flying Aztec and Chieftain before the days of GPS, these aircraft were de-iced and (usually) had working autopilots, to my mind this is the minimum you need for serious single pilot IFR work (I did then go on to fly S360 non autopilot but this was 2 crew so the FO was the "autopilot") . Often you were operating into small airfields with few aids and doing most of your own planning etc., as you gain experience and move up the ladder then the flying becomes easier with more support , it is one of the cockeyed things with aviation that the hardest jobs are lowest paid and often done by those with the least experience. I now fly a big 360 pax machine which is much easier than the old Aztec job - but my IR is not valid for other types, much as you describe!:uhoh:

[rmac]

540, you've obviously not flown in SE Asia, or other tropical climes, where a route down the west coast of Malaysia to Singapore can quickly become a route down the east coast due to significant weather for example, and where 80% of IMC has light to moderate turbulence associated with it, due convective clouds often going up to FL450.

[IO540]

Correct, rmac. When I fly IFR I go on oxygen, VMC on top, and keep out of icing as far as possible.

If I was flying a de-iced "tank" with radar and plenty of sickbags for passengers then I would do things differently.

One needs to have appropriate cockpit automation for the intended mode of operation. Anything less is just a macho attitude - not uncommon among pilots especially the "commercial piston, always go" types. Lots of hours on type, and on the route, can help of course but it's no good denying that a lot of the hacking that goes on is not really all that safe.

[Fuji Abound]

I0

I think the issue is that there are times even with pressure / oxygen topping capability it may be impossible to get above the weather into VMC.

I appreciate you might well argue that with correct planning the tops and the weather should be known before. However, there are occasions when the forecasts are simply poor and others when "commercial" pressures may prevent such luxuries.

Now those of us that fly only for pleasure have the option not to go if we cant be sure of getting over the weather - but that may not always be true and even in Europe in the winter and therefore with CBs to push the beasties up it can still be IMC at 200

I can think of a recent flight - top forecasts at 60. I eventually came through at 95 and without oxygen could not have gone a great deal higher. Interstingly just picking up a bit of ice in the last 500 as well totally contrary to the forecast, so it was a short burst of de-icing as well.

Moreover a long descent in terms of time due to AT was all IMC down to the base at 1000 - wet and bumpy much as forecast!

[S-Works]

Hang On, is this not the point where DFC jumps in from behind the desk he flies and tells us all that we are cowboys if we come across unplanned weather and don't have a diversion airfield every 10 miles? :p

[Fuji Abound]

Hmmm - wait and see. :=

[rmac]

Fuji,

You are so right. Two weeks ago in Slovakia, over the Tatra mountains we had embedded CB and TCU starting at 3000ft and going up to FL150.

This last week was layered stratus, rain and light/moderate icing level from FL080 with MEA's of FL060 and above.

Lots of wet lumps and bumps on the STAR to LZIB.

Seems that the weather is not being too kind to us these days ;)

[IO540]

I think the issue is that there are times even with pressure / oxygen topping capability it may be impossible to get above the weather into VMC.

Totally agree. The IFR mission capability envelope has to be defined by something ;)

On a TB20 it's defined by cloud tops, what you have to go through up and down, what any passengers will put up with, load, fuel of course, how much o2 you are carrying, etc.

On a 747, it's defined by load, fuel, some extreme icing conditions, etc...

In between the two, you pays your money and you take your choice :)

As for weather forecasts, on my current trip the SigWx has consistently been fiction, as has Meteoblue. TAFs were sort of OK but they usually are, if on the pessimistic side.

[421C]

A 3-axis AP

...you need a yaw damper in a light single for IFR....?

[Wrong Stuff]

As for weather forecasts, on my current trip the SigWx has consistently been fiction, as has Meteoblue. TAFs were sort of OK but they usually are, if on the pessimistic side.
That's interesting. I usually find the SigWx one of the more reliable forecasts.

Having said that, it's worth bearing in mind that Meteo France also produce their own SigWx chart which does sometimes show some differences with the Met Office version. If anything, it tends to be a little more pessimistic in my experience. It is quite handy that it doesn't stop at FL100. I often have a look at both just to get a second opinion.

[S-Works]

A 3-axis AP
...you need a yaw damper in a light single for IFR....?

Why not? I have a very nice yaw damper from S-tech on my Cessna!

However I will amend the comment to Ap with Alt hold if it makes you happy.

[SNS3Guppy]

Single pilot IFR...not a problem. Single engine piston IFR...stupid.

If you're not capable of flying single pilot IFR, you probably shouldn't be flying IFR. Not to say you must fly single pilot...but you should be able to. Taking along someone else is always a good idea, but at the same time, unless the two of you have done some training together and are prepared to act as a crew, two pilots can add up to twice the problems, instead of helping you.

Acting as a crew is different than flying alone. I've flown with some pilots who couldn't handle acting as a crew, or proper CRM...it just wasn't in them. I've flown with others who couldn't handle single pilot work...the workload was beyond them. Be sure that whatever you do, it's within your own personal comfort range.

You won't go wrong grabbing a local instructor and bringing him along if you plan on doing instrument work or getting "in the system." It's good for both of you.

I do a lot of different kinds of flying, including some fairly strenuous, and demanding work. However, in my opinion, there is very little as demanding of a pilot's attention and skill than single pilot IFR work...nor anything as hazardous if the pilot isn't on his game. Fun, challenging, interesting, sometimes refreshing, sometimes tiring, single pilot instrument work can quickly eat your lunch if you're not prepared for it. Even very experienced pilots run into trouble. Scott Crossfield, the X-15 pilot, died in his own Cessna 210 just a few years ago, single pilot over convective activity. Could be you.

You may have a great autopilot. You may have a great yaw damper, and all the gee-whiz gadgets in the world from your favorite Garmin to your favorite display unit, nav unit, etc...but remember that unless you can handle it on your own, without the ride-along, without a copilot, without a full panel (partial panel...plan on it, just like an engine failure...never a matter of if, but when)...then you need to be conservative and seek more training until you can handle it. That doesn't mean you need to run out and fly partial panel single pilot and handfly every day...but you need to be able to, and prepared to, any time of day, no matter what equipment you fly. Otherwise, you're not really prepared. Don't go there.

[IanSeager]

SNS3Guppy speaks a lot of sense, apart from

Single engine piston IFR...stupid

which is a silly comment worthy of a trainee red-top headline writer.

Ian

[scooter boy]

"Single engine piston IFR...stupid"

Depends really on the pilot, aircraft and what you are calling IMC.
See my previous post.

Making sweeping unqualified judgements - well that really is stupid.

SB

[DFC]

The only difference between an engine failure ina single and a light twin well loaded is the fact that the twin will probably have electrical and vacuum available from the operating engine until you hit the ground.

Pilots are fooled into thinking that and engine failure after take-off in a light twin is going to be an exercise in recognition, securing and climbing away....no ot is not unles you are light. It is more likely going to end up in a forced landing or for the current but not proficient a loss of control followed by accident.

That is why the CAA recuire teaching to cover the efato and putting "close both throttles and land ahead" as a high priority.

Ask most PPL multi-engine pilots for their drift down figure and they will look at you blankly.

Regards,

DFC

[Fuji Abound]

Pilots are fooled into thinking that and engine failure after take-off in a light twin is going to be an exercise in recognition, securing and climbing away....no ot is not unles you are light. It is more likely going to end up in a forced landing or for the current but not proficient a loss of control followed by accident.

I think that is a sweeping generalisation. Yes, there is plenty of truth in what you say, but so much depends on the type of aircraft, pilot training and of course the circumstances and time of the engine failure.

Whilst I appreciate you are talking about a departure, a failure during the approach can be potentially more dangerous. The aircraft is in the descent, engines are at low power, the initial segment of the apporach is stabilised by adding power and the engine quits on you as the pwer comes on. That is a potentially a big problem of recognition and reaction.

Ask most PPL multi-engine pilots for their drift down figure and they will look at you blankly.

That may be so, but it is not my experience. On what do you base your comment?

"Single engine piston IFR...stupid"

Stupid - a relative term perhaps.

Perhaps about as stupid as SE over a cold sea with a big swell, or over rugged terrain or, in so far as this thread is concerned, with a low base.

In other words whether the engine quits is a judgement call, but if it quits with a reasonable base etc you have a reasonably good chance, if it quits in the afore circumstances your chances are less good.