Instrument Rating
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instrument Rating
Hi!
If I was to take an Intstrument Rating to my SE Piston PPL licence. How bad weather can I be prepared to be able to fly in?
If we say that the airport and airplane are certified to do that.
Thanks!
If I was to take an Intstrument Rating to my SE Piston PPL licence. How bad weather can I be prepared to be able to fly in?
If we say that the airport and airplane are certified to do that.
Thanks!
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have an instrument rating, you may legally fly an approach to whatever the minima are for that approach. It will vary depending on the approach type, and even for a specific approach type the minima will depend on the specific airport in question (e.g. high terrain nearby might increase the minima).
As a guide, the very lowest you could expect would be a 200' decision height (the height by which you must be able to see the ground) for a precision approach.
That's the legal side (very simplified). But there are practical considerations, too. You say you are flying a single-engined aircraft. If you carried out a flight of any length with a 200' cloudbase and experienced an engine failure, you would not get to see the ground until a few seconds before you hit it - it doesn't give you very much time to find somewhere for a forced landing. A cloudbase of 1000' might be considered a sensible minimum for any extended period in a single-engined aircraft, although this will depend on your personal view of the risk involved.
The other thing to bear in mind is currency. To be able to safely fly an instrument approach to 200', you would need to be extremely current. Many pilots who do not fly commercially would not be able to fly instrument approaches regularly enough to be able to do this safely.
Finally, there are icing considerations to consider. In an aircraft with no anti-icing or de-icing, you may not fly in known icing conditions. That rules out any flight in clouds or precipitation where the outside air temperature is freezing or below.
I'm sure there are more considerations, too, but I think I've covered the main ones.
FFF
---------------
As a guide, the very lowest you could expect would be a 200' decision height (the height by which you must be able to see the ground) for a precision approach.
That's the legal side (very simplified). But there are practical considerations, too. You say you are flying a single-engined aircraft. If you carried out a flight of any length with a 200' cloudbase and experienced an engine failure, you would not get to see the ground until a few seconds before you hit it - it doesn't give you very much time to find somewhere for a forced landing. A cloudbase of 1000' might be considered a sensible minimum for any extended period in a single-engined aircraft, although this will depend on your personal view of the risk involved.
The other thing to bear in mind is currency. To be able to safely fly an instrument approach to 200', you would need to be extremely current. Many pilots who do not fly commercially would not be able to fly instrument approaches regularly enough to be able to do this safely.
Finally, there are icing considerations to consider. In an aircraft with no anti-icing or de-icing, you may not fly in known icing conditions. That rules out any flight in clouds or precipitation where the outside air temperature is freezing or below.
I'm sure there are more considerations, too, but I think I've covered the main ones.
FFF
---------------
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, what about big birds?
Ok, thanks I see. You don't get so much more use of an IR than without it?
What about big birds when getting engine failure in 200 ft cloud base?
What about big birds when getting engine failure in 200 ft cloud base?
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't get so much more use of an IR than without it?
What about big birds when getting engine failure in 200 ft cloud base?
FFF
--------------
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big birds
Ok. But a double engine malfunction then? But I guess they calculate the risk of that to be 0. And if it happens in 200 ft cloud base you pray to God?
Ah didn't think of that. You can fly in poor visibility. But isn't poor visibility the same as a low cloudbase?
Ah didn't think of that. You can fly in poor visibility. But isn't poor visibility the same as a low cloudbase?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krallu
If you want to fly IFR only in the UK, the IMC Rating is pretty good for that. I fly a non-known-ice aircraft and find that whenever I can't fly it is either because of 0C (actual or forecast) below the MSA, or cloud (actual or forecast) below the MSA and no IAP at the destination.
A full IR would give me airways capability but that's of little use for safely beating icing conditions unless you can get a reliable forecast for the cloud tops - which you can't.
For Europe, the full IR is more or less essential for pre-planned flights throughout the year.
So I think that for the UK an IR has little advantage over the IMCR unless you have a known ice aircraft with a turbo. One of those (new) is some £270k+VAT minimum, e.g. a TB21 with full TKS.
A known ice turboprop is even better, of course
The serious business flyers who can't afford a jet (or don't want an aircraft which is of no use outside the airways) tend to go for those.
I take it you know about the FAA PPL/IR / N-reg route. But from your last question, probably not.
If you want to fly IFR only in the UK, the IMC Rating is pretty good for that. I fly a non-known-ice aircraft and find that whenever I can't fly it is either because of 0C (actual or forecast) below the MSA, or cloud (actual or forecast) below the MSA and no IAP at the destination.
A full IR would give me airways capability but that's of little use for safely beating icing conditions unless you can get a reliable forecast for the cloud tops - which you can't.
For Europe, the full IR is more or less essential for pre-planned flights throughout the year.
So I think that for the UK an IR has little advantage over the IMCR unless you have a known ice aircraft with a turbo. One of those (new) is some £270k+VAT minimum, e.g. a TB21 with full TKS.
A known ice turboprop is even better, of course
The serious business flyers who can't afford a jet (or don't want an aircraft which is of no use outside the airways) tend to go for those.I take it you know about the FAA PPL/IR / N-reg route. But from your last question, probably not.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you would not get to see the ground until a few seconds before you hit it
And if it happens in 200 ft cloud base you...
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The serious business flyers who can't afford a jet (or don't want an aircraft which is of no use outside the airways) tend to go for those.
I think that Krallu is quite right that those of us with more than one engine tend to discount a double engine failure, despite the fact that there are some conditions (most notably running out of fuel) which will cause both to fail, primarily because the common causes are more in our own control.
If you are considering a single for serious IFR work, then remember that it is not just the engine that might fail. You are pretty stuffed if either the alternator or suction pump fails and therefore, if you don't want to fly a twin, you should think of a compromise of an aircraft with one engine but two sets of ancilliaries. Also carrying two AIs, one electric the other suction, is not a bad idea.
Timothy
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was to take an Intstrument Rating to my SE Piston PPL licence. How bad weather can I be prepared to be able to fly in?
a. minimum RVR for SE IFR operations is 800m and
b. approach minima
you will be hampered by icing as no piston singles are certified for known icing.
Beyond that it really depends on what you want and feel comfortable with.
Single engine at night/imc/over water/inhospitable terrain.
If you are happy with that, nobody will stop you. Of course for the aircraft it does not matter whether you are in IMC or flying on a gin clear VMC day.
FD
minimum RVR for SE IFR operations is 800m
you will be hampered by icing as no piston singles are certified for known icing
"known ice" is a shorthand to mean that the aircraft is "certified for flight in known icing conditions".
TKS is a type of anti-icing system in which glycol is secreted on to the wing via pores in the leading edge.
TKS is a type of anti-icing system in which glycol is secreted on to the wing via pores in the leading edge.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Known icing conditions means either:
- Icing is forecast at that level
- The temperature is in the icing band (0 to -15C) and there is visible moisture.
Icing is divided for certification purposes into light, moderate and severe depending mainly upon rate of acretion.
Light icing forms slowly and can be broken off critical parts of the airframe (leading edges and propellors) using boots. TKS can be used to prevent it forming and is more effective when used to prevent than cure. Any ice that forms on unprotected parts of the airframe will just sit there until conditions change (typically in the decscent) and can have a considerable impact on performance.
De-iced types can be flown indefinitely in light icing, though typically it will cost 10-25kts of airspeed.
Some non de-iced types will fly quite happily for some time in light icing conditions, others (those with more critical aerofoil design) suffer quite quickly. I will not specify which types fly quite happily with ice on or I will be crucified, burned and eaten alive by those who accuse me of sending others to their certain deaths.
Moderate icing forms more quickly and is very threatening to any non de-iced type and is hard work even with de-icing. I have had medium twins (eg C404, Chieftain) running at maximum continuous power and only just over the stall when exposed to moderate icing for more than a few minutes. Moderate icing may eventually flow back to freeze control surfaces, and is not great.
I have only (thank God) encountered severe icing once in thirty years and thousands of hours. It is quite petrifying. It happens mostly inside CBs and under warm fronts (freezing rain) and has to be seen to be believed. I executed a steep 180 when I encountered it, and was probably only exposed for 20 secs. I reckon another 20 secs and the aircraft would have been unflyable and uncontrollable. In those 20 secs there must have been two inches of ice on the leading edges and it had flowed back to a depth of about an inch to about half the chord of the wing. The windscreen went opaque instantaneously. De-icing equipment would make little difference when faced with those conditions. The only solution is to clear the conditions very quickly.
Timothy
- Icing is forecast at that level
- The temperature is in the icing band (0 to -15C) and there is visible moisture.
Icing is divided for certification purposes into light, moderate and severe depending mainly upon rate of acretion.
Light icing forms slowly and can be broken off critical parts of the airframe (leading edges and propellors) using boots. TKS can be used to prevent it forming and is more effective when used to prevent than cure. Any ice that forms on unprotected parts of the airframe will just sit there until conditions change (typically in the decscent) and can have a considerable impact on performance.
De-iced types can be flown indefinitely in light icing, though typically it will cost 10-25kts of airspeed.
Some non de-iced types will fly quite happily for some time in light icing conditions, others (those with more critical aerofoil design) suffer quite quickly. I will not specify which types fly quite happily with ice on or I will be crucified, burned and eaten alive by those who accuse me of sending others to their certain deaths.
Moderate icing forms more quickly and is very threatening to any non de-iced type and is hard work even with de-icing. I have had medium twins (eg C404, Chieftain) running at maximum continuous power and only just over the stall when exposed to moderate icing for more than a few minutes. Moderate icing may eventually flow back to freeze control surfaces, and is not great.
I have only (thank God) encountered severe icing once in thirty years and thousands of hours. It is quite petrifying. It happens mostly inside CBs and under warm fronts (freezing rain) and has to be seen to be believed. I executed a steep 180 when I encountered it, and was probably only exposed for 20 secs. I reckon another 20 secs and the aircraft would have been unflyable and uncontrollable. In those 20 secs there must have been two inches of ice on the leading edges and it had flowed back to a depth of about an inch to about half the chord of the wing. The windscreen went opaque instantaneously. De-icing equipment would make little difference when faced with those conditions. The only solution is to clear the conditions very quickly.
Timothy
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These minimums for "single pilot ops" only apply to Commercial Ops don't they? As far as I'm aware as a "Private" pilot you can take off in any weather so long as it is above the minimums specified on the approach plate for the airport......
EA
EA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh
What a big discussion my topic generated.
So as far as I can understand this, it is a big different if you flyg single or multi engined aircraft. And if it has anti-icing or not.
If I was to take a multi engine airplane with anti-icing I could fly in much worser conditions? Of course having the licence to fly that thing first.
So as far as I can understand this, it is a big different if you flyg single or multi engined aircraft. And if it has anti-icing or not.
If I was to take a multi engine airplane with anti-icing I could fly in much worser conditions? Of course having the licence to fly that thing first.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These minimums for "single pilot ops" only apply to Commercial Ops don't they? As far as I'm aware as a "Private" pilot you can take off in any weather so long as it is above the minimums specified on the approach plate for the airport......
i) The 800m minimum applies to landings not take-offs.
ii) Single Pilot approach minimum of 800m is mandatory for all operations regardless of Private, AW or PT.
iii) There are regulations concerning T/O minima, which stipulate minima in the 175-300m range for an instrument runway, depending on lighting and markings, but also stipulate that an airfield above minima must be identified within 30 mins engine-out flight time. This only applies to PT flights, which is why SE aircraft do not have to magically fly for half an hour at 70kts following an engine failure.
If I was to take a multi engine airplane with anti-icing I could fly in much worser conditions? Of course having the licence to fly that thing first.
In the latter category you have to decide if you are going to take off in very poor visibility and/or cloud base in (i) a single and (ii) a twin.
In a single, if you have an engine failure where the visibility is less than about 4000m or the cloudbase less than say 5-800' it is going to be very much a matter of luck as to whether you live or die. You can ensure that you hit the ground slowly and in a level attitude, but not much more. Your life depends on whether you then find a vertical obstacle or not. Bear in mind that the visibility criteria include night. Also, if you are over water, your survival will depend on the equipment you carry, your familiarity with it and your ability to communicate your distress to someone able to help you. As I said before, in a single you also have to worry about failure of other critical components such as alternator and suction system.
In a twin your chances of survival following an engine failure are going to depend upon your skill in dealing with the failure and the characteristics and loading of the aircraft (plus factors like temperature and pressure.) If you have a failure immediately after takeoff (say in the first 15 seconds) and you have allowed your skills and alertness to diminish you are probably worse off than in a single, because the ensuing crash is likely to be vertical rather than horizontal. However, if you keep your skills at a good level you have a better than reasonable chance of flying away (depending on weight and performance.) If you decide that the only solution is to stop the live engine, then you are less well protected in the ensuing crash than in a single.
However, if you have an engine failure when you are not near the ground, your chances of survival in poor conditions are much higher than in a single, because, even with limited skill and experience, you should be able to divert to a suitable airfield and land safely.
The choice of single or twin for IFR operations is as emotive as between religions or operating systems. I have decided that I will only fly a twin except on a clear day over farmland. For every one of me you will find someone to say "nonsense, SEP IFR is the way to go."
It is your respinsibility to take your own decision, based on what you learn, read, hear and analyse.
Timothy
Last edited by Timothy; 26th Feb 2004 at 16:42.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The risk
Ok, so it's all about the amount of risk you are willing to take. And what the rules are saying.
And the commercial airlines are taking that risk when flying 737 in 0 visibility. Because it haves 2 engines (2 chances), and you are more protected in that sort of airplane than in a light aircraft.
But if a 737 would get a double engine malfunction in 0 visibility it is almost certain that it will crash?
Have I understanded this correctly?
And the commercial airlines are taking that risk when flying 737 in 0 visibility. Because it haves 2 engines (2 chances), and you are more protected in that sort of airplane than in a light aircraft.
But if a 737 would get a double engine malfunction in 0 visibility it is almost certain that it will crash?
Have I understanded this correctly?